Oped»
Final thoughts on Gadhimai
- ONLY IN NEPAL
NOV 25 - Philosopher Peter Singer is no stranger to controversies. His views on abortion and euthanasia are often the starting points of heated polemics, both for and against his position. But Singer is most famous as the author of Animal Liberation, the seminal book of the animal liberation movement. Singer, a vegetarian, is against all practices that cause animals capable of feeling pain any kind of suffering, whether the discomfort results from the lack of space to roam about inside crammed quarters of animal farms or from the use of any weapon to maim and kill animals.
On Tuesday, Singer was speaking about cruelty against animals on BBC World Service. While he was doing so, the headless carcasses of thousands of he-buffaloes lay scattered about Gadhimai temple premises in Bara. These animals were not killed for their flesh and hide, though the two commodities will undoubtedly rake in millions of rupees for the event organisers. The killings were rather perpetuated with the belief that only hot blood of freshly slaughtered animals would persuade mai (the God mother) to fulfill people’s long-held wishes. They went to Gadhimai on a quest: for a good husband, for a loving wife, for material goods and even for peace of mind.
The government, unsurprisingly, didn’t intervene in the ‘religious’ affair. How such an intervention would have played out with the religious fanatics is anybody’s guess. The government might have been deterred by the backlash previous governments faced while trying to undertake similar initiatives. And if, by any chance, a natural calamity — say a massive earthquake — were to befall Nepal after abolishing the ritual sacrifice, who would silence the growing voices of the religious who will be quick to attribute the devastation on the displeased goddess? They might even demand bigger sacrifices in the future to forestall any untoward incident. Forcibly changing any religious custom is not without its risks.
Whatever the government’s calculations in not interfering with this year’s killings, it wasn’t for the lack of voice against the Gadhimai. And people listened. What caught their attention was the sheer magnitude of the planned slaughter. It was widely reported that the festival organisers would be attempting a world record of 500,000 sacrifices this year. Imagining thousands of headless writhing animals in one place would send shiver down the spine of any person.
Yet, if we think about it, aren’t the daily killings at small butcheries near our homes as cruel and hence should be condemned with as much vigour? But we don’t. We are used to them. They have become mundane. It now takes a massacre the magnitude of Gadhimai for the brutality of animal sacrifice to hit home.
Gadhimai is the legitimisation of violence in Nepal writ large. A section of people have expressed outrage at so much attention going to the killing of animals when even the lives of people of Nepal are by no means secured. As incidents of people-on-people violence continues to increase across the country, why such fuss over clearly inferior beings?
Because “all the arguments to prove man’s superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals,” says Singer.
Moreover, this line of argument overlooks a simple fact: Violence begets more violence. People who commit violence on animals early in their lives are likely to commit violent crimes against other people when they grow up. Many of the butchers who chased and hacked animals at previous Gadhimai festivals now suffer from chronic anxiety, depression and alcohol and substance abuse. The gory pictures like those emerging from Gadhimai, psychologists believe, pique the baser instincts of otherwise normal people.
To break this vicious circle, the use of violence for any purpose assumed higher than peaceful co-existence among all beings should be banned. This is again not to imply that all forms of violence can be rooted out from any society — and Nepalis know this better than perhaps any other people. The focus should rather be on minimising every kind of violence.
I believe the campaigners who worked to stop Gadhimai killings this year achieved a great deal. World history is testament to the fact that all lasting social changes are incremental, achieved in small steps. Ideally, the crusade against this year’s Gadhimai festival should have started years ago in order to give those who planned to offer sacrifices at the festival enough time to weigh their views against those of the campaigners.
The campaign, though unsuccessful, must have made many who made the pilgrimage to Gadhimai this year have second thoughts, however briefly. Gadhimai has also attracted international attention like never before, which will help international animal rights activities understand the agenda.
Instead of being disheartened, those who campaigned against the killings should take heart from the enormous reach of their advocacy. The right time to start their campaign for the next festival is right now. With the right kind of advocacy, people can be made to see light by the time the next festival rolls around in five year’s time.
Biswas Baral
biswasbaral@hotmail.com
Headlines
Advertisements
