Cow vigilantes’ illegal activities are a threat to law and order

KP Singh

Former DGP, Haryana

FOUR cow vigilantes in the Rakbar Khan lynching case have been sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge of Alwar. From 2012 to 2022, a total of 82 cases of cow-related violence, in which 45 persons lost their lives and 145 were seriously injured, were reported in the country. PM Narendra Modi has condemned such violence, saying that the offenders are anti-social elements camouflaged as cow protectors.

Cow vigilantism is not a new phenomenon. It is a pattern of mob-based collective violence in the name of cow protection. An estimated 200 cow vigilante groups are active in the Hindi belt alone and some of them claim to have up to 5,000 members. They are unorganised and uncontrolled gangs who patrol highways and roads at night, looking for vehicles transporting animals across the state boundaries. These armed and highly mobile groups appear to have the false notion that in faith-related matters, the state cannot prevail over the people’s will. They have a sound information system and some of them have adopted it as a profession.

The first cow protection society was formed by the Kukas, a reformist group in the Sikh religion. They viewed cow protection as a ‘sign of moral quality of a state.’ As is evident from the trigger point of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the cow emerged as an important rallying point for mass social and political mobilisation against the British. Emotions aroused after cow slaughter have often culminated in Hindu-Muslim riots since the 18th century. Cow protection may be understood mainly as an expression of the Hindu cultural identity and religious ethos.

Even in the Constituent Assembly, the protection of the cow was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate. Proponents of cow protection advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, citing the sentimental sanctity of the majority community on the one hand and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other. Even Mahatma Gandhi once declared that prohibition on cow slaughter was more important to him than swaraj itself.

The provisions relating to cow protection did not find place in the first draft of the Constitution, prepared by the drafting committee. Subsequently, Rajendra Prasad, who was the President of the Constituent Assembly, clandestinely spearheaded the agenda of cow protection, and, ultimately, succeeded in getting it included as a Directive Principle of State Policy. The Muslim members of the Constituent Assembly did not oppose the move, though they argued that the Hindus should have openly claimed it as a matter of their faith.

Article 48 of the Constitution provides that the state shall endeavour to prohibit the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

Since the preservation and protection of animals is a subject matter of the ‘State List’ in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, most states, barring Kerala, West Bengal, Meghalaya, Tripura, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram, have enacted cow protection laws.

Under the cover of these laws, the cow vigilantes appear to have assumed a spiritual duty to punish those whom they believe are harming the cows. This inferred belief gets strengthened when they receive both covert and overt support from interested social, religious and political groups. In 2016, the Haryana government had even contemplated issuing identity cards to such cow protection groups.

Contrary to it, cow slaughter has been an issue of economic and political significance for many social and political groups. In the run-up to the Bihar Assembly elections in 2015, the contest was described by a political outfit as “a fight between those who eat beef and those who are against cow slaughter.” It is often seen that cow-related issues get flared up before the General Election.

The economy behind cow slaughter is another dilemma which attracts the attention of the rationalists. The Indian beef export industry is worth $4 billion annually, leaving aside the leather and hide businesses. These industries are traditionally dominated by Muslims and Dalit Hindus and millions of people earn their livelihood from these activities.

Farmers generally abandon the economically unviable cow progeny. They are a serious safety hazard on the roads. The logistics of supporting aged and purposeless cow progeny and their economic sustainability for the farmers are genuine concerns which have not been addressed.

Beef-eating is included in the food habits of a cross-section of the people. They argue that cow slaughter and the ban on beef need to be evaluated on a broader spectrum of ethics, legality and constitutionalism. A nine-judge Bench of the SC has, in the “the right to privacy verdict”, emphasised that nobody would like to be told what to eat or how to dress.

The cow protection laws have been challenged in the SC on several counts: it has been argued that they infringe upon the fundamental right to do business and the freedom of religion guaranteed under the Constitution. The SC, in the case of Mirzapur Moti Kureshi (2005), has clarified that the ban on the slaughter of cows and the class of cattle mentioned in Article 48 is total, irrespective of their age and usefulness; butchers are free to slaughter other cattle.

It is not a secret that cow vigilantes have a nexus with corrupt police officers. In fact, they had been or are a part of the police information networks against cow smuggling. In due course of time, their familiarity with the police helps them grow as racketeers. They often indulge in violence to frighten and extort money from animal transporters and cow smugglers.

Unlawful activities of the vigilantes are a serious threat to law and order. In 2018, the SC had observed that it is the responsibility of the state to prevent related crimes. The self-styled cow vigilantes indulging in violence need to be brought to justice expeditiously and adequately.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.