The Big Story: Delhi sultan-not

As the jallikattu protests enter their fourth day on Friday, it is clear from the scale of the movement that the issue goes much beyond simply that of a sport. Lakhs of Chennaities thronged the city’s main beach, even as prominent Tamilians across the board – politicians, actors, sportspersons and even music director AR Rahman – expressed their hope that the Supreme Court would lift the ban it has imposed on the bull-taming sport. Friday is expected to see a near-total shutdown of Chennai with lawyers, cinema workers, hotels, shops and public transportation workers striking in protest against the jallikattu ban.

What is remarkable – given the clear significance of jallikattu in Tamil culture – is that the sport was banned with little input from Tamil Nadu at all. In 2011, the Union government made it illegal for bulls to be used as performing animals. The state’s own law on the matter, the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, which permits the sport, was overruled by a Union law, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, as per norms laid down in the Indian Constitution.

In effect, the protests against jallikattu have, at their core, issues of federalism and overcentralisation, with protestors railing against the Union government and the Supreme Court.

Federalism exists precisely to prevent exactly this sort of disenchantment. A proper distribution of power ensures that states, which in India are linguistic units with their own histories and large as many nations, get to handle their own affairs. It’s efficient and it’s democratic.

Unfortunately, in India, federal principles are observed mostly in breach. The Indian Union maintains a colonial structure set up by the British Raj which gives immense financial and political powers to New Delhi. The existence of a “concurrent list” – a legacy of the Raj where Union legislation overrules state laws – is unique to India and is the reason why jallikattu is banned today: the state law allowing it was overruled by a Union law since “prevention of cruelty to animals” comes under the concurrent list.

While the lack of federalism harms every state in the Union, its effect is prominent in a state like Tamil Nadu, with a long history of political recalcitrance. Right till 1963, Tamil Nadu’s largest party, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam wanted to secede from the Union. While India has confidently overcome any serious claims of secession, these hard-won political gains need to be cemented in by giving the states enough political power. Already in this agitation, reports have appeared of irresponsible elements propping up photos of Prabhakaran, the leader of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. This poisonous politics needs to be urgently nipped in the bud. New Delhi needs to give enough political space to the states to chart their own course.

The Big Scroll

  1. The Supreme Court judge who banned jallikattu has clearly never been to an actual bout, contends Nityanand Jayaraman. The sport involves little animal cruelty.
  2. “Not a bull fight, this is a fight with Delhi”: This pro-jallikattu video wants to “tame Modi”.

Political Picks

  1. With the Union government refusing to take action and protests growing, the Tamil Nadu government is considering an ordinance allowing jallikattu in order to calm tempers.      
  2. The Samajwadi Party rules out a poll pact with Jat-dominated Rashtriya Lok Dal. It instead, asks the Congress part with seats from its share.      
  3. Churches do not have power to grant divorce decrees, rules the Supreme Court.      
  4. The Congress objects to the appointment of the new Central Bureau of Investigation chief.      
  5. West Bengal land agitation: In Bhangar, all parties welcome, except the Trinamool Congress.      

Punditry

  1. Diverse Supreme Court judgments leave a loophole to stifle investigations against public servants, points out Devadatt Kamat in the Indian Express.      
  2. Jallikattu represents a failure of the political classes in understanding Tamil sentiment, argues TS Sudhir in FirstPost.      
  3. The Reserve Bank of India’s flip-flops may remind us of Muhammad bin Tughlaq, but his lesser-known cousin Firuz Shah was an able administrator, says Karthik Venkatesh in Mint.      

Giggle

Don’t Miss

A tale of two houses: Supriya Sharma explains why people in Uttar Pradesh vote along caste lines.

“The residents of the village want development but know that development itself is delivered through caste allegiances. The government might design schemes that appear to be based on objective criteria. But in their implementation, there is ample room for discretion.

If a Yadav pradhan loyal to the Samajwadi Party favours Yadavs over others, naturally Yadavs return the favour, voting for the party.”

Subscribe to “The Daily Fix” by either downloading Scroll’s Android app or opting for it to be delivered to your mailbox.