Why these 7 arguments in defence of Jallikattu are senseless

There are few things as magnificent as young citizens of a country coming together for a cause and creating a mass movement that forces an otherwise indifferent government to stand up, take notice, and – in some promising cases – act.

This past week saw the youth in Tamil Nadu come out in large numbers to protest against a ban on Jallikattu.

While the scale of the protest was massive, the intent lacked character: the sport, they said, was representative of a culture they wished to cling tightly to. It didn’t matter if it was “slightly” torturous for the animals involved.

From young students burying themselves neck deep in sand at Marina Beach as a sign of protest, to AR Rahman declaring a day-long fast and standing up strongly for a cause for the first time in his life, to many self-proclaimed animal-loving celebrities frantically distancing themselves from PETA, it was profoundly disappointing to see such a large number of people stand up for something so pointlessly barbaric.

As the crowds protesting the ban on Jallikattu continued to swell over the course of four days, actors, politicians, mediapersons and other influential voices came out in support of Jallikattu – with almost clockwork regularity – giving the most absurd arguments as to why the ban on the sport must be uplifted.

Some of the arguments included:

If Jallikattu is cruel to animals, then boxing/wrestling is cruel to mankind

This statement is so ignorant, it’s almost comical. The stark difference between the two sports is that in boxing or wrestling, the consent of every player involved is taken, and the bulls never signed up for this “sport” they are forced to be a part of.

Imagine if one player agreed to a boxing match and the other player was pushed into the ring without any training or an approval – everyone involved would be put in jail.

It’s tradition 

Not every tradition should be carried forward into a modern civilisation. Practices such as sati and child marriage were all once considered “tradition”. Honour killing was at one point practised actively in several parts of the world, and considered normal.

In ancient Rome, male family members who did not take action against the female adulterers in their family were “actively persecuted”. Female genital mutilation is a part of some cultures. Polygamy was legal in India until 1956! Some traditions are better left in the past.

Why should our sense of self-worth and existence depend so heavily on traditions that are barbaric, archaic and promote a distorted sense of machoism?

A Bollywood celebrity killed a black buck and is a free man today, so why is Jallikattu considered cruel?

How is this more logical a statement than saying, “the Stanford rapist roams free, so let us never raise our voice against gender-based violence”.

If failed examples of justice were the parameter for deciding how current or future cases of injustice should be dealt with, the world would come to an end within a week.

Cockfights, greyhound hunts and keeping animals in the zoo are all deeply cruel to animals. Should we end them all?

Yes! It cannot obviously be done in a day but it is so important to keep bringing these cruelties to light and to work towards a constant evolution of our societies.

Greyhound hunts have been made illegal in Scotland, Wales, England, and in Northern Ireland as recently as 2011. Cockfighting is illegal almost everywhere in the world, and while zoos unfortunately continue to exist, they are not thriving in the same manner that they used to till a couple of decades ago.

Owners of private animals must be free to pursue activities they enjoy. Those who don't like Jallikattu, needn't watch it. Why stop others from participating?

Because the Constitution of India says that it is our fundamental duty to be compassionate towards all living creatures – not just human beings. Owners of private animals are not free to engage in cruel activities with them.

If you saw a bunch of teenagers harassing a dog they “own”, the more humane thing to do would be to intervene and make it stop.

To look away from an animal being tortured is the same as to look away from a child being tortured. Bulls incur serious injuries and fractures during Jallikattu. Some even die. “Tradition” or “culture” are not a sufficient justification to indulge in this sport.

I support Jallikattu entirely and PETA should be banned

We understand that it is important for you to say this because no one will watch your movies, or buy your music albums, or vote for you.

People might protest outside your homes or pelt stones at your cars or hurl a shoe towards you when they see you at a restaurant or the airport, but “banning” organisations that work (selflessly or for profit) for the voiceless will set a dangerous precedent for all matters pertaining to animal cruelty across the country.

This is a conspiracy by “foreign companies” and animal welfare organisations, which aim to make the native cattle species extinct.

Surely there are other, less brutal, ways to prevent the extinction of indigenous species of cattle.

And if we can’t think of any, then isn’t it better that they become extinct than be put through such torture year after year?

While there is no dearth of the inane arguments being made in favour of this senselessly brutal sport, it is important to understand that it wasn’t an animal welfare organisation or a group of “elitists” who banned it, it was the Supreme Court.

We, as citizens of this country, were duty-bound to respect it.

With an ordinance being hurriedly passed to revoke the ban, this country certainly has taken a big step backwards. If only animals could vote.