There are two flaws in the arguments advanced in the article, “Debunking myths about the cattle rules” (June 23). The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was enacted to prevent cruelty to all animals; cruelty to poultry and goats is no less severe than that to cows and buffaloes. There cannot be any discrimination in the matter of treating different animals for the purposes of the Act. Second, regulations to prevent cruel practices in the market are welcome. But abolishing the market itself for sale of cattle for slaughter undoubtedly interferes with the right of citizens to earn their livelihood in a legal manner known to them and/or to have food of their choice.
S.P. Asokan,
Chennai
The writer has not been able to settle doubts regarding new rules governing cattle markets. He has not addressed the primary concern about disallowing trade in cattle for slaughter. After all, if the purpose of the rules is to prohibit cruel practices such as hot branding, ear cutting and shearing, then what is the need to touch upon the purpose of sale or buying of the animal? While communal bias is certainly one of the allegations against the new rules, they are also being opposed for victimising farmers and those who are involved in the cattle trade, especially in the leather industry. The fact that only 13 objections and suggestions were received in response to the draft rules also shows that the government did not give them sufficient publicity. Finally, the reference to Rule 14(h) which prohibits “putting ornaments or decorative materials on animals” is besides the point precisely because nowhere are people suspicious of it being enforced with violent and unaccountable vigilantism, while they have more than enough reason to fear the same regarding the rules to do with transport, trade and slaughter.
Firoz Ahmad,
New Delhi
In his article, N.L. Rajah reiterates the same old justification for the urgency with which the NDA implemented a central Act on the directions of the Supreme Court. The need to act in accordance with the directions of the top court is not in dispute. However the rationale to selectively implement some directions while ignoring others is a matter of concern and requires confutation. Mr. Rajah rejects the notion that invoking the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Lifestock Market) Act (2017) was a ‘divisive agenda’ to promote majoritarian religious beliefs. The manner in which the Act was sought to be implemented and the alacrity with which the Central Government went about it, seems to indicate an agenda that was cherry picked to please a certain constituency. It is no secret that abolishing cattle slaughter and beef eating is a top priority of the ruling political party and the only reason it could not bring in a central legislation was because beef is an integral part of the diet in many parts of the country. So the the route via The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was indeed a ‘ convenient peg’ to bypass the inviolate right of individual States like Kerala, West Bengal and the North East to implement laws pertaining to animal husbandry. There are several other questionable procedures adopted in the implementation of the regulation. In general, livestock does not refer only to cows, bulls and buffaloes. The larger definition would include all farm animals raised for meat, including poultry, though it generally refers to cattle, swine and sheep. Be that as it may, the implementation of the order, seems to be directed against trading of bovines, as if they are the only creatures affected by cruelty. For example, there are several sheep and goat farms in Tamil Nadu and other parts of India. These sheep and goats are traded extensively in markets such as Pochampally, Etiyapuram, Kanivadi and Kundarapalli. Why has there been no attempt to regulate these markets where goats are sold to abattoirs, both legal and illegal? Many of the goats traded in these markets are slaughtered openly on roadsides in our towns and cities. Further, the argument that regulating the sale of cattle does not technically ban the legal slaughter of bulls and buffaloes is a specious argument. The markets are the only place where farmers can sell and buy cattle, for whatever purpose. It is important to remember that one cannot make an omelet without breaking an egg!
Yes! The Supreme Court has indeed directed the Central government to frame guidelines for prevention of cruelty to animals through it 2015 order ( WP 881 ( civil) of 2014). However, it must be remembered that the Supreme Court has made several directions and has strongly castigated the Central and State Governments for non implementation of guidelines involving far more important issues. In May 2016 the Supreme Court Bench of B. Lokur and N.V. Ramanna pulled up the Centre and 10 States for not implementing drought relief measures describing their attitude as ‘lack of will’ (The Hindu, May 11, 2016). The enthusiasm shown by the government in implementing regulation on cattle trading would have been justified if they had shown even a fraction of interest in other Supreme Court directives related to safety in school buses, toilets and drinking water in all schools, etc.
The regulation of cattle trade has impacted the leather and meat industry across the country. In addition the burden of old cattle beyond their utility will be an economic disaster for farmers who are reeling under drought conditions and will be incapable of feeding animals that have outlived their farm utility.
The implementation of laws, regulations and Supreme Court directives are obviously driven by regional and religious bias rather than welfare and concern for society or even humane treatment of animals.
George Paul,
Salem
