Essay on Beef Politics in India for UPSC : Whichever side of the recent beef controversy one may be, the fact remains that one’s affection for something as basic as food can’t be changed overnight. And as a sovereign citizen of a modern liberal democracy, it is better to leave the matters of gastronomic preference to the discretion and judgement of the citizen about the ways he or she would like to please his/her palate. So, what has lately become fashionable in this country is not in order and definitely not legitimate. Indian Constitution says, ‘…the State shall take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.” So, the Constitution actually does not talk only about prohibiting slaughter of cows, but also of other milch and draught cattle whose meat is relished by the Hindus.
Essay on Beef Politics in India for UPSC
Whichever
side of the recent beef controversy one may be, the fact remains that one’s
affection for something as basic as food can’t be changed overnight. And as a
sovereign citizen of a modern liberal democracy, it is better to leave the
matters of gastronomic preference to the discretion and judgement of the
citizen about the ways he or she would like to please his/her palate.
So, what has
lately become fashionable in this country is not in order and definitely not
legitimate. Article 48 of the Indian Constitution says, ‘…the State shall take
steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter,
of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.” So, the Constitution
actually does not talk only about prohibiting slaughter of cows, but also of
other milch and draught cattle whose meat is relished by the Hindus. So, those
asking for banning beef because it is mentioned in the Constitution, should
demand equal prohibition for other milch and draught cattle including goat and
buffaloes. A country whose citizens’ nutritional and employment status is
already compromised just can’t afford to ban meat eating of one or the other
kind.
Pandit Thakur
Dass Bhargava who suggested Article 48 relating to cow slaughter in the
Constituent Assembly had said, “I do not want that, due to its inculsion in the
Fundamental Rights, non-Hindus should complain that they have been forced to
accept to certain thing against their will.” As the founding fathers of our
Constitution did not want to force a decision on citizen, the end result of the
debate in the Constituent Assembly was Article 48 in its extant form as one of
the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Supreme Court in several cases
including Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar [AIR 1961 SC 448] and Mohd.
Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh has ruled against a total ban on cattle
slaughter on grounds of public interest. Though there is a lack of uniformity
among provincial laws governing cattle slaughter, no state law explicitly bans
the consumption of beef.
Almost all
the Committees and Commissions, formed from time to time, including Cattle
Preservation and Development Committee [1947-48], Uttar Pradesh Committee [1948],
Nanda Committee on the Prevention of Slaughter of Milch Cattle in India
1954-55], Gosamvardhan Committee [1960] and Special Committee on Preserving
High-Yielding Cattle [1961-62 have recommended against the ban on cattle
slaughter including beef on one or the other ground. The Nanda Committee felt
that ‘measures like legislative ban on slaughter and cruelty or salvage of
animals… will only be treating the symptoms and not curing the disease’ and
recommended against a total ban on slaughter of cattle. It, inter alia,
reasoned that, as India had little fodder and cattle feed, it could only
maintain 40 per cent of its cattle and, therefore, the remaining 60 per cent
should be culled.
As a
religion, Hunduism does not prohibit meat eating. Historians claim that ancient
Hindus including Vedic Brahmins, Buddhists and even early Jains used to consume
meat including beef. Old scriptures including Manusmriti and Arthsashtra have
been quoted to confirm this. Renowned historian D N Jha, in his book, ‘Myth of
the Holy Cow’ has talked extensively about beef eating by ancient Hindus.
Historians have suggested that the Hindus stopped eating beef as a cultural
assertion and reaction to the presence of beef-eating rulers of the times than
for any religious reason.
Arguably, if
beef eating is bad just because cow is treated holy by Hindus, then the same
reason hold for many other animals treated as holy or non-eatable by other
communities. If bruished sentiments of a section of Hindus could be the ground
for banning beef, then eating meat of other animals including chicken, goat,
buffaloes, lamb, pig, etc. should also be banned as they too hurt the
sensibilities of the vegetarians. Stretching it further, we should also not be
banned as they too hurt the sensibilities of the vegetarians. Stretching it
further, we should also not eat garlic, onions or tuberous vegetables because
the same is forbidden to be eaten by a section of the Hindus and Jains. And if
the ground for ban is to stop killing a living being for food, we should
actually not be eating any botanical products as they too have life if we were
to believe Jagdish Chandra Basu. So, if religion be the ground for banning one
or the other food item, there would hardly be anything left for us to eat.
One wonders
whether these people approve of ‘animal eating animal’ or ‘tiger killing a cow’
if we were to continue stretching the argument. After all, as per Hinduism
every living being has God in it; so none is supposed to kill and eat anyone
for food. Mind you we Hindus believe that nothing happens without God’s desire.
So, the loony fringe has to understand that the nature’s food cycle has also
been willed and designed by Him. Theologically speaking, if we were to believe
that it is the Almighty God who has designed every detail in this universe,
then it must be the God who made the human being a carnivore otherwise he would
not have created the possibility of humans eating meat product.
At a time,
when we are talking ‘minimum government, maximum governance’, venturing into
prescribing food for the citizens would actually translate into
‘micro-governance’. Important political leaders and intellectuals including the
Prime Minister have rightly denounced the intolerant behaviour of a section of
Indians including the recent Dadri lynching. However, return of state awards by
literatures and artistes is not the right approach; the intellectuals should
rather speak up against such deviant behaviour by some Indians rather than
indulging in tokenism and symbolism because the awards were actually given on behalf
of the country that the government represents.
The
intemperate and revolting statements like, ‘beef eaters have no place in this
country’ have the potential to balkanize this country because finding a country
for more than 20 crore Indian [including many Hindus who eat beef] would be a
herculean task. So we are left with no choice but to cut a piece from our body
politic to create a new country. Maybe this is the unfinished agenda of
partition that these people are referring to. Again, it is such intolerant
statements and behaviour, as on display in recent times across the country,
which create disaffection in a section of our citizenry and negatively
compromise our doddering nation-building process. Thankfully, the ‘loony
fringe’ remains what it is namely ‘loony’ and ‘fringe’; the predominant
majority still remains embedded in the Constitutional ideals of liberal
pluralism to cushion our ‘salad bowl’ culture.
Amidst all this nonsensical controversies, if the self-proclaimed defender
of the faith were to do something for our milch and draught cattle including
cows, one would only request them to ensure that this country has more and more
scientific slaughter house with hygienic conditions. Something we sorely need.
Battle of the beef, if at all it is to be waged, could be better fought
scientifically and ideologically by proving the benefits of vegetarianism
rather than dictating people what they ought to eat. For the moment, we
definitely have much greater issues to be preoccupied with. They very fact that
we are still mired in such mindless debates only shows that our nation-building
project is still far from complete. India’s existence as a nation-state very much
depends on the outcome of this ideological churning we are going through.
COMMENTS