Animal Sports: Culture or Cruelty

Animal welfare versus animal sports is a complex and ongoing issue that involves legal frameworks, court cases, and public debates. In many countries, there are laws in place to protect the welfare of animals, but these laws often intersect with cultural practices and traditional sports, leading to ethical dilemmas. 

One prominent case that highlights the conflict between animal welfare and cultural practices, is the Jallikattu case in India. Jallikattu, a traditional spectacle with deep cultural roots, continues to raise concerns over the welfare of animals involved. This popular sport has faced increasing scrutiny due to concerns about animal welfare. The issue of animal welfare versus animal sports is a topic that continues to spark debates and discussions worldwide. 

This article focuses on recent cases and events that have intensified the debate surrounding the recent Jallikattu case and the treatment of animals. With a focus on different aspects, including spectator-driven sports like bullfighting and rodeo, this article will explore the legal complexities and ethical considerations surrounding the treatment of animals in these activities. 

By exploring legal challenges, animal protection efforts, and evolving regulations, we aim to shed light on the ongoing struggle to strike a balance between preserving cultural traditions and ensuring the humane treatment of animals involved in rodeo events.  

WHAT IS JALLIKATTU? 

Tamil Nadu, a southern Indian state, rich in cultural traditions, one of which is the sport of Jallikattu. Jallikattu, also known as eruthazhuvuthal, is a bull taming sport in which contestants attempt to tame a bull for a prize, if they fail, the bull owner wins the prize. It is celebrated in the second week of January at the time of the Pongal (harvest festival) as thanksgiving for a bountiful harvest, of which cattle-worship is part. 

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF JALLIKATTU 

Jallikattu has been a longstanding tradition spanning centuries, with its origins traced back to an ancient seal found at Mohenjodaro, estimated to be between 2,500 BC and 1,800 BC. Its earliest references found in the ancient Tamil epic Silappadikaram and a seal from the Indus Valley civilization. 

 WHAT WAS THE CONCERN? 

Jallikattu has faced criticism from animal rights groups and courts due to concerns about cruelty to animals and the dangerous nature of the sport, resulting in injuries and fatalities for both bulls and human participants. The major concern was whether Jallikattu should be granted constitutional protection as a collective cultural right under article 29(1). Whether the Jallikattu laws would actually sub-serve the objective of “prevention” of cruelty to animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960. 

TIMELINE OF EVENTS 

The controversy surrounding Jallikattu has seen several legal twists and turns. The key events were- 

Animal Welfare Board of India submitted a report to Supreme Court stating that Jallikattu is enthithetical to a compassionate treatment for animals as per provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 

In 2006, the Madras High Court instituted a state-wide ban on Jallikattu, leading to the introduction of The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act of 2009. 

In 2011, the central government included bulls in the list of animals whose training and exhibition was prohibited, thereby shutting the door on the practice. 

In 2014, a Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Nagaraja, upheld that Jallikattu amounted to cruelty to bulls and banned all similar bull taming and bull racing sports countrywide. 

In 2016, the Union Environment Ministry, revoked its 2011 notification, based on which the top court had ordered the ban. 

The Tamil Nadu state government passed the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017, once again allowing the sport. 

Many organisations including the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and PETA approached the Supreme Court, challenging the 2017 legislations passes by the Tamil Nadu government.  

In Feb 2018, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Dipak Mishra and Rohintan Nariman referred this batch of writ petitions to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench. 

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF JALLIKATTU 

• Cultural Significance- The Tamil Nadu government has argued that Jallikattu, a centuries-old practice, is an important religious and cultural event that should not be banned outright. A ban on Jallikattu will be seen as hostile to Tamil Nadu’s culture and community. 
• Native breed conservation- Describing Jallikattu as “a tool for conserving this precious indigenous breed of livestock,” the government argued that the traditional event did not violate principles of compassion and humanity. 
• Constitutional protection- The practice is protected under Article 29(1) of the Constitution. 
• Agrarian pride- It represents a cultural infirmity to urban modernity that marginalizes rural and agrarian values. 

 ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION 

• Lead to human injuries and deaths- Opponents claim that the Tamil Nadu law was created to bypass the Supreme Court’s ban on Jallikattu, and that the practice has resulted in deaths and injuries to both humans and bulls. 
• Manhandling of animals- Opponents argue that animal life is connected to human life, and every living being has inherent liberty that should be respected. 
• Cruelty to animals- Critics contend that tamers have been seen pouncing on bulls, causing ‘extreme cruelty to the animals.’ 
• Not justified as cultural practice- They argue that there is no justification for the Jallikattu as part of culture and equate it with practices such as sati and dowry, which were also once recognised as part of culture but have since been abolished through legislation. 
• Animal intoxication- There are also reports of the bulls being forced to drink alcohol to disorient them, or chilli peppers being rubbed in their eyes to aggravate the bull. 

SUPREME COURT VERDICT 

The cited case, Animal Welfare Board of India and Others v. Union of India and Another (WP(C) No. 23/2016), is a notable Supreme Court case involving the practice of Jallikattu. 

The 5 Judge-Bench of Supreme Court comprising of KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi. Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar, has upheld the Constitutional validity of the State amendments made to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra and allowed the conduct of animal sports like Jallikattu, Kambala and bull-cart racing in these respective States. 

The court held that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is valid and not deceptive legislation. It relates to the prevention of cruelty to animals and minimizes cruelty in sports like Jallikattu. The court stated that once the amendment is implemented and followed with the rules, the sports will not be considered cruel under the 1960 Act. The court also recognized Jallikattu as a part of Tamil Nadu’s cultural heritage and respected the legislature’s decision. It concluded that the 2017 amendment does not violate constitutional provisions related to environmental protection, scientific temper, equality and the right to life.  

JUDICIAL LIMITATION

The court defers to the cultural sentiment and legislative scheme behind these sports, emphasizing that cultural heritage should be determined by the legislature, not the judiciary. 

CONCLUSION 

The debate surrounding Jallikattu is complex and multifaceted. While it is vital to respect and preserve cultural traditions, it is equally important to prioritize the welfare and ethical treatment of animals. While the court’s decision recognizes the cultural significance of Jallikattu, it also emphasizes the importance of preventing cruelty to animals and upholding statutory law. 

Striking a balance between the cultural practice and animal welfare is the right approach in this case, also implied by Supreme Court. Moving forward, cultural preservation, animal welfare, and safety norms must coexist to ensure the continuation of Jallikattu and similar sports in a responsible and humane manner. 

This article presents the insights of TANISHKA JINDAL, a first year student at Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, MAIMS. The author's perspectives and opinions are entirely based on their personal viewpoint.