Ella Foskett

2/7/22
An Integrated Approach

The practice of Jallikattu, while culturally significant to the Tamil people, presents the

important question of what carries more weight, rights or cultural practices? Jallikattu involves

rubbing chili powder into the eyes of bulls. While this harms the animals and can clearly be

defined as animal cruelty, it is also of cultural importance to the Tamil people, an ethnic minority

in India. After the Supreme Court of India recognized Jallikattu as animal cruelty and outlawed

it, Tamil people responded in protest demanding that they be able to practice their culture as they

see fit. This response demonstrated how important Jallikattu was to Tamil people, leading the

government to reverse the ban. While India strives to become a more modern democracy by

advancing the legal system and promoting individual rights, the country recognizes the

importance of preserving culture and protecting the long standing cultural rights of its

population. While it may be easy to look at Jallikattu from afar and recognize it as an outdated

form of animal cruelty that must go, we also have to consider the fact that animal cruelty occurs

everyday in other more mundane forms. Is it worse to breed animals in inhumane conditions for

food? Or to use animals in scientific labs for our own safety? While Jallikattu undeniably harms

bulls, without a full out effort to reduce all forms of animal cruelty throughout the country, a ban

on Jallikattu would unduly restrict the cultural practices of a minority group. Because of this it is

my opinion that instead of a full ban on the practice of Jallikattu, India should address the issue

allowing the Tamil to participate in this practice under restricted terms. Instead of rubbing chili

powder in the eyes of the bulls, people could provoke them in other less harmful fashions, such

as using loud noises or moving objects. In addition, Jallikattu could be reserved for the Pongol

celebration in which it is typically practiced. There could be further regulations on the number of
bulls used in each celebration and the amount of time they could be used for. It is also imperative

that the government allow the Tamil people to have a voice in this process of change. This task

will require a joint effort from both these people and the government. By taking an integrated

approach and creating a system of regulations on Jallikattu, India could preserve the culture of its

citizens while also furthering rights protections and keeping up with modern standards of

tolerance and protection.

India is a country that has experienced colonialism and lots of conflict as a result. While

colonial forces have left the country to govern itself, India still employs traditionally western

practices in their government and legal systems. Because of the significant differences in culture

between India and the west, these systems are not equipped to handle complex cultural issues

such as Jallikattu. Civil law tends to focus on truth in a very black and white sense. Laws are

made and actions either break them or they don’t. These legal systems don’t have the capacity to

address scenarios where illegal actions carry a complicated level of cultural significance.

Because of this, when looking for a solution to the issue of Jallikattu, it is important to refrain

from using an ethnocentric approach, and instead consider the importance of preserving culture.

When trying to find this solution, it is also imperative that we include the voices of the Tamil

people, as only they fully understand the complexity of the practice and how to best preserve it

while also working to maintain a standard of rights. When it comes down to it, no one can be a

fair judge of the legality of cultural practices except for those who participate in the culture.

Without including these voices, any judgement will fail to acknowledge all of the complexities

involved and will inevitably employ an ethnocentric attitude. Vicenti adequately explains this

concept in the context of Native American tribal courts, stating, “but this type of cross-cultural

scrutiny gives abundant opportunity to the federal judge to engage in a dangerous exercise of
ethnocentrism, ignoring the history surrounding the development of the particular court…and the

effects the rights of a non-Indian individual may have upon the human rights possessed by a

collective of individuals who have lived here for centuries.”(Vicenti 141). While the rights of

the bulls may be important to protect, this protection will inherently have an effect on the Tamil

people and their culture. The bulls deserve protection, however finding a solution where animals

are protected while also preserving culture will require involvement from the Tamil people. By

taking an integrated approach and allowing those who will experience a loss to have a voice, it

will be possible to find an effective solution to the issue of Jallikattu.

Allowing the Tamil people to have a voice in the solution to this problem is crucial, but it

is also imperative that the state step in and work with them in order to find a legal remedy. While

the preservation of culture is important, especially for a country like India that has been

colonized, upholding the rights of all beings and working to be a fair democracy is also

necessary. All beings deserve basic rights and the practice of Jallikattu is unquestionably animal

cruelty. Allowing known instances of animal cruelty to occur is not a acceptable for a

government to allow. Because of this, the government of India must work with the Tamil

community to create restrictions and regulations that will allow people to practice Jallikattu

while also respecting the bulls and ensuring their safety as much as possible. India has a standard

to uphold, they strive to become a more modern and tolerant democracy, and the

acknowledgment of harmful practices is a strong step in the right direction. However the original

law that completely outlawed Jallikattu was perhaps too strong of a response. Animal cruelty

occurs regularly across not only India but many other modern democracies. By outlawing

Jallikattu without taking significant efforts to outlaw animal cruelty throughout the country, the

government unfairly targeted the cultural practices of an ethnic minority, therefore infringing on
their collective rights. India’s response of then completely removing the law was not effective

either. By doing this India removed any protection the bulls had and ultimately decided that the

collective rights of the Tamil people were more important that the individual rights of the bull.

India needs to take an integrated approach by working with the Tamil people so that they can

create regulations to make Jallikattu possible and ethical from a legal standpoint. Regulations

could outlaw the use of chili powder to excite the bulls, only allowing the sport on the Pongal

holiday it is known for, and limiting the number of animals involved and the length of their

involvement. This integrated approach has a higher likelihood of success as there have been

similar approaches with success in other countries. In Israel women experience a conflict with

religion, where they find it to be both oppressive and uplifting. However, even if it is often

religion that causes harm, removing religion from the equation does not lead to successful

solutions. Fournier explains the theory, stating, “Our field work in Israel clearly suggests that

religious women’s interests are entwined, diffused and recast in a manifold unexpected ways

across the secular/religious divide, compromising any policy option that tries to exclude one or

the other.” (Fournier 336). Similarly, finding an effective solution to Jallikattu will require the

involvement of both civic law and cultural recognition. Removing either of these things will

result in an ineffective solution that either harms culture or allows animal cruelty to occur.

Taking an integrated approach aims to find the middle ground between two opposing

needs. Many supporters of animal rights would be upset with the lack of a full out ban on the

practice. Some people may think that allowing the sport to happen at all is too harmful. However,

bull riding is a prominent sport in many parts of the world, and physically can be viewed

similarly to horseback riding, which no one is looking to outlaw. Once you take away the chili

powder, the bulls experience much less harm, and certainly not enough to warrant a ban,
especially when considering the other legal ways in which animal cruelty regularly occurs. There

is also uncertainty that the Tamil people would not accept this solution. While they protested

when the initial ban came out, it is more likely that they would accept a solution that they helped

produce and that still allowed the sport to be played in some capacity. In some African countries

cultural groups have been able to abolish traditional practices that they realized were harmful. In

these instances the government was able to engage chiefs to stop certain harmful traditions.

(Forthcoming 15). This evidence suggests there is a hope that the Tamil people will accept the

new regulations and recognize the harm Jallikattu causes.

Taking an integrated approach while looking for a solution to Jallikattu will lead to the

most effective and equitable outcomes. By including the voices of the Tamile people, involving

government powers, and creating a space where they can impose regulations together, an

effective solution of regulations and restrictions could be reached. Including the voices of the

minority group will ensure that culture is preserved, while government involvement will ensure

regulation and change, and hopefully this integrated approach could answer the question of

culture or rights by allowing both.