Imagine tomorrow if cricket is banned in India on the grounds that it is a dangerous game where many cricketers have died on the field after being hit by the ball, what will be its implications? Certainly entire India will come out on the streets in protest. There will be an impromptu outpouring of public sentiment.
A similar thing happened in Tamil Nadu last week where a sea of humanity thronged the Marina beach in Chennai and other parts of the state to protest the Supreme Court ban on the over 4,000-year-old 'dangerous' practice of Jallikattu, a symbol of Tamil culture and identity.
Yes, recently Australian cricketer Phillips Huges died after being hit by the ball or for that matter India's Raman Lamba died in a similar fashion decades ago – but these unfortunate incidents should not lead to banning the game altogether. Extra care should be taken to avoid such incidents.
Similarly, just because there have been some incidents of bull torture and human deaths here and there during Jallikattu, that should not mean the practice should be banned.
Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) argues that between 2010 and 2014, at least 17 people were killed and 1000-odd injured during Jallikattu events.
If death or injury is a criterion to ban something, then in that case hundreds of people are dying in road accidents daily in India. Does that mean all the vehicles should be taken off the roads? No. Extra measures must be put in place to avoid accidents. Many die or are lost during the Kumbh Mela, but has anyone ever protested against organising the Kumbh Mela? No.
So, stringent rules should be applied and proper care must be taken, like putting up extra barricades, etc., for the performance of Jallikattu rather than totally banning it.
A key point in this whole debate is that Article 51(a)(g) in the Indian Constitution states: “It shall be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and have compassion for all living creatures.” This constitutional provision provides a very strong pointer on how all animals, including bulls used in Jallikattu should be treated.
But the whole Jallikattu episode gives rise to a very pertinent question – that should progressive lawmaking be subject to public sentiment? If that would have been the case then our founding fathers would not have been able to reform the Hindu Code Bill where the widows remarriage Act, child marriage Act and all other archaic social customs of the subcontinent were banned –because there was a huge public sentiment for all these practices.
Sati (where a widow immolates herself on her husband's pyre) was part of Indian tradition and it was revoked by the British government and eventually accepted by the Indian people. So, just because something is a tradition does not mean it should be allowed to continue. There are certain traditions which the society must rethink of continuing with, because they may no longer be appropriate or moving with the times. So why Jallikattu, if it is claimed that it is a dangerous sport and not good for the bulls, can’t fit in that bracket?
At the moment it's a delicate situation in Tamil Nadu where the popular sentiment represented quite visibly by thousands of young and educated Tamilians is pitted against the principles of the law. And this is a very uncomfortable situation for the law. Because here the mass sentiment actually is questioning the law.
Let’s hope the Supreme Court does not go by mass sentiment. Because if such a precedent is set, the rule of law will disappear and the law of sentiment will take over, which in the long run is not good for the country.
However, there have been exceptions to this rule. For instance, the Spanish Supreme Court overturned the Catalan Assembly's bullfighting ban where the judges said the Spanish state has responsibility for cultural heritage and Catalan parliament has exceeded its authority. The Spanish SC believed that there are some sentiments in some traditions that must be observed because they mean so much to the people and the top court came to the conclusion that – don’t pit the law against the mass sentiment. So, why can’t the Indian Supreme Court take a similar stand on the Jallikattu issue?
Well, in India the Constitution is supreme, and the Supreme Court goes by the Constitution, not by popular sentiment. However, the Constitution does permit the government to amend the law. Take for instance the famous Shah Banu case on divorced Muslim women's maintenance where then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi amended the law under public pressure. Similarly, the Indian government has a different stand on Triple Talaq, while the conservative elements say Triple Talaq is an essential part of Islam. So, the larger question is about progressive lawmaking. Should the court and the government take into cognisance public sentiment and not go forward with progressive lawmaking? That's the key issue that is coming out of this mass movement.
The advocates of Jallikattu argue that bullfighting and Pamplona bull run is permissible in Spain because they are part of that country’s culture. Rodeo bull riding is permissible in America because it’s part of that country's culture. Fox hunting has found ways of continuing in Britain even though it is officially banned and now the Conservative government is trying to find a way to lifting the ban. The Jallikattu supporters say if all these are allowed in the modern-day world, why then Jallikattu is not permitted in India?
Well, for the sake of agrument they have a point, but just because other countries permit cruelty to animals does not mean India too should follow suit. The animal rights activists argue that India should be one step ahead of these countries and set an example by avoiding such sports which are dangerous for animals.
Also, there is an issue of double standards here. It is not that cruelty to animals is not happening in India at all. Animals are sacrificed during Eid; Dussehra (famously with Gurkha battalions); Tantric pujas and certainly at Kamakhya temple in Guwahati. If animals are sacrificed and it is accepted by all, argue Jallikattu supporters, then what's wrong with Jallikattu?
By the way, making Peta the scapegoat in the entire episode is also not right as it was not at the forefront of opposing Jallikattu in the first place. The case started in 2006 and Peta came into the picture only in 2011. In between too much water had flown under the bridge. Unfortunately, it has become the face of the case and has to face the music.
However, one remedy to resolve the issue is – the Tamil Nadu government should re-represent the Jallikattu case again, this time more properly arguing what Jallikattu actually means as a sport, what it means to the people and the bulls, and what it means in the larger perspective of preserving the genetic pool of Indian cattle in our country.
