Not So Holy
The last three years has seen many incidents of turmoil in many domains. A significant portion of them arose from the inconceivable impatience of the government to impose the principle of the Hindutva in the garb of pseudo-nationalism. The most recent being the new set of regulations for choking cattle slaughter.
Getting the facts right
The new set of regulations neither bans cattle slaughter nor prevents the consumption of beef. But they are framed in a way so as to significantly affect both. The rules say that cattle traded in the markets must not be used for slaughter. The people involved in the trade have to provide an undertaking regarding this. Hence from now on cattle have to be sent directly to the slaughter houses from the farmland. The regulations derive their power from the Prevention of Cruelty Act 1960 which is a Central Government Act. Even if states come up with a new legislation they have to be in accordance with the Central law.
The Constitution
The primary argument used for propounding legislations like this arise from Article 48 of the Constitution, “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”. Article 48 part of the Directive Principles of State Policy lists the set of positive measure which has to be taken by the government.
Put proponents of the argument forget this was accepted as a part of DPSP after a vigorous argument during the constitutional assembly debates. Faced with the threat of confrontation both sides had to settle for an agreement that cattle protection will not be a part of Fundamental Rights but only a Directive Principle. India with its brilliant diversity and poverty had to accommodate all sections of the population.
Photo Courtesy: David Turner
"Their counterpoint is people are offended. Who are these ‘people’? Not Hindus, but pseudo-nationalists who preach Hindutva who have absolutely no disregard for the secular nature of the country."
Bad Economics
Those who make statements against such restrictions on cattle trade are severely attacked by pseudo-nationalists as those who does not respect Hinduism and are immediately branded as beef-eaters. But it is they who have lacked the basics of economics. Cows once they exhaust their productive age are a huge financial burden to the farmer. It is customary for the farmer to sell the cow in such situations. Direct sale of cows in the slaughter houses contribute to only ten percent of the trade whereas the rest is traded in the markets. Restricting them would only throw millions out of business
Bad Politics
No government in the world is as concerned about directing its citizens to eat what the government feels is right barring India. Their counterpoint is people are offended. Who are these ‘people’? Not Hindus, but pseudo-nationalists who preach Hindutva who have absolutely no disregard for the secular nature of the country. It is those people with the motive to instill uniformity across the length and breadth of the country to project beef eaters as offenders of religion who voluntarily feed upon every live cow in India.
Crooked History
It is pretty funny that it was the so-called Non-Beef eaters where the primary cattle slaughterers at the end of the later Vedic period. It was Buddha and his preaching of non-violence which laid the foundation for saving cows. The pacifist policy and indiscrimination attracted many followers to his religion. Fearing losing their base they adopted the Buddhist idea to promote the slaughtered animal as the Holy Cow.
Unnecessary Pain?
The reasoning cited by the government for such measures is to prevent unnecessary pain experienced by the animal. There is no logical reasoning to support the fact that cows experience more pain when compared to the poultry, piggery, goats etc. They pretty much have a locus standi in this case and if they are legal persons they could very much appeal to the case in the Supreme Court stating that the law discriminates them providing special privileges to the cow. Or maybe plants on our agricultural lands could speak up against the law too. Our inability to detect their pain does not mean that we can ‘kill’ plants whenever they want.
And how exactly does milking a cow does not cause unnecessary pain? After all cow milk is meant for feeding its own calf and not the greedy stomachs of humans. Maybe we should stop that too. A radical thought would be to end human existence itself.
"There is no logical reasoning to support the fact that cows experience more pain when compared to the poultry, piggery, goats etc. They could very much appeal to the court on grounds of discrimination"
CDI
The notified rules restricting cattle trade for slaughter has its foundations in bad economics, flawed logic, amoral principles and venomous politics. At the end of the day, more unproductive cattle let free on the streets by their owners would possibly have a good time feeding on abandoned decomposing plastic bags. Maybe every state should convert our schools and primary health centers for taking care of cows. Through that, we would be at the top of the ‘Animal Development Index’ released by the Indian government themselves. Or the ‘Cow Development Index’ we don’t protect all our animals.
Comments
Post a Comment