4/17/15, "A Ban on Beef in India Is Not the Answer," NY Times, continuing op-ed contributor, Manil Suri
"The sacredness of cows in India
might be a cliché, but it is deeply felt, rooted in the history of
Hinduism. In Mumbai, one often encounters women selling grass to feed
the cow they have in tow — for a few rupees, the donation affords not
only a blessing, but also a chance to feel connected to the country’s
farmland roots. The cow is divinely associated with Krishna, the
cowherd, and considered a mother figure because of the milk it gives.
One doesn’t go into an Indian branch of McDonald’s expecting to order a
Big Mac.
And
yet, beef has long been available at various Mumbai restaurants — from
the burger at the iconic Leopold Cafe to the marrowbone curry popular at
eateries in Muslim neighborhoods. This reflects the accommodation
necessary in a city — and country — with such extraordinary diversity of
religion, culture and wealth.
Last
month, however, this changed. Beef dishes were forced off the menu when
Maharashtra, the country’s second most populous state, which
incorporates Mumbai, extended a ban on cow slaughter to bulls and oxen,
and made the sale of beef punishable by up to five years in prison. A
few weeks later, the state of Haryana passed similar legislation. Prime
Minister Narendra Modi’s office has suggested that such bills are models
for other states to emulate.
The
laws have affected more than just restaurants. Thousands of butchers
and vendors, their livelihood abruptly suspended, have protested in
Mumbai. The leather industry is in turmoil. Beef is consumed not only by
Indian Muslims and Christians, but also by many low-caste Hindus, for
whom it is an essential source of affordable protein. The poorest waste
nothing, from beef innards to coagulated blood, while their religion
pragmatically turns a blind eye. Low-caste Dalit Hindu students, and
others, have organized beef-eating festivals to protest the infringement
on their culture and identity.
With
the recent re-criminalization of gay sex, bans on controversial books
and films and even an injunction against the use of the colonial-era
name “Bombay” instead of “Mumbai” in a Bollywood song, the new laws join
a growing list of restrictions on personal freedom in India. Already,
the police in the city of Malegaon have arrested three Muslim men
accused of calf slaughter, and ordered livestock owners to submit mug
shots of cows and bulls to a cattle registry, to create a record in case
any of them go missing.
The
Maharashtra law had been in limbo, awaiting the Indian president’s
signature for 20 years, but was resurrected only after the Hindu
nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party came to power last year. This
suggests its real purpose is to play to the party’s political base.
Some
Hindu hard-liners insist the idea of eating beef was introduced by
Muslim invaders, despite references to its consumption in ancient texts
like the Vedas, written more than a millennium before the time of
Muhammad. By eradicating this “alien” practice, they hope to return the
country to values they hold dear as Hindus. “Our dream of ban on cow
slaughter becomes a reality now,” Maharashtra’s chief minister tweeted
upon passage of the new law.
Another
problem with such bans is that aged or unwanted cattle must be looked
after at great expense (presumably by the state) if they are not to
waste away.
The
only practical reason advanced by Maharashtrian officials for their law
is that it will help farmers hold on to their cattle in hard times,
when they might otherwise be tempted to sell. This motivation actually
does have historical standing. In fact, it fits in perfectly with a
theory on the origination of the beef taboo that the American
anthropologist Marvin Harris proposed almost five decades ago.
Mr.
Harris observed that more important than their value as milk producers,
cattle in India formed the backbone of small-scale agriculture. They
were used to plow fields, provide dung for fuel and fertilizer and
produce calves to stock the herd. He noted that a family that consumed
its cattle during a time of drought and famine was not able to recover
afterward: They had lost the means to work the land. Over the years,
farmers who preserved their cattle were the ones who survived, leading
to this practice’s being gradually codified into religion.
This
drama is still being played out in Maharashtra, which in recent years
has experienced persistent and devastating drought. Although religious
rules ensured that a farmer would no longer eat his cattle, he could
still succumb to the modern equivalent — selling it for slaughter,
usually at throwaway prices. The beef ban, then, can be interpreted as
an extension of the religious proscription: Thou shalt neither eat nor
sell thy cattle.
Unfortunately,
the situation in Maharashtra has deteriorated past the point where such
a ban will help. Previous governments have squandered billions of
dollars on failed irrigation schemes, while encouraging water-intensive
crops like sugar cane in drought-prone areas. Farmers are desperate: On
average since 2011, there have been four suicides of Maharashtrian
farmers every day. Rather than ancient proscriptions, they need a
financial safety net and responsible agricultural policies in order to
deal with the current situation and probably worse climate change
effects to come.
Indian
civilization has evolved over the centuries to include multiple diverse
communities with competing interests. Despite its secular Constitution,
India remains strikingly unequal. The government must make every effort
to balance majority sentiments with minority needs. This is what the
previous rules that restricted cow, but not bull, slaughter did.
Imposing
ideals from a mythic past is not the answer. The true lesson to take
away from history is how utilitarian goals can shape religious custom.
Hinduism has always been a pragmatic religion; what today’s India needs
is accommodation.
Manil Suri is the author of
the novel “The City of Devi” and a mathematics professor at the
University of Maryland, Baltimore County.".
No comments:
Post a Comment