Bringing Back Jallikattu

When Jallikattu was banned in 2014 there was a temporary furor in the State of Tamil Nadu. Two years hence few would have thought that widespread protests would engulf the State. In defiance of the SC orders, there were at least 30 isolated incidents of Jallikattu. In Alanganallur and Paalamedu predominant places where Jallikattu is organized saw protests close to a day with youth thronging from every corner of the State in spite of attempts by the police to block important routes.

Keeping the flame alive:

These incidents present an opportunity for introspection and analysis to understand and address fundamental issues which led to the ban in the first place.  The battle must be shifted from on-field protests and social media to discussion rooms and the court where the Supreme Court ban could be effectively challenged. The fundamental reason for the SC banning the rural sport was on the ground of ‘cruelty to animals’ empowered by the provisions of the legislation Prevention of Cruelty Act 1960 (PCA). Until we address this argument our measures will fall short of achieving the ultimate objective.

Arguments and Report of Animal Welfare Board of India:

The court observes that bulls being animals which are hunted by predators’ exhibit ‘flight response’ and this is being exploited by humans for the rural sport. It states that bulls are biologically ‘not suited’ for running owing to a large abdomen and limited flexibility of joints.

The report of the Animal Welfare Board of India based on the observation in the areas like Alanganallur and Paalamedu opens a set of issues regarding the way the animal is treated during the event. The general observation begins from ear-cutting of bulls to using irritants in the eyes. To enumerate a few, the report narrates the conditions where bulls are made to stand in long lines without food or water for hours, having subjected to a narrow entrance, forced to stand on their own excreta, physical brutality in the vadi vassal ( which is not under the preview of the media) etc.

The impact of the report could be clearly seen in the SC judgment: “Forcing a bull and keeping it in the waiting area for hours and subjecting it for the scorching sun is not for the bull’s well-being.  Forcing and pulling a bull by the nose rope into the narrow, closed enclosure or vadi vassal (entry point), subjecting it to all forms of torture, fear, pain and suffering by forcing it to go into the arena and also overpowering it in the arena by the bull tamers, are not for the well-being of the animal”.

Photo Courtesy: Vinoth Chandar

Counter-Argument:

An important point which the judgment misses is that the animals which participate in the sport are trained and specifically bred for more than 2000 years. The observation than bulls are being tortured is narrow as the bulls are not seen as ‘performing animals’ by the rural people but as family and part of kith and kin. An observation for 3 days ignoring how they are treated for the rest of the year is not a solid foundation for an argument.

 And the discussion for cruelty is wide open. The ‘doctrine of necessity’ which is a part of PCA Act notes that there could be five exceptions for application of the act. One among the five, states that ‘the commission and omission of any act in the course of the destruction or the preparation of the destruction of the animal as food for mankind unless the destruction or the preparation was accompanied by the affliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.’

Though it allows the use of animal and its products as a food it notes that it should not be accompanied by unnecessary pain. This throws open a wide range of domains on how animal products are extracted. Are the levels of oxytocin given to cows for boosting food production monitored? What are the safe levels? Is there any regulation for antibiotics administered to Chickens? Don’t they suffer cramping of space?

Photo Courtesy: Vinoth Chandar

Measures Needed:

But it has to be noted that as supporters of Jallikattu we shouldn’t be short-sighted to turn away from the observations of the Animal Welfare Board. It has to be noted that we have made changes and the sport has evolved clearly seen from the fact that only registered participants are allowed in the arena, Tail-pulling is banned, taming is allowed only within 30 meters from the entry, presence of doctors during the event and finally the participation of insurers too.

Nevertheless, it should not prevent us from getting better. This needs participation from organizers to sincerely address the issues highlighted by the Welfare Board. If maintaining better environment (food and shelter during the event) for the safety of the bulls incurs more cost isn’t it worth it? After all, the event is to showcase the brotherhood between man and animal. Why shouldn’t we spend more for their welfare if it is the most straightforward way to address the problem? If the scientific evidence does not support the fact that cutting bull’s ears improve their hearing then why should we continue the practice?

Eventually, there would be another hearing for revoking the ban on Jallikattu. It has to be understood that arguments based on tradition and culture do not work when the point of contention is addressing the ‘cruelty’ issue. This requires participative reconciliation from the organizers of the event with the Animal Welfare Board.

By acknowledging the shortcomings in the present way of doing things, we could definitely bring back the kombu vecha singam (the horned lion). What we do in the present will eventually go a long way in preventing this event becoming a thing of our past.

Bring Back Jallikattu. 

Photo Courtesy: (External Link)

Vinoth Chandar