Supreme Court allows Jallikattu but under supervision
CNN IBN reports. I would wait for a more reliable source to verify. But this is not bad. I might even hold back my suit.
- About
- Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan is a copywriter, a photographer, a goof ball and lives in Chennai.
- +919884467463
- chandrachoodan@gmail.com
- Syndicate:
RSS/XML-
- More options coming soon, but first, I need a cup of coffee.
- Links:
- Archives:
- Categories:
- Bling:
- Meta:
- Login
- RSS
- Comments RSS
- Valid XHTML
- XFN
- WP
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Finally, sanity prevails. And it’s sickening to see a bunch of morons comparing the stupid bull fight in Spain to our jallikattu, without knowing that they cannot be compared in the same context.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Hmmm… of course, in the Spanish version, the bulls are being speared and bled all through the fight.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Will there be a Jallikattu World Cup at some point of time? :p
January 17th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
I wouldn’t mind paying money to see that event, Hari.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Jallikattu is man versus bull, but the Tamil Nadu Government has made it a “Communalism versus Secularism issue”. there are Supreme Court judicial pronouncements wherein it has considered whether traditional practices are matters of religion or integral and essential part of the religion and religious practice. Religion is an indicator of culture, but the State has many times used religion to further its nefarious vested interests. In this case also, the State has evoked the religious sentiments of the people to promote a barbaric sport. This sport is dangerous to the health of the animals and human beings- the participants as well as the spectators. The order by Supreme Court revoking the ban mentions that the State has submitted that the district administration shall take necessary steps for the safety of the participants and the spectators. Is an injured spectator or participant spectator entitled to any compensation by the State or will the State cling to volenti non fit injuria?