Jallikattu, like Shah Bano

The bending by AIADMK and Bjp-led governments to vote-bank pressures in Tamil Nadu is regressive. It ignores the judgments of the Supreme Court

C R Sasikumar

called the State of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act 2009. For five-odd years from 2009 to 2014, the SC did try to regulate the sport, but when nothing worked and the expert reports showed blatant cruelty, the court was left with no option but to ban the sport in its entirety.

Such cowing down by the government has had a domino effect, with other states jumping into the fray and demanding that their banned traditional sports also be legalised. These include bulbul fighting in Assam and cock fighting in Andhra Pradesh. One can only wish that the government had shown the same level of alacrity in amending the PCA Act 1960 to increasing the punishment for killing animals from a mere Rs 50 fine to at least some time in jail. But unfortunately, the mute cannot speak, let alone vote, and no legion of stray dogs or animals will ever descend on Jantar Mantar in Delhi to ask for protection.

The cowing down by the BJP and AIADMK to vote-bank pressures, especially when the rights of the mute, who can’t come out to the beach to protest are at stake, is the making of another Shah Bano. Nagaraja is one of the most progressive judgments of our times and redefines how we give effect to the dictum of Mahatma Gandhi: The progress of a society is measured by how it treats its animals. It is the embodiment of Article 51A(g) which confers the fundamental duty on us to have “compassion for all living beings”, and not just humans.

Bhushan is a senior lawyer. Garg is an advocate in the Supreme Court and runs an animal rights NGO in New Delhi GIVEN THE ECONOMIC uncertainty around the world and the demonetisation-induced domestic downturn in the Indian economy, preparing this year’s Union budget was never going to be an easy task. But the Modi government seems determined to make its task harder. It has managed to generate expectations — that will almost inevitably remain unfulfilled — through a weird combination of denial of the manifold ill-effects of demonetisation, encouragement of all sorts of ideas around the concept of universal basic income, and simultaneous acceptance of relatively rigid fiscal targets.

But consider first the timing of the budget announcement, in the context of the enormous complexity of the fiscal projections for this year and the estimations for the coming year that must underlie the budgetmaking exercise. This is the first year in which the presentation of the Union budget has been put forward by a full month, ostensibly to ensure that the legislative approval for its provisions can be completed in the two months before the beginning of the new financial year on April 1. This may sound reasonable. But even in a normal year, there could be several problems with presenting the budget early. These problems go beyond the political concerns that have been expressed by the Opposition parties. Even in a normal year, it would be problematic to project annual figures for anything — GDP, tax revenue collections, even public spending — on the basis of data for only the first seven or eight months. But this is no ordinary year. Demonetisation and the subsequent cash shortage have ravaged the economy. We know that there has been some severe adverse impact, but we do not know how much, how pervasive and how wide, deep and prolonged such effects will be.

The Central Statistical Organisation obliged the government by bringing out its own advance estimates of the GDP, a month in advance, to assist the budgetmaking exercise. But since it could not factor in any of the effects of demonetisation, the advance estimates provide us (and the finance ministry) with precious little clue of the likely GDP. The “safe” estimate only slightly lowered the expected rate of GDP growth to 7.1 per cent this year, which is certainly an over-estimation.

Data from other sources point to dramatic declines in informal economic activity, and even reductions in formal activity because of the declining demand and breakdown of supply chains, as well as falls in employment, wages and incomes of the self-employed. These are not processes that can be undone in a month or two. And since the cash crunch still persists, the adverse impacts continue to put a further squeeze