You are on page 1of 15

Does Religon interferes law making procdure, from the view of Beef Ban in Maharahtra

Abstract
Recently the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Bill 1995, passed on march 7
2015 created quite a buzz. Between a lot of opinions and facts the true picture of the bill is
somehow lost. Its really a point to ponder that was so much fuss is necessary over a bill that
was already in existence since 1976 banning the slaughter of Cow. Only an amendment is
being made as to include the slaughter of bulls and bullocks as well which were previously
allowed based on a fit-for-slaughter certificate. The bill also bars anyone the possession and
selling beef , resulting which the guilty would have to pay 10000 rupees as fine and five years
in jail. Through all the noises regarding India becoming a leading beef exporter in the last
four year, one important fact is missed out. And that is internationally both cow meat and
buffalo meat is termed as beef. The research paper present the political relevance of cows,
facts related to the cause and effects of beef ban in maharashtra, the role of politics through
Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Bill 1995. The research also refrains from
giving either an optimistic or a pessimistic view of reality, and stick to presenting the
particulars as collected from different sources.
Key words: Ban, Beef, Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Bill, 1995
Constitutionally, India is a secular country and has no State religion. However, it has
developed over the years its own unique concept of secularism that is fundamentally different
from the parallel American concept of secularism which was added by 42nd amendment but
has remained undisputed even though most of the constitutional amendments made by 42nd
amendment were repealed by the 44th amendment.
What is Religion? The Constitution uses but does not define the expressions 'religion' and
'religious denomination' and therefore the courts have found it necessary to explain the
meaning and connotation of these words. The Supreme Court has observed that: In the
background of the provisions of the Constitution and the light shed by judicial precedent we
may say that religion is a matter of faith. It is a matter of belief and doctrine. It concerns the
conscience, i.e., the spirit of man. It must be capable of expression in word and deed, such as
worship or ritual - SP Mittal v Union of India AIR 1983 SC 11

1 AIR 1983 SC

Despite the clear incorporation of all the basic principles of secularism into various
provisions of the Constitution when originally enacted, its preamble did not then include the
word 'secular' in the short description of the country which it called a 'Sovereign Democratic
Republic.
This was not an inadvertent omission but a well-calculated decision meant to avoid any
misgiving that India was to adopt any of the western notions of a secular state. Twenty-five
years later - by which time India's own concept of secularism had been fully established
through judicial decisions and state practice - the preamble to the Constitution was amended
by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act 1976 to include the word 'secular' along
with 'socialist', to declare India to be a 'Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic'.2
Regardless of the reasonable fuse of all the essential standards of secularism into different
procurements of the Constitution when initially ordered, its preface did not then incorporate
"common" in the short portrayal of the nation which it called a 'Sovereign Democratic
Republic'. This was not a unintentional oversight but rather an all around computed choice
intended to maintain a strategic distance from any second thought that India was to embrace
any of the western ideas of a common state. A quarter century later - by which time India's
own particular idea of secularism had been completely settled through legal choices and state
hone - the introduction to the Constitution was corrected by the Constitution (Forty-second
Amendment) Act 1976 to incorporate "mainstream" alongside 'communist', to announce India
to be a 'Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic'.
In an early case after the commencement of the Constitution a court had examined the US
principle of the 'wall of separation' between religion and State and Concluded that there are
provisions in the Indian Constitution which are inconsistent with the theory that there should
be a separation between Church and State as per the case of Narayanan Namboodripad v
State of Madras3. But In the leading case of SR Bommai v Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 4
various judges of the Supreme Court of India individually explained the significance and
place of secularism under the Constitution.
2
3 AIR 1955 Mad 385
4

The constitution and other laws and policies protect religious freedom and, in practice, the
government generally respected religious freedom; however, some state-level laws and
policies restricted this freedom. India is a secular republic, with all religions offered equality
under the law. There was no change in the status of respect for religious freedom by the
government during the reporting period. Some state governments enforced existing
"anticonversion" laws, and some local police and enforcement agencies in certain instances
were not swift to counter communal attacks, including attacks against religious minorities.
The country is the birthplace of several religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and
Sikhism, and home for thousands of years to Jewish, Zoroastrian, Muslim, and Christian
communities. The vast majority of citizens of all religious groups lived in peaceful
coexistence and were conscious of religious freedom and minority rights; however, at times,
violence between religious groups and organized communal attacks against religious
minorities occurred during the reporting period. The Ministry of Home Affairs published in
its Annual Report 2009-10 that 826 communal incidents occurred in 2009, in which 125
persons died, compared to 943 incidents in 2008 in which 167 persons died. State
governments also reported communal incidents. The country's democratic system, open
society, independent legal institutions, vibrant civil society, and free press actively provided
mechanisms to address violations of religious freedom when they occurred.5
The nation is the origin of a few religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, and
home for a great many years to Jewish, Zoroastrian, Muslim, and Christian groups. Most by
far of nationals of every single religious gathering lived in tranquil concurrence and were
aware of religious flexibility and minority rights; be that as it may, on occasion, brutality
between religious gatherings and sorted out common assaults against religious minorities
happened amid the reporting period.
There are large Muslim populations in the states of Uttar Pradesh (UP), Bihar, Maharashtra,
West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Kerala; Muslims are the majority in Jammu
and Kashmir. Although Muslims are a minority, the country has the world's second-largest
Muslim population. Christian populations are found across the country but in greater
concentrations in the northeast, as well as in the southern states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and
Goa. Three small northeastern states (Nagaland, Mizoram, and Meghalaya) have large
Christian majorities. Sikhs are a majority in the state of Punjab. Two hundred and fifty
5

million persons, or 24 percent of the population, belong to the Scheduled Castes (SC), also
known as Dalits and Scheduled Tribes (ST). Some converted from Hinduism to other
religions, ostensibly to escape discrimination since many SC and ST members continued to
face impediments to social advancement. Discrimination based on caste was officially illegal
but incidents of discrimination occurred, especially in rural areas. Some who converted from
a desire to escape discrimination and violence encountered hostility and backlash from
conservative sections of Hindu society.6
But in the perview of maharshtra which enacted a law termed as The Maharashtra Animal
Preservation Act, 1976 governing the slaughter of cattle in the state. Slaughter of cows
(includes a heifer or male or female calf of a cow) is totally prohibited. Slaughter of bulls,
bullocks and buffaloes is allowed on obtaining a "fit-for-slaughter certificate", if it is not
likely to become economical for draught, breeding or milk (in the case of she-buffaloes)
purposes.
Anyone violating the law can be punished with imprisonment up to an maximum of 6 months
and fine of up to 1,000. The law places the burden of proof on the accused. The crime is
treated as a cognizable offence. Maharashtra cow slaughter ban was later extended to ban the
sale and export of beef, with a punishment of 5 years jail, 10,000 fine for possession or
sale. This law came into effect from 2 March 2015.7

Cow slaughter and the consumption of beef are highly volatile, emotive and politicised
subjects in India. Hindus, who comprise 80% of India's 1.2bn population, revere cows and
the sale and consumption of beef is banned or restricted in many states.8
Article 48 of the Constitution of India, a Directive of State Policy, provides the basis for
legislative efforts at regulating and prohibiting cow slaughter in India. It reads: The State
shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines
6 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/appendices/index.htm.
7
8

and shall in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the
slaughter, of cows and other milch and draught cattle.
The parliament and state legislatures derive their power to legislate under Article 246 of the
Constitution of India, read with Schedule 7, which divides subject matters in terms of a
union, state and concurrent list. The regulation of cow slaughter is understood to be a state
subject-entry 15 of List II to the seventh schedule, which enumerates the state list reads as
'Preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases also
veterinary training and practice'. This is the source of authority of states to legislate on the
matter. Drawing their legitimacy from this article, most states in India have varying
prohibitions and restrictions on the slaughter of cattle, on the transport of cattle for the
purpose of slaughter, and even on the sale, usage and possession of beef. These prohibitions
and restrictions are tempered by differing conceptions of the use value of the cow and other
bovine animals. For instance, older cows maybe slaughtered in West Bengal and Assam upon
licence, whereas in Gujarat, the so-called total ban on
cow slaughter in fact translates into a prohibition on the slaughter of cows, bulls and
bullocks of any age. The state of Karnataka currently provides something of a halfway house
between Gujarat and West Bengal the slaughter of cows, and the calves of cows and buffaloes
is prohibited, while the slaughter of bulls, bullocks, and buffaloes is permitted upon the
issuance of a certificate that either the animal is over 12 years old or permanently
incapacitated from providing milk or being used as draught cattle. However, the law in
Karnataka is all set to change with the recent enactment of the Karnataka Prevention of
Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2010, which extends the prohibitions on slaughter
to any cow, calf, bull, bullock or buffalo, thereby promulgating a total ban on the slaughter of
cattle, a wide-ranging and stringent prohibition indeed. The slaughter of cows was previously
prohibited in the state under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act of 1976. However, the
passage of the new act will ban the slaughter of bulls as well as bullocks, which was
previously allowed based on a fit-for-slaughter certificate.
The Supreme Court in Mohd Hanif Quareshi and others v State of Bihar 9 and connected
petition, had the first opportunity in post-independent India to adjudicate on the
constitutionality of laws banning cow slaughter. In this case, petitions which challenged the
9

constitutional validity of three enactments banning the slaughter of cows passed by the
States of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh (traditionally considered to be the cow
belt of India, given their historical involvement in the cow protection movement) were heard
together by the court. The constitutionality of these acts was challenged by Muslim butchers,
cattle dealers and meat vendors from the three states on the grounds that the Acts infringed
their right to equality, their right to practice any profession, or carry on any occupation, and
their right to freedom of religion which were all guaranteed as Fundamental Rights in the
Constitution.
However, this long-held position of the Supreme Court was to see a marked shift in 2005,
when a seven-judge bench presided over the case of State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti
Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors. In this case, the constitutionality of the Bombay Animal
Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 was challenged as it provided for a total ban on
cow slaughter, viz., it called for a complete ban on all cows and her progeny, viz., cows,
bulls, bullocks, heifers and calves. As will be recalled, in Hanif Quareshi, the court argued
that it was only useful cattle (apart from the cow itself and calves) that could be protected
from slaughter. Bulls and bullocks, as per the later decisions of the Supreme Court, became
useless past the age of 15. The impugned amendments to the Act in this case sought to once
again change what could constitutionally be prohibited from slaughter. By a majority of six,
the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the impugned amendment. The reasoning that the
court used in order to distinguish the present case from Hanif Quareshi was as follows. Since
the time of Hanif Quareshi, there were several changes in India - firstly, a holistic
environmental policy had been inserted into the constitution, of which the judges in Hanif
Quareshi did not have the benefit. 10
Further, according to the court, food security was a significant concern then, whereas now,
our socio-economic scenario has progressed from being gloomy to a shining one. This
reasoning of the court was critical of both the understanding that useless cattle were a drain
on the resources, and that beef and buff contributed to food security by providing sustenance
to a diverse range of communities.11

10
11

Anyone violating the law can be punished with imprisonment up to an maximum of 6 months
and fine of up to 1,000. The law places the burden of proof on the accused. The crime is
treated as a cognizable offence. Maharashtra cow slaughter ban was later extended to ban the
sale and export of beef, with a punishment of 5 years jail, 10,000 fine for possession or
sale. This law came into effect from 2 March 2015.12
While this is a particularly harsh law, legal provisions for restricting or banning cow
slaughter are rather common: 26 states in India have laws which either regulate or ban cow
slaughter.
Clearly then, the cow is a livewire political topic. In his prime ministerial campaign,
Narendra Modi used the emotive power of the cow to attack the United Progressive Alliance
government. It saddens me, he wrote on his blog, that present UPA Government led by
Congress is promoting slaughtering of cows and exporting beef to bring Pink Revolution.
Of course, the beef that India exports is mostly buffalo and not cow meat but Modi couldnt
be bothered with such pedantic nuances (ironically, beef exports have risen since Modi came
to power). The cow here was just a dog whistle with which to attack the Congress supposed
"minority-appeasement", exploiting the age-old communal stereotype of associating Muslims
with beef consumption.13
Later on, Maneka Gandhi, a minister in Modis cabinet, would dispense with even the dog
whistle and, in a remarkable leap of logic, claim that the profits from the beef industry were
directly funding terrorism. The Rajasthan Bharatiya Janata Party government went beyond
just talk and set up a separate ministry dedicated to bovine affairs. Even the Congress is not
really all that different: remember, most of the state laws against cow slaughter were passed
by Congress governments.
Maneka Gandhi,

in Modi's bureau, would get rid of even the puppy shriek and, in a

momentous jump of rationale, claim that the benefits from the meat business were
straightforwardly financing terrorism. The Rajasthan Bharatiya Janata Party government went
12 see generally, HinduismToday. (2014, October 13). Requests Narendra Modi to Ban
Subsidy to export Beef. Retrieved March 19th, 2015.

13 see generally, HinduismToday. (2014, October 13). Requests Narendra Modi to


Ban Subsidy to export Beef. Retrieved March 19th, 2015.

past simply talk and set up a different service devoted to ox-like undertakings. Indeed, even
the Congress is not by any means all that diverse: recall, the majority of the state laws against
dairy animals butcher were gone by Congress governments. The Bharatiya Janata Party
government went past simply talk and set up a different service devoted to cow-like
undertakings. Indeed, even the Congress is not so much all that distinctive: recall, the
majority of the state laws against bovine butcher were gone by Congress governments.

The political relevance of the cow


Cow has deep historical roots, an obvious outcome of the animals importance in Hinduism
since the medieval age. Babur is supposed to have advised his son and crown-prince
Humayun to ensure that cow slaughter was banned in Mughal territories. Akbar continued
this tradition with a firman in 1586. Cow slaughter was also banned in the Sikh and Maratha
empires and Haider Ali of Mysore threatened to chop of anyones hands as punishment.
During the Rebellion of 1857, in a surprising show of spine, the last Mughal emperor
Bahadur Shah Zafar made cow slaughter a crime punishable by death in order to present a
united

Hindu-Muslim

front

while

facing

the

British

sieging

Delhi.

However, cow protection as a political issue really came into its own during the colonial
period as Indians started to develop a collective consciousness based on their religious
identity. Hindu and Muslim now became political groups. Like Maharashtra, Delhi also
has strict provisions against all cow slaughter but posh restaurants in the city openly display
what they call beef on their menus. Last year in Madhya Pradesh, the Bharatiya Janata
Party voted against a bill which sought to ban the sale of cow bones and fat. In a state where
cow slaughter is banned, it takes a special Kafkaesque sense of the surreal to digest that
trading in the animals body parts, however, is protected by law.
Dairy animals has profound authentic roots, an undeniable result of the creature's significance
in Hinduism since the medieval age. Babur should have prompted his child and crown-ruler
Humayun to guarantee that dairy animals butcher was banned in Mughal regions. Akbar
proceeded with this custom with a firman in 1586. Bovine butcher was likewise banned in the
Sikh and Maratha realms and Haider Ali of Mysore debilitated to cleave of anybody's hands
as discipline. Amid the Rebellion of 1857, in an astounding show of spine, the last Mughal

ruler Bahadur Shah Zafar made dairy animals butcher a wrongdoing deserving of death
keeping in mind the end goal to exhibit a united Hindu-Muslim front while confronting the
British attacking Delhi.

Be that as it may, dairy animals insurance as a political issue truly made its mark amid the
frontier period as Indians built up an aggregate cognizance in view of their religious
personality. "Hindu" and "Muslim" now got to be political gatherings. Like Maharashtra,
Delhi additionally has strict procurements against all cow butcher yet rich eateries in the city
transparently show what they call "hamburger" on their menus. A year ago in Madhya
Pradesh, the Bharatiya Janata Party voted against a bill which tried to boycott the offer of
dairy animals bones and fat. In a state where bovine butcher is banned, it takes an uncommon
Kafkaesque feeling of the dreamlike to process that exchanging the creature's body parts, be
that

as

it

may,

is

ensured

by

law.

The special status of the cow in current-day Hindu culture and religion cannot be disputed.
Given the large number of people who are affected by it, it is almost inevitable that a
democratic state would take cognisance of the issue in some form or the other.
However, it is also paradoxical that the state targets cow protection somewhat patchily,
attacking only the act of slaughter when it is quite obvious that steak houses, tanneries or
cricket ball manufacturers are as much to blame after all these industries, by definition,
necessitate

the

killing

of

the

cow.

This is an contradictory approach to the issue of cow protection shows that it is treated more
as a political rather than religious matter. Cow protection sentiments are exploited by the state
and politicians to mobilise people and catch votes, targeting poor Muslims and Dalits by
accusing them of cow slaughter. Of course, since other factors are clean ignored, these laws
do nothing to actually improve the lot of cattle in the country.
Beef is offensive to the majority Hindus the same way Pork is offensive to Muslims and all
kinds of meat are offensive to Vegans and Vegetarians. While the banning of something is a
debatable topic in itself- the major problem with the banning of beef in Maharashtra is not

regarding the merits or non-merits of such a decision, but rather the motivation behind it. 14
It's one thing to say "Beef should be banned because statistically the chance of getting sick
while eating Beef is higher than the chance of getting sick eating fish". But it's an entirely
different thing to ban something that most faiths other than Hinduism consider a regular part
of their dietary intake - especially when the ban is seen or perceived as being communally
motivated

and

pushed

forward

by

rather

unforgiving

political

agenda.

While the BJP has pushed for and got the law enforceable now- the bill has been pending
since about 1995- when the BJP was in power before the Congress. Cow slaughter has been
banned in India ages ago- and the current law seeks to include Bulls and Bullocks as well.
The water Buffalo has been exempt from this ruling - although if past instances are to be
taken into account, slaughtering the Water Buffalo is going to be extremely difficult if not
impossible.

In light of the above facts- another one comes to the forefront - that while the killing and
consumption of "Beef" has been banned by Pro BJP governments- the sale of Animal
products including leather made from cow hide etc is still legal. To make things more
interesting - the BJP voted against the ban of sale of animal products.
Is the ban on beef a lapse in religious equality in India?
Mahatama Gandhi briefly said,
I have been long pledged to serve the cow but how can my religion also be the religion of
the rest of the Indians? It will mean coercion against those Indians who are not Hindus.
We have been shouting from the house-tops that there will be no coercion in the matter of
religion. We have been reciting verses from the Koran at the prayer. But if anyone were to
force me to recite these verses I would not like it. How can I force anyone not to slaughter
cows unless he is himself so disposed? It is not as if there were only Hindus in the Indian
Union. There are Muslims, Parsis, Christians and other religious groups here15.

14 Anand, A. (2015, March 15). Who is affected by the ban on beef? Retrieved March 15,
2016, from Daily Times.

I have been asked, Since in view of the atrocities being perpetuated by Muslims it is difficult
to decide which of the Muslims are to be trusted, what should be our attitude towards the
Muslims in the Indian Union? What should the non-Muslims in Pakistan do?
I have already answered this question. I again repeat that all the religions of India today are
being put to the test. It has to be seen how the various religious groups such as the Sikhs, the
Hindus, the Muslims and the Christians conduct themselves and how they carry on the affairs
of India. Pakistan may be said to belong to Muslims but the Indian Union belongs to all. If
you shake off cowardice and become brave you will not have to consider how you are to
behave towards the Muslims. But today there is cowardice in us. For this I have already
accepted the blame.
The assumption of the Hindus that India now has become the land of the Hindus is erroneous.
India belongs to all who live here. If we stop cow slaughter by law here and the very reverse
happens in Pakistan, what will be the result? Supposing they say Hindus would not be
allowed to visit temples because it was against Shariat to worship idols? I see God even in a
stone but how do I harm others by this belief? If therefore I am stopped from visiting temples
I would still visit them. I shall therefore suggest that these telegrams and letters should cease.
It is not proper to waste money on them.16
The ban violates our fundamental rights, as it is not in accordance with our constitution as it
is a primary food for some community. It violates our Article 14(Equality before Law),
21(Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), 26(Freedom to manage religious Affairs) and
29(Protection of Interests of Minorities). The government can ban killing and consuming of
the animals, which are endangered species. Its okay that the cow is the mother of Hindus but
India is not Hindu State, its a Secular state. Every religion can consume whatever they want
providing they are not in the process of Cannibalism and into bizarre and endangered species.
The most important is that the government should maintain peace and make everyone feel
safe and not partial between religions. No, it is constitutional though one may argue the
rationality behind it. Initially, the Cow Massacre is prohibited in many states of India and in
15 AlJazeera. (2014, April 20). Sacred cows and politics of beef in India. Retrieved March
15th, 2016.

16 http://thewire.in/2015/10/02/what-mahatma-gandhi-said-to-those-whowanted-beef-banned-in-india-12170/

Maharashtra since 1976. The ban is extended to even Bulls and for the Buffalo is still
allowed. The Meat totally has not been barred completely. The Forbidding of beef does not
contravene the fundamental rights of any civilian of India.17

Secularism is more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of


equal treatment of all religions.
The state as an entity must maintain the neutral character and should not give any importance
to any religion wherein it will tend to signify its sense of belonging to any particular religion.
It is essential for the secular state that the burden of secularism should not be only laid on the
minority alone but equally majority should also adhere to that principle. The state should
formulate its policies on scientific basis and logical reasoning. On this point, constitution
expressly mentions in Article 51A (h) of the constitution of India which provides for the
development of the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.
Jammu and Kashmir Constitution has not inserted the world secularism in the preamble of the
constitution. Secularism word has found its place in section 25 which is the directive
principle in the Jammu and Kashmir constitution. Though I believe this has been wrongly
placed under the directive principle as fundamental rights applicable to Jammu and Kashmir
already declare it as a basic feature of the constitution. It should be rather inserted in the
preamble of the constitution if state is firm to maintain its secular character.

17 The Asian Age. (2015, March 4th). Beef ban likely to affect 20 lakh in Maharashtra.
Retrieved March 19th, 2015, from The Asian Age: http://www.asianage.com.

Is there a political motive behind the ban?


The Indian state of Maharashtra has banned the sale or possession of beef, leading to fears
that secularism in India is being eroded, under criticism for Maharashtra's new cow
protection law the BJP has denied any overt political motive. They claim the ban was
important in the interests of Indian agriculture.
BJP MP from Mumbai Kirit Somaiya who led the campaign to pass the Maharashtra bill,
defended the ban on bullock slaughter saying that even infirm animals help the agricultural
economy by generating cow dung and urine. "Electricity or pumps are not yet available- we
are talking about the bio-electricity," he said, meaning biogas, extracted from dung and other
organic waste. Also cattle urine, when mixed with neem, can be an effective pesticide.18
Moreover, there is little evidence to suggest that permitting slaughter of infirm cattle hurts
agriculture. States which have the most liberal laws on cattle slaughter, like Andhra Pradesh,
West Bengal and Tamil Nadu all of which permit the conditional slaughter of cows and bull
have

remained

high

performers

agriculturally.

West Bengal holds the title of the greatest rice delivering state in the nation. Andhra Pradesh
is in third place as indicated by an administration report on the estimation of farming yield in
2013.
The Indian condition of Maharashtra has banned the deal or ownership of hamburger,
prompting expects that secularism in India is being disintegrated, under feedback for
Maharashtra's new bovine security law the BJP has denied any clear political rationale. They
assert the boycott was imperative in light of a legitimate concern for Indian agribusiness.
BJP MP who drove the crusade to pass the Maharashtra bill, shielded the restriction on
bullock butcher saying that even weak creatures offer the agrarian economy by producing
dairy animals some assistance with dunging and pee. "Power or pumps are not yet accessible
18 http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/truth-vs-hype-anti-beef-laws-in-maharashtra

we are discussing the bio-power," he said, which means biogas, extricated from excrement
and other natural waste. Additionally steers pee, when blended with neem, can be a
successful pesticide.
In addition, there is little proof to propose that allowing butcher of sick dairy cattle harms
agribusiness. States which have the most liberal laws on dairy cattle butcher, as Andhra
Pradesh, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu all of which allow the restrictive butcher of bovines
and bull have stayed superior workers agronomically.

West Bengal holds the title of the greatest rice delivering state in the nation. Andhra Pradesh
is in third place as indicated by an administration report on the estimation of farming yield in
2013.
The main reason behind the bill, is that about 80 per cent of the population identify as
Hindu. In Hinduism cattle are considered sacred, with cows in particular revered, meaning
that it is taboo to eat their meat.
There are restrictions on the consumption of meat throughout India, with the slaughter of
cows predominantly banned and "fit-for-slaughter" certificates usually required when killing
bullocks. However, the outright ban has so far only been implemented in a handful of states.
Present situation has been created by the earlier regime of governments. They have never
been keen to constitute law commission who would timely review the law of the land and
check if they are not repugnant to the fundamental principles of the constitution and
accordingly repeal those unconstitutional and obsolete laws.
The matter is now subjudice before the High Court that has also all the powers to declare
RPC provisions as ultra-virus to constitutional, if proved they are unnecessary restrictions to
the freedom of religion and are sanctioned in RPC because of religious bend attached with it
and are not based on logical reasoning or involving some greater welfare of the people. Let us
look forward to the honorable court decision for upholding the true secular character of the
constitution and keep its essence intact in the constitution.19
19 See generally, Ali, J. (2007). Livestock sector development and implications for rural
poverty alleviation in India. Livestock Research for Rural development .

Also, there is a counter-movement. In 2004, Indian historian DN Jha published the


controversial The Myth of the Holy Cow, which argued that during the period when a number
of the most important Hindu religious texts were produced, people in India ate cows.The
claims about illegal, rampant slaughter of cattlle seems to be backed more by myth and
anecdote rather than any real evidence, which only adds to the perception that political
motives more than farmers' interests, may have been driving these laws.20
The BJP government in Maharashtra, which justified the ban on slaughter of cows in the
Bombay High Court, on Monday told a two-member bench that it is making a beginning
and may consider a move to ban slaughter of goats as well.

21

which clearly describes the

motive of political institutions in order to bag the votes of majority votes and communalising
the nation.

20 See genereally, AlJazeera. (2014, April 20). Sacred cows and politics of beef in India. Retrieved March 16th,
2016.

21 http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/beef-ban-we-are-making-a-beginning-govt-tellshc/#sthash.zC8lSTCA.dpuf

You might also like