On Wednesday, 9th December, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) passed the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2020 in the Legislative Assembly, despite much dissent from the Opposition. While this Bill may sound insignificant, there is more to it than meets the eye. So what exactly does it entail? How is it different from the previous laws against the slaughter of cattle? Why is it so controversial? And most importantly, what does it mean for the citizens of Karnataka?
The Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2020 seeks to ban the slaughter of all cattle, which the Bill defines as buffaloes under the age of 13 years, cows, bulls and bullocks. This means that if the Bill is passed, citizens of Karnataka will only have access to beef in the form of buffaloes above the age of 13. Unlike its predecessor (a bill that was proposed by the BJP in 2010 and later shelved by the Congress when the Governor did not accede to it), this Bill is extremely stringent, and advocates severe punishment for offenders.
The primary motive behind the Bill is the protection of cattle in the state. Numerous atrocities have been committed against cattle in Karnataka, including abandoning them on the streets after they cease to produce milk, smuggling them into slaughterhouses and stabbing them to death the “halal” way.
“In a country where the cow is revered as a scared animal, it is shocking to see how brutally cows are slaughtered everyday,” says a citizen of Bengaluru. If the Bill is passed, it will certainly address the issue of cruelty towards this species.
Unfortunately, the drawbacks to this Bill are equivalent to, if not more than, its benefits.
One such drawback is the harsh disciplinary measures the Bill takes against offenders. The consequences for transgressions include a penalty of any sum of money from 50,000 rupees to five lakhs for the first offence, and one to ten lakhs on subsequent offences. Anyone caught smuggling cattle or slaughtering them en masse will likely even be sent to prison for anywhere between three to seven years. This is, in both relative and absolute terms, a drastic penalty for what used to be a negligible offence. For perspective, the penalty for human death caused by rash negligence in India is only two years in jail. Does it really make sense that the consequences for the illegal sale and slaughter of cattle are harsher than this?
The draconian punishment, however, is just one reason that the Bill has caused so much contention. Another is the fact that the Bill allows search and/or seizure of property by a “competent authority” from the police, based on mere suspicion! In a country like India, with a long history of corruption, it’s easy to imagine how frequently this rule would be misused, to settle personal or political scores. Thus, many believe that the Bill will result in civilian harassment and violation of privacy by the police force.
Last but not least, the Bill eliminates an important source of nutrition for the citizens of Karnataka, as it places a blanket ban on all forms of this meat, aside from that of buffaloes above 13 years of age. According to Sylvia Karpagam, a public health doctor and researcher, this is “an attack” on our cultural and nutritional rights . After all, the Bill is interfering with, and even going so far as to criminalise, the cultural habits of the nine lakh people in the state who consume beef.
So now it’s your time to decide - do the advantages of this Bill outweigh its flaws? Is it fair to impose the majority’s morals upon both the majority and the minorities?
Hey Netra, I am of the opinion that when there are various forms of animals ready being slaughtered do we need to sacrifice another helpless being too?
ReplyDeleteBill not enough... Tamilnadu passed more advanced bill 5 years ago to ban slaughter of all form of animals in Temples and anti cow slaughter bill already exists in Tamil Nadu and Kerala (only buffalo's are allowed). Karnataka is very slow to pick up the phase and cow only bill is insignificant
ReplyDeleteWell written. Your last paragraph sums up why I believe this Bill is wrong. Also the Bill disproportionately affects Dalits - some of whom are Hindus who consume beef. Not to mention the vigilante cow protection groups, operating with impunity who will be emboldened to take the law into their hands and mete out what they believe is justice by attacking citizens who are just transporting cattle or unwittingly consuming beef.
ReplyDeleteNice article.well thought and written.
ReplyDeleteWell written Netra as usual.Done a lot of ground work I guess.keep it up.
ReplyDeleteHi Netra. Nice one. The topic is debatable. The cow holds a special place amongst Hindus alone. So majority of Hindus may support it.Why would people of other religions support the bill? And their opinion can't be discounted in a country which boasts of secularism. Secondly, what about hen, fish etc? Children of a lesser God?
ReplyDeleteNetra, as someone who is a vegetarian and managing to find nutrition from supposedly "limited" resources, I think this bill is necessary. I find the way cattle is raised/slaughtered appalling. Of course, we have big issues to tackle such as the ones you have named - corruption or arbitrary accusations. But this is a first step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteI’m going to be honest,I don’t think this bill is nescessary. I get that Hindu’s worship the cow but for other reasons I don’t think this should have been a law because it is a bit ignorant to other people of different religions without the same beliefs etc. We were all doing fine without the law. Hindus and others who don’t eat beef because of personal beliefs simply didn’t buy beef while others who do eat,bought. That was fine. But now with this Bill,those who want to eat,can’t and while others who don’t want to,simply don’t. There’s a mixing contrast in these two situations .Beef is apparently the cheapest form of meat/protein in India and it is probably the only meat affordable for those who are on a lower step compared to us ,with more privelidges,money wise.For another instance,some farmers own cows to feed and sell them for money which helps them. But now with this bill,that isn’t possible for them now is it? What is their source of income now? They’ll have to continue feeding and taking care of the cows which ALSO costs them. With spending all this money for the cows and not earning as much,how will they put food on the table for their family? Just like this there could be other problems. This bill puts more poison into others plates than it does for us. Therefore I think this law is quite selfish and hasn’t been thought through enough.
ReplyDelete-Z