Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
A Vaidyanathan (a.vaidyanathan053@gmail.com)
is a long-standing contributor to EPW and an
Honorary Fellow of the Centre for
Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.
44
vol l no 48
EPW
PERSPECTIVES
EPW
Mortality Rate/000
Male
Female
1 year
2 years
34 years
56 years
79 years
1012 years
61
29
28
20
22
54
53
24
21
28
24
76
PERSPECTIVES
Cattle
Total
Adult males
Adult females
Percent in milk
Young stock
Male
Female
Buffaloes
Total
Adult males
Adult females
Percent in milk
Young stock
Male
Female
51.2
7.7
25.1
51.5
vol l no 48
EPW
PERSPECTIVES
EPW
1993
1997
2003
2007
15.2
4.7
6.5
61.5
20.0
2.7
9.3
63.4
24.7
1.8
12.4
63.1
33.1
2.9
16.1
66.5
2.0
4.1
2.6
5.4
3.1
7.2
4.0
10.1
189
72
57
48.4
179
65.6
55.8
49.1
160
55.6
52.8
52.9
166
53.2
56.8
54.0
25.0
34.6
24.2
33.5
21.9
30.7
23.6
32.5
comprises nearly 30% of cow population. Cross-bred cows, like buffaloes, are
superior milch animals in terms of proportion in milk, lactation periods and
yield potential compared to indigenous
cows. In all these respects, both the
indigenous and cross-bred cows show
sustained improvement but more so
among the latter.
The traditionally marked selective
and differential treatment of male and
female cattle of different ages has been
accentuated by the spread of the crossbreeds. Thus in 2007, among cross-breeds
the population of female calves, less
than a year old, is about 50% higher
than that of male calves. Since the number of male and female calves is more
or less equal at birth, this implies that
the proportions that die within the first
year of birth are much higher among
vol l no 48
PERSPECTIVES
capacity to maintain and care for animals varies. This varies with the size of
holdings: larger farms are better placed
in this respect than those with small
holdings. This is reflected in differences
in the numbers, variety and quality of
animals kept by different classes of holdings. A large proportion of smallholdings
(those with less than a hectare) cannot
afford to keep any bovines, or can keep
only a few bullocks or cows (and rarely
buffaloes) of older quality due to age or
other factors. The productivity of their
animals is lower even as they face greater chances of losing them due to disease
and age.
It is important to recognise that all
cattle owners irrespective of religion or
holding size will try and take care of
their animals as long as they are productive. If possible they will try to maintain
or improve their productive capacity by
replacing less efficient ones with better
quality stock through trade. Some, of
course, may die of neglect and disease.
In all these respects again, larger holdings are at a greater advantage. Smaller
holdings which hold poor quality
animals and are unable to provide them
adequate feed and care face greater risk
of them dying. A large proportion of
deaths among adult animals is due to
vol l no 48
EPW
PERSPECTIVES
EPW
them, and above all finding the resources to meet their establishment and
management. Even if this were feasible
there remains the problem of how the
dead animals will be dealt with: old and
dysfunctional animals may be useless
for work or reproduction, but their hides,
bones, meat and other by-products are
useful for several other purposes.
Hides are perhaps the most valuable
as raw material for the leather and leather
products industry whose contribution to
the economys output, employment and
both in the domestic and export markets
is quite sizeable. (It is relevant to note
that a good part of raw hides for tanning
and leather processing industries is also
met from the carcasses of animals that
die in the care of owner households.)
That these are economically valuable
products for which there is a large and
profitable market both domestically and
abroad is the reason and inducement
for overt and covert violation of the
slaughter ban.
A properly regulated slaughter restricted to old and dysfunctional animals
is therefore justified. But clearly a drastic overhaul of the current regulatory
regime is imperative to ensure transparency and effective enforcement. The
extant anti-cow slaughter laws and
attendant regulations have to be rationalised by removing ambiguities about
the scope of the ban and clarifying the
conditions subject to which cattle slaughter will be allowed in abattoirs. Registration and licensing of all abattoirs
must be made mandatory and standards
of operation to ensure a clean and hygienic environment must be far more
stringent. Abattoirs must be required to
maintain complete and accurate accounts
of all operations, outputs and their disposition and submit periodic reports to
the regulatory authority subject to
surprise site inspection of compliance
subject to stringent penalties for violations. The regulatory authority to
enforce the law should be autonomous,
with an adequate professional staff empowered to punish violations. In all
these respects, a degree of comparability
of regulations across states would be
useful. But states that choose not to ban
cattle slaughter or sale of beef must be
vol l no 48
left free to do so because under the Constitution this decision is the prerogative
of the states.
Permitting cattle slaughter necessarily
results in the production of beef along
with skin and other products. But several
states have imposed a ban on production
and sale of beef. Disposing such an
important joint product of slaughter presents a problem. Both bans are questionable, as they go against the core values,
premises and commitment of the Constitution to accommodate and protect the
diversity of beliefs, customs and dietary
habits of various communities and regions
without discrimination. To impose a ban
on production and sale of beef based on
the faith of a particular religious group,
on all sections of the population, clearly
goes against the spirit of the Constitution. Even so, in practical terms, as long
as the ban imposed by any state is held
to be legal, it cannot be violated. But
abattoirs could be allowed to send the
beef to other states where there is no
such ban or exported to other countries.
This is a practical and pragmatic option
because the sale and consumption of
beef is not restricted in some important
states and because there is a large and
lucrative export demand for this meat.
However, the attempt to ban the consumption of beef by individuals within
the privacy of their homes with the
threat of punitive sanctions for violation
is an unacceptable intrusion into citizens fundamental right to choose what
kinds of food (including meat) they eat.
The recent tendency to use extralegal,
violent and intimidatory tactics by
vigilantes, on individuals even on
alleged use of beef in their homes, is
extremely worrisome and can have disastrous consequences. Unless checked
with a firm hand it can and as recent
experience has shown, will create or
aggravate social disharmony and spread
of political violence.
Note
1
49