“If
people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they
take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those
who live under tyranny.” ~Thomas Jefferson, 1781
The rekindled controversy about the beef
ban legislation in the states of Maharashtra and the tabled bill in Haryana has
raised a few brows amongst the public who try to unscramble the rationale
behind such an audacious move. Raging voracious debates with passionate
champions of both the ends have put forth moot points who in their own presumed
polymath and solomonic knowledge believe it to be irrefutable. Innumerable questions
arise in the minds of public making them ponder whether such a move is
beneficial or detrimental to the society. Furthermore, the questions such as- Does
the state have power to impose such ban? Should the state adjudge the dietary
habits of its citizens? , is it a right of an individual to choose what he
wants to eat? Is it a move vested with hegemonic interests and thereby
suppressing the voices of minorities? Would the beef ban actually help the
cattle? Questions such as these are inevitable to rise and forces one to
introspect about the recent developments in our legislations.
To answer these questions, it would
be just to enlighten the reader of the current status of cattle in India. The
19th livestock census reveals that population
of cows has increased by 3.5 per cent though the number of bullocks has
decreased by 16 percent. The livestock sector plays a quintessential role
in the Indian economy in terms of employment, income and foreign exchange
earnings. Currently, India has established itself as the largest buffalo meat
(carabeef) exporting country. Buffalo meat alone accounts for over 75% of the
total exports of Indian meat sector. Indian buffalo meat exports have grown at
an illustrious rate l in the last two years, as a result of which India now
stands as the fourth country in the world to export more than 1 million tonne
of bovine meat annually.
The above data indubitably
paints a glossy and rosy image of the potential meat industry, but then why
impose an absolute ban with such stringent punishment? Referring back to the
first question which arises – If the state has power to implement such bans?
The answer to such a question would be in affirmative as it is expressly
provided in the Indian Constitution Schedule 7, List II Entry 15[1], and under Part IV, Article 48[2]. In consonance with such provisions several northern
States in 1950s had enacted a blanket ban on slaughter, similar to the ones
enacted by Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka.
The constitutionality of these laws was challenged before the Apex
Court in the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi &
Others vs The State Of Bihar[3] in 1958, in
which it was contended that these laws violated their fundamental rights to
property, trade and profession, and religion.
The apex Court rejected claims vested in religious practice,
holding through its own interpretation of the Holy Quran that cow sacrifice was
not a mandatory ritual for Muslims. However, it found that it was unreasonable
to impose an absolute ban on cow slaughter as it did not necessarily lead to
“preserve and improve the breed”. The petitioners were successful in
establishing that cows could be slaughtered by virtue of its age and if it
became uneconomic and proved to be a burdensome for its maintenance. This
precedent was reversed in the case of State
of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jammat and ors[4], the court acknowledged the Gujarat
government’s version comparing the dung of a cow to a “Kohinoor diamond” and it
upheld the absolute ban of the Gujarat government thereby diverging from its
1958 verdict that useless cattle could be slaughtered. `
The validity of the ban can
be technically upheld though the rationale behind such bans is often
misleading. To justify the above statement it would be ideal to refer to the
questions 2 and 3 raised in the beginning, should
the state decide the dietary habits of its citizens? Is it a right of an
individual to choose what he wants to eat?
The solution to both the questions is
juxtaposed in such a way that the answer to one directly leads to the implied
understanding of the other. Freedom to choose is the hallmark of any democracy;
we have been given the right to choose our profession, our place of residence
and what not. These rights though can be
restricted on the grounds of reasonability and justness. Freedom to choose what
one eats and curtailment of beef consumption definitely seems unreasonable
especially when beef is assumed to be a part of staple diet globally. The
moment state decides your menu and dietary habits, it ceases to be democratic.
As a sign of dissent, ample public interest litigations have been filed by
activists and advocates to lift this present blank ban.
Right to
choose what one eats is assumed to be part and parcel of Right to life. Furthermore,
Beef serves as a poor man’s source of protein. With the soaring prices of its
substitutes, the indigents and not so fortunate ones depend on beef to
supplement their daily diet in the hope of making it a well balanced one. The
government has failed to meet with its requirements and in providing nutritious
meal .For instance in the state of Maharashtra calorie and protein
consumption has stagnated or declined since 1993. For example, consumer unit of daily calorie consumption in
urban areas dropped between 1993 and 2004-05 by over 170 calories, from 2432 to
2261[5]. Such an atrocious move to
ban amounts not only restricts the right
to choose but forces one to render his rights to live in a dignified way with
optimal and adequate levels of nutrition infructuous.
If the predicaments for the nutrition demand and the excess
supply of cattle coexist, why ban? To answer this question it is necessary to
analyze the third question raised at the beginning- Is it a move vested with
hegemonic interests and thereby suppressing the voices of minorities?
The politics of beef are portrayed as cultural, but the reality is
shaped by economics. Not only Muslims, but many Hindus and Christians consume
beef as part of their daily diet. The ban in many ways seems to be motivated by
religious fringe elements.
Mohammad Saadullah, then chief minister of Assam, had accurately
reminded the Constituent Assembly that Muslim farmers were as reluctant as
their brother Hindu farmers to send off the economically productive cows to
slaughter, and that the majority of cows which were killed and sold to abattoirs were by the
fellow Hindus. Cow has been considered holy and equated to the likes of Gods,
killing of the same was considered to be a taboo amongst many. The presence of
carcass of a cow too was considered valuable and the person who touches or is
in midst of such a scene is considered untouchables. If that is the case, would
it be possible for Hindus themselves to have eaten cow in the past? Dr. BR Ambedkar’s texts suggested that Hindus
were indeed a beef-eating community and that the ousting of beef from the Hindu
diet was a result of the attempt at hegemony by the Brahmins over the
Buddhists. Ambedkar was of the opinion that it was originally the Buddhists who
were vehemently opposing the slaughtering of animals, these ideas were
beginning to be acclaimed amongst the commoners, the Hindu lot responded by imitating and earmarking certain
aspects of Buddhism. It needs to be noted that cows were acknowledged a
sanctimonious position in the Hindu system and it occupied a profoundly
hallowed position. And so, despite the Hindus' supposed predilection for beef,
the slaughter of the same became a sign of desecration[6].
Referring back to the
endorsement of views by the Apex court in the case of Kureshi wherein Supreme Court accepted that cow’s urine could be
used as natural pesticides. This ‘conventional wisdom’ has been readily
digested by Vinayog
Parivar, an animal rights trust based in Mumbai who had lobbied for states to
pass tough legislation against cow slaughter claimed that nearly 30-40% of
Indian farmers use this urine-neem mix as bio-pesticides. Little did they know
that a standing committee of Parliament suggested that bio-pesticides only
makes up 16% of all the pesticides used with no special mention of the proportion
which composes from cattle wastes.
Dr Kirit Somaiya, a
BJP M.P claimed that infirm cattle could help in agricultural economy by
providing for “ Bio-electricity”, but the
evidence seems to be pointing on the
contrary, in fact States which
have liberal laws on cattle slaughter, like Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and
Tamil Nadu - all of which permit conditional slaughter have performed
excellently in the field of agriculture.
This seems to be a befuddled combination of both inters and intra
religious hegemony convoluted with politically vested interest. Considering the
contentious issue at present, the beef ban bill in Maharashtra had moped the
dust since 1995 and on a landslide victory in both the centre and state, this
bill immediately received assent from the President with alacrity. The bill
purports itself to be beneficial to the cattle under the ethical purview of
animal rights rather than a move
politically motivated , but how true is that ?
Had beef ban been imposed as it is purported then simple economics
reveals that, the demand for beef’s substitutes would increase gradually, that
is the demand for chicken and other source of meat. A rise in demand would
inject an impetus to increase its supply. Poultry industry has been notoriously
known to be violating animal rights[7].
The debates by the champions of the beef ban who have cited animal rights to be
the cornerstone for such bans have been contradicting commonsense and economics,
at the larger purview this move would act as a trigger for violation of animal
rights in a massive scale.
A major flaw in this legislation is that this violates not only
the rights of other animals but jeopardizes the lives of cows itself. The
number of abandoned cattle is on the rise and with the introduction of this
move, the numbers may shoot up. The plight of the stray cattle is worse. The Union Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar
himself said that “At least 30 kilograms of plastic can be found from the stomach of every cow or buffalo which dies in India”[8] It is often
these stray cattle which are transported illegally to states which permit
slaughter. These cows suffer excruciating physical and mental stress during
such transportation. It has been reported that cow’s tail snaps and are forced
to endure starvation and thirst. The cramped up place adds misery thereby
making them prone to diseases. Illegal transportation of the cattle between the
borders could be generating Rs 14,000 crore to Rs 15,000 crore per annum[9].
This legislation may increase the illegal abattoirs
in the State.
This legislation though
novel is far from pragmatism. The true object of this legislation can be
attained when adequate shelter and care is provided for the abandoned cattle. The government has proposed the concept of gaushalas, which are the organizations that
take care of abandoned/ stray cattle. The state of these gaushalas is
summarized by N Surabhi who is an animal rights advocate. She says
“I have visited many gaushalas. I have found that often the upkeep of these
animals is dismal, either because of lack of funds and infrastructure to
provide adequate care or because of apathy towards to the plight of these
animals”. When such are the solution, it would not be ironic to say that the
legislation which is supposedly to be the asylum turns out to be more precarious
and perilous.
It is of no doubt that this ban restricts the individual’s choice
to consume desired food. Unfortunately, this is just a microscopic problem. At
a larger scale this would adversely affect the livelihood of people who are
involved in this industry. In Maharashtra alone it is expected to affect the
lives of over 20, 00,000 individuals[10].
The ludicrous proposition of punishments under the amendment of Maharashtra
Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995 reveals that offense would be
cognizable and non-bailable with a
liability of fine up to Rs. 10,000 or/with the risk of imprisonment upto 5
years. Meanwhile, the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Bill 2015,
passed by the assembly unanimously, bans sale of all kinds of beef with an even
stricter and stringent punishments. It proposes the following punishments,
·
Cow slaughter: 3-10 years jail, fine of Rs 30,000 to Rs 1 lakh
·
Export of cows for slaughter: 3-7 years, fine of Rs 30,000 to 70,000
·
Sale of beef: 3-5 years, fine of Rs 30,000 to Rs 50,000.
Punishments such as these seem to be absurd and
highly disproportionate for the offences committed. It is revealed that these
prescribed punishments are biased, prejudicial and inclined towards the beliefs
of one’s faith and religion. It is political move such as these which masquerades
itself to be beneficial but in reality is a menace and threat to the very
establishment of democracy.
In order to give effect to these legislation both
in spirit and letters, it is essential that effective rehabilitation be
provided for the stakeholders namely the farmers, the leather industry,
middlemen, workers at slaughterhouses and retailers associated with the
business, adequate care and surety be provided to infirm and unproductive
cattle so that the numbers of stray cattle may reduce, Stringent actions to
curb illegal and illegitimate trade, transport and slaughter of cattle. The
author is of the view that absolute ban on slaughter itself is redundant and
would impose burden on other animals it is suggested that a conditional
slaughter be implemented under the supervision of a trained veterinary and
finally to realize that animal welfare is much more than mere rescue and
worship, it must encompass the notion of sustenance that is derived from the
very environment which includes animals.
In a broader view, the present hollow
ban on beef does very little for the cattle; it hurts more than it helps. This
seems to be a result of regressive politics and religious hegemony over the
interests of the stake holders. If the interests of
cattle are indeed our concern, it requires a comprehensive introspection of the
systems that govern industries that depend on cattle. The issue needs to dealt
with empathy and not apathy, it needs to be both an individual and collective
effort...
SUSHANTH SHARMA B.S
[1] “Preservation, protection and
improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases; veterinary training and
practice”
[2] “Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry The
State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern
and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving
the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch
and draught cattle”
[3]
AIR 1958 SC 731
[4]
AIR 2006 SC 212
[5] NSSO (National Sample Survey Organization)
(1996) Nutritional Intake in
India, NSS 50th round, July 1993-June 1994, Fifth
Quinquennial Survey on Consumer Expenditure, Report No. 405, Government of
India.NSSO (2001) Nutritional
Intake in India, 1999-2000, NSS 55th round, July
1999-June 2000, Report No. 471 (55/1.0/9), Government of India.
NSSO
(2007) Nutritional Intake in India, 2004-05, NSS 61st round,
July 2004-June 2005, Report No. 513 (61/1.0/6), Government of India.
[6] Paraphrase of 'Untouchability, The Dead Cow And The
Brahmin - Dr. BR Ambedkar
[7]
http://www.awbi.org/awbi-pdf/ac.pdf
[8] http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-03-28/news/60578861_1_plastic-waste-plastic-bags-cow
[9]
Animal Welfare Board Newsletter March 2010 ( http://www.awbi.org/awbi-pdf/March%20NL.pdf)
[10] http://www.asianage.com/mumbai/beef-ban-likely-affect-20-lakh-maharashtra-289
