RE: (IN) Divisive politics of animal welfare

[Guest guest]

All I can say is that it is a load of bull.....

 

The writer does not even know the name of the Act. Having known Rukmini Devi

personally for more than three decades, she would be the first to

acknowledge that

" the animal rights activist " from Philibit was responsible for creating more

awareness on animal welfare issues than she (Rukmini Devi) herself did.

 

For the first time, during Maneka's tenure as Minister, the major issues of

animals in entertainment and research received the importance they deserve.

 

The ill-informed writer obviously does not even know that the members of

the Board receive no remuneration and hence there is no question of it being

" an abode for stereotyped bureaucrats " .

 

Not surprisingly, there is hardly a statement in the entire article which is

correct.

 

S. Chinny Krishna

 

 

Diana Hartig [dhartig]

Monday, April 14, 2008 8:51 PM

aapn

(IN) Divisive politics of animal welfare

 

 

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=129337

 

 

 

Natteri Adigal, 14 April 2008, Monday

 

 

 

Politics is being played in the name of animal welfare and religion. The

animal welfare societies such as AWBI and PETA are now just used for

political purposes and not for the care and saving of the animals. These are

fast losing their credibility.

 

 

 

ANIMAL WELFARE Board of India (AWBI), started in 1962, was touted as the

first organisation established for animal welfare by any government in the

world. Although the central government established it by a legislative

enactment by the parliament under the provisions of SPCA (Society for the

prevention of cruelty to animals) Act, 1960, it was essentially promoted for

anti-cow slaughter advocacy. Its backdrop was the controversial

constitutional mandate and in pursuance of the recommendations of Datter

Singh Committee. The Directive Principle of State Policy provides for

protection to cow and its progeny by prohibiting slaughter of all milch

animals, which especially identified cows and calf. Interestingly, AWBI's

headquarters is not located in Delhi, or any of the cow belt States, where

beef eating is equated to cannibalism. It is in Chennai.

 

 

 

Considering that beef is very common in the southern parts of India as in

UK, particularly among Keralites, the choice of its headquarter would seem

ironic. That was due to the pioneering initiative of Bharatnatyam doyen

Rukmini Devi Arundale, wife of renowned theosophist Dr George Arundale, who

guided the activities of the Board. Rukmini Devi was the founder chairperson

of Kalakshetra, the internationally celebrated institution dedicated to fine

arts, founded in 1936. It was located at Adyar, Chennai. She clearly

understood the delineation between advocacy and arbitrary imposition.

 

 

 

After Rukmini Devi's demise, the organisation became another one of the

useless, non-performing arms of the central government, generating

dysfunctional jobs. It just acted as an abode for stereotyped bureaucrats

existing only to consume budget allocations. Four years after the dancer

died in 1986, the ministry of food and agriculture finally dissociated

itself from the Board in 1990; it was put under animal welfare division of

the ministry of environment and forests. (Incidentally, Kalakshetra too

started losing its sheen and virtually became a government body after it was

declared as an Institution of National importance in 1993).

 

 

 

Since more than two decades, AWBI has been reduced into a redundant

networking outfit in what essentially is a state subject, with no much

accountability. It doles out subsidies to numerous 'animal welfare

organisations' of dubious reputation, run by self-styled social workers. It

also provides a platform to socialites and page three personalities,

enabling them getting noticed. The last time AWBI made news was as a

spoilsport, trying to block the release of the Bollywood blockbuster Rang De

Basanti in January 2006.

 

 

 

The animal rights activist MP (currently in BJP) from Pilibhit and

paternal aunt of Congress heir apparent Rahul Gandhi, who has used the

outfit very cleverly, accused the producers UTV of not taking the necessary

permission from AWBI before filming animals in the movie. Earlier, other

films like Paheli and Taj Mahal came under the AWBI scanner for unauthorised

use of animals, earning some media coverage to the elitists. Incidentally,

the central government reconstituted the CPCSEA (Committee for the Purpose

of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals) in October 2006 and

subsumed the sub-committee of 2003 to avoid such nuisance.

 

 

 

Two years down the line, the animal right elitists have chosen to hog the

limelight again by acting spoilsport in Tamil Nadu. They have declared war

on a popular sport in vogue in rural Tamil Nadu since centuries named

'jallikattu' - taming of trained bulls. The Supreme Court has imposed in

response to a petition filed by the Animal Welfare Board a ban on

jallikattu, traditionally celebrated in the Tamil country during Pongal

festivities. Pongal is the main festival in this part of the country and the

annual event dates back to Pandiya dynasty of the third century, much before

the sport evolved in Spain.

 

 

 

Madras High Court had allowed the event to take place last year after

imposing certain conditions like double barricading, putting bulls through

drug and alcohol tests and stationing ambulances and mobile medical teams at

the venues. This year, animal rights activists appealed to SC for revocation

of the stay on the ban order, saying it amounts to animal cruelty and the

many men who take part in taming the bull also suffer severe injuries. With

due safety measures employed, there was no cruelty to the bulls and no

deaths but only injuries caused to the tamers at the main venues.

 

 

 

A day after the Supreme Court declined to vacate the stay order on

'jallikattu', elders of Alanganallur village, where the event is held on a

grand scale, attracting local and foreign tourists, resolved to observe

January 15, the day of Pongal, as a black day. Councilors Raja and

Veluthambi declared, " It's a ban even the kings had not imposed. we strongly

condemn it. We don't want to violate the court order. We will observe Pongal

Day as a black day and hoist black flags on that day. " They also decided not

to allow the government to celebrate the community Pongal festival in the

village to register their protest. Soorakudi village, another centre noted

for the sport, organised the event on January 11, in a clear defiance of the

court after the ban order. The state government has filed a review petition

to avoid the issue becoming a law and order problem. For, the public sees

the intervention of the apex court as a move at subjugation of Tamil

tradition at the whims of outsiders. Mindless bullying in the matter may

snowball into alienating Tamils forever.

 

 

 

The resentment among the people in Tamil Nadu against the unnecessary

imposition of other peoples' values is somewhat similar to what happened 40

years back. Leaders like GB Pant and Seth Govind Das were passionate about

kicking out 'colonial and foreign' English and making Hindi reign supreme

all over India. Tamil people considered these people to be Hindi fanatics.

When New Delhi tried to impose the language, the constitution was burnt at

several places on Republic Day. Violence exploded and almost divided the

country.

 

 

 

If India is to survive as one entity, it is necessary to first recognise

that it is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-lingual society to the

extent of being multi-national. It is dangerous to impose the opinions of

one section of people, whatever justification or clout they may have, on

other sections - particularly their traditional practices.

 

 

 

Any sensible being will agree that such values, albeit noble, cannot be

legislated and can only be propagated. Next, would there be a ban on kite

flying, which is known to maim and torture birds at large? Would eating dog

meat, a delicacy in Nagaland, become a crime? Will AWBI consider lacto

vegetarians (people who eat dairy products) as sinners, as People for the

Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) apparently believes? What about a ban on

fishing with primitive nets and entrapments, which elitists may consider

cruel?

 

 

 

It seems that the truth in what Winston Churchill had to say about

unnecessary invasion by authorities, whether legislative or judicial, in

traditional practices of a society, has been given the short shrift: " If you

have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. "