Jallikattu is a bull-taming sport practiced in some parts of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu for centuries. Recently Indian Supreme Court banned this sport because of complaints about animal cruelty. Animal welfare activists complained that bulls are tortured by using various cruel methods and are forced to participate in this sport. The court took notice of their complaint and banned its practice after looking into all angles of it presented by both sides. But the problem is this sport has become a tradition in those parts of India, and many people are emotionally attached to it. So, as usual, this has become a very sensitive and controversial issue. Just like the beef ban, which was imposed by various state governments with the help of court decisions, in this case, animal activists were successful in getting a court order to ban this sport. But the problem this time is that both governments (center and state) are not in favor of this ban. In the case of beef imposing the ban was politically beneficial and in this case not imposing the ban is politically beneficial. In one case governments were in agreement with the court decision and in the other they didn't agree. To bypass this ban, the central government of India issued a special ordinance that was supported by all political parties of that state. This was a unique scenario where all political rivals who fought with each other even on many issues of national interest came together. The reason? There are state elections in Tamil Nadu soon and no political party wants to create a perception that they are against some religious tradition which can cost them votes. But now the problem is that the court has struck down that ordinance also, so it will be interesting to see what happens next. One interesting thing to note here is that people who supported the beef ban for animal cruelty and calling cows their mothers want to support this sport. Some who opposed the beef ban saying that what they want to eat is their personal choice are supporting this ban on Jallikattu for animal cruelty. It is very interesting to see how people switch their sides conveniently without even realizing sharp contradictions in their behavior. Actually, one can not equate the slaughtering of cows with bulls being tortured for some entertainment sports, in one case an animal is killed for food and in another case tortured to create some entertainment. But in both cases, one can argue that there is an element of cruelty involved and it should be the topic of discussion. Are we okay with both of them or we are okay with one but against the other and why?
In both cases, the emotions are involved. In the beef ban case, people are sensitive towards cruelty towards one particular animal (cow) and want to ban her slaughter but in Jallikattu's case, they want to uphold the tradition and continue that sport without being bothered by the animal cruelty involved in it. I personally appreciate the sentiments of people who love animals and work towards animal welfare. It is a great cause and many groups are committed to working towards this cause. But the truth is animal and human lives are judged differently. Humans use animals as objects made for their personal use: we eat their meat, keep them in zoos, attend various animal shows, have them as pets, domesticate them for farming or milk production, and even hunt them. Basically, we use them for our own personal benefit in whatever way we want. All these activities that I mentioned are legal. Cow slaughter might be illegal in many states of India but it is permitted in some states and many countries of the world but human killing is considered a very serious crime everywhere. We should understand that as a species humans value their own lives more compared to any other animal on this planet. Therefore we should not compare humans and animals using the same scale because our laws or our societies don't do this. The problem in these types of cases is that people are not consistent in their views and double standards are used either to justify or criticize exposing the hypocrisy of our society.
If the beef ban was required to save cows then how can you support the eating of meat of any other animal? If the beef ban was not for religious purposes but to stop animal cruelty then don't other animals also deserve the same protection? How it is okay to support any sport where animals are tortured? If we look at the other side, if beef eating is your right to choose your food then why you are against people's right to choose the sport which they want to play? If cow slaughter is okay then what's wrong with bull taming sport? Actually, my personal experience is that people who do such flip-flops don't like to face any such uncomfortable questions. Whenever they are confronted with such contradictions in their behavior, they either choose to justify their own hypocritical behavior by using their oratory skills or get very aggressive. Such issues also expose lame attempts of various political groups to exploit such sensitive issues for their own advantage. It is not fair to expect courts to pass judgments on every such issue, but unfortunately, governments and civil society make these things so complicated that eventually, these issues land in courts. Some of them like this one get resolved quickly but many such cases keep on dragging on for years as it is very difficult for courts to pass any judgment on very sensitive issues, Babri mosque demolition case is one such example.
If the beef ban was required to save cows then how can you support the eating of meat of any other animal? If the beef ban was not for religious purposes but to stop animal cruelty then don't other animals also deserve the same protection? How it is okay to support any sport where animals are tortured? If we look at the other side, if beef eating is your right to choose your food then why you are against people's right to choose the sport which they want to play? If cow slaughter is okay then what's wrong with bull taming sport? Actually, my personal experience is that people who do such flip-flops don't like to face any such uncomfortable questions. Whenever they are confronted with such contradictions in their behavior, they either choose to justify their own hypocritical behavior by using their oratory skills or get very aggressive. Such issues also expose lame attempts of various political groups to exploit such sensitive issues for their own advantage. It is not fair to expect courts to pass judgments on every such issue, but unfortunately, governments and civil society make these things so complicated that eventually, these issues land in courts. Some of them like this one get resolved quickly but many such cases keep on dragging on for years as it is very difficult for courts to pass any judgment on very sensitive issues, Babri mosque demolition case is one such example.
Actually, at some point in our lives, our double standards are exposed. We should learn from such incidents and try to improve our thinking. Such issues expose the hypocrisy of people in our society but somehow they are still not willing to learn any lesson. I am sure that soon there will be another sensitive issue and another similar passionate and emotional debate where people will argue based on their political and religious affiliations rather than having a logical discussion, there will be another deadlock followed by another protest and court case.
Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.
[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]
