This article is written by Abhay, from Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, NMIMS. This is an exhaustive article which deals with various aspects associated with cow vigilantism.

Introduction

The ban on beef, imposed in many Indian states, prohibits cows from being slaughtered, eaten and traded. Helped by the rise of Hindu nationalism, this restriction has been imposed by state and extra-state bodies, the latter established by cow vigilante groups. Such regulation mostly focused on cow meat consumption “suspicion” has erupted in horrific brutality, including the arrests, physical attacks and lynching of individuals, who are predominantly the members of Muslim and Dalit communities. 

These violent actions are carried out mainly by right-wing cow vigilante groups reacting to rumours of cow meat possession and the perpetrators of these attacks are predominantly Muslims and Dalits. There has been an emphasis on scientific methods to determine the authenticity of reports about possession of cow meat. Beef detector kits and specific identification numbers for cows were implemented to ensure effective enforcement of the ban of beef, thereby seeking to curb violent incidents resulting from unreasonable suspicion.

Protection of cows

The implementation of cow protectionist systems in India can be easily assessed by the history of upper strata of society to preserve the cow as holy and as an emblem of the mother for the Hindus. Beef is regarded as a taboo for Hindus in modern India. Brahmins, however, had cow meat as part of their meal during the Vedic and post-Vedic times.

Back then, Buddhism, which opposed excess consumption of beef and ritualisation, started gaining prominence in India. Brahmins understood the significance of a cow and proclaimed it as sacred. Hence, cows became animals who deserved adoration and defence. The Brahmins have called beef a taboo. 

The view of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

This historical perspective helps to combat the widespread myth that people didn’t eat beef before the Islamic presence. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said that the word untouchable came into existence and got associated with dalits because of beef consumption which was considered as a taboo by upper strata of Hindu society. Historically, Dalits and Muslims have indeed been active in cow meat-related works like the leather factory, butchery etc. 

While working in these, they often faced violence. The stigma against beef and related community serves as a point of unity between the Dalit and Muslim communities, as they are vulnerable and have been facing this injustice.

Ban on beef 

The democratic and secular India had undergone a perplexing transformation of the taboo on beef into a regime that prohibits the slaughter of cows in several states. Such taboo, indeed, obtained a new outlook through a 2015 law that prohibited cow slaughter and its consumption unlawful in several states of India. The 2017 Government of India’s ban on the transportation of bovine animals was an unofficial ban on consuming beef; a law designed to satisfy Hindu nationalists rather than an attempt for genuine animal welfare.

This decree builds on the proposal of the Indian Constitution to protect cows on the basis of their political importance and commercial value. Infringing the regulations of a state’s beef ban results in a penalty and potential jail term, with the extent of the penalty varying from state to state. For example, a  fine of Rupees 10,000 in Maharashtra. 

The Central government restricted the sale of cattle for slaughter in May 2017, implementing a rule authorised under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960. In several Indian states, the restriction on cow slaughter, sales and consumption has aggravated social inequalities in the livelihood of people working in the leather and meat sector. 

The ban on beef recognises slaughter as the only form of abuse and refuses to consider the manner in which cows are abused during their lives, even for milk. The religious aspect given to the cow as being such doesn’t really explain its commercialisation for financial advantage.

In addition, the ideology of cow safety based on the concept of the cow as “mother goddess” ignores its rationality and wipes the whole issue of commodification and bodily abuse. There are clear ties between the dairy and slaughter places. When cows are not important for these dairy houses as they become unproductive, they are sent to slaughterhouses. Thus, the whole concept of regarding cows as a motherly figure and later sending it for slaughter shows the real agenda behind all these concepts.

Mob attacks

Cow protectionism includes various extra-legal entities identified as gau rakshaks or cow protectors. Gau rakshak philosophy along ideological lines goes back to the 11th century, in reaction to the arrival of Islam. In 1870, a Sikh group in Punjab started the first, structured Hindu cow protection movement in India. Dayanand Saraswati had formed a cow-protection organization in the year 1880. Acharya Vinoba Bhave, regarded by many to be Mahatma Gandhi’s religious successor, had started a hunger strike in the year 1979, demanding a prohibition on the slaughter of cows. 

Such organisations are associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and other Hindutva or right-wing groups. They are effective in states with rigid cattle slaughter regulations as well as in other states with milder laws such as Kerala, which is likely for political bonus and to keep the discussion on the boil. 

Such groups have a hand in the abuse that involves beating or lynching alleged beef carriers. Vigilante activity has contributed to many innocent individuals being lynched and attacked. Unverified allegation-filled rumours play a prominent role in these actions. Such actions create uncertainty and disrupt with lawful trade in livestock, triggering financial losses. 

Gau rakshaks are mainly targeting Muslims and dalits communities that are deemed “suspect” due to various reasons and their close associations with beef. The Maharashtra government has set up an Honorary Animal Welfare Officer position for each district, in which, all publicly available candidates are gau rakshaks. Their hiring indicates a state’s acceptance of extra-legal activities and protection to such organizations.

Well, if we look into the life of the Father of the Nation, Gandhiji, he always wanted Hindu-Muslim unity even though he was a devout Hindu and he always advocated the protection of the cows; nevertheless, he did not encourage any kind of vigilance that would end up taking any human life.

Legal aspects

Prohibition of the slaughter of cows, as given in the Indian Constitution, is a Fundamental Duty of the Indian State. Most of the Indian states have also adopted anti-cow slaughter laws. Judgments by the Supreme Court of India have also affirmed the legal standing of these rules. 

Article 48 of the Indian Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to organize agricultural production and animal husbandry on a contemporary and scientific basis and shall take measures, in specific, to preserve and improve species and to restrict the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

In India, there is no formal account of lynchings. National and State criminal records do not differentiate among generic crime and cow-related abuse or lynching. After all, there is really no estimate of hate crime and those influenced by discrimination toward a particular community. 

Section 223(a) of the Code of criminal procedure, 1973 specifies that individuals or a group engaged in the very same crime may be charged together under the same act. Yet, it hasn’t proven to have enabled adequate justice given to vulnerable people. Indian law provisions which are similar to hate crime law are all those related to Section 153A IPC, which involves fostering enmity between groups and actions that are counterproductive to preserving peace. 

Section 153B IPC, which includes, actions detrimental to the preservation of national integration. Section 295A IPC, which includes, actions aimed at outraging religious sentiments. Section 295B IPC, which contains words intended to hurt religious sentiments. There is no use of such law provisions to prosecute hate crime by law enforcement authorities.

Article 48 only imposed a limited ban on the slaughtering of cows. It made a solid differentiation between the beneficial milch and draught or useless cattle which can be slaughtered. The issue of slaughter was left to be decided by the State government. Cow protection laws were also left to the discretion of state as livestock is a state subject.   

All other states in India, with the exception of Kerala, West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura and Sikkim, presently have laws banning the slaughter of Cows. All other states either have a complete ban or permit just the sale of imported beef from other states. A few others have prohibited the sale of beef absolutely.

Haryana’s Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvadhan Act, 2015, which repealed the old Cow protection law of 1955, authorises cops and any individual authorized by the state to enter, stop and search, any vehicle used or expected for the trade of cows, and confiscate the vehicle as well as the cows as given in Section 16 of the act. Section 17 of the Act allows for the confiscation of vehicles by police or any individual approved by the state.

Police forces have mostly failed to protect victims, many of whom have been lynched in some cases, despite the victims’ previous requests for security. Officers passivity to both safeguard and appropriate actions against offenders has also empowered the latter, leading to frequent assaults which resulted in deaths.

In many cases, even where murders were recorded by the authority, parallel cross cases were also filed against victims and people who witnessed that crime. These cross cases were mostly filed under cow protection laws. Cross cases act as a barrier for family members to have the murders investigated and justice obtained, and this is due to fear of police harassment. 

Many FIRs also did not name the assailants; they were instead recorded as a crime committed by unknown persons. Police action against the accused has generally been very delaying in murder cases. Called suspects were not charged. Many detained have received bail from prosecution without much effort. 

Victims and witnesses are subsequently being threatened and harassed in many of the ongoing cases. A public inquiry was obviously inefficient with charges sheets that were not submitted to the magistrate within a specified period. That lets the accused conveniently secure bail from the courts.

Important case laws

In the case of Hanif Quarashi & Others vs The State of Bihar, Hanif Quarashi had petitioned against a complete ban on the slaughter of cows by Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. This petition was filed in violation of the Fundamental Right of religious freedom. The court took the view that valuable protection against cow slaughter should be provided. While it recognized the economic implications for the minority Muslims and dalits, it justified majority opinion by quoting from Hedaya which says that it is not obligatory to sacrifice a cow.

In the case of State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab, India’s Supreme Court overturned a 36-year-old ruling and upheld the legal standing of a Gujarat law imposing a blanket prohibition on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks, frequently misconstrued to evade the ban on cow slaughter. The order was issued by a Bench of seven judges led by India’s then Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti.

In the case of Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India, the very first PIL was filed by Tehseen Poonawalla and Tushar Gandhi for guidance to the central and state governments to respond to the danger of cow vigilance and lynching. They filed the second PIL to establish legal accountability for cow-related lynching and violence against states. 

The Court made both States and Union Territories parties to the case during the trials and directed each of them to file affidavits detailing the measures they took to prevent the vigilance. The original petition included only six states. The three-judge Supreme Court Bench heard the two petitions simultaneously. 

The Court acknowledged that incidents of lynching in which private individuals take the matter into their own hands are unlawful and therefore can not be tolerated. The judgment included that no person can take the law into his or her hands, in his or her ability or as a member of the party. 

The Court regarded that the law and order is solely a matter of state and put no duty on the central government to deter cow vigilantism. The Court also issued some precautionary, preventive and punitive directives for countering mob lynching, including a recommendation to the Parliament to draft anti-lynching legislation. 

The implementation of guidelines is still monitored by the courts. The Court chose not to get in the legality of cow protection laws in different states but instead, explored ways for States to take precautionary, corrective and punitive counter-lynching initiatives. The “good faith clause” under six Cow Protection laws in which citizens are granted immunity for their activities if they respond under unspecified “good faith.” 

As indicated in the judgment, the Court continued to track the enforcement of its guidelines by requesting all states to submit a Compliance Report on measures being taken. The court strongly addressed the 7th September hearing from 18 states that had not provided the compliance report. The court has implemented a hands-on approach in dealing with the situation of vigilantism and brutality by intimidating to undertake contempt of court proceedings against defaulting States. 

Among the initiatives to be put into effect by the Supreme Court is to appoint a nodal officer for each district for taking action in order to curb mob violence. The other measure is to reduce and prevent the propagation of inappropriate and intense messages, video clips as well as other content on different social media platforms and to establish fast-track court system to consider lynching and mob violence cases.

Conclusion

The government needs to be truthful in condemning vigilante lynching. The popular practice of attempting to deflect the problem and playing finger-pointing does not help the peace of society. The responsibility for abuse needs to be kept against the vigilante groups. It would bring an end to any misunderstandings.

There needs to be a concerted attempt to arrest the vigilante groups who take law and order in their own hands. Police need to be released from political influence to establish dissuasion among vigilante groups that perhaps the government does not stand with them and a zero-tolerance for cow vigilance should be witnessed.

We will first have to avoid the rhetoric of cow nationalism. The theory of cows under danger generates only hate and despise between communities. The government should rather document and conduct a comprehensive review of this problem. Controversy generates over regulations on cow slaughter and the selling of beef. Strict regulations are already in place, but strict enforcement needs to be ensured.

The politicians and members of the party who advocate violent action by public speeches must be dismissed either by the government or the party itself. Representatives of the group have to be made aware of the implications for helping suspected offenders. Yes, now the cow has also been limited to a political trap and also used again and again to spread communal and religious intolerances, and that is just for political advantage. But, let’s hope that the government understands the gravity of the situation and bring a specific law for punishing the ones involved in mob attacks.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: