The Jallikattu ban is a tragedy and must be reviewed
Copyrights belong to owners
A great tragedy has befallen innocent Jallikattu bulls in India.
WARNING. NOT AN EASY READ.
Egged on by juvenile animal rights activists, their enthusiasm captured and curated by vested interests, and finally condemned by an incoherent judgment with strange reasoning. Innocent, magnificent, indigenous bulls who have been the most pampered beasts in India for the past 1000+ years now have no reason to live. Their raison-d-etre’ has been snatched away. This is a great example of legal activism gone spectacularly awry. This is my 471st post on this blog, and the most difficult one for me to write.
A backgrounder of Jallikattu
For those who have no idea what this event is. Stop right here and read my 2008 blog on it. “On Jallikattu” and some misconceptions in this comment. I had blogged about it again in 2009 following another SC ban. Have you read the post? If you’ve read it, all you need to take away for the rest of this article is the following : The bull isnt killed or injured at the end of the event. Set aside the “torment” during the event itself for now. We will get to it after we analyze the judgment.
May 07 2014, a black day for the bulls. Supreme Court bans the sport (Judgment)
A 2 judge panel of the 30 judge Supreme Court of India on May 7 essentially declared Jallikattu to be illegal. The actual “legalese” isn’t that important but for completeness lets see what that is.
- For the past few years, Jallikattu was allowed under the Tamilnadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act 2009 (TNRJ) which prescribed elaborate rules for conduct of the event. This included mandatory presence of veternarians, videographing, requirements for barricades,. involvement of NGOs, permission from the collector, registration of the bulls, etc.
- The other act set up as a conflict is the PCA (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1982). The operative pieces are Sec 11 (1) (a) which proscribes such catch all things as “kicking, beating, ..” and Sec 11 (1) (m) which proscribes fighting for entertainment.
- The judgment essentially says – the PCA when it comes to Jallikattu is of such an absolute nature that no amount of regulation (TNRJ) can possibly assuage it. Therefore the state legislation, TNRJ, has to be killed and the widest possible reading of PCA must be applied to this particular event.
The most frustrating part of the argument is the incoherence and multiple lines of attack each unable to stand on its own. The two winners are
- CHARGE: Jallikattu has no cultural or historical significance to Tamils at all (AWBI pp4) BUT LOOK even if you prove otherwise it doesnt matter because PCA is a welfare legislation by parliament and can squish culture and religious traditions of this community.
- CHARGE: Jallikattu bulls are subjected to great torture and physical injury BUT LOOK dont bother proving this to be false. Our objection is now on the basis of “Speciesism” – Bulls cannot be humiliated and mentally tortured in this manner.
So these charges are just distractions. You can spend all your effort demolishing these strawmen, it is of no use to the final outcome. One of the critical points is the following – the duration of the event. One would expect that a searching scrutiny would necessarily take into account these facts.
- Whatever you think about the biting, pushing, kicking, punching of the bull. No one contests that the actual event lasts only a few minutes.
- The pre Jallikattu confinement of the bull could last a couple of hours as each bull takes its turn exiting the opening (Vadivaasal) The post Jallikattu harassment lasts a few minutes until the owner/trainer is able to lasso the bull and secure it.
- No one disputes that the rest of the year 364 days, the bulls lead a kings life.
- Here is the courts response to this. Look at the standard here – it is no longer about physical injury or even temporary mental stress due to fight/flight responses.
Mental Torture
Physical abuse is not the only kind of injury that is illegal and hurtful. Mental abuse is also amongst the worst kind of abuse as it leaves a lifelong mark on the mind. It is a known fact that victims of accident, crime or disasters recover from their physical injuries in certain time but mental injuries remain etched for decades, play havoc in day to day life. Animals, irrespective of the fact whether they can express it or not, in this particular case were seen going through the same shock and terror as a person goes into in a hostage situation.
If you unravel the judgment for the most plausible standalone reason for the ban, it is found in PP 59 – It is called “Speciesism” – this elevates animals rights to that of humans.
Speciesism is also described as the widespread discrimination that is practised by man against the other species, that is a prejudice or attitude of bias towards the interest of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species. peciesism as a concept used to be compared with Racism and Sexism on the ground that all those refer to discrimination that tend to promote or encourage domination and exploitation of members of one group by another.
In short, species-ism is like racism. Would you allow whites to chase blacks, or upper castes to chase tribals, in this manner for even a few minutes ? It is quite astounding that this extreme standard, is sought to be applied to Jallikattu. Even if you grant this to be the new judicial standard for animals, this is sought to be subjugated by the “Doctrine of Necessity”. I’ve been researching on animals rights for a few months now – one of the cornerstones of speciesism is non-slaughter and its main proponents are vegan activists. The only exception for killing an animal under the doctrine of necessity is in self defence. Exactly the same as the doctrine of necessity as applied to humans. So somewhere there is a misunderstanding of the core concept of species-ism.
It is no ones case that taking a bull to Kerala in a packed truck and slitting its throat and eating beef fry is necessary to live . So if you can work through the arguments, you will find an incoherent position that is at odds with other laws and practices. An anomalous situation has emerged where you have a mixture of standards – extreme cruelty tolerated under the same body of laws that trumpets “species-ism” as the standard for other kinds of activities.
Facts – just for the record
As I have stated above, there is little use debating the facts of PETA and AWBI because they are strawmen. Even if we demolish the misinformation campaign, which is childs play, we still cant get over the speciesism standard. But for completeness and to help in a review petition – let me address the facts.
Cruelty to animals
Man and beast have intricate and diverse relationships especially in India. There is no one correct way to connect with an animal. Dont ever, ever, ever, pretend that you even understand to 1% the emotional bond between a Jallikattu bull and its owner. Dont ever, ever consider your urban westernized boundaries are superior to his rural Hindu Tamil ones. Dont ever, ever, think that your bond to your dogs Tommy, Julie, or Bobby are more “proper” than his bonds with his bulls Mayandi, Karuppu, or Thalai.
Urban, recently westernized Indians, may never understand what it is to rub your face against the head of a bull, while you can feel its power rippling through its muscles. I certainly dont, but the difference is I acknowledge that the other people do. Pinching, poking, pulling the tail can appear to be offensive, and yes can cause pain. But that isnt the whole picture now is it? You have to consider the whole life of how the bull, from when it was a cute little bully calf has been treated and prepared for this day. So what should a court do when two parties have dramatically divergent views of acceptable conduct. There has to be a way to minimize the subjectivity of the situation. I suggest that we should use a black box approach for a more logical way to resolve the dispute.
Bulls In —-> [[ BLACK BOX W CHARGES]] —–> Bulls Out
You take the sum total of all the charges , twisting, pulling, biting, punching, shouting, putting liquour, smearing lemon, etc and put in in a black box. Then you observe the bulls that come out. If they come out tattered, covered in blood , missing a horn, broken hooves – you have a case to look deeper. In this case, the bulls come out shining ! A fair number of bulls, the most aggressive ones, literally have no hands laid on them. So the logical conclusion of such an empirical analysis is obvious – there is no evidence of physical harm – mental agony is hard to measure in humans, let alone bovines. So you err on the side of freedom and let the event pass.
Now lets turn to the facts presented by AWBI.
Incidents of biting tail, twisting, poking with stick, irritants. These are used to incite the bull and get it out into the arena. What % of bulls were bitten ? Were bulls bitten as a custom or only when they refused to enter the arena? How deep were the bites ? As a result of the twisting how many bulls had their tails broken? These are critical facts that havent been presented. They have just documented existence of these practices.
Roping, making bulls stand, move sideways, denial of shade. Once again go back to my points in the last section. Is this the judicial standard ? In slaughter shandies bulls stand in the sun for hours before being selected by an agent. Every single cow and bull is roped in India. Bovines graze in the sun and rain naturally too. This is just silly.
Death and injury to bulls Should be the clincher, yet stunningly little has been offered here. Two, I repeat just two bulls. out of 500+ participants were said to be injured by falling into a agricultural well. They have only documented ONE incident of a bull getting killed . But the details reveal that post the event in Alaganallur, the bull ran through the town and collided with a bus. This is in no way connected to the event itself.
The point is none of the offenses are integral to the event itself and are therefore open to regulation.
We can go further into the facts – but it is a futile exercise.
Slaughter vs Speciesism – is coherence possible ?
The judgment is incoherent because the speciesism standard will fail spectacularly in almost all other judicial cases involving interactions with animals. But nowhere is it starker than the issue of slaughter. The activists are nowhere to be found when it turns out that post banning of Jallikattu some bulls are loaded onto trucks to the kill floors of Kerala.
This is May 2014 – the next Jallikattu is seven months away. Even if you plead guilty to all of the charges brought forth by the activists and upheld by the court. Here is the truth. If this ban wasnt in force, some of these bulls would have lived a kings life for a full seven months before the “fateful day where they will be pulled and punched it for a few minutes“. Slaughter is also a game. The outcome is pre-determined. Once a bull gets on that truck to KL there is no escape from the blade. These activists are squarely responsible for the murder of these animals.
Animal activists in India, probably due to ignorance, young age, or imitation are misguided. They do not recognize the completely different connection between the Hindu and the animal kingdom. This is not America. We have much to be proud of in the way we treat our animals. Our livestock may roam the streets, perhaps in squalor in solidarity with their human counterparts, but we do not do feedlots and veal crates. A majority of our cows are still impregnated by sex with real bulls not by a long steel tube like in the west. Our milk procurement still depends on milking by hand, not in giant rotary parlours.
No cow or calf or bull, and I do mean not a single bovine in the USA will ever be touched by a human nor know a single moment of human kindness in its entire (but brief) life. Tell me, is this the case with Jallikattu? Every one of these bulls have names – they respond to their owners like your kids do. The owners give them the best food, take them running, give them swimming training, teach them to dig in their heels and work the ground with their horns. This pop activism has unfortunately taken advantage of a weak jurisprudence and caused tremendous damage.
Why is slaughter regulated ? Should we not ban it applying the speciesism test?
In the spirit of the judgment, has anyone talked to a bull in one of the trucks that go to the slaughterhouses in Kerala? There is a giant corpus of photo and video evidence about the most inhuman practice of cattle transport in India. To anyone with a few brain cells, it is obvious that the PCA Slaughter and Transportation Regulation is completely ignored and is a total failure . We mostly rely on private enforcement – where folks like the Superstar BJP MLA from Hyderabad Mr T Raja Singh and Dawn Williams team in Chennai chase and trap these trucks under great personal danger.
How come the TN Regulation of Jallikattu is struck down but it is considered to okay the PCA Slaughter rules ? This is what the judgment has to say :
P 31 : Clause
(e) to Section 11(3) permits killing of animals as food for mankind, of
course, without inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering, which clause is
also incorporated ‘out of necessity’. Experimenting on animals and eating
their flesh are stated to be two major forms of speciesism in our society.
Over and above, the Legislature, by virtue of Section 28, has favoured
killing of animals in a manner required by the religion of any community
There is a feeling that this talk of speciesism just applies to one type of cultural tradition. Other communities are simply allowed to tie the four legs of an animal and slit its throat while it twitches to death. This is certainly not the doctrine of necessity.
Finally the judgment quotes Ms Temple Grandin – the famous American factory farm slaughterhouse designer.
“The single worst thing you can do to an animal emotionally is
to make it feel afraid. Fear is so bad for animals I think it is
worse than pain. I always get surprised looks when I say this. If
you gave most people a choice between intense pain and intense fear,
they’d probably pick fear.”
Scroll to the top and look at the picture on the left of buffaloes jam packed enroute to crude slaughter in Kerala – then look at the bull on the right. Which has fear ? Which has majesty and honour intact ?
What next ?
A review petition can be filed stating these facts. The PCA Act can be amended to either specifically elevate and exempt Hindu traditions to the same level as minorities or to bring parity by extending the doctrine of necessity to ban all slaughter. Unlike the UPA the new Modi govt is supposed to be receptive to Hindu interests. We cant blame others anymore.
Reality Check India 
Thank you for writing this post and letting the debate continue, There is an argument here and it cannot be resolved by ignoring any one’s side’s viewpoint. I hope to keep this brief and conversational
1. It is erroneous to confuse torture and slaughter (a classic strawman) and hold slaughter as the ultimate standard of cruelty. By that logic; rape, torture, and every other form of abuse should be condoned since, ‘it wasn’t murder, was it?!’
But I believe it was PETA’s job to make that distinction and be a responsible activist and work with the people on the ground. I hold PETA more responsible for the fallout of this than the Court. They must be held accountable for 90s style irresponsible activism and I seriously hope they are.
2. I am an avowed vegetarian and cannot comprehend the logic of ‘killing’ an animal for ‘food’ when there are so many alternatives available. I have ever tried to understand the acceptance of the violence by ‘enjoying’ food on the table (have written in CRI in an effort to understand – ‘the biology of vegetarism’). However, I am well aware I am in the miniscule minority and don’t push the case except for insisting on more humane methods for transport and killing, The very thing that, Temple Grandin has struggled to do and achieved some success in. Do read her book on how her own struggles with autism led her to understand the suffering of animals. I cannot recommend her courage enough.
3. Torture is more worrying since it serves no purpose but psychopathic sadism. The Court tries to make this distinction by using the qualifier ‘unnecessary’ suffering and in the five exceptions to Clause 11. Now, someone like me, might argue with ‘unnecessary’; but we do submit to the reasonability of its use in the context.
4. Why is the sole and only rasion d’tre for these bulls existence, the Jallikattu? It is not as if bulls do not survive in any other parts of the India and/or the world unless they are capable of being Jallikattu bulls!
5. The details of injuries you’ve detailed above and the exhaustive details put out by the AWBI (in a report submitted after the regulations of the TNRJ took effect) are clearly on different sides of the fence. Irrespective of the truth (which cannot be in any way verified now when all sides dispute all other versions) there is no dispute that the bulls are injured by intent and abused (we may disagree on the ‘degree’ of injury) on the day of the event. The black box approach you recommend is the very nub of the problem. The assumption here is: throw in all the charges , let’s accept the charges as they are, and let’s then assess the bull for evidence of damage. The problem is with the charges! Again, to use serial rape/ physical abuse of a woman as an example – this is equivalent to saying let us accept serial rape but did the girl continue her activities, go to school, continue at her job, continue living?
6. I have tried to put paid to the argument against Speciesism by comparing the bull with a woman. Seen from this light, one that negates different standards for humans and for other living creatures, the wanton abuse of domesticated animals in the care of their owners is seen anew.
7. Lastly, this argument is ‘not’ against Jallikattu. It is against Jallikuttu-with-abuse. The bull owners can easily agree to alter practice, accept regulation, have larger & contained release areas and larger holding areas, ensure supervision of the same and allow the sport of a young man or two trying his hand at calming the bull to be conducted fairly. No additional enablers or facilitators are needed. Neither does the bull need to be made aggressive nor does the man need violence to tame the bull. Let it remain as – a tussle of wits and might against bull and man. Nothing more; Nothing less.
I couldn’t edit it above and so, am pasting the edit (only a language edit) here; re: Point 5:
“… The problem is with the charges! Again, to use the serial rape/ physical abuse of a woman as an example – this is equivalent to saying let us assess the charge of serial rape by whether the girl continued her daily activities, went to school, continued at her job, continued living.”
Again, thanks for an excellent post. I have great respect for the passion with which you have pursued this matter. And am sure you see my own dissent in that light.
Cheers, 🙂
Thanks for your comments. Let me see if I can address some of the conflicts.
I think you are agreeing with me in (7) that the Jallikattu judgment is flawed, because it isn’t coherent with other kinds of activities that are allowed to take place under regulation. The gamut of animal laws does not form a coherent whole after this judgment. As you pointed out in your blog, a stark dissonance arises when you allow horse racing, polo, equestrian, use of cavalry in army, use of elephants in parades, dog shows, and clamp down hard on Jallikattu alone on the most extreme standard of speciesism. On the other hand, if you ban all these activities we, especially Hindus, will end up with a colourless existence without companionship of animals.
Your points about slaughter vs non-slaughter activities are crucial and well articulated. Like the court, you view slaughter as a rightful part of the Doctrine of Necessity. Jallikattu, being a rough bruising sport (my view) turns into an ‘un-necessary activity’ as opposed to eating or exporting beef which is deemed necessary. There are two problems with this.
Problem 1 : The speciesism standard does not permit the Doctrine of Necessity to include slaughter. Humane or not.
Absent evidence of physical injury, let alone cases of death, the only standard that can get Jallikattu banned is ‘mental torture’. Only speciesism recognizes ‘mental torture and lingering effects of the short event’ as a valid argument. The trouble is, speciesism also insists ‘self defence’ is the only item allowed in the Doctrine of Necessity. This is imperative to make speciesism internally consistent with its core of endowment of rights to animals hitherto only available to humans. Useful to recall that in all existing laws – A human is allowed legally to kill another human only in self defence. If you want coherence, we cant pick and choose what parts of speciesism we want. This is what we did with the Jallikattu ban. Pick and choose.
Problem 2 : Court deciding what is a necessary conduct
I also submit that we have no right to decide what kinds of interactions with animals are “un-necessary”. It would be a grave mistake to extend western utilitarian relationship with animals to Hindus. If I had the power, I would put all Hindu customs which reflect our intricate and intimate, skin on bone, contact with the animal kingdom as necessary activity. The burden then shifts to the activists to prove to a very high bar ‘physical injury or death’ resulting from this activity in order to apply state force on us to forbear the practice. If we drop the ball here, our entire culture is in danger. As I tweeted, post this judgment I cannot imagine on Thrissur Pooram which uses elephants can survive a legal challenge. Why is it necessary to use elephants, cant we just use some posters instead ?
A side note about PETA and humane slaughter
If you buy into the western argument that food animals have only utilitarian value, then the ideal world would look like this.
Animals live on a farm happily until one morning, without warning one of them is picked randomly and tricked into getting instantly killed with the help of some kind of technology. The process is so advanced and the repertoire of tricks employed is so diverse that the same trick can be used again and again. The technology also employs algorithms to ensure that the picked animal is sufficiently reclusive from the herd that stays behind that the death does not result in stress to the herd. This is the only way to kill without mental stress.
The above is PETAs ultimate vision of humane slaughter. They cant have that of course, so the next best thing is Temple Grandin’s slaughterhouse architecture. Her design of the knocking box , right angles, holding pens, makes us feel less guilty for eating meat and on the other hand is liked by slaughterhourses (softly called agri processors) because it has ensured very high speed kill conveyor lines. Therefore Temple Grandin is firmly on the factory farming side of the fence. Temple Grandin nor PETA has ever pushed the speciesism argument. That movement is driven by Vegan activists like Gary Youroufsky, Gary Francione, and others. (check out on Youtube)
I know I havent addressed your individual points, I will get to it tonight. I hope this gives you an idea of where my objections lie.
Sorry to butt in.
Can you slaughter charging bull under self defence argument?
rc, I am in complete concurrence with both your points – on the selective use of Speciesism (a theory I believe in; but, I suspect you probably don’t) and also, on the extremely arbitrary delineation of activities deemed ‘necessary’ by the Court. My grouse with this aspect of the PCA and the judge’s selective application of Speciesism is great enough that if you recall my original comment – it was that this should be used as precedent now for every other form of animal abuse and that includes slaughter. I made that comment in the full appreciation of the specious use of ‘mental torture’ selectively, in this case, when it is common knowledge that far greater insult to animal rights of living exist.
Yet, this is the Law as it is now applied and PETA has used ‘unnecessary’ to argue its case. Also selectively. They have skirted the problem of animals for entertainment (race horses. I think Trichur’s Aanais will be untouched because the tag of “performance animals’ could realistically be applied) and instead made the bar animals for entertainment that are abused. Which is why I suggest that the Jallikattu bullowners can easily circumvent PETA’s random standard by accepting the entertainment but no abuse.
I heartily agree with you that the Law needs to be revisited. I might want ‘Speciesism’ extended and you will certainly want it out of the language of the Law; but, be that as it may, we do concur on some aspects. I too would dearly like for the tradition to continue. I just want the bulls to enjoy the tradition just as much as the participants and that cannot happen if they are subject to some of the treatment described by AWBI.
“will end up with a colourless existence without companionship of animals. this matter” – greatly appreciate the sentiments expressed +++. :))
That sums it up.
“I just want the bulls to enjoy the tradition ”
We would never find out what the bull really thinks of it, would we 🙂
But we can guess what the bull feels like the rest of the year – 364 days.
This article makes no sense. Totally from someone who feels its “okay” to torture, abuse & kill someone who is weaker than us for pleasure & to benefit from their suffering! this is WRONG & SAD!
> Can you slaughter charging bull under self defence argument?
I happen to know where you are getting at.
Yes, you can slaughter a bull if it attacks you. BUT BUT BUT
You cannot provoke it first, because provocation is an exemption to self defence in common law as well as in Indian village law.
So if you want to slaughter, just go the pasture and stand still and wait for a bull to charge at you. If one does, he’s all yours.
[…] note: This is reproduced from Reality Check India’s blog and with his […]
[…] https://realitycheck.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/the-jallikattu-ban-is-a-tragedy-and-must-be-reviewed/ […]
The argument of slaughter being worse than cruelty and abuse can be easily countered if we put us in the shoes of those suffering cruelty and abuse.
I will anyday prefer death and become food at the hands of a more powerful species after being captured than being glorified as ?god and being sexually abused /milked everyday for years and being forced to accept the bull selected by the master for impregnation or artificial insemination with imported semen to get calves which can give more milk.
[…] The Jallikattu judgment was the culmination of ignorant posh activism by PETA India , followed up by muddled often conflicting arguments from AWBI and Jairam Ramesh. Now, Hindu villagers in southern Tamilnadu and their beloved bulls are in for dark days while the state has prepared a review petition. […]
Hi,
I need to get in touch with you regarding the case. We’re trying to get this overturned. How do I get in touch with you?
Thanks
I too want to get in touch with owner of this blog..
send email to vivrci at gmail
Radha Rajan’s article supporting the judgement.. For your review..
she was the one who is behind this atrocious ban on jallikattu..
http://www.indiafacts.co.in/jallikattu-ban-is-a-welcome-move-part-1
[…] of my Twitter account are frequently annoyed at my focus on “minor” matters like the Jallikattu ban, the continuous harassment of Dahi Handi activities, the recent animal sacrifice ban in Himachal […]
[…] Followers of my Twitter account are frequently annoyed at my focus on “minor” matters like the Jallikattu ban, the continuous harassment of Dahi Handi activities, the recent animal sacrifice ban in Himachal […]
[…] Unfortunately our Supreme Court and intelligentsia adopted this doctrine in banning the sport of Jallikattu and outlawed Cock Fighting. This is not to say one culture is superior to the other. One can […]
BAN LIFTED “you can tell the youth of Tamil Nadu that jallikattu will happen in this newspaper http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/favourable-decision-on-jallikattu-soon/article8038673.ece THANK YOU
[…] The Jallikattu ban is a tragedy and must be reviewed On Jallikattu […]
[…] when the rural Tamil tradition of Jallikattu (a bull control sport) was unjustly banned on grounds of cruelty to animals, overlooking the fact […]
the bull is not injured, or killed, only it is try to bring in to control. so the jalli kattu must be allowed
[…] the charge that the ban results in native breeds being sent to slaughter houses) [16] Please read this article for a detailed analysis of the Jallikattu ban and hypocrisy of the […]
[…] I have analysed in another #core5 case – the egregiously overreaching Jallikattu Judgement. The Essential Practices of a Hindu cannot be ascertained, what can be checked is the essential […]
[…] I have analysed in another #core5 case – the egregiously overreaching Jallikattu Judgement. The Essential Practices of a Hindu cannot be ascertained, what can be checked is the essential […]