In a curious legal dispute, the Calcutta High Court has become the battleground over the names of two lions at Bengal Safari Park, triggering controversy over the objection raised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a Hindu nationalist organization affiliated with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
At the heart of the matter are the names of a lioness named Sita and a lion named Akbar, with the latter’s name sparking outrage due to its association with the 16th-century Mughal emperor Akbar. The VHP contends that it is sacrilegious for Sita to share an enclosure with a lion named after Akbar and has filed a petition seeking a name change.
Also Read: Karachi Zoo’s White African Lioness gives Birth to Six Cubs
According to the VHP, the lion originally named Ram, after a Hindu deity and Sita’s consort, was allegedly renamed by West Bengal authorities. However, state authorities deny this claim, asserting that the lions arrived with their designated names from an exchange program involving Sepahijala Zoological Park in Tripura, which is governed by the BJP.
Anup Mondal, a VHP official, expressed concerns, stating, “Sita cannot stay with the Mughal Emperor Akbar,” citing complaints from across India about hurt religious sentiments. This led to the legal petition filed by VHP’s West Bengal secretary Lakshman Bansal.
In response to the petition, the lions were relocated to separate enclosures to mitigate any potential religious conflict. However, this move, seemingly driven by Hindu nationalist sentiments, has raised apprehensions regarding its implications on court precedents and religious sensitivities.
The controversy has taken an unexpected turn with some Hindu majoritarian groups invoking the concept of “love jihad.” Love jihad is a conspiracy theory alleging Muslim men of seeking to convert Hindu women to Islam through romantic relationships.
During the hearings, Justice Bhattacharyya questioned the significance of naming the lioness Sita and whether it reflected affection or slander. The counsel for the petitioners argued against the former, suggesting it was a form of defamation rather than endearment.
The court also raised queries about the admissibility of the case, questioning why the petitioners did not file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) given their representation of an organization aiming to safeguard broader religious sentiments. The lack of clarity regarding the individuals responsible for naming the lions prompted the court to seek clarification from the state government.
In subsequent proceedings, the government informed the court that Akbar and Sita were designated as “house names” for the animals in the Tripura Zoo, arguing that the petition did not meet the requirements of a PIL.
Justice Bhattacharyya further questioned the acceptability of such naming conventions, seeking clarity from the Additional Advocate General on whether animals could be named after freedom fighters and Nobel laureates, and posing hypothetical scenarios involving pets named after figures from Hindu or Muslim religious backgrounds.
