By N. Javed,
The recent presidential assent to the Madhya Pradesh Cow-progeny Slaughter Prohibition (Amendment) Bill might have fulfilled the wish of Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, who was seen as a restless soul for this. It might also be a vicarious pleasure for those forces who propound so-called majoritarian concept. However, this act of the State’s BJP government has thrown up many fundamental questions about secularism and fundamental and basic rights of people as granted by the Constitution of India. Besides, it also put a question mark on the basic concept of justice, rationalism and commonsense.
It is not the first time we have been facing such a precarious situation. Since the Independence, the “democratic” India has experienced a plethora of draconian laws, which were the hallmarks of our colonial masters. Millions suffered due to these ‘undemocratic’ and ‘inhuman’ laws. It is an irony that still people of this free country have been subjected to such repressive laws. No need to go back to history as a host of laws is very much in effect today itself and millions of people have suffered untold miseries due to them.
Much discussed and criticized acts, which directly affect the freedom of life and dignity of people like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958 (AFSPA), the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1973 (MISA), Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987, commonly known as TADA, the Prevention of Terrorist Act, 2001 (POTA) were imposed by the government under the pretext of national interest and security.
It would not be misplaced to mention here some chilling facts and figures related to the alleged misuse of the repressive laws. The AFSPA has been under stick for causing innumerable incidents of arbitrary detention, torture, rape, and looting allegedly by security personnel. The people of seven-sister states (North East) were the worst affected by the AFSPA.
The TADA, which was criticized on various counts by human rights organizations and political parties, was forced to lapse in May 1995 following wide outrage in the country. However, those arrested under the act are still languishing in jails as it was not annulled from the retrospective effect. More than 73,000 people were detained all over the country under this act. Of these, 70,000 cases had to be subsequently withdrawn for lack of evidence. They were freed after spending a major part of their lives. Only, 3000 cases went on and the conviction rate is just 1.8 percent.
These laws became the main cause to untold miseries and sufferings of the millions of people. Thousands of people lost their lives. Thousands of innocents arrested and jailed for years and later released or acquitted. It resulted in loss of livelihood and completely spoiled their academic career or social life.
Similar to such laws is Madhya Pradesh government’s new anti-cow slaughter act and similar but more atrocious Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill 2010 (which removes any distinction between “cow” and “cattle” and makes slaughter of all forms of cattle – including male and female buffaloes – a punishable crime. It is waiting for presidential assent). And this will not take the lives of people but will play with their lives putting them behind bars up to seven years, just because of keeping or eating beef.
Hereafter you may be a victim of this new law without doing any offence too! Yes, a head constable upwards will judge reading your face. Under the provision of this barbaric law, any person authorised by a competent authority, “has the power to enter, inspect and search any premises where he has reasoned to believe that an offence has been, is being, or is likely to be committed and take necessary action.” And what is worse, with the enforcement of the amended act now the responsibility of proving the prosecution wrong would lie with the accused.
If you want to find out the rationalism and fairness in this MP bill, you will be disappointed! Here arises a question too that either this law is contradictory to the Article 21 of the Fundamental Rights? In the long journey of elaborating the Article 21 by Supreme Court, since from A.K. Gopalan case (1958) until Maneka Gandhi’s Case (1978), and thereafter until the date in a large number of cases, Supreme Court has considered the scope of article 21 of the Constitution, which assures right to life. Hence, instead of the initial view, that article 21 did not include the right to livelihood; the later decisions have categorically held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood. To make the right to life meaningful and effective, the Supreme Court put up expansive interpretation and brought within its ambit a myriad of rights. Its scope has been expanded over the last 50 years and life and liberty now include education, health and even roads in hilly areas.
The 223rd Report of the Law Commission states that “law must protect rights…All persons are equal before the law, and are entitled to equal protection. The rule of law ensures that no one is above the law, and that there will be no impunity for human rights violations. It also explains that from the human development perspective, good governance is democratic governance, meaning: People’s rights and fundamental freedoms are respected, allowing them to live with dignity; People have a say in decisions that affect their lives; People can hold decision-makers accountable; People are free from discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, or any other attribute; Economic and social policies are responsive to people’s needs and aspirations.”
Let’s look in the world of historians and research scholars to find out truth about ‘sacred’ cow. They have proved and expound in depth that cows were not ‘sacred’ during the Vedic and post-Vedic periods.
–“Ancient Aryans were beef eaters”
— In the Hindu religion, “the ‘holiness’ of the cow is a myth and that its flesh was very much a part of the early Indian non-vegetarian food regimen and dietary traditions”
–“Indra’s preference for ox meat and Agni’s and Soma’s fondness for cow meat”
— “there is nothing sacred about a cow. It is a useful animal”
— “beef-eating is not Islam’s bequeathal to India”
For more details one can refer to the studies of R. S. Sharma, Professor D.N. Jha’s 2002 work, Mahmahopadhya Bharat Ratna Pandurang Waman, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Swami Vivekanand, and similarly, the great ideologue of Hindutva, Savarkar.
This law affects not only Muslims but Dalits, Christians and other poor backward castes for whom beef and buffalo meat is the cheap source of good-quality protein. If we consider the figures of Dalit scholar and sociologist Kancha Ilaiah, “About 45-50 percent of Indians are either occasional or regular beef eaters,” and the figures of the Khasim Aijaz Quraishi, president of the Beef Merchants’ Association of Karnataka that only in Karnataka state, 3.5 million people are dependent on the trade in beef, included people involved in the ancillary activities such as transportation, the leather industry and the meat packaging industry; one can imagine the situation in other states too, the picture will clear as to how many people will suffer.
Apart from these facts and findings of social scientists, the right to one’s food preference has to be respected just as much as another’s right to avoid a particular food. Problems arise when one community’s wish becomes the law for all. It is unfair and undemocratic. There is no need of such type of laws in a society like ours, where people dare to kill their own girl child in wombs just to save money, they don’t want to spend money to care; education and marriages and to prevent this government has to come out with preventive law; similarly where the people don’t want to take care even their own old parents and keep them out or leave them alone without any livelihood, and government has to come out with “The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act.”
In this scenario, who will care and spend money on old and no-use animals (Cows and other cattle) as the selling and buying for slaughter is prohibited. Instead of going behind bars for seven years owners will leave their animals in the streets to eat garbage in dustbins. The same which we see here and there now, no doubt we will see it everywhere.
As referred above, in Maneka Gandhi’s case Supreme Court elaborated that “the procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.” The honorable president has given assent to a law which has all the reverse characteristics: unfair, unreasonable, and fanciful, oppressive, arbitrary too. Now the ball is in your court, pass it to the court of justice.
(The writer can be contacted at [email protected])