Hard to score brownie points in Jallikattu episode

Neither politicians nor fringe elements could steer the protest to serve their respective agendas

Jallikattu, the bull-taming sport celebrated during the festival of Pongal in a few districts in Tamil Nadu, has been a matter of disruptive politics for the past few years. The ruling All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), the Opposition Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and even the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the Centre have been looking to gain brownie points by demanding removal of the ban on Jallikattu and even a notification from the central government in 2016, for this.

The ban was imposed by an order of the Supreme Court — later reserved — on a plea by animal rights lovers that Jallikattu as a sport is cruel to the bull. But it was interpreted as an assault on the culture and traditions of Tamils. The protest against banning Jallikattu started in places such as Alanganallur in Madurai, a famous Jallikattu location, spread to other parts of the state. It was Chennai’s Marina Beach, where the assembly of protesters grew by leaps and bounds in a matter of a few hours.

The protest was non-violent and peaceful. The closest comparison was the anti-Hindi agitations of the 1930s and 1940s, but they were violent compared to the ones seeking to lift the ban on Jallikattu. Youngsters turned down the efforts of the established political parties and leaders to take over the movement. For instance, DMK leader M K Stalin went to address the students, but was not encouraged by the audience. DMK had to take their protest to the railway lines and other locations not to lose relevance. 

The protest came at a time when there was a vacuum of sorts in state politics. The death of AIADMK leader J Jayalalithaa almost six weeks ago left a hole in the party’s leadership that needed to be filled. Had Jayalalithaa been alive, the protest could not have been so large scale, comment many. With her demise, the party now has two political power centres: O Panneerselvam, who replaced her as chief minister; and V K Sasikala, who replaced her as the party general secretary. In the DMK, its president, M Karunanidhi, has been ailing for some time and his son Stalin has been appointed as working president to control the party. 

All of them, and the BJP, which has been looking for a break in the Dravidian politics of Tamil Nadu, looked to fill this vaccuum and secure their position in the politics of the state.

Panneerselvam acted swiftly by meeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi, an appointment that was sought by other state chief ministers but was granted to him immediately. He returned to Chennai within hours with an ordinance approved by the central government and the President of India. Political analysts say his moves so far as chief minister, including the way he handled the Jallikattu episode, have been impressive. The exception was the police action that followed on January 23 in Marina Beach, various parts of Chennai and other parts of the state.

With the ordinance being passed, Panneerselvam announced that he would inaugurate the Jallikattu event himself in Alanganallur. Observers saw in this a move on his part to take credit for resolving the issue peacefully and addressing the issues of Tamils. He had to return from Alanganallur empty-handed, however, as protesters refused to conduct Jallikattu and asked for a “permanent solution”. By that time, the movement that began as a non-political and peaceful agitation saw fringe elements and Tamil nationalists hijacking the protest and the police, till then a spectator to the protests, had to use force to disperse the mob. Chennai went through chaos unprecedented in the last 30 years.

“In the first few days, the protest had no leader and the protesters organised themselves well with discipline. Those who came up later as leaders had their own agenda,” said political analyst Sumanth C Raman.

Gnani Sankaran, a writer and political analyst, wondered whether the chaos at Marina was instigated to undermine the chief ministership of Panneerselvam.

Political analysts also said the government was keen to address the issue before a proper leader could emerge from the protest, similar to what happened in Delhi, where the anti-corruption protest lead to the emergence of Arvind Kejriwal as a leader challenging established political parties.

The chances of the re-emergence of such a protest are low, considering there is no leader or organisation to unite protesters. But this much is clear: Whoever organised or instigated the protests as a means to challenge the leadership of Panneersel-vam has not met with full success.