Greater than the human population of the most populous nation of the world (China)¹, about two-thirds the global population of the religion with largest following (Abrahamic-Christianity^2a) and about a couple-of-million hundred greater than the global population of the largest group of Christianity ^2b (whose leader is reported to have upheld a forever-ban on women for that faith’s priesthood)^2c—1.412 Billion—is the estimated number of animals slaughtered specifically for meat production (both for domestic consumption and for export) in India during 2013-14³. During the same period, cattle slaughter alone in India—about a hundred times the estimated number of all Indian-Americans⁴ and a bit more than the number of turkeys ‘killed in the US each year, many for Thanksgiving and Christmas’⁵—was 319.5 Million⁶.

In India, the nation which topped the list of nations world-wide with regards to ‘meatlessness’⁷ (attributable, in part, to more than one faith which advocate vegetarianism as a way-of-life from times long before Pythagoras), a stormy debate is currently underway, about the near-ban of a more-than-a-millennia-old, native tradition originally called “eruthazhuvuthal”⁸(translates roughly to ‘embracing-the-bull’⁹); a tradition observed by some non-Abrahamic-religion-following Indians, a tradition that actually entails absolutely no intentional or mandatory slaughter (unlike the Spanish bullfighting tradition declared legal¹⁰ despite involving traditionally a slaughter¹¹), a one-day-per-year tradition (which spills over at-most to a couple of weeks including pre-event practice); a tradition in which the bull is, most times, not just embraced in the literal sense of its name, but crucially not slaughtered and eventually worshipped¹²; and finally, a tradition which can perhaps be argued to be no more violent than Horse-racing (and don’t take my word for it, endnote ¹³ gives you the PETA version)¹³—a sport beyond the reach of the middle-class Indian human and whose patronage, clearly and not-very-unarguably, includes the urban, the secular, the rich, the elite.

The aforementioned near-ban of this no-intentional-slaughter, native, ‘embracing-the-bull’ tradition was deemed by a certain Jacobi (modified last name of an anchor of a dominant, foreign-to-India, media-house) as a “progressive”¹⁴ interpretation of Prevention of cruelty act (PCA)¹⁵, which, in its amended-form, while is the legal basis for this near-ban of the no-intentional-slaughter, native tradition, is also, the legal basis that allows the slaughter of 1.412 Billion animals each year (on count of ‘destruction of any animal as food for mankind’¹⁶) in India and does not prohibit killing any animal ‘in a manner required by the religion of any community’¹⁷, like those that may be entailed during Thanksgiving, Christmas or an Eid.

If “progressive” is the adjective Jacobi would like to ascribe to that  interpretation of PCA which leads to the near-ban of the unarguably native, no-intentional-slaughter, essentially single-day tradition (varyingly celebration, sport, habit to those who observe the tradition), will the same Jacobi be willing to call that interpretation of the same PCA which leads to the sanction of also-single-day, unarguably non-native, with-intentional-slaughter celebrations (like Christmas, amongst others), other up-market sport like horse-riding, and habits that can lead to a 1.412 Billion slaughters per annum of animals — “regressive”?

Jacobi, in all his suave, delinks this tradition from Tamilzh, the language. He is, of course, right. This tradition is not Abrahamic in origin, that is, while there may be no Indian-Christians or Indian-Muslims or Indian-Jews who observe this tradition, many Indian-Christians, Indian-Muslims (and perhaps some Indian-Jews) do speak Tamilzh. What Jacobi misses to point out though is how one interpretation of PCA allows Abrahamic-religion-following Indians the right to celebrate and continue traditions such as Christmas and Eid which involve animal slaughter while at the same time upholding as “progressive,” on account of animal-rights, the denial of similar rights—celebration and observance of tradition—to his fellow-Indians, whose only crime perhaps is that they don’t happen to be following an Abrahamic religion or are not part of a kind of an elite.

This binary—where Abrahamic celebrations involving animal slaughter is legal whereas non-Abrahamic celebration (like the one in contention) with no-intentional-slaughter is illegal, on count of, ironically, animal-rights, is not an unimportant binary to structure this debate under (if, at all, binaries are needed that is) and should certainly not be missed in the noise of the more dominant yet less-appropriate (also mythical), and eventually damaging binaries: Tamilzh (supposedly oppressed) vs Non-Tamilzh, South (supposedly oppressed) vs non-South, Dravidian (supposedly oppressed) vs Aryan, Non-Brahman  (supposedly oppressed) vs Brahman. When seen carefully, it should become evident how each of the dominant binaries that seem to get more air-time (and/or whatsapp-time), along with the so-called “progressive” interpretation of PCA, eventually lead to a polarisation, one way or the other, only of different factions of the non-Abrahamic (broadly, Dharmic), particularly those with no “religion” but only a “way of life” (and whose factions have demonstrated the ability to peacefully co-exist despite varying preferences (of food, for example) or traditions within them), while not polarising any factions of the also-not-homogenous Abrahamic-religion-following Indians.

The other binary which does not seem to get as much air time, and is perhaps crucial to one potential solution (for those who would like to see this tradition continue) to this situation is that of religion vs way of life. As should be evident from endnote ¹⁷, is it not true that, in this very specific regard, those Indians with a religion seem to have their rights undeniably covered while those without a religion (in the legal sense of the word) are denied equivalent rights? If removing the “bull” (that was added after over 50 years after PCA came to life) would mean a hard-to-justify retrograde step (legally), could adding “ways of life” to Chapter VI Miscellaneous #28 – the clause related to provision for religion (endnote 17) – be one way out (for those who genuinely care for this tradition)?

If animal-rights are really the concern, which celebration is a greater decry of the animal-rights: Christmas, that involves significant slaughter for celebration and entertainment or “eruthazhuvuthal,” which involves no slaughter and is of a scale much smaller than Christmas? And, to go back to what this piece started with, if animal-rights is really the concern, what about the 1.412 Billion³?

Author’s note: It is not the intention of the author to challenge the honourable Supreme Court’s wisdom or verdict and the author upholds, personally speaking, the principle of least, unavoidable, violence. This piece though, is perhaps, in part at least, a reaction to selective and sophisticated “vilification” of a few Indians, by some seemingly-partisan media houses, on the basis of what, in the author’s humble opinion, is definitely the high-ground, yet by those who themselves may not actually be practicing the high-ground but yet pontificate about it in the garb of a  “progressive” tag, or at the very least, fail to callout potential inconsistencies in human-rights on the basis of, among other factors, Faith.

Update (Jan 20, 2017):

The essential argument made in this piece about the inconsistent application of animal rights laws on the basis of religion was also mentioned last night by Arghya Sengupta, a lawyer at the Supreme Court of India, on a news show on India Today TV. Here is the relevant excerpt (35:48 – 36:36 followed by further discussion).

————————————————

Banner pic courtesy: Alphacoders wallpapers

End notes:

[1] National Bureau of Statistics of China (2015) http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2016/indexeh.htm

[2a] http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/religions/christians

[2b] https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-statistics-report-increase-baptized-catholics-worldwide

[2c] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-women-idUSKBN12W4L7

[3] Basic Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Statistics 2015, Government Of India, Ministry Of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department Of Animal Husbandry, Dairying And Fisheries, p. 54-59

[4] Chakravorty, Sanjoy et al., The Other One Percent: Indians in America (2016), p. 35

[5] http://www.peta.org/living/food/turkey-factory-farm-slaughter/

[6] Basic Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Statistics 2015, Government Of India, Ministry Of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department Of Animal Husbandry, Dairying And Fisheries

[7] https://collectively.org/article/the-10-most-vegetarian-countries-in-the-world-in-order-of-meatlessness/

[8] http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/That-cow-conundrum/article16798655.ece

[9] Ibid.

[10] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/20/spanish-court-overturns-catalonia-bullfighting-ban

[11] http://www.stopbullfighting.org.uk/facts.htm

[12] https://twitter.com/aususa7/status/687857869073584128

[13] http://www.peta.org.uk/blog/the-grand-national-8-things-they-dont-tell-you-about-horse-racing/

[14] CNN IBN program at 2100 hrs on Jan 12, 2016

[15] https://awbi.org/awbi-pdf/Act%20&%20Rules%20-%20English.pdf

Note, from MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, notification G.S.R.619(E) dated 14th October 1998, under BAN ON EXHIBITION/TRAINING OF FIVE PERFORMING ANIMALS, which does not include bulls yet.

G.S.R.619(E) – Whereas the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No.890/91 by its order dated 21st August, 1997 directed that “the Central Government may take up the notification dated 2-3-1991 for consideration afresh” and “take into consideration such material as may be available with it or it may choose to collect through any of the authentic agencies or such other agency or committee of experts as it may choose to appoint”.

–

Where in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the Central Government constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Additional Inspector General of Forests (Wildlife) to have a fresh look at the notification G S P No. 252 dated 2-3-1991 in the light of the additional material available with any authenticated agencies such other agency or persons;

Whereas the said Committee submitted its report to the Central Government.

Whereas the Central Government has taken into consideration the report of the said committee:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 (59 of 1960), and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Environment and Forests G.S.R. No. 252 dated 2-3-1991 and G.S.R. No. 485 dated 7- 8-1991, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government, hereby specifies that the following animals shall not be exhibited or trained as performing animals, with effect from the date of publication of this notification, namely:-

1. Bears

2. Monkeys

3. Tigers

4. Panthers

5. Lions

[16] http://envfor.nic.in/legis/awbi/awbi01.html

CHAPTER III CRUELTY TO ANIMALS GENERALLY

(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to –

(e) the commission or omission of any act in the course of the destruction or the preparation for destructionof any animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.

[17] http://envfor.nic.in/legis/awbi/awbi01.html

CHAPTER VI MISCELLANEOUS

28. Saving as respects manner of killing prescribed by religion: Nothing contained in this Act shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.