Protecting cattle or harassing minorities?
On 19 March, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) controlled Karnataka Assembly passed the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill (2010), which proposes to ban completely the slaughter of cattle in Karnataka. This may seem like nothing new, since cow slaughter was already banned in the state. Three things, however, made this law different. First, it defines “cattle” as “cow, calf of a cow and bull, bullock, buffalo male or female and calf of she-buffalo”. Second, it also bans sale, use and possession of beef, prohibits sale, purchase or disposal of cattle for slaughter, and restricts their transport. Third, it prescribes draconian punishments – imprisonment of up to seven years, and/or fines of between Rs25,000 to Rs1 lakh.
Though the opposition parties – the Congress and the Janata Dal (S) – alleged that the election to the Bengaluru Municipal Corporation, scheduled for March 28, was the main reason for the Bill’s passage, its real purpose is far more sinister than mere electoral manipulation.
The Bill is now in limbo, as Karnataka Governor Hans Raj Bharadwaj refused to sign it. But, instead of returning it to the assembly, he referred it to the President of India. If the bill does become law eventually, it will affect lakhs of people. It is the contention of the Beef Merchants’ Association of Karnataka that 35 lakh people – most of them non-Muslims – are dependent on the beef trade, including ancillary activities like transportation of cattle, the leather industry, the meat packaging industry, manufacture of shoes, belts, nail polish, films, buttons, etc.
Muslims and Christians are yet to strongly react to the Bill, but the Dalits have protested vehemently against the Bill, saying that it interferes with their food habits, and is part of the upper-caste Hindutva agenda of ‘Sanskritisation’.
In its defence, the Karnataka BJP government says it is doing no more than implementing the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution of India, which advocate that states endeavour to ban cow slaughter. Article 48 of the Constitution says: “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.”
But this constitutional directive was amply served by the existing ‘Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act (1964)’, which banned the slaughter of cows, as well as calves of cows and she-buffaloes, but allowed the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes if they were over 12 years of age, if they were not fit for breeding or draught, or did not give milk.
Bulls, bullocks and buffaloes are neither protected by the Constitution, nor by the Hindu religion. Banning their slaughter and the sale of their meat, therefore, is aimed purely at harassment of the minorities, not at saving the holy cow, which is already protected in the state.
Glass houses
People who live in glass houses, it is said, shouldn’t throw stones. It is ironic that a former Vice Chairman of the Goa Tourism Development Corporation (GTDC) who departed under a cloud should complain about its present Managing Director. Lyndon Monteiro is facing serious criminal charges of destruction of evidence in the death of Nadia Torrado. His boss, Mickky Pacheco, may not be found guilty in that case, but Mr Monteiro is unlikely to be quite as lucky. It is best, therefore, that he does not fall for the old lie that offence is the best form of defence.
