Cow Slaughter Bans: Protection of Symbols, or Oppression?

Anindita Mukherjee, ‘Cow Slaughter Bans: Protection of Symbols, or Oppression?’ in Ranita Nagar and Sooraj Sharma (eds.) Towards a Food Secure India (New Delhi: Ruby Press & Co., 2015).

COW SLAUGHTER BANS – PROTECTION OF SYMBOLS, OR OPPRESSION?

I. INTRODUCTION

The discourse around cow slaughter and the consumption of beef in India is one that is

immensely complex, though often depicted in highly reductionist terms by those in conflict

about the issue. It manages to bring under its fold questions of symbolic value, cultural

hegemony, economic compulsion and Indian secularism, all linked together in a web of

legal justifications and politico-religious rhetoric.

The cow, seen as a sacred symbol by the dominant-Hindu, is a rich source of nutrition for

millions of others across India. It is these millions who are directly affected when the State

mandates that the possession of beef be banned, or that cow-slaughter be banned. A

cursory glance at those who presently consume beef - Dalit communities, indigenous

communities, Muslims and Christians – reveals that these communities have been

historically marginalised.1 This begs the question: is the taboo against consumption of beef

a tool of those in higher positions in the power hierarchy used to distinguish and, thereby,

humiliate the Other?

In this paper I shall argue that State sanctions against the consumption of beef play a dual

role of oppression – both in cultural and economic terms. I shall seek to examine the State’s

rationale for such sanctions and mark out the fallacies in its reasoning. Further, I shall also

highlight the fact that the implementation of such law is, in reality, an active act of

impoverishment by the State.

II. THE LEGAL DISCOURSE AND ITS FAILINGS

Deification of cows has been an issue through most of modern Indian history.2 Several

states had laws against cow slaughter in place before India achieved independence.3 The

1 Shraddha Chigateri, “’Glory to the Cow’: Cultural Difference and Social Justice in the Food Hierarchy in India”, accessed at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1030973 1 (last visited: April 21, 2012). 2 Anand A. Yang, “Sacred Symbol and Sacred Space in Rural India: Community Mobilization in the "Anti-Cow Killing" Riot of 1893”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22 (Oct., 1980) 578. 3 See comments by Syed Muhammad Sa’adulla, Constituent Assembly Debates (Proceedings) – Vol. VII, (November 24, 1948) available at parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/debates.htm (last visited: April 21, 2012).


question of cow slaughter was brought up in the Constituent Assembly with a suggestion

that an Article against cow slaughter be placed in the chapter on Fundamental Rights.4

With obvious opposition from Dr B R Ambedkar and other members of the Assembly, this

motion failed.5 Instead, Article 486 was introduced as a Directive Principle, seeking to

influence State policy against cow slaughter on the grounds of scientific organisation of

agriculture and animal husbandry. This reasoning was based on Pandit Bhargava’s robust

analysis of the economic significance of the cow in the Indian agrarian State.

To grow more food and to improve agriculture and the cattle breed are all inter-dependent and are two sides of the same coin. [ ...] The best way of increasing the production is to improve the health of human beings and breed of cattle, whose milk and manure and labour are most essential for growing food. [...] From both points of view, of agriculture and food, protection of the cow becomes necessary. […] It is no wonder that people worship cow in this land. But I do not appeal to you in the name of religion; I ask you to consider it in the light of economic requirements of the country.7

Not all proponents of the anti-cow slaughter Article were comfortable with the secular

couching of an inherently religious sentiment. Seth Govind Das and Prof. Shibban Lal

Saksena recognised that it was impossible to divorce the religious backing from the

question of cow slaughter bans and argued that a religious argument was perfectly

acceptable.8 The arguments most valuable to the poverty discourse, however, were made

by Mr Z H Lari and Syed Muhammad Sa’adulla, on whose shoulders fell the burden to

dispute the introduction of a Directive Principle on account of evident religious motivation.

Interestingly, neither had a problem with the introduction of such an Article but took issue

with the secular spin being given to it. Syed Sa’adullah made several pertinent points when

he said:

I do not also want to obstruct the framers of our Constitution, I mean the Constituent Assembly if they come out in the open and say directly:"This is part of our religion. The cow should be protected from slaughter and therefore we want its provision either in the Fundamental Rights or in the Directive Principles."

4 Ibid, see comments by Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava. 5 Ibid. 6 Article 48. The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and other milch and draught cattle. 7 Supra, n.4. 8 Supra, n.3, see comments by Seth Govind Das and Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena.


But, those who put it on the economic front, as the honourable Member who spoke before me said, do create a suspicion in the minds of many that the ingrained Hindu feeling against cow slaughter is being satisfied by the backdoor. If you put it on the economic front, I will place before you certain facts and figures which will show that the slaughter of cows is not as bad as it is sought to be made out from the economic point of view. […] In order to conserve this cattle, the Government of Assam passed a law prohibiting the slaughter of cattle in milch or cattle which could be used for the purpose of draught. But, wonder of wonders, I personally found that droves of cattle were being taken to the military depots for being slaughtered not by Muslims, but by Hindus who had big "sikhas" on their heads. When I saw this during my tours I asked those persons why, in spite of their religion and in spite of Government orders, they were taking the cattle to be slaughtered. They said: "Sir, these are all unserviceable cattle. They are all dead-weight on our economy. We want to get ready cash in exchange for them".9

Syed Sa’adullah’s submission problematises the economic utility argument and puts to

waste two simple assumptions that are inherent to the religious argument i.e., the symbolic

value of the cow is so great that nobody who deifies it would sacrifice it and that all Hindus

revere the cow.10 Further, Mr Lari’s addition that the notion of modernisation of

agriculture, which would inevitably involve mechanisation, etc., and the preservation of

cows on account of their draught power are oxymoronic, points out an inherent

contradiction in a seemingly simple economic standpoint.11 The Article was, nonetheless,

passed in its ‘secular’ form.

Twenty-three States across India have some form of primary or secondary legislation

placing sanctions on cow slaughter or prohibiting the possession of beef.12 Five states have

total cow slaughter bans in place13 with Karnataka being well on the way to enacting the

most draconian law on the subject.14 These legal sanctions are put in place under the

9 Supra, n.3. 10 The importance of these assumptions lies in the cultural hegemony they entail. See part III for an elaboration on the same. 11 Supra, n.3, see comments by Mr Z H Lari. 12 Report of the National Commission on Cattle, 2002, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, retrieved from http://www.dahd.nic.in/dahd/reports/report-of-the-national-commission-on-cattle/chapter-ii-executive-summary/annex-ii-8.aspx (last visited: April 21, 2012). 13 Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Delhi. 14 The proposed law expands the definition of cattle to include all bovines and bans their killing regardless of age and fitness as for draught, breeding or milk. It seems to put beef on par with crystal meth and cocaine – the mere possession of it is to be a criminal offence. Transporting cattle for slaughter is also a crime and if you’re heading in the direction of a slaughter house your vehicle can be confiscated. It provides for seven


purview of agricultural development, a State subject.15 The rationale remains the same as it

was in 1947: that bovine creatures are essential for the betterment of the agriculture in the

State as they provide manure, draught power, milk and transport.16

In Mohammed Hanif Qureshi and Ors. v. State of Bihar,17 twelve petitions were filed

challenging the laws banning cow slaughter in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.18

The petitioners, a collective of Muslim butchers, cattle dealers and meat vendors from the

three states, argued that these laws infringed three of their Fundamental Rights: the right

to equality (by arbitrarily discriminating between butchers who sold goat meat and those

who sold beef), the right to freedom of religion and the right to practise any profession and

carry on any occupation. The equality contention was shot down by the court on account of

the belief that the classification between goats and cows was valid by virtue of their vastly

differing utility. Finding that cow slaughter is not a religious obligation in Islam, the court

also negated the freedom of religious argument by relying on the essential practices

doctrine.19 It was only the last contention that received any credence from the court, which

years of imprisonment for cattle slaughter, a cognisable offence, while causing the death of a human animal by a rash or negligent act merits two years of punishment! 15 Entries 14 and 15 of List II, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India. 16 Shraddha Chigateri, “Negotiating the ‘Sacred’ Cow: Cow Slaughter and the Regulation of Difference in India” in Monica Mookerjee (ed.), Democracy, Religious Pluralism and the Liberal Dilemma of Accommodation, (Springer, 2011) 148. 17 1958 AIR 731. 18 The statutes laid down, in the case of Bihar, a total ban on the slaughter of all bovine cattle; in the case of UP, a total ban on the slaughter of ‘cows’, which included bulls, bullocks, heifers and calves – but not buffaloes; and in the case of MP, a total ban on the slaughter of cows and female calves, while the male calf, bulls, bullocks, buffalo (male or female, adult or calf) could be slaughtered by obtaining a certificate. All of the statutes protected the cow and female calf from slaughter, at least. 19 In order to determine the limits of state intervention, courts are frequently asked to decide what constitutes “an essential part of religion” (and therefore off-limits for state intervention) or what is “extraneous or unessential” (and therefore an area in which it is permissible for the state to interfere). This practise has the interesting fallout of allowing courts to determine what constitutes religious practise, thereby marginalising or rationalising several aspects of religion that it does not see as part of the mainstream or as an essential practise. See Ronojoy Sen “The Indian Supreme Court and the quest for a ‘rational’ Hinduism”, South Asian History and Culture 1 (2010) 86–104. In the present case the court decided that the economic compulsion that drives many Muslim people to sacrifice cows on Bakr-Id was a rational decision and not a religious compulsion, thereby negating the argument that such option being denied to those who are compelled to sacrifice a cow (instead of the equivalent seven goats) would be violative of their right to freedom of religion. This marginalization further works within the court’s notion of Hinduism itself, making it a valuable tool in perpetuating dominant-Hindu practices as the norm. See part III for an elaboration on the same.


held that a total ban on the slaughter of bovine animals (apart from the cow) 20, even after

these ceased to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals,

was not in the interests of the general public and was invalid.

For over forty years, the Supreme Court maintained a uniform stance on the front of utility,

thereby allowing for unserviceable cattle to be slaughtered.21 This argument of use value of

cattle was taken to an amusing level by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur

Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors.22 In upholding a total ban by the Gujarat government on

the slaughter of all cows and her progeny, viz., cows, bulls, bullocks, heifers and calves, the

court held that since these animals, even past their prime, will continue to defecate (and

such excreta can be used as manure and in the manufacture of bio-gas) they cannot be

termed useless.

While all indicators point to an underlying reason, outside of the utility paradigm, being the

cause of bans on the slaughter of bovine animals, it would be worthwhile to examine the

extent to which the utility of the live bovine animal argument holds water when faced with

the use value of the same creature when slaughtered.23

The most obvious use of beef lies in it being the cheapest source of protein available. Of the

total 6.27 million tonnes of meat produced by India in the year 2010, approximately

40.67% was beef.24 Given that the protein content of both meat and pulses is similar and

20 The inability of the courts to make a utility based argument for total bans on cow slaughter yet their reluctance to declare such bans unconstitutional is one of the most obvious pointers to a dominant-Hindu bias in these decisions. The only attempt made was in Hanif Qureshi: since the buffalo has a higher yield of milk, it was the cow that was in more need of the protection of the law. Given that the argument is to save those creatures that are of greatest use to the Indian farmer, this argument is remarkably counter-productive. Further, the court went on to take cognizance of the symbolic value attached by Hindus ‘in general’ to the cow and factored that into its rationale for upholding the complete ban on cow slaughter. 21 Hashmatullah v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors(1996) 4 SCC 391. 22 2005 8 SCC 534. 23 Evidently, this is not an animal rights argument for the simple reason that the rights of a creature cannot be determined on the grounds of its instrumental value to the human race. The legal discourse has not engaged with the animal rights issue at all, keeping its focus on the utility of an animal to human beings (and the ‘nation’), making it a purely economic argument and it is in this sense that I am putting forth a counter in terms of the utility of the same creature when dead. 24 B G Mane, “Status and Prospects of Indian Meat Industry”, April 16, 2012. Accessed at: http://www.fnbnews.com/article/detnews.asp?articleid=31709&sectionid=49 (last visited on April 21, 2012). Of this, 23.33% is cow meat and 17.34% is buffalo meat. Indian export of beef is restricted to frozen, deboned buffalo meat only, implying that the entire consumption of cow meat is domestic.


that India is not yet self-sufficient in pulse production,25 thereby making it harder to

purchase for the poor, meat, beef in specific, evidently constitutes their primary means of

access to nutrition.26 The communities that continue to consume beef are primarily the

Dalits, adivasis, Christians and Muslims; forming the bottom rung of the power ladder, their

traditional cuisine is completely invisiblised by the legal discourse. In a country that is

struggling to grant its citizens a basic right to food and where around 42% of its children

are malnutritioned,27 a move to ban the only affordable, healthy staple for millions of

people seems untenable. The economic utility of cow excreta pales in comparison to the

healthy lives of these millions.

The stringent regulations against slaughter are the reason that most beef is sold in a

clandestine manner by unregistered butchers in unhygienic conditions.28 Journalistic

reports relating to Kerala (one of the few states where cow slaughter is yet legal) indicate

that the number of unregistered slaughterhouses is three times that of authorised

abattoirs.29 When the economic necessity for the sale of beef is so great, the demand

remains constant30 implying that there would have to be some supply. The only difference

being that the industry would be driven underground, harming all the parties involved. For

the butchers in question, such a situation would mean a clear lack of security, given that

their trade could be stopped at a moment’s notice and that they would be liable to pay fines

or be imprisoned.31 For the consumer, unhygienic conditions of storage could lead to

severe diseases; while this is a problem across the board with meat, the issue here is that

25 Towards Achieving Self-sufficiency in Pulses in India, Indian Institute of Pulses Research, accessed at: http://www.iipr.res.in/towards_achieving_self_sufficiency_in_pulses1.pdf (last visited: April 21, 2012) & Harish Damodaran, “Holy cow! Do Indians eat a lot of beef?”, Business Line (September 04, 2001) accessed at: http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/2001/09/04/stories/14043108.htm (last visited: April 21, 2012). 26 Rammanohar Reddy, “Intolerance of food habits”, The Hindu (September 16, 2001) accessed at: http://www.hindu.com/2001/09/16/stories/13160467.htm (last visited: April 21, 2012). 27 Gopalan Balagopal, “Needed, more HUNGaMA over malnutrition”, The Hindu (March 6, 2012) accessed at: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2964324.ece (last visited: April 21, 2012). 28 Supra, n.26. 29 R Krishnakumar, Beef without Borders, 20(18) FRONTLINE, (30 August-12 September 2003) http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2018/stories/20030912004703100.htm (last visited February 2013). 30 Given that there is no move by the ruling governments who ban beef possession or cow slaughter to make cheap alternatives available to those who ordinarily consume beef. 31 The latest Bill from Karnataka proposes a seven year prison term and severe fines to boot.

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2018/stories/20030912004703100.htm


the communities in question are also the ones with the worst access to healthcare32 and,

therefore, such situations are bound to affect them most grievously.

The leather industry, as of 2003, employed over 2.5 million people and earned over 1.8

million USD annually in exports.33 A majority of those employed by the industry are people

of the lower castes engaging in tanning, hiding and other professions traditionally

considered unclean.34 On account of the restrictions placed on the slaughter of cows, aged

and unserviceable cattle are routinely packed into trucks and transported under horrible

conditions to West Bengal and Kerala where cow slaughter is permitted. This has led to

several animal rights agencies taking issue with the treatment of cattle and has caused

numerous importers to balk at exports from India.35 Laws preventing cow slaughter have

practically cost India millions in economic gain by virtue of huge multi-national companies

like GAP, Banana Republic and Old Navy banning the use of Indian leather in their

products.36 Those directly affected are the ones at the lowest rungs of the production chain,

again the Dalits and Muslims who work with raw hides, doubling the negative effect of such

legislation on these communities.

Cows are rural India’s insurance: in times of agrarian crisis they are sold so farmers can

ensure sustenance for the period. Buffaloes and bulls cannot be spared at a farm on account

of the fact that the former are needed for milk while the latter are used for draught power

and transport, thereby leaving cows as the only dispensable asset.37 Most of these cows are

bought by slaughter houses.38 This is where the disjuncture between symbolic value and

lived reality comes in.39 Even amongst communities that do not ordinarily eat beef, during

32 Akash Acharya and M. Kent Ranson, “Health Care Financing for the Poor: Community-Based Health Insurance Schemes in Gujarat”, Economic and Political Weekly, 40 (September 2005) 4141. 33 Asha Krishnakumar, “An industry's nightmare”, Frontline 20(Aug.-Sept. 2003) accessed at: http://www.flonnet.com/fl2018/stories/20030912004202800.htm (last visited: April 21, 2012). 34 Supra, n.1. 35 Maseeh Rahman, “Is nothing sacred?”, Time 156 (May 2000) accessed at: http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/magazine/2000/0529/india.cows.html (last visited: April 21, 2012). 36 Ibid. 37 P Sainath, “When a week is a long time”, The Hindu (August 20, 2009) accessed at: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/sainath/article5861.ece (last visited: April 21, 2012). 38 Ibid. 39 An analogy can be drawn with the Indian reverence for Goddess Kali or Lord Krishna who are both said to be dark skinned. This does not prevent Indian society, however, from venerating fair skin in their daily lives.


times of crisis it makes economic sense to sell cows to those willing to pay for them. To ban

cow slaughter would be to deny this option to farmers when they desperately need it.

Further, an unproductive cow is simply a burden on a farmer and the fact that exists a

fodder shortage in the nation seems to have escaped the notice of those pushing for

preservation of cows for their excreta.

A glaring similarity across all of the tangible costs mentioned is that these costs accrue to

those who have been marginalised and are amongst the poorest sections of the Indian

society. The fact that those proposing anti-cow slaughter laws are largely divorced from the

reality it entails for those who would be living by the norms that are laid down reflects a

class bias in the making of such legislation. As Kancha Illiah puts it (in the context of caste),

the beef-eaters are also the cattle-rearers, and their love and affection towards these

animals is more intimate than those people which do not involve themselves in rearing

cattle and yet construct a theory of sacred bovine animals. The love for the creature is not

mutually exclusive from the possibility of its slaughter, he argues. In his view, this is a

dialectic process that cannot be viewed in black and white.40 Given the stress being laid on

inclusive decision making, it is problematic that the views and myths associated with a

certain class of people, who do not have to face the repercussions of the laws they seek to

put in place, are being imposed upon those who lack a voice by virtue of their economic and

cultural status.

III. IN CONCLUSION

There is something unsatisfying about the economic-ecological dialogue that the

Constituent Assembly and the courts have indulged in with regard to the beef question.

Starting from the inherent contradiction in Article 48 to the justification of cows defecating

and, therefore, being useful till they die, the loopholes are just too many for the reasoning

to be bought. Religion makes fleeting appearance but is shunted aside in the effort to be

‘secular’.

40 Kancha Ilaiah, “Beef, BJP and Food Rights of People” Economic and Political Weekly, 31 (June 15, 1996) 1445.


The Supreme Court, in Mohammed Hanif Qureshi referred to Hindu scriptures to arrive at

the conclusion that the cow is held sacred by Hindus in general.41 As Upendra Baxi notes,

this is evidence of very minimal querying on the part of the Court as there exists weighty

evidence to suggest to the contrary and a prima facie conclusion to one end cannot be

arrived at.42 It is doubtful if the court could have arrived at a conclusion that a prohibition

on cow slaughter is a religious obligation as per Hinduism had it scrutinized existing

information to the same extent that it scrutinized Islamic rituals to determine whether cow

sacrifice was mandated.43

What a community eats is an integral part of its cultural identity.44 In granting legal

legitimacy to arguments against the slaughter of cows on poorly queried religious grounds

that do not bear up to historical scrutiny45 the Indian State is effectively declaring certain

practices to be normal and acceptable while the cultures of other who do not agree with

this dominant practice are vilified and systematically suppressed. Such State sanctioned

value-judgements are especially problematic in the context of food for, in this situation,

questions of identity, choice and, even, survival are inextricably interlinked. The fact that a

government has seen it viable to suggest nationwide bans on cow-slaughter with offenders

41 Das CJ opined: There can be no gain saying the fact that the Hindus in general hold the cow in great reverence and the idea of the slaughter of cows for food is repugnant to their notions and this sentiment has in the past even led to communal riots. It is also a fact that after the recent partition of the country this agitation against the slaughter of cows has been intensified. While we agree that the constitutional question before us cannot be decided on grounds of mere sentiment, however passionate it may be, we, nevertheless, think that it has to be taken into consideration, though only as one of many elements, in arriving at a judicial verdict as to the reasonableness of the restrictions. 42 Upendra Baxi, “The Little Done, The Vast Undone’ – Some reflections on reading Granville Austin’s The Indian Constitution”, 9 Journal of the Indian Law Institute (July – September, 1967) 349. 43 See D N Jha, The Myth of the Holy Cow (Navayana, 2009) for a detailed analysis that concretely proves the contrary, i.e., that beef-eating was normal Hindu practice pre-Buddhism and the sacred symbol is one that propagates a notion of pollution and can be seen as a tool to subjugate and humiliate those whose economic conditions or cultural conditioning mandated that they eat beef. 44 Claude Fischler, “Food, self and identity”, 27(2) Social Science Information (June 1988) 275, 276. 45 See, B R Ambedkar, Untouchability, the Dead Cow and the Brahmin in D N JHA, THE MYTH OF THE HOLY COW (Navayana, 2009) 190-204, excerpted from B R Ambedkar, The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables? in VALERIAN RODRIGUES (ED.) THE ESSENTIAL WRITINGS OF B.R. AMBEDKAR (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1948) for an incisive account of the historical fallacies committed when we admit that Hinduism considers cow slaughter impermissible, for Brahmins regularly slaughtered cows for ritual purposes before the advent of Buddhism. This also puts paid to the argument that cow slaughter is a uniquely Islamic practice, for it existed in India much before Islam arrived in the subcontinent.


being punished under POTA46 is indicative of how divorced the law makers are from the

vast masses bearing the brunt of these laws. It is also strongly indicative of a mindless

endorsement of Brahminical values that are now being imposed on cultures that have

functioned otherwise for millennia. The State, in doing so, is actively impoverishing masses

of its own citizens; all in the name of biogas.

REFERENCES

BOOKS

D N Jha, The Myth of the Holy Cow (Navayana, 2009)

Shraddha Chigateri, “Negotiating the ‘Sacred’ Cow: Cow Slaughter and the

Regulation of Difference in India” in Monica Mookerjee (ed.), Democracy, Religious

Pluralism and the Liberal Dilemma of Accommodation, (Springer, 2011)

ACADEMIC ARTICLES

Shraddha Chigateri, “’Glory to the Cow’: Cultural Difference and Social Justice in the

Food Hierarchy in India”, accessed at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1030973 1 (last

visited: April 21, 2012).

Anand A. Yang, “Sacred Symbol and Sacred Space in Rural India: Community

Mobilization in the "Anti-CowKilling" Riot of 1893”, Comparative Studies in Society

and History, 22 (Oct., 1980)

Ronojoy Sen “The Indian Supreme Court and the quest for a ‘rational’ Hinduism”,

South Asian History and Culture 1 (2010)

Akash Acharya and M. Kent Ranson, “Health Care Financing for the Poor:

Community-Based Health Insurance Schemes in Gujarat”, Economic and Political

Weekly, 40 (September 2005)

Kancha Ilaiah, “Beef, BJP and Food Rights of People” Economic and Political Weekly,

31 (June 15, 1996)

46 Recommendations of the National Commission on Cattle, Chapter VIII, http://dahd.nic.in/dahd/reports/report-of-the-national-commission-on-cattle/chapter-viii.aspx (last visited: February 2013); Basharat Peer, Panel wants Rapid Cow Protection Force, REDIFF NEWS, November 7, 2002 http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/nov/07bash.htm (last visited February 2013).

http://dahd.nic.in/dahd/reports/report-of-the-national-commission-on-cattle/chapter-viii.aspx

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/nov/07bash.htm


Upendra Baxi, “The Little Done, The Vast Undone’ – Some reflections on reading

Granville Austin’s The Indian Constitution”, 9 Journal of the Indian Law Institute

(July – September, 1967).

Claude Fischler, “Food, self and identity”, 27(2) Social Science Information (June

1988)

Alan Heston, “An Approach to the Sacred Cow of India”, 12, Current Anthropology

(April, 1971)

R. M. Honavar, “Challenge Facing Secularists”, 28, Economic and Political Weekly

(Mar. 20-27, 1993).

Asghar Ali Engineer, “Communal Riots, 2003”, 39 Economic and Political Weekly

(Jan. 3-9, 2004).

Pritam Singh, “Hindu Bias in India's 'Secular' Constitution: Probing Flaws in the

Instruments of Governance”, 26 Third World Quarterly (2005).

Imtiaz Ahmad, “Of Eggs and Beef”, 40 Economic and Political Weekly (Nov. 26 - Dec.

2, 2005).

Prakash Chandra Upadhyaya, “The Politics of Indian Secularism”, 26 Modern Asian

Studies (October, 1992).

JOURNALISTIC ARTICLES

B G Mane, “Status and Prospects of Indian Meat Industry”, April 16, 2012. Accessed

at: http://www.fnbnews.com/article/detnews.asp?articleid=31709&sectionid=49

(last visited on April 21, 2012).

Harish Damodaran, “Holy cow! Do Indians eat a lot of beef?”, Business Line

(September 04, 2001) accessed at:

http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/2001/09/04/stories/14043108.htm (last


Rammanohar Reddy, “Intolerance of food habits”, The Hindu (September 16, 2001)

accessed at: http://www.hindu.com/2001/09/16/stories/13160467.htm (last



Gopalan Balagopal, “Needed, more HUNGaMA over malnutrition”, The Hindu (March

6, 2012) accessed at: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2964324.ece

(last visited: April 21, 2012).

Asha Krishnakumar, “An industry's nightmare”, Frontline 20(Aug.-Sept. 2003)

accessed at: http://www.flonnet.com/fl2018/stories/20030912004202800.htm


Maseeh Rahman, “Is nothing sacred?”, Time 156 (May 2000) accessed at:

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/magazine/2000/0529/india.cows.html


P Sainath, “When a week is a long time”, The Hindu (August 20, 2009) accessed at:

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/sainath/article5861.ece (last visited:

April 21, 2012).

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/58978/cow-slaughter-ban-bill-

passed.html (last visited: April 21, 2012)

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article3318788.ece (last visited: April 21,

2012)

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article2769540.ece (last

visited: April 21, 2012)

WEBSITES

http://www.dahd.nic.in/dahd/reports/report-of-the-national-commission-on-

cattle/chapter-ii-executive-summary/annex-ii-8.aspx (last visited: April 21, 2012)

Towards Achieving Self-sufficiency in Pulses in India, Indian Institute of Pulses

Research, accessed at:

http://www.iipr.res.in/towards_achieving_self_sufficiency_in_pulses1.pdf (last

visited: April 21, 2012)

http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=in&commodity=beef-and-veal-

meat&graph=domestic-consumption-growth-rate (last visited: April 21, 2012)

http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.in/2012/03/guest-post-by-shraddha-chigateri-

on-now.html (last visited: April 21, 2012)


http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.in/2012/02/guest-post-by-anup-surendranath-

anti.html (last visited: April 21, 2012)

http://www.prisonerofagenda.com/law/the_good_the_bad_and_the_bovine-pfv.php

(last visited: April 21, 2012)

Cow Slaughter Bans: Protection of Symbols, or Oppression?

Documents