Goa: Dhirio organisers hoodwink police, conduct bullfights

MARGAO: Aware of plans by a politician to organise bullfights (dhirio) at various places along Salcete’s coastal belt, ostensibly to mark the birthday celebration of a member of his extended family, Colva police, led by senior police officials maintained a hawk-eyed vigil on popular bullfight venues throughout Saturday. While the police did manage to thwart attempts by dhirio organisers at a couple of places in Fatrade, Varca and at Colva, sources said bullfights were indeed held by hoodwinking the police at a number of other places.
Colva police later booked two separate cases against a total of four bull owners under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. They also maintained that strong police presence along the coastal belt, under its jurisdiction, helped prevent organisers from holding more number of bullfights, and dhirio lovers from assembling at the venues. Fallow paddy fields are generally used to organise bullfights.
Though Colva police had booked a number of cases against several people over the last few days for organising the banned animal sport, sources said that the “bailable” nature of the offence, and the fact that a paltry Rs 50 is the maximum amount of fine liable to be paid in case the accused is proved guilty, fails to deter people from committing the crime in pursuit of their passion for the animal sport.
Political patronage enjoyed by bullfights worsens the situation. A police inspector of Colva who had cracked down on bullfights a few years ago, and had booked cases against organisers including against those close to politicians, had written to his higher ups stressing on the need for tranquiliser guns and an accompanying vet with a view to immobilising the bulls and impounding them. While his requisition was not acted upon, he was soon transferred from Colva, a pointer to the political clout enjoyed by dhirio organisers.
Bullfights are banned by an order passed by the Goa bench of the Bombay high court in 1997, which was also later upheld by the Supreme Court.