Dhirio – Origins & Cultural Context

Origins & Cultural Context

• Definition: Dhirio (also called dhirvo) is Goa’s traditional bullfight, involving two bulls locked in combat until one retreats.
• Historical Roots:
  • Dates back to Portuguese colonial times in Goa.
  • Traditionally organised during harvest season as a form of rural entertainment.
  • Became an integral part of church feasts and local festivals.
• Cultural Significance:
  • Seen as a community bonding event where villagers gathered.
  • Similar to derbies in Europe—social occasions where being present was part of prestige.
  • Discussed and remembered in communities for days after the fight.
• Comparison with Spanish Bullfighting:
  • Goa’s version is described as “less complicated” and “less colourful” than Spain’s.
  • Focuses on bulls fighting each other, unlike Spain where matadors face bulls.

Relevance : GS 1(Culture , Heritage)

Mechanics of Dhirio

• Process:
  • Two bulls, trained and encouraged by owners, charge at each other.
  • They lock horns, with the clash compared to “the fall of a gigantic tree”.
  • The fight ends when one bull withdraws.
• Role of Owners/Trainers: Egg the bulls on, prepare them for contests.
• Audience: Large crowds gather, cheering for bulls like a sporting event.
• Betting Tradition: Goa diaspora in Europe also places bets on fights, showing its economic-cultural extension.

Legal Ban

• Trigger Incident (1996):
  • A man named Xavier Fernandes was killed during a bullfight in Ambaji-Pathar.
• Legal Challenge:
  • NGO petitioned Bombay High Court at Goa citing violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA).
• Court Verdict:
  • In September 1996, the High Court banned all animal fights, including dhirio.
  • The ban remains in effect under PCA provisions.

Political & Social Debate

• Arguments for Legalisation:
  • Cultural Preservation: MLAs argue dhirio is part of Goa’s identity and heritage.
  • Economic Potential: Seen as a way to generate tourism and state revenue.
  • Sporting Analogy: Compared to boxing or wrestling—testing strength without “cruelty”.
  • Regulation Proposal: Suggestions like capping horns, proper supervision, and designated venues.
  • Parallels with Jallikattu: Since Tamil Nadu secured exceptions for its bull-taming sport in 2017, Goa MLAs propose similar treatment.
• Arguments Against Legalisation:
  • Animal Cruelty: Critics point out it violates PCA and promotes violence as entertainment.
  • Human Safety: Risk of fatalities (e.g., 1996 incident).
  • Ethical Concerns: Questioning normalisation of violence for cultural or economic reasons.
  • Political Optics: Balancing tradition with India’s commitment to animal welfare laws.

Legal & Constitutional Dimensions

• Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960:
  • Section 11 prohibits causing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals.
  • Used as legal basis for the ban.
• Supreme Court Judgments:
  • Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014): Struck down jallikattu citing cruelty.
  • Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017: Allowed jallikattu through state law, upheld as cultural right.
  • Goa MLAs now seek similar constitutional-cultural exemption for dhirio.
• Potential Path:
  • State legislative amendment + central approval, similar to Tamil Nadu’s route.

Present Status & Way Forward

• Current Status:
  • Dhirio remains illegal under the 1996 High Court ruling.
• Ongoing Demand:
  • Strong cross-party MLA demand for revival and regulation.
  • Seen as both cultural protection and tourism opportunity.
• Future Challenges:
  • Balancing animal rights vs. cultural rights.
  • Avoiding international criticism of animal cruelty.
  • Need for legal clarity: whether Goa Assembly can carve out exceptions like Tamil Nadu.