governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘beef ban’

Pensioning-off cows

cow veneration

So is “the cow” (including bulls) a living deity, like the Ganga or Yamuna rivers, to be revered as a “mother”, or just another productive asset like a buffalo or a goat? This debate dates to the Constituent Assembly sessions in the late 1940s.

Cow protection smuggled into a non operative part of the Constitution

constituent assembly

Hindu traditionalist members of the Constituent Assembly wanted complete protection for the cow as a fundamental right. This was stolidly opposed by realists like B.R. Ambedkar, who saw it as a veiled attempt to deify upper caste brahmanical practices, to the detriment of the poor — for whom the cow means a source of milk, meat and leather.

Modernists like Jawaharlal Nehru thought it would blemish the liberal, secular character of the Constitution. A consensus was urgently required. Clever drafting by Dr Ambedkar pleased all by inserting an ambivalently worded Article 48 (on working towards prohibiting cow slaughter) in the Directive Principles, that are not legally enforceable. Therein lies buried the knotty, seven-decade-old problem of what the cow means to Indians.

But Hindu reverence for the cow has increased seven decades later

Neither modern education nor “development” has diminished the demand for prohibition of slaughter. Educated, well-off Hindus, across castes, are avid supporters. Higher incomes enable more people to “Sanskritise” — fashion their customs by emulating brahmanical practices. Vegetarianism is a “luxury” in desperately poor India, as is substituting cereals with vegetables and lentils. The clamour to save the cow will increase as ever more people are economically capable of “assimilating” themselves, culturally, into upper castes. Beef is already an “inferior” food eaten mostly by the poor.

Our “secular” government and political parties are politically expedient

Rather than amend the Constitution outright to reflect this demand, devious bureaucratic means have been adopted to achieve the same effect, whilst hiding behind the economic usefulness of the cow. Nine state governments — Jammu and Kashmir, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat — ban the slaughter of cows and bulls outright. Seven states — Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur, Sikkim and Kerala — allow slaughter. Others permit slaughter of animals who are no longer productive — usually more than 15 years old. The varying levels of “protection” are directly related to Hindu upper caste political dominance in a state. The only exception is J&K — a Muslim-majority state, which bans cow slaughter. In more normal times this would be an example of our “syncretic” culture.

New rules drive Beef markets underground

cow markets

The Union government has chipped in by banning the export of beef and cows, thereby minimising the incentive for cow slaughter. It also promulgated rules on May 23, 2017 under a Central law, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which ensure cattle markets are not used to purchase “bovine” animals for slaughter. The rules are onerous. They require multiple certifications, declarations and identity verifications. They will ensure all sale/purchase of “cattle”, which includes buffalos and camels, would end in cattle markets. Curiously, a convenient “out” remains available. Direct purchase from a cattle owner doesn’t attract these rules. The net result will be trading will move to one-on-one sale/purchase, or to large commercial dairy farms — now facilitated by the agricultural land leasing policy. These will be informal cattle trading hubs, without health certification to ensure meat quality.

Ironically, even as the Niti Aayog and agriculture ministry are striving to make agricultural markets efficient, the trade in dairy animals is being driven underground. Perversely, the new rules are being touted as the fallout of a July 2016 Supreme Court order, that was intended primarily to stop the flourishing cross-border traffic of cattle into Nepal and Bangladesh. The loud protests by West Bengal and Kerala and muted noises from Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are as farcical, playing to the dalit and Muslim vote banks.

Are we willing to pay for pensioning-off cows?

Surely, this farce played out repeatedly, since 1948, should end now. Why not have a referendum to establish the extent of support for cow protection? Seth Govind Das suggested this in 1948. The cost would be around Rs 50 billion, equal to the cost of a general election. The outcome, as in Brexit, is by no means certain.

If the existing 190 million (2012 data) indigenous and hybrid cows are to be cared for after their useful life, for say an additional five years (underestimated), the annual cost at a daily spend per animal of Rs 50 is Rs 1.1 trillion.

This is four times the spend in 2017-18 on medical, public health, welfare of SC-ST, backward castes and minorities and social security — spread thinly across around 400 million of India’s income-insecure citizens. It’s more than half the spending on defence. Maneka Gandhi and animal rights activists will be delighted, but it’s impossible to fund a pension scheme for cows publicly.

cow employment

Cow retirement homes run by the private sector on viability gap funding basis will create around one million jobs. But there is no free lunch, even for spiritual or emotional fulfilment. So how many of the 280 million Indian households would be willing to pay an additional Rs 4,100 per year for protecting the cow?

What about the environmental consequences of keeping 70 million old cows

The 1.5 lakh hectares of land to house the “retired” cows can be found. But the additional water resources — far exceeding the needs of 200 million humans — would be a challenge. The retired, unproductive cows will increase methane emission, which are worse than carbon dioxide, by an estimated 0.6 per cent, even as we are struggling to reduce carbon emissions.

Of course, it may never come to this absurd end. Farmers won’t buy cows if they can’t sell them for slaughter. Bulls are redundant in mechanised farming. Buffalos are more productive milk producers. “Nandi” clone bulls and milk white cows might become like racehorses or elephants — the treasured preserve of rich people and temples. And this is how it should be.

bulls

If the suggestion by Justice Mahesh Chand Sharma of the Rajasthan high court (now retired) “trends” sufficiently, the cow could become India’s third national animal, alongside the other “big two” —tiger (de jure) and Gir lions (de facto). Welcome to India’s new-age action safari.

cow temple

Adapted from the authors article in The Asian Age June 3, 2017 http://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/030617/the-cow-indias-icon-wholl-pay-the-price.html

Beef and Toor fry BJP in Bihar

The national hype around the “beef ban” issue and the rise in the price of toor daal has done what the combined political force of other parties could not do — humble Narendra Modi in Bihar. Both are self-goals by the Bharatiya Janata Party.

humble modi

photo credit: http://www.arun-wicfy.quora.com

Whose duty is it anyway to regulate agri. and food?

The regulation of land, agriculture and food is a mandate of the state government in the Constitution. But Central governments, including the BJP, have been happy to meddle in this mandate via the provision of trade and commerce in food in the Concurrent List of the Constitution. They do so to appear muscular and confer favours on farmers, traders and consumers. The setting of procurement prices for food crops at much above the market price, the physical management of publicly-owned food stocks and the subsidisation of consumer prices are low-hanging fruits for both populism and patronage.

Far better if the Central government had stayed clear away from this area and told voters frankly that it was for the Bihar government to manage the price of daal. On the beef ban, the BJP should have stuck to the constitutional position that the cow is to be “preserved” per the Directive Principles, and it was for state governments to decide local policies regarding preservation.

Instead, the BJP ground troops have raised a national ideological furore over a non-issue. Beef is an inferior meat internationally because of its adverse health (high cholesterol) and environmental (high carbon emissions, high water consumption per unit) consequences. In India, it is an inferior and cheap meat, eaten mostly by the poor. Rich Muslims would rather eat goat or chicken biryani, much like Hindus and Christians, rather than beef.

But it was not to be. It seems the BJP ground troops will not easily allow Prime Minister Modi to grow out of the narrow, Hindu, nationalist role they have set for him. This was expected, but what is surprising is his inability to control the foot soldiers.

Bihar matters

Winning in Bihar would have raised the Prime Minister’s image of “invincibility” sky high. The “crabs” within the BJP would not have liked this. They were happy to hang on to his kurta tail and be carried along by the tsunami in 2014. Now that the next day of reckoning is only in 2019 — a full four years away they prefer a Prime Minister, dependent on their individual support. What could be a better opportunity than to play the Hinduism-under-threat-from-beef card in the middle of the Bihar elections?

On the price of lentils, Mr Modi’s penchant for muscularity is primarily to blame. It is not the job of the Central government to keep prices in check. State governments should have mechanisms for doing this. Importing food in short supply from outside the state or from overseas to keep prices regulated is one option. But, more importantly, isn’t it about time our governments got away from the business of setting market prices for all segments of the food value chain?

Re-regulate agriculture and food

Price spikes and troughs provide important signals to growers and traders, and dictate what farmers sow. Expectations of price intervention by the government distort these signals and inhibit farmers from their legitimate right to profits when a crop fails just as they would suffer a loss when there is an oversupply.

To insulate poor farmers, farm workers and poor urban folk from extreme price fluctuations, direct cash transfer is the answer. Who can say what consumers would do with the extra cash the government gives them? They may not buy toor at astronomical prices at all. They may opt for other, cheaper varieties of pulses — moong, masur or channa, or prefer milk, meat, lobia or nutri nuggets, or a mix of all these.

Is there a BJPnomics?

The BJP has yet to grow a coherent economic philosophy. Often it glories in being market and business-friendly. At other times it shies away from this label, just like the Congress Party, because it is perceived as being anti-consumer. Many within the BJP are more socialist than the communists! They want to preserve the public sector and they want visible, often unnecessary, intervention by the government in everything — what to wear, what to read, what to see and what to eat.

This ideological clutter needs to be cleaned out. Otherwise, the BJP risks looking like a more stridently Hindu version of the Congress, rather than a modern, nationalistic party which believes in markets, equity and inclusive growth.

Next two years- a blur of elections

The good news is that the Uttar Pradesh elections are still one year away and there is still time to repair the damage for a “real” contest between the Samajwadi Party and the BJP. The Samajwadi Party is a homegrown party of Uttar Pradesh with an indifferent governance record. It is perceived as a dynasty, caters mostly to Ahirs and enjoys strong support from Muslims via their champion Azam Khan of Rampur — the erstwhile “princely state” in western Uttar Pradesh, adjoining Moradabad.

azam khan

photo credit: http://www.indianexpress.com

An understanding between Bhenji (Mayawati) of the Bahujan Samaj Party and the BJP would strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand to define the electoral line-up. Both the BJP and Bhenji, have a good record in the management of law and order, and both appeal to the rainbow spectrum which Bhenji tried to create earlier, spanning the upper castes and the dalits. This consolidation is what the BJP attempted in Bihar. It remains a viable strategy for Uttar Pradesh despite the outcome in Bihar. It will also be useful for the BJP in adjoining Uttarakhand in 2017.

bhenji ambedkar

http://www.rakeshjhunjhunwala.in

But it is a long way to the Uttar Pradesh elections in 2017, past Pondicherry, Assam, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala in 2016, and, thereafter, Goa and Punjab. The BJP would do well to be conservative and focus on Assam, Kerala, Goa and Punjab, leaving the other states to regional partners. Selectivity of political effort will free the central leadership to also do some work in pushing the reform agenda in tax, infrastructure and digital governance.

Unlike in Bihar, the BJP must start grooming regional leaders in all these states so that it is not a solo effort by the Prime Minister. Identifying regional leaders broadens the table and gives more elbow room all around commensurate with the size of India. Inclusion is of the essence in a democracy.

Adapted from an article by the author in Asian Age October 23, 2015 http://www.asianage.com/columnists/beef-toor-frying-bjp-bihar-058

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: