Kerala: Mammoth debate on tuskers

Thiruvananthapuram: Kamal Hassan, by subtly charging Kerala with cruelty towards elephants when the ‘jallikattu’ agitation was at its peak, has reopened a debate that was first triggered when the Ministry of Environment and Forests exempted elephants used for religious purposes from Performing Animal rules in 2015: Is an elephant procession part of culture or is it entertainment?  Elephant owners argue that it is a religio-cultural ritual. Animal activists, on the other hand, say the elephant spectacle of a Thrissur Pooram is as culturally rooted as the cinematic dance performances staged during temple festivals across the state. Kamal Hassan had hinted at the fireworks and the infuriating sounds that elephants are subjected to during festivals in the state.

In 2015, the Animal Welfare Board of India had insisted that only those elephants registered under the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules should be employed for that year’s Thrissur Pooram. This had caused strong resentment among the faithful and the MoEF’s inspector general of forests, citing clause 2(h) of the Rules, stated that elephants used for religious festivals need not take registration. The clause defines ‘performing animal’ as an animal which is used at or for the purpose of any entertainment including a film or an equine event to which the public are admitted. State Animal Welfare Board member M N Jayachandran said that the parade of elephants during Thrissur Pooram was not part of the region’s culture. “The Vadakkunnathan Temple where the pooram plays out is said to be more than 1300 years old. But the pooram is only a little more than 200 years old. It began only in 1798, during the period of Sakthan Thampuram,” he said.

Heritage Animal Task Force secretary V K Venkitachalam said that the IGF’s letter was legally untenable. “Such an interpretation of clause 2 (h) of the Rules is not the duty of the IG of MoEF. As the Principle Secretary of MoEF is one of the respondents of this case, the IG has no legal authority to express any of his opinion,” Venkitachalam said.  The Supreme Court, while banning ‘jallikkattu’ in Tamil Nadu in its 2014 order, had undermined the ‘culture’ argument. “The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has been enacted with an object to safeguard the welfare of the animals and evidently to cure some mischief and age-old practices,” the court had said.