Beef, bedlam, butchery

I am a Hindu and I love to proclaim my religion. Since childhood, my family taught me to relish non-vegetarian delicacies and I continue to do so. In my puerile iconoclastic attempt to reaffirm my credentials as an enlightened and liberal Hindu, I have eaten both beef and pork. The first has now raised a political storm. However, I have failed the gastronomic “experiments” by invariably throwing up on almost every occasion. But as a sovereign citizen of a modern liberal democracy, I have taken all decisions regarding food. Despite my increasing distaste for non-vegetarian cuisine, one&’s fondness for something as basic as food can’t be changed overnight.

Therefore, what has of late become fashionable in this country is not in order and definitely not legitimate. Article 48 of the Constitution states: “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.” It is clear that the Constitution does not talk only about prohibiting the slaughter of cows, but also of other milch and draught cattle whose meat is relished by Hindus. So, those asking for a ban on beef because it is mentioned in the Constitution should also demand equal prohibition for other milch and draught cattle, including the goat and buffalo. A country whose citizens’ nutritional and employment status is already compromised just can’t afford to ban meat-eating of one or the other variety.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava, who once mentioned Article 48 relating to cow slaughter in the Constituent Assembly, had said, “I do not want that, due to its inclusion in the Fundamental Rights, non-Hindus should complain that they have been forced to accept a certain thing against their will.” As the founding fathers of our Constitution did not want to force a decision on citizens, 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 has subsequently ruled against a total ban on cattle slaughter on grounds of public interest.

Advertisement

Almost all the Committees and Commissions, formed from time to time, including the 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 spoken against the ban on cattle slaughter. Implicitly this covers the consumption of beef. 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’. It was firmly opposed to a total ban on the 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.

Hinduism does not prohibit the consumption of meat. Historians claim that Hindus of ancient India, including Vedic Brahmins, Buddhists and Jains used to eat meat… including beef. Ancient scriptures, notably Manusmriti and Arthashastra have been quoted to confirm this claim. Renowned historian D N Jha, in his book, Myth of the Holy Cow, has mentioned beef-eating by ancient Hindus. Historians have suggested that Hindus stopped eating beef as a matter of cultural assertion and reaction to the presence of beef-eating rulers. The religious factor was secondary, if at all.

Arguably, if beef-eating is unacceptable merely because the cow is treated as holy by Hindus, then the same reason is relevant for many other animals which are regarded as holy by other communities. If the bruised sentiments of a section of Hindus could be the compulsion for banning beef, then the eating of chicken, goat, buffaloes, lamb, pig et al should be banned as well as they also hurt the sensibilities of vegetarians. Stretching the “logic” further, we ought not to consume garlic, onions or tuberous vegetables because they are religiously avoided by Hindus and Jains. And if the reason for the ban is to stop killing a living being for food, we should actually not be eating any botanical products as they too have life, going by the thesis of Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose. 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 fanatics approve of ‘animal eating animal’ or a ‘tiger killing a cow’. After all, going by the tenets of Hinduism, God is integral to every living being; so none is supposed to kill and eat anyone for food. Hindus believe that nothing happens without God&’s desire. So, the loony fringe has to realise that Nature&’s food-cycle has also been willed and designed by Him. Theologically, if we were to believe that it is the Almighty God who has designed every detail in this universe, then it must be God who made the human being a carnivore. Otherwise, he would not have created the possibility of humans eating meat products.

At a time, when we are talking about ‘minimum government, maximum governance’, intefering in the food habits of 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.. However, the return of state awards by litterateurs and artistes is not the right approach; the intellectuals should rather speak up against such deviant behaviour by some Indians rather than engage in tokenism and symbolism because the awards were actually given on behalf of the country whom the government represents.

Such intemperate and revolting statements like ‘beef eaters have no place in this country’ have the potential to balkanize this country that includes Hindu beef-eaters. Has Partition left an unfinished agenda? Intolerant statements and behaviour, as increasingly evident of late, can result in disaffection within a section of the populace. It can damage the doddering nation-building process.

The controversy is nonsensical. If the self-proclaimed defenders of the faith were to do something for our milch and draught cattle, including cows, I would only request them to ensure that there are more scientific slaughter-houses in place. The battle against beef could be waged effectively if pursued in a rational manner. Specifically, the benefits of vegetarianism must be proved rather than dictate to the people what they should or should not eat.

At this juncture, the country has more critical issues to address. The fact that  we  are  still  mired  in  such  mindless debates only shows that our nation-building enterprise is still far from complete. India&’s existence as a nation-state  depends  on  the  outcome of this ideological churning we are going through.

(The writer is an IAS officer, now posted as District Magistrate, Burdwan in West Bengal. The views expressed are personal and not the Government&’s.)

Advertisement