'60-70% of what is fed to bull is realised with manure'

There are some adverse impacts but we have to forgo all that because the cattle Bill is based on our principle and policy, says Karnataka Minister For Law, Parliamentary Affairs & Legislation J C Madhuswamy in an interview with DH’s Shree D N. Excerpts:

You told the media that eating beef is not banned. Doesn't this contradict the Ordinance?

When we have allowed slaughtering of the buffalo which is more than 13 years old, so we cannot say that beef is totally banned. The 1964 Act said till the age of 12 nothing can be slaughtered. But we have said that cows cannot be slaughtered at all, but buffaloes can be culled after 13 years, with the certification by authorities.

Beef costs less than other forms of meat. Is there a plan to ensure other affordable meat is available to those who need it?

We have not taken up the Act for commercial purposes. This is the thinking of Gandhiji which was discussed in constituent assembly. Cow in India has to be protected, respected and worshipped. We have said that cow is our god. Earlier, the thinking was, if it is aged or is above 12 years, then it could have been slaughtered. Now we have said let it not be slaughtered at all. We have made provisions of gaushalas. Those cattle will be taken care of by the government itself.

Are there enough gaushalas right now? Is there enough capacity?

We will organise them on demand. We are thinking of organising one in each district. If needed, we will organise more also. We will also request charitable institutions interested to support them as well.

Isn’t maintaining a bull expensive for a farmer?

Yes, it is, but we have taken the decision, so we have to maintain it. 60-70% of what is fed to a bull is realised in the form of manure. It is not a waste to maintain or feed an animal. Rest of the 30-40% will be taken care of by the government, in the form of payment to gaushalas to maintain the animal.

Buffaloes formed just 22% of the entire beef market in the state. In Bangalore, buffalo meat is just 2% of overall beef sold. Is the beef enough for existing demand, with just buffaloes allowed to be culled?

This policy is to prohibit the slaughter of cows and buffaloes. When we take this up we cannot think of consumption and usage of beef in the market. We had planned to ban beef also, but we have allowed buffaloes. We cannot think of both simultaneously. When we prohibit something, it adversely affects something else. You have to pay more because beef will be less in future.

Were other economic impacts like loss of jobs considered before making the law?

There are some adverse impacts but we have to forgo all that because it is our principle and policy. Leather, beef business will be reduced, leather-dependent industries have to purchase leather from outside. All those impacts are there. We have calculated all that.

So is the government providing assistance? Is there any plan to reskill people like butchers, who are entirely dependent upon this?

That question has not arisen. We have not come across such a situation till now. Very few people depend only on this. They will slaughter goats and other animals too. That business will be go on. They will not be jobless.

The bill provides for confiscating and public auction of materials like vehicles...

We have made a provision to release them by providing a bank guarantee to the authorities. We have also made a provision to punish the seller, purchaser and the middleman. The 1974 Act was not strengthened. That bill did not help prosecute those involved in the business. Now we have made a lot of provisions to punish and penalise them.

How do you stop “people acting in good faith” from taking the law into their hands?

People are not supposed to take the law into their hands. They are supposed to only stop the vehicle and inform the police. Only such people are protected.