Jallikattu must continue, but with conditions
Marina Beach is longer than most. It is 13km long and has become the site of a huge protest in Chennai demanding that Jallikattu be permitted in Tamil Nadu as part of an age-long tradition. Joining the protest are Tamil Nadu’s political parties in unison. It is supported by superstar Rajinikanth among others. AR Rehman threatens satyagraha by fast.
Judicial differences
The protest is peaceful. Thousands, including men and women of all classes have joined the slogans, using hand-held lights at night to reinforce their case. For them, Jallikattu is the pride of Tamil tradition, otherwise dating to the pre-ancient Indus Valley times. So many traditions die, some deserve to. For Tamilians, it is a living tradition which cannot be allowed to die.
The attitude of the judiciary has varied. In 2006, Justice Bhanumati (now in the Supreme Court) banned both Jallikattu and oxen racing when she was a judge of the Madras High Court. However, in 2007, the division bench of that court allowed Jallikattu subject to conditions.
The Bombay HC in 2012 prohibited all forms of using bulls for sport. The Supreme Court in 2014 decided the case on federal grounds (the State Legislation was against Union Legislation) and upholding animal rights. A case is presently before the Supreme Court.
Three positions emerge: (i) stop Jallikattu completely, (ii) allow it in its many existing forms, or (iii) the compromise view — allow Jallikattu with conditions.
Animal welfarists are abolitionists. The Central government changed its notification on January 7, 2016, to take the compromise view of adding conditions. But the SC “stayed” the Union’s notification. That is how matters have remained.
In 2017, the Supreme Court decided to deliver final judgement in a week. “No” pleaded the Attorney General, “do not give a final decision in a week; wait a while until the Union and State have sorted this out”.
 |
| Blood sports with animals and amongst humans is well known. |
The anger of sentiment in Tamil Nadu will not die down. Tamilians will be prepared to accept the compromise position that Jallikattu be allowed with conditions.
Blood sports with animals and amongst humans is well known. Spain’s bullfighting, boxing, horse and dog racing amongst others. Such sports continue with conditions. Muhammed Ali was seriously affected by boxing. Alas for horse racing, the Queen does it too. Bull racing, the Queen does not.
Activists lack logic
In American football, before the new helmets, many were fatally affected. But the most strident example is killing animals for food: chicken, beef, horse, dog and pig meat as well as those of other exotic animals. No doubt animal welfarists would want the world to become vegetarian (with or without eggs).
No court has ever objected to the killing of animals for food. So, while animals can be slaughtered hygienically or unhygienically, they cannot be used for sport. Where should the line be drawn? "OK" for food under hygienic conditions. Ban of animals — not for slaughter but for games.
The logic is impeccably false. There is a difference between cruelty to animals and the cruel management of animals. In the end, all cruelty is to be mitigated. Humans have made many self satisfying decisions on animals. Lab rats are allowed for the health of the human race. Zoos imprisoned animals so that the humans can enjoy the view. Enclose national habitats as parks to ease the human conscience, for “man” has destroyed hundreds species and continues to do so.
The training of animals is not without cruelty. The life expectancies of race horses is dramatically reduced. Some are gelded, others killed off when useless.
Govt’s dilly-dallying
In particular, those who argue for Jallikattu since the ban, say the bull population has deteriorated. Useless bulls are sent across the state to Kerala for slaughter. Both may be wrong. It depends on your point of view by presenting the stark choice of Jallikattu versus slaughter.
Let us come to the issue at hand. Jallikattu is a time honoured tradition like bullfighting or horse racing. We allow them. But now humans are pitted against humans. One set of humans (a contrived majority) are abolitionists, the others (at least a real majority in Tamil Nadu) have a tradition. Where lies the answer?
The political answer is that Modi does not want to lose Tamil Nadu in his electoral conquest of India. So he dare not hurt sentiment. The Union government’s answer on the January 7, 2016 notification was to allow Jallikattu and bull racing in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Gujarat, and Maharashtra subject to strict conditions of time, place, hygiene and care.
In the present controversy, the Union government took the preliminary view that this was a problem for the states to resolve. This was absurd — how could the state’s move if the field is occupied by Union legislation. The Union government dithers on the matter.
Tamil Nadu is in peaceful rebellion. The Central government can reiterate its 2016 stance in an ordinance which it proposes to do. Equally, if Tamil Nadu passes an Act, the governor can reserve it for the presidents affirmation under Article 254 so that it escapes the clutches of the Union’s legislation.
God loves all, but not hypocrites.
(Courtesy of Mail Today.)
Watch: