JALLIKATTU --Culture vs Animal Rights..

Jallikattu is a traditional spectacle in which a Bos Indicus bull is released into a crowd of people who attempt to tame it as the bull tries to escape. It is a part of the Pongal celebrations in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court imposed a permanent ban on the sport in 2014 after its 12 guidelines formulated in 2006 to let the sport go on was not followed in letter. The recent protests in Marina and the knee jerk reaction of the State government by first using police force and then hushing with an ordinance sends mixed signals.  Further, such a belated upsurge after almost 2 years of the ban, points to larger issues in the Tamil politics.

The protests are an indicator of larger discontent of the masses against the political establishment. The spate of droughts is commonly associated with the step motherly treatment by the Centre in the sharing of Cauvery waters. The problem got majorly aggravated by the sad demise of Jayalalitha aka Amma. Political vacuum in the state and persistent neglect of the people was expressed through these protests showcasing Tamil pride and local culture. The ordinance and the full fledged bill to nullify the ban and soothe local tempers needs close examination.

 Legislative action to counter judicial pronouncements is not a new phenomenon for India , notably the Shah Bano case. The bill exempting Jallikattu from the ambit of Prevention of Cruelty against animals Act,1960 creates 3 changes- separate definition for Jallikattu ,specific exemption in sec 11(3) and blanket cover from the ambit of PCA,1960. The specific grounds stated in the bill are a) promotion of culture and tradition and b) protection of native breed of bulls. So, constitutionally there doesn't seem to be a problem. It depends on the approach of the judiciary and the executive as to how the issue plays out.

The animal right perspective is in order. Worldwide, such sports are prevalent and popular even in the U.S.A. The animal right groups have done little to the cause. The scrutiny was initiated by the Madras High Court and has been followed up by the executive later on. However cruelty like use of chilli powder to incite the bull and ways to create fear in the mind  of the bull is a concern. In the same breath, the argument of Animal rights activists that religion and culture can be no grounds for exemption  as far as PCA act is considered doesn't have merit. The act under section 28 specifies that the manner in which an animal is killed shall not be questioned if it has religious justification. So clearly the law of the land recognises religious and cultural exceptions. The question remains the extent till which animal rights and culture can be balanced.

The balance of opinion suggests that the sport must continue only after the 12 specific guidelines framed by the Supreme Court must be followed in letter and spirit. Strict monitoring of such events and broad consultations among stakeholders in future legislations regarding animals needs mention. Animal rights is a dynamic concept having spatial and temporal variations. Hence continuous debate is essential for a policy addressing contemporary demands. Eliminating dissection in schools after consultation with animal husbandry board and civil society is a noteworthy example. The future of Jallikattu must also be addressed by a multi stakeholder approach of Consensus building peacefully.

Politics of Caste and Religion!!!

The recent Supreme Court judgement on use of religion ,caste etc during elections has drawn comments from a plethora of actors, with very few having real understanding of the locus and focus of the decision. The Court was examining the question whether religion, caste can be used as tools in election campaigns? A split verdict concluded that any appeal for votes on grounds of religion/caste/race/community/language amounts to a corrupt practice under RPA, 1951. This in no way has superseded the " Hindutva" judgement of '95. In reality, the 7 judge bench categorically distanced itself from reviewing the same. So , constitutionally Hinduism /Hindutva is still not a religion, but a way of life😂😂

The next question is the novelty associated with the judgement. The answer is a NO. RPA was amended in 1961 to include asking of votes in the name of caste, religion etc as a corrupt practice . So , it is established that the decision is not a Judicial Overreach. Secondly, the provision has failed to produce any visible results because an election can be challenged only through a petition in a competent court. But the time in which the judgments arrive , usually the candidates have completed their terms. Hence , it has little deterrence value. Hardly anyone knew that the crux of the judgment already had a statutory backing. The main Issue remains the implementation of this pipe dream. The Election Commission doesn't have powers to cancel the candidates nomination on these grounds. Any  action is possible only post facto through the cumbersome judicial process.

The dangers of this judgment can be to Free Speech. It has ignored the ground realities of our society which is clearly divided on many lines and egalitarian framework is an utopia. Many political parties and their leaders owe their existence to religion , language , caste etc. Upliftment of their Vote-banks is always paramount in their manifesto. Further, the view of a Candidate may not be known to the voters on crucial issues like Talaaq, inheritance , Ram Mandir etc. It may also challenge the free Media and their free speech.

However the positives must not be lost in the noise.The judgment has caught public imagination by reaffirming the statute and giving it a judicial backing. Fast track courts to dispose of election petitions in a time bound way is the way forward. This would create a deterrence in the campaigners against using religion ,caste etc during elections. Empowering the Election Commission to take swift action against the culprits is also imperative. It is high time that people and politicians move away from parochial interests  to a development centric model.