While being in nursery and primary school, the “Essay on Cow” used to evoke great humour among teachers as they often alleged that whatever you ask your student to write, ultimately they get back and resort to one of the easiest thing in the World to write, “Essay on Cow.”
Today after four decades of schooling, the same “Essay on Cow” has assumed different dimension, making me to write yet again with forty years of experience!
It all used to start with “Cow is a domestic animal it has four legs and so on and so forth…… Those days nobody ever imagined cow to die and never talked about it, but today we want to decide whether it is right to slaughter it or not.
Dictionary meaning of “
Slaughter” is brutal or violent killing by butchering.
The act itself speaks of great deal of violence or use of disproportionate use of force to ensure end of a valuable life on earth.
The life, one is able to end of the other due to physical, intellectual & circumstantial dominance in the course of bio life cycle and the victim or the prey is a mostly subdued, easily controllable being and vulnerable due to situation created by the violator.
If the slaughtering activity involves human beings with killings performed against one human being by another, it is viewed as crime in World over with no exception.
Now, is the life of an animal is more important than that of a human being, if not equal? The Supreme Court of India has held that right to life of animals need to be elevated with the right to life of human beings during delivery of the landmark judgment of Animal Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors.(2014)
Apex Court directed Government to elevate rights of animals to next level & equate with Humans right to life in accordance with Article 21 – “Right to Life” of the constitution. (#1)
#1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39696860/ &
#1. http://roundup.manupatra.in/trans/viewdoc.aspx
Protection of species and bio diversity is an essential ingredient for sustenance of the environment and lives that exist on Earth. Every life has some contribution or the other in maintaining ecological balance. It is every man’s duty to protect the environment. Vedas vehemently advocate the cause of protection of the environment, biodiversity for easy sustenance of human life on the Globe for better.(#6) Many Indian tribal groups worship nature and find deity in jungles.
#6.http://shantanuc1985.blogspot.in/2016/09/environment-dharma-constitution-of-india.html
This subject matter is a great issue in controversy currently within Indian Union and elsewhere in the World and diaspora of the Indian Subcontinent residing across the globe is closely watching developments in popular terms known as the “Beef Ban”. Complete ban on any food fit for human consumption prima facie appears unjustified as food choices of humans cannot be restricted arbitrarily and whimsically without following due process of law.
Was this done to ensure complete ban of Pork meat in Jammu & Kashmir?
Slaughtering of animal whether it is a Bovine species or not (in which the Cows fall) for that matter any other animal, is it justified for the sustenance of the mother earth?
Is consumption of cow’s meat or beef required to maintain ecological balance?
Do protection of Cows serve any humanitarian or environmental purpose, is it required and to what extent? Is the requirement is one of prohibition, restriction or control?
Let us examine the matter in detail so as to arrive at some kind of scientific and logical conclusion.
Cow & Environment
Beef eating has impact on the environment; beef production requires much more water, land, abundant flora and manpower to produce equivalent calories of the alternative food stuff. Beef production and consumption demands deforestation, triggers carbon emission far in excess of car use.
The recent study of British people’s diets was conducted by University of Oxford scientists reported in The Guardian newspaper UK, found that meat-rich diets - defined as more than 100g per day per capita consumption - resulted in 7.2kg of carbon dioxide emissions. In contrast, both vegetarian and fish-eating diets caused about 3.8kg of CO2 per day, while vegetarian diets alone produced only 2.9kg. (#2)
#2.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars
Beef’s environmental impact dwarfs that of other meat including chicken and pork, new research reveals, with experts saying that eating less red meat would be a better way for people to cut carbon emissions than giving up their cars.
In the UK there is legislation and target to control zero net deforestation due to cattle production and consumption. Excessive cattle production for slaughtering leads to deforestation (#8) and disturbance of the ecology and encourages carbon emission, which is detrimental to the environment.
#8. https://www.tescoplc.com/tesco-and-society/reports-policies-and-disclosure/beef-policy/
Cow & Children
Most of us grew drinking cow’s milk after the period of mothers breast feeding was over (for the fortunate ones). Otherwise life as a child started with drinking cow’s milk which is considered as the complete wholesome food for the child’s gastro ingestion capacity.
Cow is a vegetarian domestic animal, consumes grass but produces wholesome food as milk. Cow’s meat is the most iron rich edible food available on mother earth. If we consider input versus output philosophy, it is a grossly disproportionate production with much inferior input; the output is much superior in nature in terms of human use nonetheless. This has something to do with weird physiology of Cow, worthy of worship. That itself is wondrous phenomenon, isn’t it?
We take food in whatever from we like but once ingested it becomes part of our body, the same mango eaten by one men and the other women becomes male & female gender on ingestion, depending upon who is consuming; that means the food stuff selection has to be done with extreme care and attention, as it becomes part of our body cells and part of our life cycle.
Nature of food consumed dominates our state of mind and determines the character that we display. There is a school of thought that consumption of onion & garlic causes mind to flicker. Consumption of non-vegetarian food obtained by violent means produces violent tendency. (#7) The food habits build up the Child’s character.
#7.http://shantanuc1985.blogspot.in/2014/11/whats-fuss-about-veg-v-non-veg.html
Cow’s milk therefore assumes great importance in building up the generation and one phenomenon that we have recently observed that in urban areas the children get the eye spectacles early and it may be because of various factors adverse to child’s health and one of which may be due to lack of good quality cow’s milk which ensures all round development of the child and prevents overall nutritional deficiency of any kind.
Cow & Statistics
Have presented the following table which represents the human population as per the census of India data and cow population as per the official report published by the national diary development board (NDDB), Anand, Gujarat, India; (#3) if you closely notice that the population of cows are dwindling compared to exponential rise in human population of India. The ratio is becoming skewer and skewer day by day and it may be already a cause of great concern for the last three decades or so. But anybody have been heard to express apprehension about this, may be it is not part of lutyens secular agenda!
#3. http://www.nddb.org/information/stats/pop
What is means that there is less number of cows producing milk in proportion to children born, so there is a huge demand versus supply imbalance with more children seeking milk and less cows producing milk with every passing day. This may be cause for availability of adulterated food stuff including impoverished milk for children.
There is one more startling fact that since 2015 India has become the largest beef exporter surpassing Brazil. (#9) What policy has led to this situation is a matter of research, some other time.
#9. http://time.com/3833931/india-beef-exports-rise-ban-buffalo-meat/
The ratio of Men Versus Cow in India was 1.7 that is there was 1 cow per 1.7 Men in 1951 but the same has dwindled to 1 cow per 4.5 Men in 2011. Cow population is falling drastically, particularly in last three decades under consideration (see graphical representation below).
Cow population remains stagnant whereas the human population shows exponential rise.
All these means that cow is slaughtered in great adverse proportion to export beef from India and to cater for domestic consumption and Cow population is not allowed to grow in proportion to rise in human population, so as to maintain balance.
There is drastic per capita fall in cow population as per the Government of India approved data. This is certainly not a good positive sign and therefore will speak of environmental imbalance including acute milk shortage.
Cow & Religion
Cow is held in high esteem in Indigenous Religions. Sometimes it happens that domestic cows on whose milk the children in the family grew up and even the elders drink as a major source of notorious food automatically develops an emotional bond with the Cow. If something unfortunate happens in the family, the cow also displays deep sad emotional expressions and vice versa. Since the Cow provides for the milk it is given the position of next to mother and called Gau Mata (Mother).
Cow is worshipped in Sanatana Dharma religion in various occasions and it is held a special place with great proportion of sentiments attached. The religious sentiment in favor of cow protection is old, widespread and deep-seated. Since it is worshipped as mother, Hindus don’t kill the same cow for eating its flesh, as killing mother or life provider is regarded as highly immoral act.
Therefore, in festive seasons cows are ornamented and garlanded with flowers and given red vermillion marks on forehead. Thereafter, Cow is worshipped in traditional style with pomp & splendor.
The protection of cow is a question of not recent phenomenon but long standing one in this country. Great importance has been attached to this question from the time of Lord Krishna. Hindus belong to a family which worships Lord Krishna as Ishtadev. Lord Krishna has a very close relationship with Cows and sometimes termed as ‘Makhan Chor” or stealer of butter produced out of cow’s milk. As any religious minded person will have no respect for those people whose attitude towards their religion and glorification of cow is one of contempt?
Indians worship cows with great fervor and festivity and as a footprint there are many famous Cow temples; Chamundeswari Temple in Mysore, Karnataka is one such example.
Srimad Bhagavad Gita in Chapter 18 Verse 44 speaks of protection of cows which is assumed to be a text of around 5000 years old. Gau Raksha means protection of cow and it has been made a duty of a particular Varna which denotes part of their profession to be performed religiously.
Cow & Cow products
Cow products are milk and other milk derivatives like Yogurt, Cheese, Butter etc. Various advantages of cow’s milk have been greatly dealt with in previous paragraphs and also in the following sub-heading.
Beef on the other hand is the meat product. Beef has certain advantages, as it is the best iron rich food available and is good for consumption amongst iron deficiency anemia patients and women.
Beef is considered as red meat and doctors advise avoidance of red meat as it contains large amount of fat and causes hardened arteries, an adverse medical indication in coronary heart disease patients, (Blocking of veins and arteries).
If the beef obtained is not by hygienic means then the consumption cause skin disease, other gastro-intestinal complications. Processed meats contain preservatives and toxins and research and found it to be cause of cancer. You can observe the lineup of patients outside any clinic in Maharashtra, Gujarat, West Bengal, Kerala or anywhere in India, you will find population of certain community generally dominate the patient lineup.
Cow Milk & Nutrition
Cow’s milk is the best source of wholesome food and is better than all other available alternatives.(#4)
#4.http://www.healthline.com/health/milk-almond-cow-soy-rice#Overview1
The above link will provide information about the nutrient value of Cow’s milk. Cow’s milk contains calcium which promotes bone growth, besides have natural proteins, vitamins and minerals. Cow being a vegetarian itself, the chances of contamination of toxins is very low. Cow depends upon grass and leaves of various plants and it is assumed that Cow’s milk is very pure and pristine, provided modern precautions are taken in the form of pasteurisation.
Cow & Price
During this research and study have found that the price of Beef is higher than Chicken in Pakistan and Mutton price being the highest. However, in India Beef prices used to be half of chicken prices. Beef, Chicken & Mutton prices are in ascending order in India. Why beef is cheapest form of meat product particularly in India and not elsewhere is a matter of research again.
Beef prices at Tesco, London, UK are 8 to 10 Pounds per kg, Chicken is 3 to 6 pounds per kg, Lamb or Mutton 8 to 14 Pounds per kg. So you would note that beef is not cheap like India and almost 8 times the price. Beef and lamb prices are almost equal, chicken is cheapest form of meat. This may be due to beef available in the TESCO stores in the UK are absolutely safe, hygienic and free of contamination.
Cow & Law
Now what are the laws of the land and Indian Constitution say about cow, its protection or its slaughtering.
There are laws enacted in the Constitution of India which are very cardinal in nature speaking clearly the Grund Norm position on Cows and other animals. The following two articles are of great significance. Article 48 is part of Directive principles of State policy now but this cannot be enforced by the court of law whilst states have discretion to implement. It was originally supposed to be placed in the fundamental rights Part III, in which case it would have been enforceable in court of law by every citizen but in the constituent assembly debates prior to constitution making by the founding fathers of India, it was sacrificed by Hindu legislators. Article 51A(g) an amended provision enacted post-independence is the fundamental duty of all citizens of India.
Article 48 states “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.”
Article 48A states “Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life, The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country”
Article 51A(g) states “Fundamental duty of Citizens to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.”
The current position of Cow legislation in India is depicted in the following picture on Indian Map, red areas are the states where some form of the beef regulation exists and in blue areas there are no significant law controlling the production and consumption of beef. Majority of the Indian states have laws prohibiting cow slaughter including Jammu & Kashmir.
The following link explains the same in details.
(#5) http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-no-beef-nation/
Many
questions of law and facts arise time and again while going through the entire gamut of legislations and constitution of India.
Question No. 1: Is it the duty of the Gov’t to decide what people should eat? Does Gov’t action have taken away the citizens’ fundamental right of choice and the right to be left alone as per expanded meaning of “Right to Life” – which is embedded in Article 21 of the constitution of India?
The right to privacy to eat food of its own choice or right to live meaningful life is not the prerogative only of meat eaters. Those who worship the cow and its progeny and those who are dependent upon the cow and the cow progeny for agriculture and the like, have also a right to live a meaningful life. Their right to live cannot be taken away to satisfy taste buds of few individuals who are in minority.
The right to life is far superior to the right to kill.
Right to possess beef and to eat beef can by no stretch of imagination be termed as a fundamental right. Beef eaters have many other alternative choices of meat like chicken, lamb, pork whereas; the farmers/cow worshipers/persons who are dependent on the cow and cow progeny have no other alternative. It is most humbly informed to the readers that the right to choice of food cannot be termed as a fundamental right. The depleting population of Cows since Independence as graphically represented in the foregoing paragraphs is an issue of alarm.
In view of the foregoing it may be justified that the constitution of India which is a Grundnorm, that is mother of all laws and Fundamental rights of the citizens read in conjunction with the Directive principles of state policy and driven by it, made some of the States to enact Cow protection legislation as a part of Directive principles of State policy and is not infringing fundamental rights of the citizens of India.
Question No. 2: Controversy over the Beef Ban imposed by Maharashtra State, where the reverse burden of proof cast upon the accused to show that he is innocent if found in possession of beef. Does it violate the general presumption of the law that “accused being innocent until proven guilty”?
State of Maharashtra came under severe criticism on enacting the statute of “Beef Ban” and following are compilations of the arguments given by the state in various public interest litigations and writ petitions filed in Bombay High Court.
a. Unless the State establishes the basic fact that the meat is the product of illegal slaughter within the State and that the person found in possession was having the knowledge of the said fact, Section 9B will not come into picture. Bombay High court further delivered a judgment that meat can be consumed in the state provided that the same is imported out of the state.
b. Reasonableness of the amendment has to be judged not from the view point of citizen who may be objecting to the restrictions but from the view point of the object which is sought to be achieved by the Statute. There is nothing wrong with the negative burden imposed by Section 9B which is brought on the Statute Book by the Amendment Act as such negative burden can be found in several Statutes including Section 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
c. Section 9B cannot be read in isolation. A conjoint reading of Sections 9A and 9B make it clear that in a trial for an offence under the impugned Act, two foundational facts will have to be established by the prosecution viz., (a) the flesh is of an animal protected under the Act and (b) the accused is found in possession of the same. Once these foundational facts are established, only then the burden will shift on the accused to show that the slaughter etc., was not in contravention of the provisions the impugned Act. The possession contemplated by Sections 5C and 5D will have to be conscious possession.
d. As far as the challenge to Section 9B is concerned, presumption of innocence is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Several penal statutes which provide for reverse onus clauses like Section 9B.
e. The possibility of a legal provision being misused is no ground to hold it unconstitutional. Presumption of innocence is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot per se be extended within the purview of freedom of life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 in all cases in omnibus manner.
f. Though the right to a free and fair trial is an important right in the criminal legal system, such right cannot include the right to presume innocence for any activity termed as crime.
g. The rule of reverse burden of proof, or, in other words, shifting of the burden on the accused to prove innocence, is not foreign to Indian legal system. Several enactments such as Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Customs Act, 1962, etc. where burden to prove that his act was innocent and not in contravention of the penal provisions in the relevant Act has been shifted or cast on the accused. On the judgments of the Supreme Court in Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab the apex court supports of validity of casting of such reverse burden, where the convict was carrying banned narcotics, while flying in from abroad.
h. Section 9B comes within the exceptions to the general rule requiring the prosecution to prove every element of an offence beyond reasonable doubt. The facts required to be proved by the accused for discharging the burden within the meaning of Section 9B are especially within his knowledge and can be proved by him.
i. There are sufficient reasons why statutes provide for presumptions of fact or law and cast a burden on the accused to displace those assumptions. Presumptions are raised in respect of proof of negative facts. The English Court of Appeal in Regina v Edwards (1975), whilst considering the provisions of selling intoxicating liquor without a justices’ license, it is not for the prosecutor to prove that the defendant had no license but for the defendant to prove that he had. The burden of establishing a statutory exemption by way of a defense lays on the defendant.”
Question No. 3: Whether Freedom of trade and business to carry out anywhere in India when the provisions of statute on Cow’s meat violate Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution?
It has been widely pleaded by the various sections of press and media that freedom of trade is affected by prohibiting selling and consumption of beef, be it is so, please consider the following arguments:-
a. The question is whether the restriction imposed by Article 19 (1) (g) is unreasonable. The State urges that there is nothing unreasonable about the said restriction. It prohibits and restricts only Cows meat or beef but do not impose such restrictions on other meat products, It is for giving effect to Article 48 and Clause (g) of Article 51A of the Constitution of India. The restrictions are reasonable and not arbitrary and therefore, do not infringe Article 14. The ban is partial and not blanket for all meat products, that leaves consumer to exercise other choices. Therefore, the challenge based on violation of Article 19(1)(g) to the amendment made to Section 5 of the Animal Preservation Act completely prohibiting the slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks is without any merit. More so, when there is a complete ban on pork meat in Jammu & Kashmir implemented with legislation.
b. Even after the amendment to Section 5 of the Animal Preservation Act 1976 by Maharashtra state legislature, butchers can still continue to slaughter other animals and traders can continue to trade in meat of the other animals. So the entire trade is not halted in omnibus manner. What is done by the impugned amendment to Section 5 therefore is a restriction and not prohibition. Hence the question is whether the restriction is reasonable in terms of Article 19(6) gets settled here.
c. In India, there is a drastic shortfall of the required cattle, as graphically represented in the previous section. India has become the largest exporter of beef and other bovine meat since 2015. These two developments are not unrelated and there lays sufficient cause to be estopped.
d. In the light of the above arguments advanced it can be stated that a ban is not a prohibition but only a restriction, because the slaughter of certain other animals is still legal and hence there is no infringement of a fundamental right to occupation, trade or business. The protection of cow progeny is “needed in the interest of the nation’s economy” and survival of the ordinary farmers and their well-being. Milk for children and future generation it is necessary to impose such restrictions on a particular kind of meat.
e. India is basically an agriculture based economy and it is far away from ultimate mechanization that cows, bulls & bullocks can be done away with and replaced with state of the art farm machinery. India still largely depends on Cow progeny for advancement of its agriculture and economy and therefore protection of cow is of paramount importance for sustenance of environment, economy and agriculture on which the largest population of farmers depends on.
f. When two fundamental rights clash like right to life and freedom of trade and business, Supreme Court has held in the case of State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab, in 2005, that wherever any enactment is made for advancement of Directive Principles and it runs counter to the Fundamental Rights, an attempt should be made to harmonise the same, if it promotes larger public interest. In this case Cow slaughter is restricted to promote larger public interest of environment, lessen carbon emission, to cater for the religious sentiments of the majority community and prevent health hazards in in welfare of the society at large.
g. Slaughtering of cow is adverse to the interest of the ordinary farmers who has right to live a meaningful life and not be driven to suicides as it has been a recurrent event in the post-independence era.
Question No 4: Whether the Acts in restricting the slaughter of cows violate the fundamental right to practice and propagate religion under Article 25 or the cultural right under Article 29 of the constitution, to celebrate during Id festival by sacrificing Cows ?
In India press and media have persistently advanced crimes as communal acts and given communal colours to spin doctor issues in politicising it to the advantage of a particular political party the media wishes to promote in exchange of rewards. Media should act responsibly and rather should indulge in pious acts of promoting overall national interest in informing the true factual position to the general public, establishing impartiality, credibility and objectivity.
The following arguments may be read in between the lines to understand what our mother India really needs to sustain national unity, integrity and survive diversity and convergence of cultures that many predictors of Indian Union after independence negated and forecasted an inevitable failure. But seven decades on, We proud Indians have proved them wrong including Winston Churchill.
a. In a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri (1994) it was held that slaughtering of cow during Id festivals is not an essential part of Muslim religion. Merely because a certain practice is permissible as provided in religious texts, it does not automatically mean that it is an essential part of the religion. Sacrifice of animals is a ritual and can be done with any kind of animal. The things which are made compulsory or necessary for the purposes of a particular religion are covered by the right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India to freely profess and propagate any religion. The Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri refers only to the sacrifice of the cows and holds that it is not essential religious practice and do not contravene free dissemination of the religion in question.
b. No culture can claim perpetual and inflexible existence beyond the character of the civilization that created it. Customary rights should not be confused with culture. Article 29 aims to preserve essential culture of the people and not peripheral customs and rituals, which have no relation to an existing culture. For example, abolition of a traditional practice like Sati cannot amount to destroying culture. Slaughter of cows, bulls or bullocks is not an essential part of any culture. Common thread in Article 29 (1) is protection of language, script and culture and
not religion. There is large difference between a ritual and religion. All rituals are not necessary to sustain a religion. Both cannot be equated as per convenience. Since culture is to be protected and not religion per se, the argument that free religious practice is infringed is devoid of any merit.
c. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others(2005), the Apex Court has termed the act of slaughter of cattle in its old age as an act of reprehensible ingratitude. The Amendment Act of the Statues is thus saved by Article 31-C and it is in furtherance of Articles 48 and Clause (g) of Article 51- A of the Constitution of India, hence cows need protection not sacrifice.
d. A decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Others v. Union of India(2003) pointed out that amended provisions of the Wild Life (Preservation) Act, 1972 prohibited the trade of imported ivory. The Supreme Court upheld the said complete ban on the ground that it was necessary to implement the ban on poaching of Indian elephants. He urged that the ban on import was necessary to avoid evasion of taking recourse to camouflage.
e. Several States in the country as per the map seen as above, there is a total ban on the slaughter of entire cow progeny. It is contended that practically in all the States in Northern, Sothern & Western India, except the North East, Kerala & West Bengal there is a total ban on the slaughter of entire cow progeny. States relied on the decision of the Apex court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat(2005). Relying on Article 48 of the Constitution of India, it is urged that there is no constitutional mandate in favour of slaughtering of animals.
Question No 5: When Jallikattu is banned citing cruelty to animals how come cow slaughter can become legal and business as usual?
Jallikattu was a traditional sport played with bulls and bullocks during the festival of Pongal mainly in Tamilnadu, India.
Of course this game is dangerous and there are grave chances of people getting seriously injured during the play. Supreme Court of India had banned this animal sport of
Jallikattu citing cruelty to animals, now the question is, whether slaughtering less cruel than Jalikattu?
The following questions of law were settled by the Apex court while delivering the landmark judgment on Animal Welfare Board of India Vs A. Nagaraja & Ors ( 2014) popularly known as Jallikattu Verdict.
Here violations of law, compassion to living creatures, Humanism while dealing with other species, right to life of animals etc., are discussed.
a.
Violation of Section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, prohibits treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering.
Seminal issue of pivotal importance with regard to the Rights of Animals under our Constitution, laws, culture, tradition, religion and ethology, which we have to examine, in connection with the conduct of Jallikattu sport.
In compliance of Central Govt.’s Department of Forest and Environment Notification dated 11th July 2011 and also in the light of relevant judgment pronounced by Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai Bullock Cart Race, Bullock Race/ Bull Fight/ training of bull / Bullock / Ox for such race, fights / using them for any animal sport activities is being prohibited by law.
The State of Maharashtra has accepted the judgment of the High Court for all the bans as above and the Government decision of 2012 is also not under challenge, hence all these prevails with no protest from any quarter.
b.
Compassion for living creatures: Article 51A(g) states that it shall be the duty of citizens to have compassion for living creatures. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others (2005), Supreme Court held that by enacting Article 51A(g) and giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects sought to be achieved by Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and message of Articles 48 and 48-A are honoured as a fundamental duty of every citizen. Article 51A(g), therefore, enjoins that it was a fundamental duty of every citizen “to have compassion for living creatures”, which means concern for suffering, sympathy, kindliness and killing etc., which has to be read along with Sections 3, 11(1)(a) & (m), 22 etc. of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Thus slaughtering is one step ahead of this in terms of cruelty and therefore needs prohibition.
c.
Humanism: Article 51A(h) says that it shall be the duty of every citizen to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Particular emphasis has been made to the expression “humanism” which has a number of meanings, but increasingly designates as an inclusive sensibility for our species. Humanism also means, understand benevolence, compassion, mercy etc. Citizens should, therefore, develop a spirit of compassion and humanism which is reflected in the Preamble of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act as well as in Sections 3 and 11 of the Act. To look after the welfare and well- being of the animals and the duty to prevent the infliction of pain or suffering on animals highlights the principles of humanism in Article 51A(h). Both Articles 51A(g) and (h) have to be read into the said Act, especially into Section 3 and Section 11 of the Act and be applied and enforced. Therefore slaughtering of cows does not enhance humanism for that matter and needs to be prevented and / or controlled as per the above verdict.
d.
Right to Life: Every species has a right to life and security, subject to the law of the land, which includes depriving its life, out of human necessity. Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word “life” has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. So far as animals are concerned, “life” means something more than mere survival or existence or instrumental value for human-beings, but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honour and dignity.
Animals’ well-being and welfare have been statutorily recognised under Sections 3 and 11 of the Act and the rights framed under the Act. Right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and right to get protection from human beings against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering is a right guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act read with Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. Right to get food, shelter is also a guaranteed right under Sections 3 and 11 of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder, especially when they are domesticated. Cow is a domestic animal and right to dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not confined to human beings alone, but to animals as well. Right, not to be beaten, kicked, over-ridden, over-loading is also a right recognized by Section 11 read with Section 3 of the Act.
Animals have also a right against the human beings not to be tortured and against infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. Penalty for violation of those rights are insignificant, since laws are made by humans. Punishment prescribed in Section 11(1) is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence, hence being violated with impunity defeating the very object and purpose of the Act, hence the necessity of taking disciplinary action against those officers who fail to discharge their duties to safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
In view of the forgoing as vindicated in the very language of the landmark verdict it is established that slaughtering and halal killing are the cruelest form of treatment that can be meted to domestic animal such as cow and therefore prohibition of the same is all the more justified.
Conclusion
With Milch cows humans have a special relationship; milk is produced by the Cow. Interesting point here to ponder is although being an animal product it is not considered as non-vegetarian, on the other hand beef is considered as extreme non-vegetarian product for consumption. Now we know whatever we consume as food, a part of which becomes integral part of our body. That means we assume the cells produced by cow and imbibe it as part of our body. Cows milk is one of the most whole some source of food after mothers breast milk. In the country Cow has an emotional relationship with the household.
If Jallikattu can be banned on the premise of cruelty then uncontrolled and unabated slaughtering and production of halal meat is certainly more cruel form of violence on Cows.
Why is beef cheap in India and not in western countries and not even in Pakistan, is the excess production is allowed at the cost of the environment and carbon emission, there is not so large demand for beef consumption as majority does not consume beef. The preliminary causes of cheapness of beef in India are uncontrolled, unlicensed slaughter houses producing beef under unhygienic conditions. The better quality and safe beef is exported and Indians are allowed to consume adulterated, unhygienic beef. This is another health hazard for Indians and partly explains the lineup of the patients outside doctor’s chambers all over India as explained earlier.
If the slaughtering is continued unabated as it is happening in India, days are not far when this species shall become extinct.
The recent incidents of lynching and cow vigilantism in the name of cow is in all probability a false show for which Prime Minister is repeatedly calling for action and no Indian can support this type of extremism. As reported in various press and media this activity may be foreign sponsored to malign India in a global stage like Church attacks before Delhi elections and POTUS HE Barrack Obama visit and permanent disappearance thereafter!!!!
Therefore, for the sake of humanity and sustenance of human civilization, cow slaughtering and consumption of beef needs to be prohibited, restricted and controlled by law in line with the western countries.
#
Jai Hind
