“In my understanding based on integral dimension of law, three core issues must be addressed first. One, what is a reasonable measure to ensure well-being of animals? Two, how do you define cruelty resulting in unnecessary pain or suffering? Three, how do you define an entertainment with animals?”

Practically, animal liberation if at all taken to its logical conclusion, must be total and un-qualified without any discrimination between animals, purposes or motives in dealing with animals. It should also be without country-context and jurisdiction specific exceptions. If not, how can we call it a liberation when lots of contradictions exist? There are lots of inconsistencies in the understanding and application of animal welfare and rights. Even, religious sacrifices of animals are under question. Are not human rights absolutely inviolable without exceptions to place, context and motive? Is there any reason for why we should not extend the same to animals? Unless these misconstructions are resolved by social collectivity, law and order problems will always emerge in relationship between human beings and animals in one way or other, in one place or another.

Currently, law and legal systems are largely anthropo-centric (importance to humankind) in nature heavily influenced by legal thoughts of species-ism (human nature is superior and exploitation of animals is negotiable) and utilitarian-ism (greatest happiness of greatest number). As a result, in our collective planetary life, human beings alone are ‘persons to claim rights’ or to ‘suffer pain and loss’ or to gain ‘good and profit’ through laws assisting the substantive and procedural legislations for remedification. Are animals and plants then less in value than humankind? This logic and reasoning seems to have come from the superficial observation that animals and plants are less-mental in their awareness and hence their choices which give rise to rights cannot be fully substantiated by the scientific theories of mind where mind undergoes suffering or happiness by which loss or gain is legally understood. If animals are legally considered as different from human nature, why are animals then legally taken for medical testing for human health benefits? Does not medical testing of animals for human health signify something common to both human beings and animals? Does it mean that legally mind is the factor to decide whether or not pain can be attributed to life?

In any case, the relationship between human beings and other evolutionary stages of life (animals and plants) needs to be harmonious to the extent inequality does not bring imbalance and threat to planetary life itself. Sustainable development, climate change, global warming and biodiversity have brought all beings, animate and inanimate together. True justice to life cannot be one-sided, partial or develop from favoritism if phenomenon behind all life is one. There cannot be any suppression of liberty to any form of life or lack of compassion to cosmic spirit and universal rhythm of life which in fact creates and sustains all biological and organic forms of particles in plants, animals and human beings. Do we have a right over what we have not created? This bigger question must be introspected in the coming future when all life is seen as one single continuum of light-energy waves though it looks we are not yet ready for a collective discussion as inequalities of other kinds compete for immediate justice. However, we cannot create an imbalance in this issue of naturehuman relationship as it is a primary foundation. We cannot take casually and deal carelessly with that fundamental element which binds, holds, sustains and prolongs all through defensive arguments of age-old customs and traditions. In another context, sociologically speaking, the custom of Sati is given up both culturally and legally as it cannot stand human awareness even for a fraction of second, today. Thus, an issue that law and society are struggling to solve must be seen in higher and holistic understanding and society must collectively consider application of knowledge of life, from all angles. Jalli-kattu as an issue of bull, cattle or livestock point to our lack of integral view, understanding and knowledge of life, world and our planetary existence. Integral dimension of law can open the gateway for greater jurisprudence and well-being of all; human beings, nature, flora and fauna.

Why are Judiciary, Legislature and Executive facing a difficulty in resolving this conflict in spite of their Constitutional powers to bring an amicable solution?

This is a classic struggle of law and social transformation where three organs of State is in conflict. Integral theory holds, when law is made for the sake of life, law must rise from the understanding and knowledge of life from all angles. Unless society accepts this integral knowledge and comes forward collectively to solve its problems through creative and participative legal advocacy, law and society or State and its three organs cannot find amicable solutions. Constitution holds the key where we see rights, duties and directive principles on how to live in society. Entries in Lists I, II and, III of Seventh Schedule show how things are interdependent and not independent or cut off from one to another. Such is the case with tripartite structure of law that we see in State and its three organs, who must think and act in unison. Yet another way to look at these kinds of issues, is to integrate natural, positive and real schools of law, or look for pragmatic holism. Integral theory of law suggests a deeper clue; a consideration of intuition and consciousness as a source for legal logic and reasoning. Legal research must include intuitive reasoning and not stop with inductive and deductive reasoning alone. Lastly, environmental science, transpersonal psychology and technological advancements are bridging the gap of knowledge between pure sciences and humanities. Should not law and society seriously look into this if we all want a meaningful fulfillment to life as a whole? Legal futurism must become a building block for present and successive generation to create stable new age.