“When good people in any country cease their vigilance and struggle, then evil men prevail”

– Pearl S. Buck

The Indian public sphere over the last two years has been dominated by the discourse on the so-called “Cow Vigilantism”, with a detestable religious angle to tarnish the image of the country in the world. Passionate liberal intelligentsia and people with vested interests are running this campaign vehemently to create a rhetoric that our country is going into the hands of religious fundamentalists and mob rule is taking over the rule of law. “Cows in India are safer than Muslims” or “Hindustan is becoming Lynchistan” is the level to which this discourse has descended. Amidst all this, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing off a bunch of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on 17th July 2018, finally ordered that the State Governments will appoint nodal officers in each district to stop mob violence, and has recommended the Central Government to make a specific law against it.

The PIL has been filed at the behest of a newbie politician for giving a boost to his political career solely on the basis of newspaper articles and one-sided opinion pieces written by some journalists. The case filed by the so-called activist has portrayed a one-sided picture and ominously put a curtain on the main reason behind the growing public outrage. It has all been done to reap political fruit, by spreading the message among the masses that the present ruling dispensation is doing injustice to the minorities.

However, it is a well settled principle under the law of evidence that no court will admit any evidence comprising of media reports and news articles for deciding any case or inferring any conclusion. It has been so because media reports have not always portrayed the truth. They have often been a reflection of public sentiment, on which any court cannot rely in a blind-folded way. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is not an exception to this rule. The decision of the PIL is neither based on any admissible set of evidence nor does it try to reflect the FIRs and other admissible evidences filed by legitimate animal right activists by way of an Intervention Application.

To reflect upon the dangers of relying on media reports and arguments, we may recall the incident of the Ranaghat nun rape case which happened in March 2015. Just after the incident, media houses and some of the highly-placed journalists called it a hate crime perpetrated by Hindu groups against the minorities. Some political leaders even named RSS & BJP for this. But after the CBI investigation, it was found to be otherwise and a Session’s Court of Kolkata punished illegal Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants for the rape.

Imagine if just after that incident, somebody had filed a PIL in the Supreme Court demanding a law against hate crime and nodal officers in each district to check on activities of Hindu groups. Truth can only be ascertained by weighing evidences of both sides and not based on mere opinions, so that a clear picture of the situation can be ascertained and justice can be given.

A crime should be investigated by the Police thoroughly. Practically speaking, the higher courts have no means to come to any conclusion at the very nascent stage of any case. This is the error which the Court has committed in this case.

After all, this as an Indian who has grown up seeing the importance of the cow as the backbone of the rural economy, which gives it a revered status in our society. This article scrutinizes all legal, economic, social and political aspects to lead to the conclusion that it is illegal cattle smuggling and a formidable Meat Mafia which is the root cause of the problem, and not the innocent Gaupalaks.

The Vedic stature of Cow was “Aghanya” i.e., it cannot be killed, and during the Islamic rule, slaughter of cows were prohibited with strict penal provisions. British rule witnessed a very strong Gauraksha movement in the leadership of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Gandhi himself said that the first government order in independent India would be to close these slaughter houses. Independent India has witnessed several massive public movements for prohibiting cow slaughter, like the one in 1966 led by Swami Karpatri ji Maharaj and Acharya Vinobha Bhave.

The voice of our Constituent Assembly to this sensitive issue finds its place since the inception of the Constitution, where it gives a directive to the State in Article 48 to prohibit the slaughter of cows. The legislature, in response to that constitutional mandate, has enacted legislations with penal provisions in 22 states against cow slaughter, making it a cognizable offence. It has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional on several occasions. A seven judge constitution bench of the Apex Court headed by Justice RC Lahoti in 2005 in the case of Mirzapur Moti Quraishi Kasab Vs State of Gujarat in Para 51 of the judgement has gone to an extent of equating Gauraksha to Fundamental Duty within Article 51(A)(g) of the Constitution.

With this legal and political background, when we analyse the present situation, it turns out to be a sheer economic and law & order problem, and those who are projected as victims are the real perpetrators who must be exposed.

According to 19th livestock census, the number of milch animals (in-milk & dry), cows and buffaloes, is 118.59 million. After a rigorous scientific exercise in the Mirzapur Moti Quraishi Case, the Supreme Court in Para 139 of the judgement held, “Majority of population is engaged in farming within which a substantial proportion belongs to small and marginal farmers’ category. Protection of cow progeny will help them in carrying out their several agriculture operations and related activities smoothly and conveniently. Organic manure would help in controlling pests and acidification of land apart from resuscitating and stimulating the environment as a whole”.

For an agrarian economy like India, cattle are a source of an additional income from dairy products and contribute substantially to rural living. The Pink Revolution during the UPA regime lead to the mushrooming of slaughter houses, both legal and illegal, throughout the country. Moreover, it is well-known that the Bangladeshi leather industry is surviving on illegal cattle smuggling from porous Indian border. Since PM Modi came to power in 2014, the price of beef has gone up in Bangladesh and their leather industry has been dented.

This promotion and support for the pink revolution produced a new category of skilled professionals in India in the form of cattle smugglers, and it has adversely impacted rural Indians who sleep at night thinking their cattle wealth secured, but the next morning they wake up to see their cattle missing forever. This is what has made them vigilant against these smugglers, because when your livelihood is at risk, one cannot afford to buy the arguments which the elite liberal intelligentsia gives in our country.

Now when we come to the argument of law & order, it will be pertinent to mention some important legal provisions. Section 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 authorizes a private person to arrest any person, who has, in his presence, committed a non-bailable and cognizable offence, and one has a right to stop such offence from taking place.

For the animals on which atrocities are being committed illegally, the right of defense also lies with civil society members as the cattle cannot come in its own private defense. Bentham, in his Principle of the Penal Code Says: “The right of defense is absolutely necessary. The vigilance of Magistrates can never make up for the vigilance of each individual on his own behalf.”

In this entire episode, the so-called secular activists have portrayed the word ‘Vigilantism’ in a bad light and with such a negative connotation that it is being perceived as a crime, but the legal position is contrary to this notion. A vigilant society is the need of the hour. We cannot afford to have the Police in every sphere of our life, and neither to make our society cowardly that it should wait for the Police to come and act even if somebody is committing a crime in front of any citizen. Our society today needs more diligent and vigilant citizens.

When innocent people resist cattle smugglers, they are threatened with the use of weapons which compels them to invoke their Right to Private Defence of person as well as of property. It does not seem that vigilant Indian farmers who are fighting themselves for their fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under the Constitution are doing anything legally, constitutionally or morally wrong. Common people themselves come to their rescue, permitted under ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ and that results in violence. If any causality happens on the side of common people it is never brought up. If smugglers are hurt then that news makes international headlines, subject of academic discussions in seminars and more importantly it gives the necessary content to the propagandists against the government of the day.

The problem that farmers are facing in rural India is the same one the animal right activists are facing in urban parts of the country. The Meat Mafia has brutally targeted several such. Even the security forces, several Police and BSF personnel have lost their life while stopping such smuggling either on inter-state borders or on the Bangladesh Border. It is deplorable that some people in this country recognize the human rights of butchers and smugglers, but their definition does not extend to the human rights of our security forces or animal right activists or farmers fighting for their livelihoods.

The truth has been shrewdly hidden from the Hon’ble Supreme Court to inculpate the innocent and to get an element of sympathy to propagate the false agenda against the country, but the truth never dies. It comes out victorious amidst evils; it can only be disfigured but can never be defeated. So, we have to address the root cause of this problem, which can only be achieved by making our police forces accountable for any incident of cattle smuggling and towards proper implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.



(Ayush is a practicing Advocate at Supreme Court of India & Shubham is a student of Law at NALSAR Hyderabad)