Editorial: Man versus beast

The festival of Pongal is synonymous with the conduct of jallikattu, the traditional bull taming sport, as well as rooster fights. The season also gives animal rights activists anxiety attacks, owing to the manner in which the animals involved in these sports are treated. A week ago, the Tamil Nadu government announced a set of SOPs on conducting such events. It instructed the Commissionerate of Animal Husbandry to issue a model layout for the safe conduct of jallikattu and form a State-level monitoring committee. Similarly, a division bench of the Madras High Court imposed a set of restrictions in conducting rooster fights, which include the birds not being intoxicated or being armed with knives tied around their legs.

The guidelines prescribed for the Animal Husbandry Department regarding the bull taming sport include subjecting the bulls to veterinary examinations and checking them for possible alcohol abuse. Apart from providing the venues with ambulances for people and animals, the PWD has been asked to ensure that the barricades are built eight feet high to prevent the entry of the bulls into the spectator gallery. If this sounds like overkill, it might help to put the history of this sport in Tamil Nadu in context. Last week, a five member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had set aside its verdict on a bunch of petitions challenging the Tamil Nadu law permitting jallikattu.

The apex court was expected to give its judgement on the validity of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 2017, which while legalising jallikattu, does not refer to the sport as the taming of bulls, but as an event involving bulls conducted to uphold tradition. It might be recalled that in 2014, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had declared the practice as illegal, surmising that it was cruel and caused the animal unnecessary suffering. Many protests later, the call for reviving the sport gained momentum in 2016.

Currently, the question pending before the Court is whether the sport must be granted constitutional protection as a collective cultural right as per Article 29 (1). The Court is also probing whether the 2017 rules perpetuate cruelty towards animals or whether they truly were a measure to ensure the longevity of native breeds of bull. People in rural Tamil Nadu have called out the selective amnesia of enforcers of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act) 1960, which exempts from its coverage the use of animals for scientific experiments.

To top it off, the existing provisions of the PCA Act and Article 51A(g) mandate that citizens must help protect and improve the natural environment which includes forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and must have compassion for living creatures. But there are a number of ways in which these mandates are violated day in, day out in India. The subject of jallikattu is especially sensitive as the people of Tamil Nadu have an intrinsic attachment to it, both in a religious and in a cultural sense. An outright ban as imposed in 2014 had invited the ire of the public owing to the implementation of the measure in a clinical and ‘insensitive’ manner.

One option is to sensitise all stakeholders with regard to the nuances of animal welfare. But it’s a task that is easier said than done. The eagerness with which the populace is awaiting the event should be matched by strict enforcement of regulations vis-a-vis adherence to safety norms for the animals and the humans involved to ensure a smooth conduct of jallikattu.