Beef Bans:
Among other important issues facing the country, an
interesting debate on the beef ban in Maharashtra gained traction on the news
wheels and social media. Understandably, the outrage industry was back in
business with reactions varying from in support to the other extreme of
condemning the ban. A similar ban was imposed in Haryana, which gives the
police powers to arrest anyone possessing beef to be charged under Section 302
that deals with murder.
Sentiments govern a particular set of beliefs that
make it necessary to be adhered to. Killing a cow in Hinduism is believed to be
a sin since India’s culture advocates for peaceful coexistence. In the early
chapters of the Mahabharata, Ganga narrates an interesting story to Shantanu
when the eight Vasus beheld Vasishta’s cow Nandini. When Dyu forcefully carried
away Nandini, Vasishta cursed them to be born on earth to suffer the fate of
mortals. It is interesting to note that this story, though rich in symbolism,
justifies the reverence Hindus place for cows. Hence, it becomes only natural
to condemn killing an animal which is special for the majority. The directive
principles that govern the law making process explicitly mentions: ‘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 breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows, calves and other
milch and draught cattle.’
Indian intellectuals intimidate others by quoting
Hindus have consumed beef during the Vedic period. Culture, as we know it, is a
dynamic process that changes according to time and is not static. While it is
understandable that the outrage industry works predominantly on denouncing the
BJP and its allegedly communal representative politics but if a group like the
Dalits, Muslims and Christians depend on beef for their daily intake of
protein, the BJP will surely pay a price for it electorally in 2019.
While meat and milk can surely be made cheaper, most
of them understand that it comes at the risk of animal welfare. It is common
knowledge that the beef industry does not exist and it is only the dairy
industry that exists which produces both milk and beef. However, given that not
many restaurants serve beef in public, it does amuse when people outrage as
though it is a staple diet for many. The question here is not about how cows
and other animals are milked but about the treatment of animals. Intensive
dairy production has led to several unhealthy means being adopted: for example,
cows which are impregnated by bulls so that the calves survive long after their
birth. In order to ensure a win-win situation for both, the efficient way is to
ensure that cows are milked only for the first two lactations and stay in
indoors. The productivity of cattle falls after the first two calvings that
produce the milk yields.
The beef ban, in many ways, also highlights the
treatment of unwanted animals. Owners of abattoirs are technically free to
release the cattle into the wild. Given that many strays are usually deprived
of food and water, the state and the people have a social responsibility
towards ensuring the protection of such animals. YouTube has extensive videos
that depict slaughter houses, trucks that are overloaded with cattle. This
sight evokes strong emotions and it is unfortunate if animal rights exist only
for the sake of convenience and not for the cause truly. The real question that
the ban intends to pursue is to have public deliberations on animals are
treated and the shocking methods of transportation and the public perception
about slaughter.
Lastly, there are several ways that governments
globally commit to protect endangered species and also to ensure that animals
are not raised for food. I agree that cows so far are not an endangered species
but the issue is about respecting animal welfare as well. Eating animals is not
a fundamental right. In India, however, beef is not yet a staple food and not
many restaurants serve it. Within the realm of animal rights, one wonders why
animal rights therefore become a matter of convenience. The argument posed is
not about the superiority of one religion among others.
As I said in the beginning, it is about the
sentiment that governs the animals are treated. The beef ban once again
proposes to remind us about how animals are treated. Hence, the ban needs to be
welcomed and must force us to spare a thought for the animal world which also
forms an integral part to sustain the ecological balance.
Comments