But why is that they have not raised their voice against Cow Slaughter?
Why not against the killing of Goats during Bakrid?
Is beating one with self with chains during Muharram is not cruelty?
If you extend their Logic,they should have moved the court to ban non vegetarian food on the ground of cruelty to the animals killed. Now read a description of how the Jallikkattu pettion and other Hindu harming cases moved in the courts
The Government of India has cleared the Emergency Ordinance clearing the decks for the holding of the Jallikkattu, Bull Fighting Sports of the Tamils , under immense pressure from the public, especially from the youth .
The unique fetaure of this mass movement is that it was spontaneous, no political parties were allowed nor any potential publicity seekers like the Cine People and the movement was absolutely peaceful with no untoward incidents despite people camping out in the open even during the night and this vigil included women and children.
The issue went out of control because of a case filed way back in 2009 and the courts were moved and as a clincher came the Supreme Court’s Order banning the Jallikkattu.
The Court earlier provided for Jallikkattu under strict supervision.
The ordinances issued by the State Government were cvchallenges in the court and hence the Ban.
The blame is to lie on the political parties which pussyfooted. trying to score points over each other, the DMK and the AIADMK.
The Bull used in Jallikkattu was included under Animal Welfare’s classification of animals to be protected.
This was done by Sri. Jayram Ramesh of Congress at the centre.
What is curious is that only the Bull is singled out among the Bovine, not Cows!
The Animal Rights Activists’s refrain or shouting is that the Bulls are being tortured and hence to be protected.
And that they would raise their voice against cruelty to animals in any form is their Mission statement.
But why is that they have not raised their voice against Cow Slaughter?
Why not against the killing of Goats during Bakrid?
Is beating one with self with chains during Muharram is not cruelty?
If you extend their Logic,they should have moved the court to ban non vegetarian food on the ground of cruelty to the animals killed.
They have not done that.
Instead PETAfound an opportunity in oranising a business for themselves by promoting Vagan Diet!
And if one were to look at the caes and issues against PETA raised its so called Voice, NOTone of them had any custom or religious link any where in the world!
Their shouting matches have been against mostly against scientific experiments involving animals.
But the beauty is that they, PETA have killed more than 35,000 Animals!
‘Its president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has called pet ownership an “abysmal situation” and said, “Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” PETA also has killed 35,000 animals at its headquarters since 1998, according to animal custody records it files with the state of Virginia.’
It can be seen that some foreign based NGOs have been on the job of destabilising India by creating communal tension and inciting regional emotions.
Not a single case against groups of Religious or Cultural nature has been raised by these people in other parts of the world.
But under the guise of animal welfare or some other issue, destabilisation takes palce.
PETA belongs to this category of NGOs.
Some engage in proslytization while PETA has taken the route of attacking the cultural values of a group.
Now read a description of how the Jallikkattu pettion and other Hindu harming cases moved in the courts.
I have no comments on this as facts speak for themselves.
What is Project Thessalonica?
“Project Thessalonica aims to stop or limit Hindu activity by converting people, who form the pillars of Hindu culture, festivals, traditions and activity…They are making environmental groups raise the voice so that Ganesh processions, Kumbh Melas and Jagannath Rath Yatras are limited…”
Native festivals are part of a social ecosystem that binds people to native traditions. This is one reason native festivals have always been attacked as part of establishing Christian dominance. Let us look briefly at the timeline for the Jallikattu ban.
In 2006, a judge in the Madras High Court suo moto banned Jallikattu, even though she was hearing an entirely different case and no one had petitioned against the ban.
As, The Hindu reported, based on the lawyer Shaji Chellan’s interview :
“Pointing out that he had actually filed a writ petition seeking permission for rekla (bullock cart) race at Thaniankootam in Ramanathapuram district, the lawyer claims that Justice R. Banumathi (now a Supreme Court judge) expanded the scope of the case on her own and banned rekla race, oxen race and jallikattu.
‘…High Court had already allowed similar writ petitions and granted permission for rekla race in other districts. To my rude shock, Ms. Justice Banumathi took a differing view and questioned how could such races be conducted against the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,’ he recalls.”
Not only did the Judge on her own add Jallikattu to the case, she also overturned the precedence of earlier judgments to ban multiple festivals in one go. The judgment itself was passed, without any notice, and without allowing anyone in favor of Jallikattu to plead.
Mr. Chellan says the judgment was passed immediately after lunch break on the day of admission itself without notice being issued to any party.
Who was this judge, and how did she manufacture a judgment out of thin air? The Judge is Justice R Bhanumati, and according to an article in VigilOnline, she is a Christian. However, that does not automatically imply any kind of bias, unless such bias is evident in her work. Apart from unilaterally banning Jallikattu, without any petition to do so, Justice Bhanumati appears to have passed harsh judgements on other Hindu matters as well.
Justice Bhanumati ruled against the right of Podhu Dikshidhars, traditional Hindu priests at the fifth-century Natarajar Temple at Chidambaram to manage their own affairs.
“In February 2010, she justified the government takeover of the administration of the famous fifth-century Natarajar temple in Chidambaram saying, ‘Administration of temple is purely secular and the state can intervene and regulate the administration if the secular activities of the institution are mismanaged.’ The judgment, however, was overturned by the Supreme Court earlier this year.”
The Supreme Court found reason to overturn her judgment in the Natrajar temple case. Another exceedingly harsh judgment was passed by Justice Bhanumati against a Hindu Sadhu,
“Making it clear that he would not be eligible for any remission or early release, she said in the judgment that he would serve his second life term after completion of the first life sentence. The order was meant to keep the godman in jail forever. He died in jail in February 2011.”
In yet another case, Justice Bhanumati ruled against grandparents, who sought custody of a child, who was allegedly being converted into Christianity by the other grandparents, when her Hindu parents died.
Without trying to impugn on the motives and judgment of Justice Bhanumati, there is at least prime facie evidence that her extraordinary intervention to ban Jallikattu, without any petition, may be part of an intolerance towards Hindu festivals and institutions, reflected in Project Thessalonica.
While a regulation was passed by the TN government to circumvent the Madras High Court ban in 2009, the Congress Party’s role in this has been equally dubious. In 2011, Congress’ Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, banned the use of bulls in sports, with an eye to ban Jallikattu.
“Chairperson, Humane Society International, Nandita Krishna said that by its historic verdict, the Supreme Court has vindicated Ramesh’s position and upheld the ban. ‘I must particularly mention and thank Ramesh who, as Minister for Environment and Forests, banned the use of bulls as performing animals in 2011’.”
While the UPA government was still in power, the Supreme Court, in its subsequent order in 2014 banned Jallikattu altogether.
Waking up late, it was not until January 2016 that the BJP government was able to pass a notification reversing the earlier one from 2011, promulgated by Jairam Ramesh of the Congress, and allowing Jallikattu to take place. However the Supreme Court, despite a heavy case backlog of nearly 50,000 pending cases, over a thousand of which are pending for over 10 years, decided that it must urgently protect bulls from their owners and stayed the regulation.
In May 2016, the Congress Party, in its manifesto in Tamil Nadu, perhaps with an eye on evangelical support, specifically included upholding the ban on Jallikattu.
The Congress which is criticising the Narendra Modi Government for the ban on Jallikattu, had in its manifesto for the Tamil Nadu Assembly Election in May 2016 had declared that it would ban the Jallikattu. “The party supports the ban on Jallikattu,” said the Congress manifesto.
“Tamil Nadu Assembly elections 2016: Congress releases manifesto, promises ban on Jallikattu”, the dailies had carried banner headlined reports the day after the manifesto was released by Mukul Wasnik, AICC general secretary.
Former PM Manmohan Singh, in a letter to NG Jayasimha, managing director, Humane Society International, a NGO based in Secunderabad had said that he was for banning the bull fight. “The Humane Society Internationale India has a worthy objective and certainly we have to work to discourage bullfights which provide a cruel form of entertainment. I wish you all success in achieving your objective,” said Manmohan Singh in his letter dated December 15, 2015.
Note that Human Society International is another foreign-funded NGO, just at PETA, both of which were major advocates for the ban.
The case against Jallikattu was pleaded by Congress leader Abhishek Singhvi, who called the sport “wanton torture” leading the Supreme Court reinstated the ban in July 2016.
Other questions that arise
Apart from the role of the Congress Party, the part played by the Courts and the nexus between the Courts and foreign-funded NGOs also comes under scrutiny. The Supreme Court judge, KS Radhakarishnan received the PETA man of the year award for his 2014 judgment banning Jallikattu.
The language used in the judgment is also instructive: “international community should hang their head in shame, for not recognizing their rights all these ages, a species which served the humanity from the time of Adam and Eve.”
First, we should be clear that the Supreme Court is a colonial institution. While English Common Law is based on centuries of English traditions, the Indian Constitution and Laws have little or no relation with Indian traditions. Indeed they are antithetical to these. The Supreme Court operates only in English, a grave injustice in a land where less than 10% people know English with any degree of proficiency. It also looks upon the Indian tradition with colonized eyes. As such it is easy prey for the “rights” discourse pushed by foreign-funded NGOs.
Second, it is important to understand why attacking Hindu festivals and traditions is important to the Conversion War. Unlike Book religions, which coalesce around Church or Mosque, driven by monotheistic zeal of insider and outsider, native traditions have no such glue. The glue that there is, is present in festival and ritual, and the same festival will have diverse expressions throughout India. Where it is Pongal in one, it is Lodhi in another and Makar Sankranti in a third area. Attacking these festivals is an attempt to cut these bonds; a rootless people are a much easier target for the conversion war.
Third, Jallikattu is not just a sport, it is an ecosystem that sustain indigenous bovine breeds and values male calves that may otherwise be slaughtered. The fight against Jallikattu has a veneer of animal rights, but the reality is the ban will create slaughter and extinction. This is a result of the lopsided ideological “rights” discourse that the West generates, quite different from the natural harmonious native balance that it seeks to destroy. There is a good thread on this here.
Project Thessalonica is a sub-project of Joshua Project II. Joshua Project II set the scope and strategy for converting the “heathen” of the world in 10-40 window (regions that lie between the latitudes of 10 and 40 degrees north) whereas project Thessalonica (called PT) prioritizes the tasks to be taken. Joshua Project II strategized the methodology called ‘Adopt-a-peoples’ wherein every mission agency or church adopted a ‘people group’. Tribals were the first and easy missionary targets. Unfortunately the missionary activity didn’t weaken Hinduism as the church strategists had anticipated – many of the converts still celebrated and attended Hindu festivals and continued to follow Hindu traditions. As a counter measure Project Thessalonica was started in 2004. Before getting into the details of Project Thessalonica it will be useful to look at the origins of the name of the project.
Thessalonica was a major port city strategically located at the junction of the main land route from Italy to the east and the main route from the Danube down to the Aegean Sea. It was the capital of the Roman province of Macedonia, a free city ruled by a popular assembly and magistrates. The people of this city were rich, technologically advanced and culturally distinct. Paul and Silas, during the Apostle’s second missionary journey, visited Thessalonica to preach the Gospel and propagate Christianity. However, Paul’s teachings received a lukewarm response from the people. Some locals irritated by Paul’s teachings got a hold of Jason and his brothers, who were hosting Paul, and took them to city officials. They were charged with harboring traitors, but faced no physical harm. They were eventually made to post a bond and set free. In 390 AD, the Christian ruler Theodosius the Great, punished a revolt by the inhabitants of the city by massacring more than 7000 people. Much of the city was eventually converted to Christianity.
Hindus in India today are in the same situation as the people of Thessalonica found themselves in at the time of Paul. They are prosperous economically and culturally and extremely tolerant of other people and faiths. The government is completely indifferent to the activities of the missionaries in India, in spite of the tremendous damage that missionary activity has wrought on the local population all over India. Seen in this context, the choice of “Thessalonica” as a name for a project focused on converting Hindus of India to Christianity seems particularly apt.
Project Thessalonica aims to stop or limit Hindu activity by converting people who form the pillars of Hindu culture, festivals, traditions and activity. Traditionally missionaries hate any public expression or display of heathen religions in the form of festivals and temples. Missions want to ensure that no new temple construction activity starts. With this objective they are converting masons, craftsmen and others involved in temple construction activity. The First Baptist Church of Nashville, Tennessee adopted towns where the annual Kumbh Mela takes place and has been actively converting the locals so that visitors face extreme hardship during their next visit trying to find services and supplies. Another mission group is adopting boatmen of Kashi where Hindus drop rice balls in river Ganges as an offering to their forefathers. The boatsmen are being trained in other fields so that they abandon this profession. They are making environmental groups raise the voice so that Ganesh processions, Kumbh Melas and Jagannath Rath Yatras are limited. One big worry seems to the extremely popular Hindu television programs. Christian agencies have decided on buying these prime slots at a premium and are actively working with programming sources. Over the past 20 years, missionaries also appear to have invested a lot in handling the political leadership, so much so that their activities appear to be almost immune to the ruling political party. It seems that a good section of media is also on their side to such an extent that any group opposing their activity finds itself identified as a militant or extremist group in the news media.
And even acknowledging that PETA is often the first to rescue pets when heat waves and hurricanes hit, that doesn’t change the fact that, at one of its shelters, it kills 84 percent of supposedly “unadoptable” animals within 24 hours of their arrival…PETA’s cash donation to the terrorist Earth Liberation Front..The group euthanized (killed) more than 1,900 animals in 2003 alone — that’s over 85 percent of the animals it received. In fact, from July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other “companion animals” at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That’s more than five animals every day.
‘Nathan Winograd insists that PETA’s kill rate is due not to poor management but to “something more nefarious.”
PETA, the animal rights group, is one of the pettitioners, though not the original one,has been vociferous in the call for banning Jallikkattu, one of the symbols of the Tamils, whose History is as old as Ramayana and the Vedas.
It is time people know about these paragons of virtue who take up the cause of Animals.
Of course they have a programme Vagan Diet,promoting vegetarianism and it discourages meat eating.
Well one should find out which corporate engaged in vegetable products is also involved in this.
Am providing a news item from The Atlantic on how PETA killed animals.
I do not want to add my comments, the news story is enough.
In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority (PDF) of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily “no kill” ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals — including rabbits. It killed 54 of them.
These figures don’t reflect well on an organization dedicated to the cause of animal rights. Even acknowledging that PETA sterilized over 10,500 dogs and cats and returned them to their owners, it doesn’t change the fact that its adoption rate in 2011 was 2.5 percent for dogs and 0.4 for cats. Even acknowleding that PETA never turns an animal away — “the sick, the scarred and broken, the elderly, the aggressive and unsocialized…” — doesn’t change the fact that Virginia animal shelters as a whole had a much lower kill rate of 44 percent. And even acknowledging that PETA is often the first to rescue pets when heat waves and hurricanes hit, that doesn’t change the fact that, at one of its shelters, it kills 84 percent of supposedly “unadoptable” animals within 24 hours of their arrival.
When I contacted PETA for a comment on these numbers, Amanda Schinke, a spokesperson for the organization, sent a thoughtful and detailed response. In it she explained how “euthanasia is a product of love for animals who have no one to love them.” She called their killing a “tragic reality,” one that forthrightly acknowledges how “sometimes [animals] need the comfort of being put out of their misery — a painless release from a world in which they were abused and unwanted.” Noting that PETA, unlike many “no-kill” shelters, turns no animal away, Schinke added, “we do everything in our power to help these animals.” The harsh reality behind the grim numbers, she noted, should never be forgotten: “Millions of homeless animals are euthanized in animal shelters and veterinary offices across America because of simple math: too many animals and not enough suitable homes.”
But is this really a simple math problem? Nathan Winograd doesn’t think so. Winograd, a Stanford Law graduate and former corporate lawyer, is the author of Irreconcilable Differences: The Battle for the Heart and Soul of America’s Animal Shelters. When the data on PETA dropped, he posted a scathing article insisting that the organization’s almost 100 percent kill rate was due not to laziness or poor management but to “something more nefarious.” Winograd asserts that PETA’s failure to find homes for impounded companion animals is the result of founder Ingrid Newkirk’s “dark impulses.” Performing a virtual psychological vivisection, Winograd diagnoses Newkirk as a “disturbed person,” a “shameless animal killer,” and the executrix of a “bloody reign” of terror over dogs and cats. At one point, he even compares her to nurses who get a thrill from killing their human patients.’
Click here for audio and video of PETA officers and other animal rights extremists.
Click here to see PETA’s cash donation to the terrorist Earth Liberation Front.
Click here to see $70,000 in PETA grants to a convicted animal-rights arsonist.
Click here to see the money trail between PETA and its phony “physicians committee” front group.
Click here to learn about PETA’s hypocritical practice of killing thousands of animals.
Amidst the dozens of animal rights organizations, PETA occupies the niche of — in Newkirk’s own words — “complete press sluts.” Endlessly seeking media exposure, PETA sends out dozens of press releases every week.
In the past, PETA has handled the press for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a violent, underground group of fanatics who plant firebombs in restaurants, destroy butcher shops, and torch research labs. The FBI considers ALF among America’s most active and prolific terrorist groups, but PETA compares it to the Underground Railroad and the French Resistance. More than 20 years after its inception, PETA continues to hire convicted ALF militants and funds their legal defense. In at least one case, court records show that Ingrid Newkirk herself was involved in an ALF arson.
PETA has even begun to adopt the tactics of an ALF offshoot known as SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty). This group is notorious for taking protests outside the boardroom and into the living room, attacking their targets at their homes.
In 2001, three masked SHAC members brutally bludgeoned a medical researcher outside his home in England. The lead attacker was arrested and sentenced to three years in prison. A few months later, SHAC attacked another research industry employee on his doorstep with a chemical spray to his eyes, leaving him temporarily blinded and writhing in pain. The following year, Newkirk was asked her opinion of SHAC in the Boston Herald. Her response? “More power to SHAC if they can get someone’s attention.”
By 2003, PETA activists had adopted SHAC’s protest techniques, stalking and harassing fast-food restaurant executives. Not content to write letters and picket the chain restaurant’s offices, PETA’s leaders met with the CEO’s pastor, and visited his country club and the manager of one of his favorite restaurants. PETA activists, one dressed in a chicken suit, even protested at the church of two executives, annoying worshipers by driving a truck with giant screens of slaughterhouse video back and forth along the street.
In an effort to win more media exposure, PETA has adopted the counter-intuitive tactic of buying stock in restaurant and food companies that serve and sell meat. After buying just enough shares to qualify, PETA’s pattern is to introduce shareholder resolutions that would require animal-rights-oriented practices in the way animals are handled and slaughtered.
PETA’s goal as a shareholder, of course, is not to turn a profit. Its resolutions, if passed, would increase the cost of doing business and lower the value of everyone’s investment. The group has claimed that it’s “not trying to remove meat from the menu.” But with a stated long-term goal of “total animal liberation,” pushing for animal-welfare changes is just a first step. PETA’s short-term goals are to economically cripple these companies, force them to increase the retail price of meat, and nudge consumers toward eating less of it.
PETA collected almost $29 million in donations in 2004 alone, but few donors understand exactly where their money is going. During the past ten years, PETA has spent four times as much on criminals and their legal defense than it has on shelters, spay-neuter programs, and other efforts that actually help animals.
From both a moral and a legal standpoint, there are far too many objectionable things about PETA to list here in detail. But the following list is a good start:
1) PETA is not an animal welfare organization.
PETA spends less than one percent of its multi-million dollar budget actually helping animals. The group euthanized (killed) more than 1,900 animals in 2003 alone — that’s over 85 percent of the animals it received. In fact, from July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other “companion animals” at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That’s more than five animals every day.
On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 expense for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don’t eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn’t confirmed the obvious — that it’s using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.
2) PETA assaults common decency.
PETA’s leadership has compared animal farmers to serial killer (and cannibal) Jeffrey Dahmer. They proclaimed in a 2003 exhibit that chickens are as valuable as Jewish Holocaust victims. They announced with a 2001 billboard that a shark attack on a little boy was “revenge” against humans who had it coming anyway. They have branded parents who feed their kids meat and milk “child abusers.” In 2002 PETA organized a campaign to sabotage a popular Thanksgiving hotline, which provides free advice about cooking turkeys. The group has even contemplated (literally) dancing on the grave of Kentucky Fried Chicken’s Colonel Sanders. And in 2003, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wrote to Yasser Arafat, pleading with him to make certain no animals are harmed in Palestinian suicide-bombing attacks.
3) PETA peddles its “animal liberation” food agenda through a medical front group that pretends to offer objective nutritional advice.
A group misleadingly named the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has duped the press into believing that it is an association of conscientious doctors promoting good nutrition. In fact, it is a PETA front group. PCRM and PETA share money, offices, and staff. The American Medical Association calls PCRM a “pseudo-physicians group,” has demanded that PCRM stop its “inappropriate and unethical tactics used to manipulate public opinion,” and argues that PCRM has been “blatantly misleading Americans” and “concealing its true purpose as an animal ‘rights’ organization.”
Taking a page out of PETA’s press book, PCRM has labeled U.S. school lunches “weapons of mass destruction” because they include meat and milk. PCRM’s president, a psychiatrist named Neal Barnard, recently duped Newsweek into covering his “study” (of seven people) supposedly demonstrating that a vegan diet helped prevent type-2 diabetes. In 2002, PCRM was cited in major newspapers more than 550 times. It was identified as an animal-rights organization in only a handful of those cases.
4) PETA exploits sick people.
PETA famously suggested that drinking milk causes cancer, in an advertisement mocking then-NYC Mayor Rudy Guliani with the words “Got Prostate Cancer?” PETA has also erected a billboard reading: “Got Sick Kids? Drinking milk contributes to colic, ear infections, allergies, diabetes, obesity, and many other illnesses.” In 2003 the group held a demonstration in front of a Toronto-area hospital that was under a SARS-related quarantine, spuriously alleging that animal husbandry has something to do with the epidemic’s spread. Upon hearing that Charlton Heston had fallen ill with Alzheimer’s Disease, Ingrid Newkirk suggested that PETA would “toy with the idea that both Alzheimer’s and CJD [Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease] are related to meat consumption.” According to a profile in The New Yorker, she considered “renting billboards that would display a large picture of a gaunt Charlton Heston foaming at the mouth.”
5) PETA propagandizes children.
PETA’s website for kids puts a skull and crossbones next to the logo of Disney’s Animal Kingdom and tells the horror story of a fast food restaurant employee who “had taken a patty into the potty with her, then returned and said she had peed on it.” It hands out trading cards to kids that allege drinking milk will make them fat, pimply, flatulent, and phlegm-ridden. PETA also has a child-themed website, and a kiddie-oriented magazine, called GRRR! Kids Bite Back. The name is significant, as it is intended to prep children to identify with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which has long-used the phrase “bite back” in its promotional materials. In fact, as early as 1991, convicted ALF arsonist and PETA grantee Rodney Coronado was calling his own crime spree “Operation Bite Back.” PETA also sends “humane education lecturer” Gary Yourofsky into high schools — and even middle schools — to promote the “animal liberation” agenda. Yourofsky is a convicted ALF criminal who has said he would support burning down medical research labs even if humans were trapped in the flames.’
The second group is the dairy lobby, which wants all native breeds to be eradicated. Events like jallikattu throw a spanner in their plans of creating commercial dairy farms with imported breeds just like in the West.
Beef exporters also benefit from a ban on jallikattu and other events. Farmers bring their cattle to be sold in weekly/monthly and annual shandies. Brokers will take the cattle from the farmers and hold them to be displayed to prospective buyers. Buyers fall into 3-4 categories: (1) The jallikattu enthusiast who will buy the bulls and male calves mostly; (2) Buyers of oxen for farming/transport; (3) Buyers of cows for breeding and household usage; (4) Beef traders who are mos
The banning of Jallikkattu,the ancient Tamil game of taming a Bull and a cultural symbol which was also used as a test of Man’s valor ( the Girl was given in marriage to the one who tames the Bull)
This practice was also used to segregate a virile Bull so that it may be used for mating with Cows to produce healthy cattle.
Now out of concern ( ?) For animals, the Government of India has effectively banned it, hiding behind the court, while the courts, which is generous in doling out advices to the Executive, ducked the issue stating that it can not be expected to rule over the issue.
Why the sudden concern for Bulls?
The neglect of Indian cattle.
INDIAN COW breeds are a crucial part of the country’s ecological heritage. Since ancient times, different breeds were developed in different parts of the subcontinent by selecting the best animals for preferred traits such as their milking capacity, draught power, feeding requirements, capacity to adapt to local weather, immunity, etc. The purity of such breeds was maintained with great discipline and wisdom in each geographical pocket known as a breeding tract.
Over time, unfortunately, this social rigour was lost. Indiscriminate mating between different breeds and inferior animals within the same breed resulted in a high number of cattle of poor genetic quality. These non-descript animals today accounts for 80 percent of India’s cattle. At no point, in the past 65 years, did any government think of stepping in to preserve the careful science of crossbreeding.
But this dismal scenario is still not an accurate picture of the desi cow. India has 37 pure cattle breeds. Five of these — Sahiwal, Gir, Red Sindhi, Tharparkar and Rathi — are known for their milking prowess. A few others, such as Kankrej, Ongole and Hariana, belong to dual breeds that have both milch and draught qualities; ie, they are good plough animals. The rest are pure draught breeds.
But when official data records the average yield of indigenous cows as 2.2 kg daily, it clubs these dual breeds and non-dairy draught breeds together with the five top milch breeds. This deliberately undermines the performance of India’s best milch cows — such as Girs and Rathis — to establish the supremacy of the exotic cattle.
“Over the years, this has justified a policy that discards Indian milch breeds to promote exotic crossbreed animals. Due to this neglect, quality desi cows have become rare. So dairy farmers are easily lured to exotic cattle that start milking at a younger age but often trip soon after,” explains a senior official in the Department of Animal Husbandry, Union Ministry of Agriculture, on condition of anonymity.’
Over time, the skill of embracing the hump to slow the bull down is celebrated and contests are held to showcase the skill. This is called Eru Thazhuvuthal meaning ‘Embracing a Bull’. Indus Valley civilisation is known for being one of the most advanced and sophisticated amongst its contemporaries. The sport of Eru Thazhuvathal is celebrated so much that they decide to make a seal depicting the same.
During the rule of the Nayak kings, gold coins, wrapped in a piece of cloth were tied to the horns, and the tackler hung on to the hump of the bull and untied the knot to get at the prize. Jalli/salli means ‘coins’, and kattu is ‘tied’. A small bag of coins was tied to the horns of the bulls, which the players claimed as a prize. The only way you could do that was to embrace the hump of the bull long enough to grab the bag without getting hit.
Now a token cloth is tied in the horns which the tackler collects as a trophy. The focal point of the event is the vaadi vaasal, the entrance. The bulls are let through this entrance, into the track, where the players wait. The track is usually the main street of the village, with the side lanes blocked. The event begins with the visit of village elders, led by a band drummer, to the temple of the village deity. The Koyil Kaalai (temple bull) of the host village is allowed first andm as a mark of respect and gratitude to the host village, players allow it a free run and don’t touch it. Today, educated youngsters from these villages are also involved in the rearing of bulls and participate in the sport. All classes of people and all castes take part in Jallikattu. There is an egalitarian perspective where it’s humans and their cattle, nothing more nothing less.
An ancient heritage that survived colonial period
Jallikattu is an ancient sport. The seals of the Indus Valley civilisation depict it, which is proof that this sport was in vogue 5,000 years ago. Ancient Tamil poetry, known as Sangam literature (2nd BCE – 2nd CE), has many detailed references to Eru Thazhuvuthal (hugging the bull).
The fact that English colonial administrators have also written about jallikattu tells us the sport was played continuously down the ages.
For the following account of the jellikattu or bull-baiting, which is practiced by the Maravans, I am indebted to a note by Mr. J. H. Nelson. “This,” he writes, “is a game worthy of a bold and free people, and it is to be regretted that certain Collectors (District Magistrates) should have discouraged it under the idea that it was somewhat dangerous.
The jellikattu is conducted in the following manner. On a certain day in the year, large crowds of people, chiefly males, assemble together in the morning in some extensive open space, the dry bed of a river perhaps, or of a tank (pond), and many of them may be seen leading ploughing bullocks, of which the sleek bodies and rather wicked eyes afford clear evidence of the extra diet they have received for some days in anticipation of the great event.
The owners of these animals soon begin to brag of their strength and speed, and to challenge all and any to catch and hold them; and in a short time one of the best beasts is selected to open the day’s proceedings. A new cloth is made fast round his horns, to be the prize of his captor, and he is then led out into the midst of the arena by his owner, and there left to himself surrounded by a throng of shouting and excited strangers.
Unaccustomed to this sort of treatment, and excited by the gestures of those who have undertaken to catch him, the bullock usually lowers his head at once, and charges wildly into the midst of the crowd, who nimbly run off on either side to make way for him. His speed being much greater than that of the men, he soon overtakes one of his enemies and makes at him to toss him savagely. Upon this the man drops on the sand like a stone, and the bullock, instead of goring him, leaps over his body, and rushes after another. The second man drops in his turn, and is passed like the first; and, after repeating this operation several times, the beast either succeeds in breaking the ring, and galloping off to his village, charging every person he meets on the way, or is at last caught and held by the most vigorous of his pursuers.
Strange as it may seem, the bullocks never by any chance toss or gore any one who throws himself down on their approach; and the only danger arises from their accidentally reaching unseen and unheard some one who remains standing.
After the first two or three animals have been let loose one after the other, two or three, or even half a dozen are let loose at a time, and the scene quickly becomes most exciting. The crowd sways violently to and fro in various directions in frantic efforts to escape being knocked over; the air is filled with shouts, screams, and laughter; and the bullocks thunder over the plain as fiercely as if blood and slaughter were their sole occupation. In this way perhaps two or three hundred animals are run in the course of a day, and, when all go home towards evening, a few cuts and bruises, borne with the utmost cheerfulness, are the only results of an amusement which requires great courage and agility on the part of the competitors for the prizes – that is for the cloths and other things tied to the bullocks’ horns – and not a little on the part of the mere bystanders. The only time I saw this sport (from a place of safety) I was highly delighted with the entertainment, and no accident occurred to mar my pleasure. One man indeed was slightly wounded in the buttock, but he was quite able to walk, and seemed to be as happy as his friends.”
(From Edgar Thurston, Castes & Tribes of Southern India,Vol 5.)
This is concrete evidence to prove that jallikattu has been part of the long heritage of the country. One strong characteristic of life in India is the persistence of certain social institutions, the origins of which are lost in pre-history. Though the profile of these practices change, they retain their essential features. Jallikattu is one such precious heritage that has been preserved over millennia and our duty is to take this forward. Of course we should have rules and restrictions for the conduct of the event but Jallikattu should go on……’
Jallikkattu ,apart from having been a part of Sanatana Dharma as evidenced by the finding of Eru Thazhuvudhal’ the art of taming the Bull,Jallikkattu was initiated by Lord Krishna which was followed Spain and some Latin American countries.
The important place where the jallikkatu takes place is Alanganaalur,near madurai, Tamil Nadu, India.
The Bullfighting practice has been in vogue in many ancient cultures.
The bullfighting in Spain and Latin American countries is called corrida de toros.
Lord Krishna married a Pandyan princess, had a daughter through her, Pandya and gifted her 100 Yadava families as dowry.
The second group is the dairy lobby, which wants all native breeds to be eradicated. Events like jallikattu throw a spanner in their plans of creating commercial dairy farms with imported breeds just like in the West.
Beef exporters also benefit from a ban on jallikattu and other events. Farmers bring their cattle to be sold in weekly/monthly and annual shandies. Brokers will take the cattle from the farmers and hold them to be displayed to prospective buyers. Buyers fall into 3-4 categories: (1) The jallikattu enthusiast who will buy the bulls and male calves mostly; (2) Buyers of oxen for farming/transport; (3) Buyers of cows for breeding and household usage; (4) Beef traders who are mostly if not all agents of export companies and slaughter houses based in Kerala. They buy all cattle as they are only interested in meat.
When a ban on jallikattu is in place, the simple supply-demand equation gets skewed. There are no takers in the first category, which means the bulls will only sought by the fourth category i.e. beef traders. With no demand from jallikattu enthusiasts, the price of such prized bulls falls to rock bottom. By killing the market for bulls to be used in jallikattu, the animal rights activists are directly responsible for sending them to slaughter. There is a huge demand for Bos Indicus variety beef in the Gulf, Malaysia and Western countries. It is considered an exotic and healthy meat, just like country chicken.
How Jallikkattu is conducted?
The fist misconception is that jallikattu has anything in common with the Spanish bullfight. The two are very different. The sport in India is not about baiting or injuring the bull but of “embracing the bull”.
Does it harm the bull?
It is said that cruelty is meted out to animals by giving them alcohol, prodding and twisting their tails etc, that organisers beat the bulls, stuffing something pungent in their nostrils, confine them in a dark, suffocating place in order to enrage them.
The reality is different. Amidst all the regulations and scrutiny, which bull owner will risk giving alcohol to the bulls? Glucose water is given to them for stamina. Out of the 10,000 instances of bulls let out a year, the anti-jallikattu activists have produced images/videos of may be 7-8 bulls where an offence might have taken place. They have the power to identify the owner and take action against him under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Each bull is registered with the authorities, with photographs as well as the owner’s information.
Every rule has an exception. We regulate to curtail the exceptions, but not to end the sport. The approach of the activists from day one has been to end jallikattu at any cost.
Are there other means of conserving the breeds?
Each breed has evolved over several millennia and in a distinct way. One method of breed conservation will not work in another area, with another breed. Every place in the world where indigenous people have lived with their livestock, there are celebratory showcase events post-harvest like kambala buffalo water racing in the Dakshin Kannada region, Ongole stone pulling in central and coastal Andhra, rekla races in western Tamil Nadu and Theni, bailgada in Maharashtra with the Killari breed. Each event has evolved locally and has stood the test of time. In-situ conservation is the best method for conserving any breed. The lifetime and health of the species is extended only due to such events.
How is the game played?
Bulls are brought to the arena the previous day and tied in coconut groves around the village. Fodder is brought along and water is provided by the host villagers. Sometimes fodder is also provided. A team of veterinarians, animal welfare officials inspect the bulls and give a medical certificate. Before the event starts, they are lined up in batches of 15 close to the rear side of the vaadi vaasal.
After the temple bull of the host village has left the arena, each bull is taken into the vaadi vaasal, where Animal Welfare officers are present. The nose rope of the bull is cut and the bull is free to run. Young bulls and untrained ones participating for the first few times hesitate to leave the vaadi and are prodded by their owners. It is not easy to move them as they weigh anywhere between 250-350 kilos. The experienced bulls (which have long memories) are familiar with jallikattu events and offer their head to the owners to cut the rope. They plan their exit from the vaadi vaasal and time their jump to avoid the players. These are intelligent animals and have evolved in this environment over millennia..
The sport consists of holding on to the hump of the bull and running along with it for a given distance usually about 20-30 meters which is covered in barely 10-20 seconds.
After leaving the arena, they go to a barricaded collection area of about 44,000 sq. ft. where experienced herders await the owners. Owners follow the bulls from the vaadi into the collection arena, this takes about 5-10 minutes. Once they enter, the herders help the owners rope in the bulls and take them out of the collection arena. 1-2 bulls will refuse to be roped and charge at everyone, some of them jump out of the collection area and make a run for it. Most of them head in the direction of their villages. There is the occasional injury due to the bulls not being roped. ‘
In November 1990 LIFE magazine published a photograph of a young man named David Kirby — his body wasted by AIDS, his gaze locked on something beyond this world — surrounded by anguished family members as he took his last breaths. The haunting image of Kirby on his death bed, taken by a journalism student named Therese Frare, quickly became the one photograph most powerfully identified with the HIV/AIDS epidemic that, by then, had seen millions of people infected (many of them unknowingly) around the globe.
More than two decades later, on National HIV Testing Day, LIFE.com shares the deeply moving story behind that picture, along with Frare’s own memories of those harrowing, transformative years.
“I started grad school at Ohio University in Athens in January 1990,” Frare told LIFE.com. “Right away, I began volunteering at the Pater Noster House, an AIDS hospice in Columbus. In March I started taking photos there and got to know the staff — and one volunteer, in particular, named Peta — who were caring for David and the other patients.”
David Kirby was born and raised in a small town in Ohio. A gay activist in the 1980s, he learned in the late Eighties — while he was living in California and estranged from his family — that he had contracted HIV. He got in touch with his parents and asked if he could come home; he wanted, he said, to die with his family around him. The Kirbys welcomed their son back.
Peta, for his part, was an extraordinary (and sometimes extraordinarily difficult) character. Born Patrick Church, Peta was “half-Native American and half-White,” Frare says, “a caregiver and a client at Pater Noster, a person who rode the line between genders and one of the most amazing people I’ve ever met.”
“On the day David died, I was visiting Peta,” Frare, who today lives and works in Seattle, told LIFE. “Some of the staff came in to get Peta so he could be with David, and he took me with him. I stayed outside David’s room, minding my own business, when David’s mom came out and told me that the family wanted me to photograph people saying their final goodbyes. I went in and stood quietly in the corner, barely moving, watching and photographing the scene. Afterwards I knew, I absolutely knew, that something truly incredible had unfolded in that room, right in front of me.”
“Early on,” Frare says of her time at Pater Noster House, “I asked David if he minded me taking pictures, and he said, ‘That’s fine, as long as it’s not for personal profit.’ To this day I don’t take any money for the picture. But David was an activist, and he wanted to get the word out there about how devastating AIDS was to families and communities. Honestly, I think he was a lot more in tune with how important these photos might become.”
Frare pauses, and laughs. “At the time, I was like, Besides, who’s going to see these pictures, anyway?“
Over the past 20 years, by some estimates, as many as one billion people have seen the now-iconic Frare photograph that appeared in LIFE, as it was reproduced in hundreds of newspaper, magazine and TV stories — all over the world — focusing on the photo itself and (increasingly) on the controversies that surrounded it.
Frare’s photograph of David’s family comforting him in the hour of his death earned accolades, including a World Press Photo Award, when published in LIFE, but it became positively notorious two years later when Benetton used a colorized version of the photo in a provocative ad campaign. Individuals and groups ranging from Roman Catholics (who felt the picture mocked classical imagery of Mary cradling Christ after his crucifixion) to AIDS activists (furious at what they saw as corporate exploitation of death in order to sell T-shirts) voiced outrage. England’s high-profile AIDS charity, the Terrence Higgins Trust, called for a ban of the ad, labeling it offensive and unethical, while powerhouse fashion magazines like Elle, Vogue and Marie Claire refused to run it. Calling for a boycott of Benetton, London’s Sunday Times argued that “the only way to stop this madness is to vote with our cash.”
“We never had any reservations about allowing Benetton to use Therese’s photograph in that ad,” David Kirby’s mother, Kay, told LIFE.com. “What I objected to was everybody who put their two cents in about how outrageous they thought it was, when nobody knew anything about us, or about David. My son more or less starved to death at the end,” she said, bluntly, describing one of the grisly side effects of the disease. “We just felt it was time that people saw the truth about AIDS, and if Benetton could help in that effort, fine. That ad was the last chance for people to see David — a marker, to show that he was once here, among us.”
David Kirby passed away in April 1990, at the age of 32, not long after Frare began shooting at the hospice. But in an odd and ultimately revelatory twist, it turned out that she spent much more time with Peta, who himself was HIV-positive while caring for David, than she did with David himself. She gained renown for her devastating, compassionate picture of one young man dying of AIDS, but the photographs she made after David Kirby’s death revealed an even more complex and compelling tale.
Frare photographed Peta over the course of two years, until he, too, died of AIDS in the fall of 1992.
“Peta was an incredible person,” Frare says. Twenty years on, the affection in her voice is palpable. “He was dealing with all sorts of dualities in his life — he was half-Native American and half-White, a caregiver and a client at Pater Noster, a person who rode the line between genders, all of that — but he was also very, very strong.”
As Peta’s health deteriorated in early 1992 — as his HIV-positive status transitioned to AIDS — the Kirbys began to care for him, in much the same way that Peta had cared for their son in the final months of his life. Peta had comforted David; spoken to him; held him; tried to relieve his pain and loneliness through simple human contact — and the Kirbys resolved to do the same for Peta, to be there for him as his strength and his vitality faded. http://life.time.com/history/behind-the-picture-the-photo-that-changed-the-face-of-aids/#ixzz20o9RuhYY