Why ban cow slaughter - Balbir Punj

 

 Why ban cow slaughter ?

Balbir Punj

The so called Dalit organisations, who were seeking to mock at the beef ban by organising a beef feast in Kolkata must first take a look at what happened to the beef export countries like Brazil. Let us put aside for the time being the other equally serious case for the ban.

The economic case is so compelling that this alone is enough reason for any rational government to end the red meat export and by implication the slaughter of cattle to feed this export industry. Forget the sentimental aspect or religious taboos about beef eating, though equally compelling. We deal with it later.

The fundamental question is do we consciously promote desertification of the country just because our population relish beef meat? Desertification was what happened to large grasslands and forests of Amazonian Brazil and other South American countries. Moved by the greed of red meat export incomes, they went all out converting forest lands into gazing grounds.

Brazil and other South American countries, like Costa Rica, Honduras, Argentina in the 70s and 80s began to feverishly build up huge ranches for cattle breeding for the North American meat market. Millions of acres of forest land were converted into farms for raising grain for the fattening of the cattle, mainly cows, for slaughter and meat packing for export.

The initial years brought wealth but soon nature took over. Rainfall decreased, the top soil began to be washed out by floods that followed destruction of forests. The use of land to grow grains for cattle feeding and grasslands for cattle grazing had other unforeseen economic effects.

"The astounding concentration of land ownership has left 4.8 million rural families completely landless, not to mention millions of rural families who abandoned the countryside "for urban slums, wrote Frances Lappe Moore et al, the authors of "World Hunger: the 12 Myths". More details are there in environmentalist Vandana Shiva's book "The Stolen Harvest".

Even more authentic condemnation of the cattle for meat industry came from a UN report after satellite imageries exposed vast forests lying barren and Brazil, a country much larger than India, finding floods and droughts devasting its economy. The governments in South America finally halted the cattle slaughter for money industry after the UN intervened and other political convulsions hit them hard.

The left intellectuals, who are raising a hue and cry over beef ban causing a crisis in pharma industry as the gelatin needed for making capsules comes from animal bones, are misleading the country. Natural death of cattle could provide those raw materials.

To those, who counter the ban enthusiasm by posing the non-value of cattle beyond its fertility limit as a drain on farming families that have cattle for milk, the answer has come from the global dangers of fossil fuel use for generating energy. The Government -- irrespective of the party in power -- has to ensure that by 2050 use of fossil fuels like coal and gas has to be cut sharply by 50 per cent.

To replace fossil fuels with renewable sources like solar cells, wind and biogas as the main energy source we would need cattle dung as well as vegetable wastes. So cattle entering their dry stage is not a burden if systemic arrangements are made for their upkeep and their waste utilised properly.

The argument for slaughter of cows on grounds of economic utility is specious when the governments spend millions and set up entire system to protect wild life from tigers to turtles. The contrast when we are asked to slaughter cattle and prosecute those who shoot the tiger is striking. Sentiments apart.

But even sentiments count when sections of people have their preferences. In Europe or America you talk of slaughtering dogs to feed dog-meat lovers or even to control canine population growth and you are sure to be emotionally lynched in a media howl of protests.

So all countries respect sentiment whether it is dogs or rabbits; so why oppose the ban on slaughter of cattle as "old-fashioned", "irrational", "sentimental", etc? The Left intellectuals and self-styled rationalists have made it a habit to claim that during the vedic period, beef was widely eaten.

Just to end this argument, let us accept that it might have been so. But does it mean we should accept beef eating as customary now, despite the changed environment between some 7000 years ago and the present? Many practices including untouchability that had religious sanction till some two centuries before have been not only abandoned but constitutionally forbidden or burning widows on the pyre of their husbands.

Sadly those who are vehemently opposing several traditions in the country are the very people who are arguing for beef eating on the strength of tradition !

The other argument about religion is even more suspect. Certain minority communities regularly consume beef; many are traditionally butchers, so you cannot deny the minorities