Beef ban: Caught in the lingo of Indian politics

On this and many other such sensitive questions, the makers of Indian Constitution were confronted with a genuine dilemma. Simply put, their predicament was: should the Constitution be transformative and emancipatory in nature or should it be rooted in the very social structure of which it was a part? Naturally it could not be both. An emancipatory Constitution would be by definition unrepresentative and, therefore, ineffective. A Constitution rooted in the social structure would only reflect the dominant bias and prejudices and would, therefore, cease to be transformative. What to do? This dilemma was amply tested out on the question of cow. 

Cow slaughter (along with music before mosque) had been a huge bone of contention between Hindus and Muslims, at least since the second half of the 19th century. A number of communal riots had broken out in north India around the 1890s on the question of cow slaughter. Around 200 Cow Protection Societies had been formed in various cities with the specific agenda of protecting the cow from the Muslims. The cow question had become potentially quite explosive and had generated tremendous communal passions. Hindus were sought to be politically mobilised against Muslims on this question. Communal attitudes had hardened and crystallised, both among Hindus and Muslims, around the cow.

Political mobilisation
Therefore, to an average Indian living in the initial decades of the 20th century, cow was both a sacred symbol of Hinduism and also a great source of communal friction and violence. It was, however, Mahatma Gandhi, more than anyone else, who represented and exemplified both these ideas. He expressed his “affectionate reverence” for the cow and articulated his veneration in evocative terms: “Cow protection to me is one of the most wonderful phenomenon in human evolution. …. The cow in India was the best companion. She was the giver of plenty. Not only did she give milk, but she also made agriculture possible. The cow is a poem of pity. …. She is the mother of millions of Indian mankind. Protection of cow means protection of the whole dumb creation of God…. Cow protection is the gift of Hinduism to the world. And Hinduism will live so long as there are Hindus to protect the cow…. The way to protect is to die for her.”

But at the same time, he also saw the potentially communal side of the question. Fully aware that the question could activate both Muslim and Hindu communalisms, Gandhi declared his total disapproval of the Cow Protection Societies. He called them cow killing societies (Go Bhakshini Sabhas instead of Go Rakshini Sabhas). He argued in his famous Hind Swaraj, written in 1909, that more cows were killed as a result of Hindu intransigence and that persuasion and mutual goodwill was the best way of saving the cow. It required a typically Gandhian genius to continue to sacralize the cow and yet not allow it to be appropriated by the communalists. Gandhi was able to practise and demonstrate his conviction during the Khilafat movement (1920-22) when, as a result of Hindu-Muslim unity in politics, the instances of cow slaughter came down significantly through voluntary efforts.

At the time of framing the Constitution, there was considerable pressure from many Hindu members of the Constituent Assembly to specify a ban on cow slaughter. The leaders of the Assembly knew that this insistence, if accepted, would make the Constitution denominational and severely compromise its transformative character. But the majority view could not be completely brushed aside. Hence a compromise formula was evolved and the cow slaughter issue was included in the Directive Principles.
Keeping in mind the communally sensitive nature of the issue, it was mentioned as part of the “Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry” wherein it was stated that the State will endeavour to prohibit the “slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.” The question is still important, specially for a generation that has no historic memory of the national movement days, when this was one of most communally explosive issues of the times.

As with so much else, on this question also we need to go back to Gandhi. He did not display the ‘cosmopolitan neutrality’ to this question. He treated the cow as sacred and was uncompromisingly against cow slaughter. But he was equally uncompromisingly against any legal and constitutional ban on cow slaughter. His contention was that the cow could be saved much more effectively in a climate of mutual accommodation and goodwill rather than through coercive enforcement. Anyone who wants to save the cow through legal enforcement will only contribute to an atmosphere in which more cows may be slaughtered. Muslim communalists made a great spectacle of cow slaughter and their Hindu counterparts provoked them into it through their excessive intransigence. The successors of the first generation communalists are still  active in politics. It is, therefore, necessary to recognise that those who are clamouring for cow protection are doing it not out of love for the cow, but because cow has historically been a major plank to sustain their politics of communalism.

(Salil Misra teaches history at the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi.)

Anti-slaughter Bill: What it means

Karnataka Governor H R Bhardwaj withheld Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2010 for consideration of the President on these grounds: “Violation of the fundamental rights, rulings of the Supreme Court, adverse effect on the lives of large sections of people, lacks legislative competence.”

The Bill, which critics say is more draconian than the legislation in force in Gujarat, provides for: 

*  Repeal and replacement of the previous Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964. The old Act at least had provision for the slaughter and sale of meat of cattle, including cows, above 12 years of age.

*  Section 4 of the new Bill makes no such distinction and puts a blanket ban on slaughter and any action leading to slaughter or intentional killing of cattle.

*  Section 5 prohibits any person possessing, using, selling or transporting beef and beef products. This amounts to taking the ban beyond mere slaughter and barring beef eating itself and denies inexpensive nourishment to the poor.

*  On suspicion of any offence,  any police officer not below the rank of Sub Inspector or competent authority may inspect and seize cattle and the premises and materials used by the offender.

*  Scope for misuse: Any person suspected to be in possession of beef may be booked even if the meat is of chicken or mutton. That the seized meat is not beef will have to be proved in the court of law much later.

*  Every farmer is a probable offender: Sec 8 prohibits sale, purchase or disposal of cattle for slaughter. This means, debt-ridden farmers will be saddled with old and unproductive cattle. Or, they may have to shell out money for their upkeep in government or private shelters.

*  Any person opposing the Bill or supporting eating of beef will be liable for punishment: Section 14 provides for punishment to those abeting the offence of beef eating. This means merely defending beef eating may be an offence.

*  Stringent punishment: Offenders are punishable with imprisonment not less than one year which may extend up to seven years or fined between Rs 25,000 to Rs 50,000 or both; second and subsequent offence would attract a fine of not less than Rs 50,000 up to Rs one lakh along with imprisonment. Even serious crimes under the IPC do not attract such severe punishment.