The state Assembly of Goa recently witnessed a strong demand from legislators across party lines to legalise bull fighting, locally known as dhirio or dhiri. This traditional sport is deeply embedded in Goan culture and has been practised for generations. Despite a ban imposed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in 1996 citing animal cruelty laws, bull fights continue clandestinely. The debate now centres on balancing cultural heritage with animal welfare concerns and exploring regulated legalisation.
Historical and Cultural Significance
Bull fighting in Goa dates back to the Portuguese era and is linked to agrarian traditions. It was commonly held after harvest seasons as a form of village entertainment. The event was part of church feasts and community gatherings. Unlike Spanish bullfighting, dhirio involves two bulls locking horns and fighting until one retreats or is pushed out. The bulls are carefully selected and trained. The fights were held in paddy fields or football grounds, attracting thousands including dignitaries. Bulls often had popular names and loyal fans, reflecting their social importance.
Nature of the Sport
Dhirio is a contest of strength between two bulls. They charge, head-butt and lock horns repeatedly. The fight ends when a bull flees or is pushed out. Unlike Spanish bullfighting, the animals are not killed as part of the event. However, injuries and fatalities do occur. Bulls can be seriously hurt or sometimes gored to death. Spectators have also suffered injuries from agitated bulls. The sport’s unpredictability adds to its excitement but raises safety and ethical concerns.
Legal Status and Enforcement
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, was invoked by the High Court in 1996 to ban bullfighting in Goa. The court directed the state to prohibit all animal fights including dhirio. Despite this, bullfights persist secretly, especially in coastal villages. Locations are shared privately on social media to evade police. Several cases have been registered against organisers under animal welfare laws. Recent incidents include the death of a bull and a spectator, denoting ongoing risks.
Arguments for Legalisation
Supporters see dhirio as a cultural tradition and a sport testing bulls’ strength without cruelty. They argue it can be regulated to ensure animal safety, such as horn capping. Legalisation is also viewed as a potential tourism boost and income source for farmers who rear fighting bulls. Some politicians and local leaders advocate formal recognition and regulation, citing parallels with Tamil Nadu’s legalisation of jallikattu. Proponents emphasise the cultural identity and economic benefits linked to the sport.
Opposition and Animal Welfare Concerns
Animal rights activists strongly oppose legalisation. They show the violence inflicted on bulls during fights, including injuries and psychological stress. Critics argue that promoting such events normalises cruelty and encourages gambling. Organisations like PETA stress the ethical implications of deriving entertainment from animal suffering. They call for stricter enforcement of bans and public awareness to end the practice.
Recent Developments and Political Responses
Recently, demands for a legal framework to regulate dhirio have intensified. Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party and Aam Aadmi Party MLAs have proposed amendments to exclude dhirio from cruelty laws. Suggestions include building dedicated stadiums and formalising the sport for revenue generation. The Goa Chief Minister has expressed willingness to examine the issue. The debate continues amid balancing cultural preservation, animal rights, and public safety.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically analyse the role of traditional sports in preserving cultural identity and discuss the challenges they face in modern legal frameworks.
- What are the ethical considerations and legal challenges in regulating animal-based sports in India? Illustrate with examples.
- Explain the significance of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and assess its impact on cultural practices involving animals.
- With suitable examples, comment on the role of judiciary in balancing cultural heritage and animal welfare in India’s pluralistic society.
