New rules regarding cattle trade are a mishmash of a legislation: Expert

Alok Prasanna Kumar explains why there isn't actually a ban on cattle slaughter

Since a notification came about in late May, the Centre has banned the sale of cattle for slaughter at animal markets across the country. In states where beef is consumed, the new rules under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017, have raked up the issue of politicisation of food. The new notification is likely to cut into the livelihood of cattle traders, besides affecting India's $13-billion leather industry. Alok Prasanna Kumar, visiting fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, tells Nikita Puri why there isn’t actually a ban on cattle slaughter, and why these new rules have only served to defeat their intended purpose. Edited excerpts:

 
There’s an argument that the new rules don't effectively ban cow slaughter: these rules regulate the trading of cattle, with both sellers and buyers signing undertakings that the cattle isn’t meant for slaughter. Does this not indirectly translate into a ban?
 
While these measures may make it difficult and put more obstacles in the way of cattle slaughter, they don’t indirectly “ban” it either because there are no enforcement mechanisms and there is no consequence for ignoring the undertaking. The Member Secretary who has been vested with the responsibility to “ensure” that no animals are sold for slaughter does not have any powers to enforce these undertakings. 

 

Legally, a “ban” would be something that involves legal consequences, directly or indirectly for the person doing the prohibited thing. By that standard, there is no such ban, directly or indirectly under these rules.
 
In the past you’ve looked into how different states regulate slaughter. What were your major findings?
 
Since animal husbandry is a state subject, the issue has been dealt with differently by different states. The regulatory approach is on a spectrum that has Nagaland at one end, no ban on cow slaughter or regulation of any kind, all the way to Maharashtra where even mere possession of beef is a criminal offence.

 
It depends entirely on local concerns and local politics at the state level. For instance, Karnataka proposed a harsh cow slaughter law when the Bharatiya Janata Party was in power but this was rolled back when the Congress came to power the next term. The oldest cow slaughter ban still on the books is the one in Jammu and Kashmir under the Ranbir Penal Code, and was passed in 1932.
 
Do you think the new rules will make any difference in the states where there is slaughter for meat consumption? 
 
It will make the trade in cattle more difficult and perhaps increase prices of meat (not just beef since this applies to all livestock). It’s unlikely that these rules will impact cow slaughter and consumption that happens in the shadows since it does nothing to bring them into the mainstream.

 
Cattle traders in Rajasthan and Kerala have also started fretting about how these rules could affect their livelihood. What kind of impact are the new rules likely to have for them?
 
I do think they are right in believing that this will create more red tape and discourage free trade in cattle. The rules having been framed with little or no consultation with farmers’ groups, there will be much confusion and chaos when state governments attempt to implement these rules. That said, I am not an expert on how cattle markets function, but given how these rules have been drafted, I do think cattle traders have every reason to be worried about the effect of the rules. 

 
Are the new rules under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act really about cruelty, or are they intended towards propagating an ideology to further political interests?
 
These rules have been drafted with no clear idea as to what they are supposed to do. There are definitely provisions that attempt to address cruelty. There are provisions that attempt to address the Supreme Court’s concerns on cross-border smuggling. There are also provisions which look like someone tried to put them in to further a political ideology. However, it is a poorly thought out mishmash of a legislation that has only managed to defeat whatever purpose it was trying to serve.

 
Could these rules also encourage vigilantism?
 
I think more than these rules, Hindutva vigilantism is being encouraged by existing state-level laws such as those in Maharashtra, and the state police machinery which has refused to crackdown on vigilante terror. In some cases, they even seem to be encouraging it.
 
At the end of the day, police forces are under the control of the local state governments (except Delhi) and the increase in Hindutva vigilante terror will depend on how seriously state governments take law and order, or whether they’ll exploit Hindutva vigilante terror for partisan political purposes.