CHENNAI: The public outcry against the Narendra Modi government’s rule banning sale of cattle for slaughter at market places was sure to follow the hurried and rather poorly-thought decision. Several states including Kerala, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have raised protests against the decision citing two key reasons — fundamental right of citizens to choose their food and, second, the impact on meat trade/large workforce.
The situation worsened on Tuesday, when the Madras High Court ordered a stay on the new rules. With this, the Modi government at the Centre is locked in a bitter battle with both the state governments and the judiciary, on its contentious decision. The Centre has positioned itself on a weak note here. Essentially, regulating livestock markets and cattle trade is a state affair while the Centre has right only to intervene on matters of animal welfare. The Modi government will likely be left with no options but to review the ban on cattle sale for slaughter at livestock markets.
The Centre, however, never ordered an outright ban on cattle slaughter, but only prohibited the sale of animals for slaughter through the livestock markets. It also brought in restrictions on the manner in which such transactions occur; according to the notification under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act of 1960 that gives the Centre powers over animal welfare, the committees overseeing animal markets will have to take an undertaking from traders that “animals are bought for agriculture purposes and not for slaughter”.
While the stated intention of bringing in new rules is fine — improving hygiene of the market place, bringing in discipline on the sale of cattle and quality of meat sold, etc — the decision to ban sale at market places is unwarranted since a majority of the slaughter-cattle trade trade happens at such bazaars. Only about 10 percent of the cattle for slaughter is procured directly from the farmer, according to DB Sabharwal, secretary of All India Meat & Livestock Exporters’ Association. This is something industry associations have highlighted.The whole idea, the government claims, was to ensure norms are followed as regards the treatment of cattle for slaughter and the quality of the meat sold. But, instead of addressing the specific problems, it is resorting to ban the functions of livestock markets (for slaughter) entirely. This was akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water.
When the supply is reduced, the consumers will naturally face steep price hikes and business could take a hit on account of lower demand.
For these reasons, the backlash from states that consume more meat was expected. Particularly for states like Kerala, where meat consumption is high (according to the state finance minister, over 70 percent of the population eats beef); people saw this as government encroachment on their food habits and individual rights. The problem worsened even further with centre including ‘buffalo’ in the banned meat list. Earlier, this wasn’t the case. Even when cow slaughter ban was present, the meat which many hotels serve as ‘beef’ was buffalo meat, not cow meat. Inclusion of this category came as a double shock to the meat eater and meat trader in all those states.
Fundamentally, the problem was not with the rules to improve trade of slaughter-cattle and meat trade but the decision to stop such sales at mandis. Instead of doing this, the government could have restricted the changes only to the effect of improvement in the operation of mandis, infrastructure, norms or transport of cattle for slaughter and quality of meat sold from the slaughter houses-without banning the sale in livestock markets. This would have hailed as a smart, much needed reform in meat trade and would not have caused any ruckus to the degree we see today.
The Centre should ask itself one question — if the sale of cattle for slaughter doesn’t happen at livestock markets, what will be the difficulties for the farmer to take his unused cattle to the slaughter houses? The farmer will have to sell his slaughter-cattle directly to slaughter houses, which isn’t practical, especially in rural areas. In the process, if he delays the sale, it will eat into his earnings. If he is unable to sell off his old cattle (unfit for either milk or breeding), he will be burdened with the cost to maintain these unproductive animals.
The legal trouble for Modi’s government, as mentioned earlier, is that the running of livestock markets and trade should rest with the state, whereas animal welfare is a central subject. Hence, a Centre-state spat on this subject was waiting to happen. The Centre seems to have realised the problem with Union minister Venkaiah Naidu saying the issue is being examined.
The Madras High Court stay on Centre’s rule is only the beginning of a long-legal battle, unless the Centre realises its mistake and reviews its order on outright ban on cattle sales for slaughter at market places. Else, the government will have a long road ahead to defend an ill-conceived decision and the damage control will not be easy.
