It is a common fashion in modern times to approach any contentious issue from the point of view of ‘rights’. And so even in the case of cow slaughter/beef ban, a lot of people will make an argument about ‘right to eat what one desires’ and how ‘beef is a cheap source of protein for poor’. Some others will bring in the religious angle to the table, and state how banning beef is taking away the ‘rights’ of certain minority communities, and therefore, is a ploy to earn votes from the majority Hindu community.
Now, unlike most discussions on the issue of beef ban, this article will seek to understand why the government implementing the beef ban makes sense from the long-term perspective for both individual and collective benefit. It will contain a minimum of emotion (although emotion is an inherent aspect of the debate around the issue), and while the article will touch upon multiple aspects in a point-by-point manner, let us first understand the emotions behind the topic.
The Emotions First
Traditionally, Hindus have been rearing the cow like they would raise a human family member, conferring upon her, the epithet of ‘Gau-mata’. In the Vedic era, cows would signify the amount of wealth of the owner. Even today, people staying in the rural areas of India share a deep bond with the cows that they possess (although that is true for other cattle as well, such as buffaloes, oxen, etc), and different regions have different rituals, traditions, and festivals celebrating the holiness of the cattle that the people believe in.
There are claims about how Hindus in Kerala and North East India have been consuming beef, but those claims are mostly bogus. Beef eating in Kerala is a late 20th-century phenomenon, and this article takes an objective view as to how the influence of leftist ideology, which inherently is an ideology based on anti-religion, contributed to the rise in popularity of beef among the Keralite Hindus.
What this means, is that beef eating became common in Keralite Hindus only after they were educated in a ‘secular, a-religious’ manner starting in the 1960s, clearly suggesting that adherence to the Hindu faith and beef eating was not simultaneously prevalent even in Kerala until 60 years ago, and that, beef eating began to be common only when the steadfastness of adherence to Hindu tenets declined among Keralites who were born in Hindu families. Even in North East India, a region where people had historically followed different faiths that would majorly fall under the umbrella of Animism, the consumption of beef has had a very recent beginning.
Interested readers who might want to read up on the ethnic foods of North East India would be surprised to find no mention of beef in the recipes, and that, the only mention of cow comes with cow dung, which would be used to cover food to aid the process of fermentation, an intermediate step for preparing of certain recipes.
Why Beef Ban Is Not Really A ‘Human Rights’ Issue
The ‘right to eat’ beef line is very easy to demolish. Firstly, when the cow is an animal venerated by a large majority of people in India, and that, permitting its slaughter will lead to widespread distress, and may create a law and order situation. It is the government’s responsibility to restrict such actions which could imperil social harmony on a potentially very large scale, and for that purpose, certain rights could be subject to reasonable restrictions.
Second, beef is the only meat that is banned. The consumption of chicken, goat meat, sheep, fish, eggs is not banned. Therefore, the people who seek to eat non-vegetarian food can avail of the substitutes. Specifically, if a person does desire to consume red meat, goat and sheep meat are available as substitutes for beef. So, there is absolutely no reason to suggest why someone should necessarily demand that beef eating be legal.
Thirdly, because beef is not the only meat or the only food, that can be consumed, the restriction on beef does not impinge upon anyone’s right to life.
Fourthly, there are people who claim that beef ban is a way of imposing Hindu beliefs on non-Hindus, such as Muslims and Christians, and hence amounts to trampling upon their religious rights. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, Christians and Muslims do not have any religious restriction on consumption of beef, but neither Christianity nor Islam mandates that a Christian or a Muslim respectively needs to necessarily consume beef as part of adherence to the two religions.
What About The Issue Of ‘Animal Rights’?
Animals such as goats, sheep, chicken, etc. are smaller than humans, and hence, during their process of slaughter, a human can overpower one animal and end its life in a manner much less distressful manner. But animals such as cattle, camels, etc. are bigger and stronger than humans. A human would not stand a chance in a bare-hands fight against a big milch animal. And therefore, humans need to engineer different ways to slaughter big animals, which cause immense distress to them during an eventual painful death.
Cattle traffickers often use such measures to prevent the animal from sitting down due to fatigue during transportation and occupying more space. You could read more about the issue on this link: Traffickers use chill paste while transporting cattle
Bone-chilling, aye reader?
The Environmental Footprint Of The Beef Industry
Animal rearing for food has been a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, but among animals, it is the beef industry that is the most criminal in this regard. In fact, as per studies, giving up beef will reduce carbon footprint more than abandoning the use of cars. Reading the links that the article references to would be even more enlightening.
According to research carried out by Professors M. M. Mekonnen and A. Y. Hoekstra of the University of Twente in the Netherlands, titled The Green, Blue, and Grey Water Footprint of Farm Animals and Animal Products, raising bovine meat also has the maximum water footprint of all types of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food sources (even if you consider the protein output per liter ratio, the only items worse off than bovine meat are fruits and nuts, both of which are not considered as food items to gain proteins from – they are looked at more as sources of vitamins and minerals, and fats respectively):
I will refer to that research again in this article. But I don’t think things can be any clearer than this –raising cattle for meat has an immense adverse impact on the environment. These are not studies conducted by a BJP or RSS affiliated body, these are studies conducted abroad, which have a relevance to the beef ban issue.
Economics Of Rearing Cow For Milk and Beef
Let’s first focus on the beef part since it is a simple calculation. As per the following link, the price of beef as on date is Rs. 290 (approx.). Allowing for movements in price, let us peg it at Rs. 310. A cow would yield 220 kgs odd of beef that could be sold. Thus, the total revenue that could be obtained from beef would be Rs. 68,200. As we will see further, slaughtering a cow for beef is akin to killing the hen that lays golden eggs.
According to ICAR, the average yield of an indigenous cow is 1600 kg (~1550 liters per lactation cycle. Assuming that a cow undergoes an average of 9 lactation cycles in its lifetime, we have a total milk yield of 13950 litres. Assuming that a cow rearer can sell milk at Rs. 55 per litre, the cow ends up providing Rs. 7,67,250 in milk-based revenue over her lifetime. Also, this is only the revenue from milk. In addition, a farmer can also gain revenue from selling cow dung and cow urine.
But then remember we have assumed the price of milk as only Rs. 55 per liter. Now here, let us introduce another nuance. Bos Indicus, which is the umbrella name given to different Indian cow species, give what is called the A2 milk, as against foreign breeds like Jersey and Holstein Friesian cows which give A1 milk. While there are ongoing debates on the issue, there is a growing preference for A2 milk globally, because of its health benefits and how it avoids the problems that consumption of A1 milk can cause, as has been mentioned in this paper published in the International Journal of Livestock Research. Thus, A2 milk sells at a premium and a dairy farmer can easily earn Rs. 80-85 per lliterif he uses the right distribution channels.
There is this argument which suggests that because a cow provides milk, it could be used for the purpose until it gives milk, post which it can be slaughtered for beef. On a utilitarian level, it seems alright, except that seems to reflect a highly ungrateful attitude. Ever thought about your pets that way? Know how difficult it was to take a decision to put a pet to sleep to end its dying suffering? Now imagine a family who has not just raised an animal as a family member, but worshipped it, has had its milk for nutrition. Imagine a kid of 4 who was fed on the cow’s milk for 8 years – when the kid is 12, what kind of an example do you wish to set before him or her? That it is perfectly ethical to slaughter a sentient living being which has nourished the kid for 8 years just because the animal is no longer deemed useful?
Again, the intention was not to stray away into the emotional bit for too long, I just brought it up there for a brief consideration. But let’s talk about economics again. And again, no right-wing Hindu organization has published the following:
- Organic food is more nutritious than non-organic food
- Manure is more economical than chemical fertilizers: Economist at Texas AgriLife Research
This study showcases how the use of cow dung results in better crop growth and yield as against the commonly used chemical fertilizers like Urea.
Okay, this one is from India, but cow urine substitutes use of chemical pesticides on farms in Sikkim.
Thus, not only do cow dung and cow urine hold the key to cultivating more nutritious crops, but their use also makes agriculture a lot more sustainable, considering that harmful chemicals would not get into the food chain. Moreover, what this also means is, even after its milk-producing years are over, the cow still is a source of economic gains for the rearer. Not only does this hold key to solving India’s problems of malnutrition, but also holds the key in improving farmers’ incomes. Of course, there are challenges in promoting animal husbandry as an allied occupation along with agriculture, but just because there are challenges does not mean one destroys the best solution, right?
Health Hazards of Beef Consumption
Just a while back, the article dwelled on the stance of slaughtering a cow for beef after its milking years are over. Now in this part, why that approach is bad for the consumers of such beef. Anyone who has been to a slaughterhouse for buying meat and knows how to make a choice of it will tell you this, that when it comes to land-dwelling animals, the younger the animal is, the better is its meat. Hence, the meat of younger chicken, lamb, and goats is leaner, tastier, and easier to digest. When it comes to seafood, the bigger the animal, the better it is in all these aspects. Naturally, when we talk about a cow which is to be slaughtered after its milking years are over, we are obviously talking about an animal in its old age, very close to its natural death. You can imagine the comparative quality of the meat of such an animal.
Second, beef is red meat. Go to any dietician, and they will ask you to consume as less red meat as possible, and the following is a comparative analysis of its nutritional value, mentioned in the Mekonnen and Hoekstra report cited above:
While red meat clearly has a high-fat content, what is even worse is that this fat content is composed of a high degree of trans and saturated fats, which are the cause of several diseases such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular ailments, and certain cancers. You may refer to this report by the Bloomberg School of Public Health, John Hopkins University. Why isn’t it surprising that in Kerala, a state which prides itself for its beef consumption, heart disease has emerged as the leading cause of death.
Constitutional Position And A Brief Overview Of The Political Scenario Regarding Ban on Cow Slaughter
Article 48 of the Constitution of India, which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, reads:
The organisation of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry: The State shall endeavor to organize 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.
This article needs to be read along with Article 37, which says:
The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.
When the Constituent Assembly which was entrusted with drafting the Indian Constitution debated the Directive Principles, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar had made the following comments regarding the same:
‘’It is the intention of this Assembly that in future both the legislature and the executive should not merely pay lip service to these principles enacted in this part, but that they should be made the basis of all executive and legislative action that may be taken hereafter in the matter of the governance of the country.’’
‘’The word ‘strive’ which occurs in the Draft Constitution, in judgment, is very important. We have used it because our intention is even when there are circumstances which prevent the Government, or which stand in the way of the Government giving effect to these Directive Principles, they shall, even under hard and unpropitious circumstances, always strive in the fulfillment of these Directives. That is why we have used the word ‘strive’. Otherwise, it would be open for any Government to say that the circumstances are so bad, that the finances are so inadequate that we cannot even make an effort in the direction in which the Constitution asks us to go”.
Thus, according to the Indian Constitution, not only is the slaughter of cattle impermissible, the Central and State governments are directed to frame laws for the purpose of preventing such slaughter. In accordance with the Directive Principles, various states have passed laws banning cattle slaughter, worded differently in each state and with different severity of punishments for non-compliance of the law. Only 9 out of 29 states, namely Kerala, West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Sikkim, and Manipur do not have laws against cow slaughter.
Any activist who is willing to overturn the ban on cow slaughter, which will necessitate a change in the Directive Principles, will need to get a Constitutional Amendment passed. A Constitutional Amendment can only be effected by a special majority of both houses of the Parliament. What it means is, for the Article 48 to be ‘null and voided’, which is the only means by which the Indian state shall stop striving for its implementation, an amendment to that effect will need to be approved by 2/3rds of the members present and by absolute majority of both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
Clearly, this is an impossibility in the near-term future practically speaking. The BJP which today remains the dominant party in India will in no circumstances attempt to bring in the Constitutional Amendment, given that majority Hindus form its core vote-bank, and clearly because the party does not find any reason to. As regards the Congress, it was Indira Gandhi, the ex-PM that the party continues to look up to for inspiration, that on February 24, 1982, had written a letter to the Chief Ministers of 14 states where she had expressed her desire that ban on cow slaughter be enforced in letter and spirit and is not allowed to be circumvented by devious means. The Congress today would be insulting its previous election symbol and its strongest Prime Minister, should it attempt the requisite Constitutional Amendment to overturn the cow slaughter ban laws.
Conclusion
Having looked at the issue of cow slaughter ban from different angles, I think we can state the conclusion in a point-wise manner as follows:
- If you support the ethical treatment of animals, you must Support the Ban on Cow Slaughter
- If you hope for sustainable economic furtherance of farmers, you must Support the Ban on Cow Slaughter
- If you care for the environment, you must Support the Ban on Cow Slaughter
- If you want to ensure a healthy nation, you must Support the Ban on Cow Slaughter
- If you respect the goals set forward for our nation by the founding fathers, you must Support the Ban on Cow Slaughter
With this, I, rest my case.