Jallikattu

SC Reserves Verdict on Batch of Pleas Against Bull-Taming Sport Jallikattu

A five-judge bench said it cannot hold provisions in the Tamil Nadu law that allow Jallikattu as “bad in law” based on photos presented by the petitioners who moved the court for the law to be set aside.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday, December 8, reserved its judgment on a batch of pleas challenging Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra laws allowing bull-taming sport ‘Jallikattu’ and bullock cart races.

During the hearing, the court said it will be a “very dangerous situation” if the court made an impression based on photographs placed before it by some petitioners to depict alleged cruelty to bulls.

Jallikattu, also known as eruthazhuvuthal, is a bull-taming sport played in Tamil Nadu as part of the Pongal harvest festival.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice K.M. Joseph said it cannot hold that the provision enacted in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960 by a state amendment with the assent of the President is “bad in law” because the photographs say so.

“If we go on making an impression based on the photographs, it will be a very dangerous situation for us,” observed the bench, also comprising justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar.

“Can we say, or can we record any finding based on these photographs that the legislation is bad? Can we draw any impression based on these photographs which you have showed to us?” the bench asked.

The apex court’s observation came after senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for some of the petitioners, referred to news reports and photographs to argue about cruelty to the bulls in the game.

Divan also referred to media reports about deaths and injuries caused to humans as well as bulls which have taken place in several districts during Jallikattu.

He said contrary to the arguments advanced by Tamil Nadu, several tamers pounce on a bull in this event. “I am pointing out extreme cruelty,” he said.

Courtroom exchange

During the arguments, which will continue on Thursday, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, and several other counsel representing the intervenors advanced their submissions.

The bench asked Rohatgi about the argument advanced by the counsel for one of the petitioners about human lives being lost and injuries being caused.

“With great respect, in every field of activity, people lose their lives. You are driving on a road, you may not be driving rashly. Somebody else does something. Somebody may die. Some truck may overturn. Some building may fall. Some bridge may fall,” Rohatgi said.

The bench said, in the context of Jallikattu, the government was enabling such a thing to happen.

“The state is permitting it to happen. What is more, the state is actively promoting it,” the court said.

Rohatgi retorted: “There also the state is promoting people to drive at 100 miles an hour if you go from here to Agra. They have made a road. The minister says, drive at 120 (km) an hour, it is a great road. It is the state which has done all this. At the end of the day, it is not as if that millions of people are going to be killed like a famine.”

File image of the Jallikattu sport.

To petitioners’ contention that the Supreme Court set aside the Tamil Nadu law following its earlier verdict in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors. (2014), Rohatgi said:

“With regard to Nagaraja, it is my submission that Nagaraja does not lay down correct law… And I submit that the judgment proceeds on the premise that they have rights, animals have rights, because humans have duties. If humans have duties, animals have rights and those rights are under 3 and 11 (of the 1960 Act) and those rights have to be protected. This is the basis of that judgment. I submit that there is no warrant, either in our Constitution or in this Act, to say that the duties on humans lead to corresponding rights of animals…,” Rohatgi argued, according to LiveLaw.

Earlier, on Tuesday, December 8, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, was pointedly asked by the bench whether ownership of an animal justified cruelty shown to it, according to The Hindu.

To this, Dwivedi asked in return how killing an animal for food was not considered cruelty in the law. “It is not that we will not survive without mutton or fish. Vegans do,” Dwivedi argued, according to the news report.

He then went on to indicate that by killing for food, the Act acknowledged that there are certain prevalent cultures where meat is a traditional part of the diet. Various factors like climate, environment and habits have defined such cultures. Therefore, he said, a law cannot be brought in “suddenly to stop a long-prevailing habit”.

Therefore, extending the logic, Dwivedi had said Jallikattu is an ancient game of Tamil Nadu with inherent rules, and all necessary regulations are in place to ensure that no unnecessary pain is inflicted on animals.

Other laws under litigation

The bench also heard arguments on the challenge to the validity of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment) Act 2017 which allowed buffalo race “Kambala” in the state.

The race, held between November and March, involves a pair of buffaloes tied to a plough and anchored by one person. They are made to run in parallel muddy tracks in a competition in which the fastest team wins.

It is believed to be held to propitiate the Gods for a good harvest, besides being a recreational sport for farmers.

Some of the petitioners had argued before the apex court that when the law prohibits cruelty to animals there cannot be an amending Act which perpetuates cruelty.

In its written submissions filed last month in the apex court, the Tamil Nadu government has said Jallikattu is a religious and cultural festival that bears a “religious significance” to the people of the state and does not violate the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960.

The apex court is hearing arguments on a batch of petitions against the Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra laws allowing Jallikattu and bullock-cart races.

The top court had, in its 2014 judgment, said bulls cannot be used as performing animals either for Jallikattu events or bullock-cart races, and banned their use for these purposes across the country.

It had earlier dismissed the Tamil Nadu government’s plea seeking a review of its 2014 judgment banning the use of bulls for Jallikattu in the state and bullock-cart races across India.

Tamil Nadu had amended the central law — The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — and allowed Jallikattu in the southern state.

In its written submission filed in the apex court last month, the Tamil Nadu government said Jallikattu” is not merely an act of entertainment or amusement but an event with great historic, cultural and religious value.

“Jallikattu not only preserves the cultural and traditional heritage, the cause of conservation of a native breed of cattle is also addressed by the continuous conduct of these events,” it has said.

The apex court is considering five questions referred to it by a two-judge bench of the top court in February 2018.

Referring the issue to the five-judge bench, the apex court had said the petitions challenging the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 need to be decided by a larger bench since those involve substantial questions related to the interpretation of the Constitution.

(With PTI inputs)

‘Jallikattu Doesn’t Violate Principles of Compassion, Humanism’: TN Govt Tells SC

The government’s submission to the apex court comes amidst the expectation that a constitution bench would hear a batch of petitions later this week seeking the quashing of laws that offer legal protection to the sport.

New Delhi: Describing Jallikattu, the popular bull-taming sport, as a religious and cultural event, the Tamil Nadu government told the Supreme Court that it “does not violate the principles of compassion and humanism”.

The state government’s submission to the apex court comes amidst the expectation that a constitution bench would hear a batch of petitions later this week seeking the quashing of Tamil Nadu laws that offer legal protection to the sport.

Tamil Nadu enacted the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017 to override the ban imposed on the sport in 2014 by the Supreme Court. The laws were framed based on Article 29(1) of the Indian constitution, which provides any section of the citizens residing in India having a distinct culture, language, or script, the right to conserve their culture, language and script.

The sport was banned between 2014 and 2016 due to the Supreme Court’s order. After the laws passed by the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly in 2017 lifted the ban on the sport, several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court. The petitions were referred to the Constitution Bench in February 2018, which are expected to come up for hearing later this week.

The state of Tamil Nadu continues to maintain that it is the right of the people to “preserve their traditions and culture”.

“A practice which is centuries-old and symbolic of a community’s identity can be regulated and reformed as the human race evolves rather than being completely obliterated. It will be viewed as hostile to culture and against the sensitivities of the community. The people of Tamil Nadu have a right to preserve their traditions and culture,” the Tamil Nadu government told the court, according to The Hindu.

It also argued that Jallikattu should be “seen as a tool for conserving this precious indigenous breed of livestock”.

“Jallikattu does not violate the principles of compassion and humanism… The traditional and cultural significance of Jallikattu and its intertwining with the sociocultural milieu is taught in the high school curriculum so that the significance is maintained beyond generations,” the government said in writing, according to The Hindu.

The government also sought to explain the historicity involved. “Jallikattu traces its origin to the Indus Valley civilisation drawing a huge crowd. There are terracotta tablets that depict the celebration of Jallikattu. The event is conducted during the Pongal festival as a token of gratitude for a good harvest,” the government said, according to New Indian Express.

Teenager Gored By Bull at Jallikattu Event in Tamil Nadu

“The teenager Balamurugan from Madurai was gored in the chest by a bull, said police. He was rushed to the Government Rajaji Hospital where he was declared as brought dead by the doctors,” a senior police official said.

Madurai: An 18-year-old spectator was fatally gored by a raging bull at the Avaniyapuram Jallikattu on Friday. The popular bull- taming competition held on Pongal day in the district left about 59 people, including tamers, bull owners and spectators injured.

“The day-long traditional sport, which concluded at about 5:10 pm, saw Karthik from Avaniyapuram emerging on top by taming 24 bulls. I wish I had tamed a couple more to cross the quarter- century mark,” an exalted Karthik said. Last year, he tamed 16 bulls. He lifted the trophy as the best tamer for this season and won a car.

Bull-tamers Murugan and Bharat Kumar of Madurai, who overpowered 19 and 11 bulls respectively won the second and third prize. Not just the tamers, animals also won prizes. The bull belonging to Devasagayam of Manapparai was adjudged the best bull as none succeeded in taming him. The one belonging Ramu of Avaniyapuram and another bull owned by Pratish of Avaniyapuram were adjudged the second and third best respectively.

Nearly 641 bulls stormed into the arena at Avaniyapuram on Friday, signalling the commencement of the Jallikattu competitions during the Pongal (harvest) festival in the district.

Also read: More than Reclaiming a Rural Sport, the Jallikattu Protest is Symbol of Tamil Self-Assertion

As the bulls rushed from the ‘vaadivasal’ (entry point), a number of youth swarmed around them hoping to clasp their arms around the animal’s hump and ride to victory in the bull-taming competition.

Many participants made unsuccessful attempts to get a firm grip of the hump but the bulls shrugged them off and darted forward. Few men pounced from the side of the animal and clung to the hump till the finishing point.

This district would witness this traditional sport at Palamedu on Saturday and culminate with the grand finale at Alanganallur on January 17. The event at Alanganallur, a world famous one, is being held on Monday instead of January 16 as a complete lockdown has been imposed in view of the rise in number of COVID-19 cases in the State.

Though the events are held in other parts of Tamil Nadu, the three successive Jallikattu events in the district are major attractions every year.

The event at Avaniyapuram commenced at around 7:30 am today. Nearly 300 bull tamers participated in the sport being held with stringent COVID-19 safety precautions and a strong security arrangement by the police. The number of spectators was restricted to 150 owing to the coronavirus pandemic.

At the end of seventh round, about 59 tamers, bull owners and spectators sustained minor injuries, said police. A medical team present at the venue attended to them.

Earlier, a medical team from the Animal Husbandry Department examined the bulls to ascertain if they were fit to participate in the event.

Several sponsors offered attractive prizes such as a two-wheeler, TV, gold coins, mixer, grinder and cooking vessels to encourage the participants.

Commercial taxes minister P Moorthy and finance minister P T R Palanivel Thiagarajan flagged off the Jallikattu in the presence of Madurai district collector S Aneesh Sekhar.

(PTI)

SC Permits Resumption of Bullock Cart Race In Maharashtra

The SC was hearing a plea filed by Maharashtra which had sought that a ban on bullock cart race in the state should be lifted as the same is going on in states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the resumption of bullock cart race in Maharashtra, which has been prohibited in the state since 2017.

The apex court observed that validity of the amended provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the rules framed by Maharashtra, which provided for bullock cart race in the state, would operate during the pendency of the petitions as the entire matter has been referred to a constitution bench.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar noted that no interim relief was granted earlier by the top court on the petitions challenging the validity of similar state amendment of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka where such races are going on.

“Same dispensation must apply to the amended provisions as applicable to the state of Maharashtra, which are similar to the amendment carried out in the other two states,” said the bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar.

The apex court was hearing an application filed by the Maharashtra government which had sought that a ban on bullock cart race in the state should be lifted as the same is going on in states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

The Maharashtra government had said that there is a prohibition on bullock cart race in the state as the Bombay high court, in its interim order, had refused to lift the ban in 2017, while there is no stay on the Acts concerned of the other two states.

In its order, the bench observed that the pleas challenging the validity of the state amendment of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in this regard were fully heard by the apex court earlier and the issue was later referred to a constitution bench, but no interim relief was granted by the court.

“The validity of the amended provision of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the rules framed there under by the state of Maharashtra would operate during the pendency of the writ petition, as the entire matter has been referred to the constitution bench, including to consider the question as to whether the similar amended Act of the state of Tamil Nadu overcomes the defects pointed out in the two judgements of this court,” the bench said.

The top court said that this matter be heard along with the petitions pertaining to the states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

It said that prayer for interim reliefs in the petition stand answered and need not be renewed before the top court unless there is change in circumstance.

Also read: More than Reclaiming a Rural Sport, the Jallikattu Protest is Symbol of Tamil Self-Assertion

“It will be open to the parties to request the Chief Justice for listing of the main matters referred to the constitution bench,” it said.

During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Maharashtra, told the bench that in 2017 Maharashtra had come with amendments to permit bullock cart race.

He said the rules were challenged in the high court which had stayed the operation of the rules by which the state wanted to hold bullock cart race under strict regulations.

Rohatgi said similar amendments were done in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka and when the matter came to the apex court, no bar was put on such race in those two states.

He said Maharashtra should be allowed to conduct bullock cart races in accordance with the 2017 rules.

While arguing the matter on Wednesday, Rohatgi had referred to an earlier order of the apex court, which had referred the pleas related to ‘Jallikattu’ to a five-judge constitution bench which would decide if the bull-taming sport fell under cultural rights or perpetuated cruelty to animals.

Jallikattu, also known as ‘eruthazhuvuthal‘, is a bull-taming sport played in Tamil Nadu as part of the Pongal harvest festival.

One of the advocates appearing in the matter had earlier told the apex court that bullock cart race was banned in Maharashtra on the grounds of cruelty to the animal.

(PTI)

Though Well-Intentioned, Courts’ Recognition of Rights for Animals Is Legally Problematic

In a landmark verdict, the Delhi high court recently held that animals have a right under law to be treated with dignity, throwing up some complex legal implications.

In what is being hailed as a landmark judgment in the field of animal law, the Delhi high court recently held that animals have a right under law to be treated with compassion, respect and dignity. It further held that community dogs (also referred to as stray or street dogs) have a right to food, and citizens have the right to feed them.

The high court qualified this statement by saying that in exercising this right, care and caution should be taken to ensure that it does not impinge upon the rights of others or cause any harm, hindrance, harassment and nuisance to other individuals or members of society. The court went on to issue guidelines for the welfare of stray dogs and even constituted an implementation committee to monitor compliance with its judgment.

The judgment, though well-meaning, raises certain important issues for our consideration. On one hand is the challenge of implementation, while on the other is the concern about judicial overreach, especially in cases involving the legal status of animals.

Vagueness of the verdict

The hallmark of any judgment is its capacity to be implemented. A judgment which is a statement of what the law ought to be, instead of the law as it stands, is bound to be difficult to implement. On the implementation front, it is evident to a lay reader that words like “harm, hindrance, harassment and nuisance” are extremely vague terms.

For instance, even when a caregiver is feeding community dogs at the spot designated by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) in consultation with the resident welfare association concerned or municipal corporation (as required by the judgment), it is very easy for other people in the area to argue that the said act is causing a nuisance to them. This kind of phraseology gives a lot of discretion to the implementing authorities like the police, defeating the purpose of laying down the guidelines in the first place.

Conflating fundamental duties and rights

A lack of discussion in the judgment on how the conclusions have been arrived at makes analysis of its reasoning very difficult. However, what is evident is that the judgment makes the mistake of equating fundamental duties with rights.

The judgment does not specifically explain how it concludes that citizens have a right to feed community dogs. However, by mentioning the fundamental duty of having compassion towards living creatures, it seems to suggest that the existence of a fundamental duty confers a right on the citizens to perform that duty. This is a problematic position to take, because, in the constitutional scheme of things, fundamental duties are just that – duties. Equating them with rights sets a dangerous precedent.

Street dogs lie on a road. Representative image. Photo: Ruben Swieringa/Flickr CC BY NC ND 2.0

Reliance on controversial precedents

The second concern that emanates from this judgment is its reliance on controversial precedents. The Delhi high court judgment relies on the much-criticised Supreme Court judgment in the Jalikattu case (2014), where the apex court held that animals have a right to life under the Indian constitution. This judgment has been contentious because the scheme of fundamental rights under the Indian constitution does not envisage the extension of these rights to animals. The high court also relied on a Uttarakhand high court judgment (2018) that granted legal personhood to all animals.

The fact remains that under Indian laws, animals are relegated to the status of property. Even welfare legislation like the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is based on the idea of ownership of animals.

To the limited extent that the Indian constitution deals with animals, it views them through the lens of a welfare-based framework rather than a rights-based one. The idea is not to vest animals with rights, but to vest humans with the duty to protect animals.

The problem with granting animals “rights”

Conferring rights on animals without any legislative backing leads to a situation where the only sources of these rights are these judgments. Consequently, an important issue of whether animals can have rights or not boils down to an individual judge’s interpretation of what the law should be and her predilections towards the issue.

For instance, three landmark judgments dealing with animals – banning of animal sacrifice in Himachal Pradesh (2014) and granting of legal personhood to animals in Uttarakhand (2018) and Haryana (2019) – have been authored by a single judge. The danger with this approach is that a larger bench can subsequently overrule these judgments, reverting to the status quo ante.

Any change in the legal status of animals will have to come from the legislature and the judiciary’s well-intentioned enthusiasm only complicates this important issue. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law and to make it is beyond the scope of its powers.

Apoorva is a research fellow with Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

India’s Official Entry ‘Jallikattu’ Fails to Make it to Oscars 2021 Shortlist

No Indian film has ever won an Oscar. The last Indian film that made it to the final five in the Best International Feature category was Ashutosh Gowariker’s Lagaan in 2001

New Delhi: Filmmaker Lijo Jose Pellissery’s Jallikattu, India’s official entry in the Best International Feature category at the 93rd Academy Awards, is out of the Oscars race.

The Malayalam-language movie is not part of the shortlist of 15 features that will be vying for a spot in the final five, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) announced on Wednesday.

Thomas Vinterberg’s Another Round, starring Mads Mikkelson, has made it to shortlist that also include Andrei Konchalovsky’s Dear Comrades! (Russia), Agnieszka Holland’s Charlatan (Czech Republic) and two documentaries – The Mole Agent from Chile and Collective from Romania.

The other contenders are Quo Vadis, Aida? (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Two of Us (France), La Llorona (Guatemala), Better Days (Hong Kong), Sun Children (Iran), Night of the Kings (Ivory Coast), I’m No Longer Here (Mexico), Hope (Norway), A Sun (Taiwan) and The Man Who Sold His Skin (Tunisia).

Films from 93 countries were eligible in the category.

In the nominations round, Academy members from all branches are invited to opt-in to participate and must view all 15 shortlisted films in order to cast a ballot.

The final nominations for the Oscars will be announced on March 15.

Pellissery’s Jallikattu is based on the short story Maoist by Hareesh and stars Antony Varghese, Chemban Vinod Jose, Sabumon Abdusamad and Santhy Balachandran.

The film had its premiere on September 6, 2019, at the 2019 Toronto International Film Festival and received widespread critical acclaim.

Pellissery had also won the best director trophy at the 50th International Film Festival of India in 2019.

No Indian film has ever won an Oscar. The last Indian film that made it to the final five in the Best International Feature category was Ashutosh Gowariker’s Lagaan in 2001.

Mother India (1958) and Salaam Bombay (1989) are the other two Indian movies to have made it to the top five.

In 2019, Zoya Akhtar’s Gully Boy, starring Ranveer Singh and Alia Bhatt, was India’s entry to the Oscars.

The 93rd Academy Awards, which were postponed from their usual February date due to the coronavirus pandemic, will be held on April 25.

(PTI)

Tamil Nadu Allows Jallikattu With COVID-19 Restrictions

A detailed Standard Operating Procedure for the conduct of the sport in January 2021 would be issued separately, the government said.

Chennai: Jallikattu, the popular bull-taming sport in Tamil Nadu, could be held next month by following the guidelines imposed in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government said on Wednesday.

A maximum of 300 participants would only be allowed for Jallikattu and 150 for Erudhu Vidum Nigazhchi, another variety of the sport.

Spectators shall be subjected to thermal scanning before entry into the open spaces earmarked for the events and they must follow requisite social distancing and wear masks, the official governmental release stated.

The participants should necessarily possess a COVID-19 negative certificate from government authorised labs. There are 235 COVID-19 laboratories in Tamil Nadu.

A detailed Standard Operating Procedure for the conduct of the sport in January 2021 would be issued separately, the government said.

The sport is traditionally held coinciding with Pongal, the harvest festival in the Tamil month of Thai in January. Alanganallur and Palamedu are among the regions in Tamil Nadu that have been hosting the events for ages.

‘Jallikattu’: Study of a Frenzied Mob Hunting a Solitary Beast Allows us Our Own Interpretations

The Indian nominee for the Oscars scores on film-making, but will it impress the Academy?

A forest in a village in Kerala. Loud sounds of ticking clock. A knife sharpened; a knife hammered. A bull dies. Blood flows. Meat hung in a meat shop. Meat sliced; meat sold. People ambling towards the butcher. Swinging polythene bags on their way back. Minimal dialogues, quick cuts. Different people starting their day: guzzling, shouting, haggling. Next day, same routine; the day after, same — and on and on — and on and on. One morning, the bull escapes, and the villagers lose their minds, leaving the audience with an obvious question: Who is the real animal here?

Jallikattu, India’s entry for the 93rd Academy Awards, unfolds over a day and night, but tells a timeless tale. Based on a short story by S. Hareesh, Maoist, Lijo Jose Pellissery’s adaptation is a slim, crafty piece: it reveals and revels; it withholds and withdraws. On the surface lies a story both simple and deceptive: a village versus a bull. The filmmaker isn’t interested in a conventional telling — Jallikattu doesn’t have a protagonist; subplots appear and fade; and people change their nature like a bouncing Roulette ball: the same person is a creep, a crook, a killer. The only thing constant is chaos — and the bloodlust of a mob.

Pellissery relishes such situations. He has a special fondness for directionless rogues: angsty men craving a fight; lungis rolled over their knees, beedis in their fingers, cuss words on their lips — low-lives high on arrack. This isn’t an account of individuals as much as of the crowd — time and again, people collect in a group, and a small part of the story opens up.

But despite its episodic nature, Jallikattu sustains interest. The clever cutting helps (editor Deepu Joseph), so does the sharp writing (screenwriter R Jayakumar) — there’s appropriate amount of backstory, the opportune inclusion of characters, and the sly slipping in of themes. Unlike the bull, the film deceives the audiences in believing that it is always in control. And like a good fictional piece, Jallikattu leaves enough voids for our own interpretations.

Also read: To Tame and Not Be Tamed: Photoessay on Jallikattu

A crucial character Kuttachan (Sabumon Abdusamad), for instance, enters the story at the right time, escalating our interest and establishing a mini hero-villain tussle. He was once arrested for smuggling sandalwood; his friend Antony (Antony Varghese) ratted on him. They had fallen for the same woman (Santhy Balachandran), and Antony removed him like a thorn from flesh. When the villagers found out about Kuttachan’s thievery, they pummeled and banished him — a similar fate awaits the errant bull, too, who is an outsider to this land. In his past life, then, Kuttachan was no less than a bull: a target of collective scorn. So, it’s ironic that the same Kuttachan has now been called to hunt the beast — an outsider battling an outsider. Another man, the only person speaking Hindi in this Malayalam drama, has the status of a sidekick: Antony bullies and berates him.

A still from ‘Jallikattu’.

The film teases us further, adding a new layer: Who owns this land? The animals did — this village was a jungle, says an old man telling a story from his father’s childhood. The question of natives and outsiders, as a result, turns on its head. At a crucial point, when the mob has managed to restrain the bull, it starts to rain; the tied rope slips, and the bull escapes once more. Jallikattu then becomes a story of man versus nature. There’s also a reference to Naxalites early in the film, and the source material’s title is a further hint.

The film has been made in such a politically charged climate that another interpretation simply leaps at us. The aggressors are human beings, a majoritarian group. The victim, an animal, a minority. The former chases the latter with animalistic fervour — each person more eager than the other to be the main murderer. The police are involved, too; everyone knows that there’ll be no repercussions — in fact, killing will be rewarded. The victim, on the other hand, is targeted for its very nature. It can only run, not hide — no amount of conversation or negotiation will change the mob’s mind. What does this sound like: hunting or lynching?

Pellissery’s drama is about feral, unhinged men, contemplating the perils of such communal masculinity. Its characters are in a state of constant agitation: fights break out on streets for the flimsiest of reasons; collars are pulled, slaps are thrown, a jeep is burned. The form complements its material, heightening dread and anxiety.

A still from the movie ‘Jallikattu’. Photo: Twitter/@aswanthbabu15

Cinematographer Girish Gangadharan shoots some memorable images, where man-versus-man, man-versus-beast, and nature-with-nature unfurl in a splendid sweep: long shots of villagers darting through trees with blazing torches; a rotating point-of-view shot of a bull trapped in a well, whose rim is lined by numerous flashlights. The background score by Prashant Pillai, a stunning piece on its own, underlines the communal carnivorous feel: a desperate clap, a collective roar, an intimidating chant.

The actors are impressive throughout — the performances have occasional drops of humour, incessant splashes of anger and resentment — especially Varghese and Abdusamad, who share terrific chemistry as arch nemeses. The only disappointment is the bull — its CG rendition seems a sterile, planted presence, lacking the untrammelled beastly qualities that inspire fear and awe.

At any other time of the year, Jallikattu would have been a smart solid film. But now, representing the country at the Oscars, the questions surrounding it are different: It could be a good film, sure, but how good? Will it make it? I have my doubts. Even beyond the budgetary considerations, crucial to Oscar campaigns, Jallikattu will probably not feature in the longlist. Unlike the recent official selections, such as Court (2015) and Visaranai (2016), Jallikattu lacks expansive ambition, stirring poignancy, and stunning subversions that can jolt the Academy jury. But whether a film wins or not, it remains the same film, and the Indian audiences don’t need a foreign award to know that they’ve seen an impressive piece: one that tells a story both local and national, and whose humane concerns feel all the more urgent in a country turning increasingly barbaric.

Jallikattu is streaming on Amazon Prime Video.

Malayalam Film ‘Jallikattu’ Is India’s Official Oscar Entry

Directed by Lijo Jose Pellissery, Jallikattu is about a tribe of men coming together to stop a bull that has run amok in their village.

New Delhi Malayalam feature Jallikattu, directed by Lijo Jose Pellissery, has been selected as India’s official entry for the International Feature Film category at the 93rd Academy Awards, the Film Federation of India (FFI) announced on Wednesday.

Jallikattu, which was unanimously chosen from 27 entries across Hindi, Marathi and other languages, is about a tribe of men coming together to stop a bull that has run amok in their village.

“There were a total of 27 films that had entered the race from Hindi, Malayalam and Marathi. The film which has been nominated by the jury to represent India at Oscars is Malayalam film Jallikattu,” said Rahul Rawail, chairman, jury board, Film Federation of India in an online press conference.

“It is a film that really brings out the raw problems which are there in human beings, that is we are worse than animals,” he added.

The film, which derives its name from the popular-yet-controversial bull-taming event from the south, is based on a short story by Hareesh. It features actors Antony Varghese, Chemban Vinod Jose, Sabumon Abdusamad and Santhy Balachandran.

Among the films that were considered by the jury included titles such as Chhapaak, Shakuntala Devi, Chhalaang, Gulabo Sitabo, Eeb Allay Ooo!, The Sky is Pink, Bulbbul and the internationally-celebrated feature The Disciple.

Calling Pellissery a “very competent director”, who is known for several critically acclaimed films like Angamaly Diaries and Ea Ma Yau, Rawail said Jallikattu is a production that country should be proud of.

Also read: Jallikattu Is Nothing but Animal Abuse and Machismo, Packaged as Tamil Culture and Tradition

“The whole film talks about an animal that has run amok in a butcher’s shop… The film has been depicted wonderfully and it has been shot very well. The emotion that comes out really moved all of us to have it selected,” the chairman said.

Jallikattu had its premiere on September 2019 at the Toronto International Film Festival and received widespread critical acclaim. The movie was particularly praised for Pellissery’s spectacular directing effort, ably supported by Girish Gangadharan’s cinematography and Renganaath Ravee’s wild sound design work.

Pellissery also won the best director trophy at the 50th International Film Festival of India last year.

In 2019, Zoya Akhtar’s Gully Boy, starring Ranveer Singh and Alia Bhatt, was India’s official entry to the Oscars, but the film did not get shortlisted for nominations.

The last Indian film to get nominated in the category, earlier known as the Best Foreign Language Film, was Lagaan in 2002.

In the last few years, films like Village Rockstars, Newton, Court, Visaranai, Barfi, Indian, Peepli Live among others have been submitted for nominations, Indian Express said in a report.

The 2021 Academy Awards will be held on April 25 instead of the usual second Sunday of February.

(With inputs from PTI)

Jalllikattu Begins in Madurai, 62 Men Injured

As many as 397 bulls of the total 641 that entered the arena could not be dominated by tamers and these animals emerged successful.

Madurai: ‘Jallikattu,’ the annual bull taming event slated to be held in several parts of Tamil Nadu began on Wednesday, the Pongal day. As many as 641 bulls and 607 tamers took part.

As many as 397 bulls of the total 641 that entered the arena could not be dominated by tamers and these animals emerged successful, an official told PTI. “Don’t touch the horns,” “many men don’t chase one animal,” “allow the bull to go; it has won,” were among the instructions that reverberated in the arena for participants.

Also read: Jallikattu as an Opportunity to Improve How India Conserves Its Indigenous Cattle Breeds

The sporting arena was barricaded from the enclosures marked for spectators.

An official said medical examination of both the men and animals decided their participation. He said 62 men were injured, including 34 participants and 28 spectators, of whom eight were referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital.

However, no bull was injured, he added.

The event was held under the supervision of a panel, led by a retired judge.