The Tamil Makkal movement has metamorphosed into the Jallikattu movement. It is remarkable that the movement is self-inspired, self-regulated and motivated by the desire to preserve and protect the Tamil culture and sentiments. The movement does not relate to any social maladies like poverty, neglect of the poor, lack of infrastructure or shortcomings in developmental works. Homage to culture and tradition overtook the mandates of the rule of law.
A direction of the Supreme Court in 2014 had brought Jallikattu to a halt. The final hearing has taken place and the judgment is reserved. We saw the unusual scene of the Attorney General requesting the court to defer delivery of the judgment keeping in view the popular upsurge and the desire of the Government to bring an Ordinance/Act enabling performance of Jallikattu. The majesty of law and the majesty of courts were the first victims of this movement. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu met the Prime Minister, who, in turn, said that the matter was subjudice in the Supreme Court. Notwithstanding that, all succumbed to the popular pressure, and an Ordinance was thought of when the Tamil Nadu Assembly stood summoned. The Tamil Nadu House was meeting on January 23, and couple of days before that, the Ordinance was issued after being cleared in a record time by the Union Government. We have promised a “regulated” Jallikattu with the elements of cruelty and danger kept out of the scene. The Chief Minister could not hold the function at Madurai. But nearer Trichy, the event took place with two deaths and injuries to short of 90 persons. There was hardly any regulation enforced by the State, and it was free for all. Popular sentiments in the name of upkeep of traditions cannot provide a reasonable and rational basis to subvert the rule of law, which is part of the basic structure of our Constitution. But such was the state of affairs; and the agitators, who congregated in different parts of Tamil Nadu and elsewhere, were not satisfied with the Ordinance. Their demand extended to a “permanent solution” so as to ensure Jallikattu being performed before and around Pongal. Jallikattu came to be banned because of cruelty involved and in view of the mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
In the congregation in Marina beach and elsewhere, the youth power was in the forefront. They were convinced of their cause in the name of traditions and sentiments. It became a bull taming affair. But necessary precautions of cruelty to animals and danger to human life were not taken care of. In defiance of the provisions of the Ordinance, the events took place in an unauthorised manner in different parts of Tamil Nadu. The youth power was not concerned with lack of economic development and growth, eradication of poverty and social reforms. Jallikattu became the end-all and be-all of the movement, which was remarkably self-regulated and self-serviced with essential supplies of food and water.
What does the scenario revealIJ Overzealous concern about sentiments and tradition blurred reason and relevance. So-called people’s power overlooked the requirement of rule of law and obedience of the directives of the apex court though the movement has been peaceful, well-organised and purposive. The end result of unregulated performance of Jallikattu has thrown rule of law to the winds. One wishes such an organised movement was undertaken to eradicate social maladies and anachronistic practices. The popular upsurge cannot blur rationality. In the name of tradition, we cannot thwart reforms. The popular upsurge resulted in the unregulated Jallikattu performances resulting in deaths and injuries. In the past, the death of a son drove a father to the court that resulted in the ban of Jallikattu, finding it to be repugnant to the provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act. Political parties in Tamil Nadu have been bending backwards to support the upsurge. The Government did not even have time to share the contents of the Ordinance with the agitators so as to have the movement proceed in an informed and reasoned manner. The manner in which the politicians were swayed to succumb to the popular upsurge was unprecedented. Emotive tendencies amongst Tamils overtook this requirement of reasoning and rationality. The end result is not a becoming one. The solution that was found has not been implemented in letter and spirit. The frenzy to perform Jallikattu resulted in it becoming unregulated and the State became a mute witness watching helplessly in a state of inaction.
This is not a happy symptom in a democracy. The demands raised were not conditioned by any rational choice but by extra-rational sentimentalism. No doubt, we are in an agrarian society and the bulls have a role to play in such a society. But it does not behove of a civilised society to wantonly celebrate in a manner which involves cruelty to animals and danger to security and lives of human beings. This aspect was conveniently ignored in the sway to banish the ban. There was an attempt to overstepping the process of law as though a social crisis had taken place. Tamil unity was no doubt displayed, but it did not represent collective wisdom and rationality. Comparing deaths with those occasioned by road accidents was not justified and rational. If one event could result in two deaths and injuries of about 90 persons, the other performances are bound to repeat the scenario. Tamil Nadu is known for emotive reactions of extreme nature; for example, persons immolating themselves to death when a leader dies a natural death. Similar extreme sentiments were expressed in the name of Jallikattu and the Tamil pride came to the forefront. But in the process, reason, relevance and rationality became a casualty. Rule of law stood subverted. It is not a happy sign for a good polity. Openly flouting law is not a desirable trend, however popular it may sound on the face of it. The media hype relating to the movement went the whole hog along with the popular upsurge in the name of democracy, and rule of law received the worst treatment. The protesters are now being dispersed and cleared. The authorities find the continuing congregation unwanted. Patience and tolerance have now exhausted themselves.
The youth power found time and organised itself for such a cause, forgetting more important ones that require more priority and greater attention. The youth power was definitely well-organised though for advocating a cause in frenzy. This must make us all sit up and think as to whether we are progressing in the right direction. These events are a matter of concern not to a particular section of the society but to the society as a whole. We must ponder and resolve to be rational and objective. And surely this concerns us all!
(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor, a former President of Orissa High Court Bar Association and a former Advocate General of Odisha. jayantdas@hotmail.com)