It is difficult to understand why issues well resolved in law and fact are dredged up again. It is our duty to preserve the values of democracy. We cannot allow anyone to cross the constitutional lakshman Rekha
The murderous assault on Mohammad Akhlaq of Dadri by a lynch mob for allegedly storing and eating beef has fouled the atmosphere across the country and revived the debate on a matter that is socially, politically and constitutionally resolved a long time ago.
This shameful incident has also given the small but vocal brigade that has generally displayed contempt for Hindu sentiment and constitutional provisions that run counter to the “tenets” of pseudo-secular fundamentalism, the opening that it was desperately looking for since May, 2014 to rake up issues that promote divisiveness.
Sometimes it is difficult to understand why these issues, which are well resolved in law and fact, are dredged up again and again. Ever since the lynching incident, opinion-makers of all hues have been bombarding television viewers and newspaper readers with their opinions for and against cow slaughter. As a result, simple facts are drowned in the commotion.
For example, not everyone is aware that the Constitution enjoins upon the Indian State (Article 48) “to take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle”.
This is in Chapter IV of the Constitution wherein the Directive Principles of State policy are laid down. Again, in the Chapter on Fundamental Duties (Article 51A (g)), the citizens are called upon “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild fire, and to have compassion for living creatures”.
Further, there isn’t sufficient understanding of the delineation of the powers of the Union Government and the States in the Constitution. Nor is there sufficient appreciation of the fact that enactment of laws relating to cow slaughter is solely within the purview of the States — item 15 in the State list in the Seventh Schedule says “Preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases; veterinary training and practice” is the responsibility of the state. In addition, States can legislate on “Pounds and the prevention of cattle trespass”.
Consequent to these constitutional provisions, all States have enacted laws in this regard and the slaughter of cows and calves is banned in most of the States. It is completely banned in the northern, western and central region. In the south, cow slaughter is banned in all States except Kerala. In the east, it is banned in all States except West Bengal. The North-East, however, is an exception to the rule. All the States except Manipur permit cow slaughter.
There are some other legal aspects to be noted. The laws made by the States treat cows and calves as one category, bulls and oxen as a second category and buffaloes as a third category. Although all States in the north and west ban slaughter of cows and calves, some of them allow slaughter of buffaloes and bulls and oxen which are past a certain age.
A similar situation prevails in the south as well. likewise, in West Bengal and the North-East where cow slaughter is permitted, it is subject to certain restrictions in regard to the age of the cow. The law also requires a veterinarian to certify that the animal is fit for slaughter. In addition, the Supreme Court has time and again dealt with this issue and has upheld laws prohibiting cow slaughter. Therefore, the prohibition of cow slaughter is not only ordained by the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution, it is also imposed via legislation in most of the States and upheld by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. So, what is all the fuss aboutIJ
In the post-Dadri phase, many commentators have mocked at the Hindus for their reverence towards the cow. Some others have questioned the anti-cow slaughter laws on the ground that they violate their fundamental right to eat beef. It is also said that such laws violate the fundamental right of butchers to make a living. They have also argued that undue weightage need not be given to the Directive Principles, which is just a kind of advisory to the Indian State, whereas the Fundamental Rights are perched way above everything else.
All these matters have been dealt with by a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat versus Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors, which was settled in October, 2005.
Speaking for himself and five others on the bench, Chief Justice RC lahoti said that Article 48 has been assigned “a higher weightage and a wider expanse” since the 1960s. He cited the court’s observations in the Kesavananda Bharati case and some other decisions, which said that the Supreme Court, while protecting fundamental rights, must try to strike a just balance between the fundamental rights and the larger and broader interests of society.
“However important the right of a citizen or an individual may be, it has to yield to the larger interests of the country…….”. The court has also held the view that “there is no apparent inconsistency” between the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights “which in fact supplement each other”.
It further said there was no difficulty in putting a harmonious construction which advances the object of the Constitution. Citing yet another judgement of the court, the Bench said that “Today, the State and the citizens are under fundamental obligation to protect and improve the environment...and to have compassion for living creatures”.
It is, therefore, deceitful to argue and insinuate that an anti-cow slaughter movement has raised its head post May 2014. The lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq is a despicable act. No group of citizens should ever be allowed to take the law into its hands, deliver Kangaroo court justice and kill fellow citizens because they suspect an unlawful activity.
India is not Pakistan. We are the world’s biggest and most vibrant democracy and it is our duty to preserve these values at all cost. We cannot allow anyone to cross the constitutional lakshman Rekha. However, we must eternally guard against mischief-makers who thrive in a pseudo-secular environment and generally make a living by imagining a single incident to be indicative of the mindset of the majority.
Both Hindus and Muslims must guard against such frustrated politically displaced persons who try to stir up trouble as a protest against mandates that go against them.