Jallikattu debate

Beyond the protests in Chennai, will jallikattu spark a row between two ministers at the Centre?

Environment Minister Anil Madhav Dave's apparent push to amend the animal protection law may face resistance from colleague Maneka Gandhi.

As the crowds swelling on Chennai’s Marina Beach since Tuesday to oppose the Supreme Court’s 2014 ban on the bull-taming sport of jallikattu has the media’s rapt attention, a political story playing out in the back alleys of Lutyen’s Delhi on the same subject has so far gone unnoticed.

An internal tussle within the ruling National Democratic Alliance may be on the cards should Environment Minister Anil Madhav Dave push for an amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, in the wake of the growing protests in Tamil Nadu. Such a move – which Dave hinted at during a press conference in the Capital on Friday – would not go down well with his ministerial colleague Maneka Gandhi, one of the key voices in the country on animal rights and a supporter of the animal protection law.

That North India is feeling the heat of public pressure building up in Tamil Nadu became obvious when Dave, who usually does not even speak up on issues directly related to his ministry’s mandate to protect the forests and environment, called the press conference and gave a strong statement in favour of jallikattu. He said that his ministry, along with the Law Ministry, was considering a review of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and to expect “good news soon”.

Late on Friday, the law, environment and culture ministries cleared a draft ordinance of the Tamil Nadu government seeking to denotify bulls from the list of “performing animals” in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, thereby clearing the decks for the state to organise a jallikattu event in the coming days. Media reports said the state’s proposal – which holds legally as the Act falls in the Constitution’s Concurrent List, giving both the Centre and states the authority to frame laws on it – was cleared without changes and sent to President Pranab Mukherjee for his approval.

Gandhi’s stand

Such actions would in all probability face opposition from Women and Child Development Minister Maneka Gandhi, who has been vocal in her opposition to the bull-taming sport at various public forums in the past few months. In August last year, she stated, “Jallikattu is a terrible festival, and the BJP has many many more important things to do.”

And in an interview to the Week magazine published on January 13, she criticised actor Kamal Haasan’s support to the sport. “Film actors are not experts on law,” she said. “The cultural and legal arguments regarding jallikattu have been heard by the honourable Supreme Court from all petitioners, respondents, intervenors and other stakeholders over many many hearings. Detailed orders have been passed. The order should be read, understood and abided by.”

So, the question the media should be asking now is: Where is India’s most ardent animal rights activist in the current debate on jallikattu? And why has she been silent on the issue, especially since there is now a move by her own government to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act?

Past flip-flop

Jallikattu has been a contentious subject for governments in the past too, leading to announcements and flip-flops. On July 11, 2011, the United Progressive Alliance government, with Jairam Ramesh as its environment minister, had issued a notification including the bull in a list of animals that should not be exhibited or trained as performing animals. But on January 8, 2016, before the onset of the harvest festival of Pongal in Tamil Nadu, the then environment minister in the National Democratic Alliance regime, Prakash Javadekar, issued a new notification exempting “jallikattu bulls” from the list, thereby legalising the sport.

This, of course, was in direct contravention of the Supreme Court order of 2014 that clearly stated:

“Forcing a bull and keeping it in the waiting area for hours and subjecting it to the scorching sun is not for the animal’s well-being. Forcing and pulling the bull by a nose rope into the narrow, closed enclosure or ‘vadi vassal’ [entry point], subjecting it to all forms of torture, fear, pain and suffering by forcing it to go into the arena and also overpowering it in the arena by bull tamers, are not for the well-being of the animal.”

It was only when a battery of lawyers aided by the Animal Welfare Board of India and People for Animals (run by Maneka Gandhi) rushed to the Supreme Court that this order of the Environment Ministry was reversed.

Other implications

Politics aside, the fact is that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is already weak, and to weaken it further would do a big disservice to the hundreds and thousands of animals that are ill-treated under all kinds of conditions as working animals, pets and performing animals. Right now, anyone charged under the Act can escape with a mere Rs 50 fine.

What is also obvious is that the jallikattu story is no longer one of Tamil pride. If a change is brought in the law, it will affect policies related to animal welfare throughout the country. Will it open a can of worms as far as performing animals in other states are concerned? For instance, will the government change its stand on dancing bears used by the madari community, or snakes used by snake charmers, or animals in circuses? These are serious issues of law and policy that have not been adequately addressed by the government.

With Dave, at his press conference, echoing the attempts made by Javadekar in 2016, the stage is set for a potential clash with Gandhi. All eyes are on Marina Beach now, but the political corridors of Delhi too could feel the echoes of dissent should its most ardent animal activist speak up.

Bahar Dutt is a conservation biologist and author of the book Green Wars-Dispatches from a Vanishing World

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.