Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TIRUCHIRAPALLI
ECONOMICS
SUBMISSION BY
R.S. AAFREEN
THIRD SEMESTER
BA0150001
PROJECT ON
SUBMITTED TO:
DATE OF SUBMISSION
01-11-2016
DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP
I, R.S. AAFREEN, hereby declare that this project titled “Impact of Beef Ban
First of all, I thank my Economics faculty Prof. BALA CHANDRAN for allowing me to
do such a challenging and dynamic topic. Even repaying him through mere words in
beyond the domain of my lexicon that was the backbone during all hurdles that I
confronted during the making of this project, hence I am forever duly indebted to him his
student.
Also, I am grateful to the staff and administration of Tamil Nadu National Law
School who contributed useful resources tremendously in the making of this project by
providing library infrastructure and data connections.
I sincerely thank my parents and friends for their encouragement in carrying out this
project. Last but not the least, I am also grateful to God for giving me the courage and
strength to withstand all hindrances during this project and completing it successfully.
CONTENT
Title Page
Introduction 3
Objectives 5
Methodology 7
Livestock in India 8
Expensive Gaushala
Conclusion 8
References 10
1. INTRODUCTION
“One man’s (read woman) meat is another man’s (read woman) poison.”
Cow slaughter and beef consumption have become extremely contentious issues in recent
months, with anti-beef laws becoming stricter in many states across the country. It would
seem that there has never been a worse time in India to be a butcher or someone who
eats beef. The recent arrests of people for allegedly selling beef by the police personnel
and brutal killings of people by the cow vigilante groups have terrorised a large section of
the Society especially the minorities and the Dalits. The right of religion being claimed by a
section of Hindu society to whom the cow is sacred to support the anti-beef laws take
advantage of the Article 48 in the Constitution of India on Organisation of agriculture and
animal husbandry. This Article in the Directive Principle of State policy states that, “the
State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and
scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds,
and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle”.
Other sections of the Society opine that, if the concern is to protect “milch and draught
cattle”, as provided under Article 48 of the Constitution and the Statements of Object and
Reasons of these statutes then why is the slaughter of buffaloes not also entirely
prohibited? Moreover they argue that, not all sections of Hindu communities consider Cow
as scared animal. In parts of Western India notably Goa, Maharashtra (before the current
ban), South Indian states namely Karnataka and Kerala and entire North-eastern States,
several Hindu communities consume beef.
As the debate continues, this project tries to find out the impacts of cow slaughter and beef
ban legislations on the economy of the country and economic implications on the
individual/households.
2. OBJECTIVE
Directive Principles of State Policies (DPSPs) were formulated at the time when India was
a third world economy just emerged from the colonial power. Article 48 mentions,
"Prevention of slaughter of milch cattle". This was envisaged to prevent killing of bowels
which were vital to the agrarian economy as an additional source of income through
livestock rearing. It had no religious intent but purely economical. Today the context has
changed and at present India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. India is
the biggest exporter of beef in the world. India's leather industry is an industry with the
turnover of USD 7.5 Billion and the fastest growing (8.22%) industry. This industry
employs 2.5 million people and 30% of the employees are women. Annually, over 2 billion
sq. ft. of leather has been produced in India. Hence the study aims to find out the impact of
beef ban legislation on the Indian economy and economic implications on the
individual/households.
3. METHODOLOGY
Secondary data will be acquired from variety of databases including online databases for
this study. Primary data will also be collected as far as possible. In addition few experts in
leather and tanning industry would also be interviewed.
4. CONTENT
4.1. Livestock in India
Livestock is an important natural resource for supporting livelihood in rural areas. India
has the largest number of livestock, representing about 17% of the world population.
Out of the present 450 million heads of livestock, cattle represent 43.11 (194 million)
followed by goats (26.22%), buffaloes (19.78%) and sheep (10.89%). Among these
categories of domestic animals, cattle have been very popular among the farming
community, irrespective of their religion and region. In fact in 1951, cattle represented
about 55% of the total livestock, while the other three categories represented about
15% each. The gradual shift from cattle to goats over the past four decades indicates
the pressure on fodder and pasture resources, forcing farmers to opt for hardier types of
animals. It is generally believed that goats can graze and survive on those pastures,
which are unfit for cattle and buffaloes. While sheep and goats are maintained by
certain sections of the farming communities purely for economic reasons, cows are
maintained by all sections of the society both for economic and sentimental reasons.
The law ignores that beyond a certain age, cattle may no longer be useful for agricultural
or other purposes, as is reflected in exceptions of other state laws. Many states, such as
Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Karnataka, Odisha, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu and West
Bengal allow cow slaughter on obtaining a ‘fit for slaughter’ certificate. These certificates
are issued based on factors such as if the animal is suffering from permanent
incapacitation, injury or incurable disease, if it is over 14 or 15 years of age, or has a
contagious illness and is thus a risk to the environment. On the other hand, Delhi,
Haryana, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are unconcerned with
these exceptions, and appear to be fixated on protecting cows under any circumstance.
The third issue relates to the independent testing of meat samples. Indian cow slaughter
laws do not follow procedures similar to the Air, Water and Food Safety and Standards
Acts in matters of sample collection. In contrast to the elaborate measures outlined in
those Acts, by excluding a detailed procedure to collect evidence to ensure no tampering
or reduction in quality occurs, the cow slaughter laws fail to recognise the sanctity of the
processes of criminal investigation and trial, where the admissibility of evidence is of
utmost importance. Some state laws, such as those in Punjab and Madhya Pradesh, do
not even provide for any procedure relating to the handling of the samples/animals before
the trial commences.
Further, the powers of search and seizure have been accorded not only to police officers
above the rank of sub-inspector, but also to veterinary officers and even the director of the
Department of Animal Husbandry. Deeming them as public servants and providing
protection for actions taken by them in good faith only allows miscreant officers to act with
impunity in what has emerged to be a communally sensitive issue. It is also important to
note the pedestal of criminal offences at which cow slaughter and beef consumption are
placed; according to the Indian state, these acts command the same level of moral
condemnation as rape and terrorism, perhaps even more.
The quantum of punishment outlined by the state laws for these offences is comparable to
punishments for far more serious issues. For instance, in Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir,
the maximum punishment is ten years imprisonment – the same for offences related to
waging war against the State, counterfeiting the Indian coin, slave trading, culpable
homicide not amounting to murder and unnatural offences. In addition, these laws often
include provisions for a mandatory minimum sentencing (six months in the Delhi and
Madhya Pradesh, one year in Rajasthan), which is usually associated with moral vices.
Almost all these Acts also make these offences non-bailable.
Unemployment and Poverty: The leather industry alone employs close to 2.5 million
people, mostly Dalits. Down-slide in leather industry might aggravate unemployment.
Majority of the flayers are in dire need of employment who lacks alternative employment
opportunities, thus leading to poverty, malnutrition, adversely impacting socio-economic
conditions of people.
Slump in Export: As the largest exporter of beef in the world, India earns about $ 4.3
billion a year. So effectively the country will be losing $4.3 Billion in foreign reserves. India
produced 3.643 million metric tons of beef in 2012, of which 1.963 million metric tons was
consumed domestically and 1.680 million metric tons was exported. The Director General
of Foreign Trade routinely publishes data on the number of livestock that are slaughtered
in India. This data suggests that up to 10 per cent of the country’s cattle and 14 per cent of
buffalo population is slaughtered each year, amounting to about 34 million bovines – 20
million heads of cattle and 14 million buffalos – yielding 2.1 million tonnes of cattle meat
and 1.9 million tonnes of buffalo meat. The exported worth of bovine meat alone in 2013
was $4.5 billion. Between April-November 2014, the sale of bovine meat and meat
products was worth $3.3 billion compared to $2.8 billion in the same period the previous
year, registering a 16.7 per cent increase. Virtually all Indian beef exports are labelled
‘buffalo meat’ since the export of cow meat is banned in India. It is useful to understand
the above amounts in the context of India’s annual trade deficit. For April 2014-March
2015, the deficit was estimated at $137 billion, which was higher than the deficit of $134
billion the previous financial year.
Aggravate the agrarian distress: Farmers will be forced to maintain the cows by ban on
slaughtering, thus increasing the maintenance burden on them. Financial distress of
farmers will be increased by these legislations. A blanket ban on cattle slaughter will force
farmers to pay for the upkeep of unproductive livestock. There are already 53 lakh stray
cattle, abandoned by their owners. The average value of a healthy live animal is anywhere
between Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 100,000 and the loss of this income consequent to the
proposed ban can reduce the landless, and the small and marginal farmers, to penury. A
complete ban on the slaughter of cattle is bound to cause overpopulation of these
animals, causing hardship for farmers who cannot afford their upkeep, putting pressure on
grasslands, leading to degradation of local farm lands, and altering the local environment.
Further, there are international concerns, since cattle overpopulation contributes to higher
methane production due to the unique bovine bodily constitution and digestive process. As
they age, the accumulating cattle population will pose a health hazard too. If not properly
disposed of, the deceased animals can cause disease and contribute to higher human
morbidity and mortality. For India’s small and marginal farmers, the burden of either
burying or cremating 20 to 30 million animals per year will be an expensive proposition.
Dietary imbalance among the Poor: Beef is the third most consumed meat in the world,
only behind pork and poultry. The National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO)
estimated in 2011-12 that 5.2 crore people in the country eat beef/buffalo meat. Earlier, the
National Commission on Cattle, set up by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government in 2002 to
promote a ban on cow slaughter, also admitted in a report that “extreme poverty and
customary practices in the coastal areas and among some sections of scheduled tribes,
scheduled castes and other backward castes also make them beef eaters. There is clearly
a class and caste dimension to beef/buffalo eating. Imposition of beef ban directly affects
the nutrition of the poor.
Dietary imbalance among the poor, who specially depend on beef, which is affordable
compared to other nutritional source. It is very cheap and is a high quality source of
protein, iron, zinc, vitamin B12 and various other nutrients. Banning beef severely affects
those who consider it as their primary non vegetarian food, considering the fact that beef is
very popular in the South Indian states such as Kerala (where 80 percentage of the
population eat beef). It would only aid in increasing hunger and malnutrition. The
immediate effect will be the spiralling price of other meats as people will be forced to
gravitate to them. Beef, generally seen as the poor man’s meat, costs almost a third of
mutton.
Impact on Hotel Industry: The big impact, say experts, of the ban on bovine meat will be
on local hotels and restaurants. The hotels, restaurants and catering segment remain one
of the largest consumers of beef in the country. The food processing industry, mainly the
cold cuts and frozen food makers, on the other hand, count on chicken, pork and lamb
rather than beef. Beef is the preferred item for almost all foreigners.
Pharmaceutical industry: Besides, several organisations fear the ban will adversely
impact the export of medicines produced from bullock beef and organs.
Impact on Make in India Program: A ‘focus sector’ in the Make in India programme,
the leather sector is expected to touch $27 billion in the next five years from the current
$12 billion. Some Chinese cities that were traditionally in the leather industry are now
moving towards electronics. Those orders are now moving to India. The challenge is
India’s production capacity and quality. Tamil Nadu alone accounts for 40-45 per cent of
exports. The sector has recorded a compound annual growth rate of 14.77 per cent in the
past five years. The target is to increase the value of export to $15 billion and the domestic
market turnover to $12 billion. Exports of leather and leather products during the first eight
months of FY15 touched $4.45 billion against $3.8 billion during April-November 2013, an
increase of 17 per cent.
Decrease the Annual GDP: In the absence of a comprehensive nutrition survey, NSSO
data can be explored to understand the changing food habits and levels of nutrition in
India. At the national level, for example, daily protein consumption dipped from 60.2g per
capita in 1993-94 to 56.5g in 2011-12 in rural areas and from 57.2g to 55.7g in urban
areas. As is expected, future income growth in India will surely push up demand for high
value added food items, especially meat, milk and other dairy products. Demography is
also a factor: the number of Indians consuming meat is increasing each year while the
country’s livestock population appears to have stabilized at about 300 million, as per the
19th Live Stock Census of 2012. An all India ban has the potential to pull down
India’s annual GDP growth rate by about 2 per cent.
The Maharashtra government’s decision of banning beef even affects the leather sector in
Tamil Nadu, which sources 40 per cent of bull hides produced in Maharashtra.
The ban will increase the price of leather products and bring down production, as the
domestic market won’t be able to meet the demand and importing won’t be viable. Not only
has the cost of sourcing gone up nearly five per cent, if Maharashtra is not going to supply,
the production will also come down. The companies in Tamil Nadu were currently paying
around Rs 800 per hide. After Kolkata and Punjab, the best hides come from Maharashtra.
Tamil Nadu’s leather industry used to source hides from Aurangabad, Kalyan (near
Mumbai), and other places. The development comes at a time the industry is reviving.
Now things are looking good and we will close the fiscal with 15 per cent growth.
Maharashtra used to supply nearly 2 million leather sheets a year. The ban will increase
the price of leather products since the traders and brokers have to transport their animals
to states where slaughtering is allowed which will raise transportation cost.
The fact that cattle populations ownership have increased in rural areas in several states
that allow slaughter (male or female) is evidence enough that slaughter does not
compromise or destroy cattle populations but in fact is a positive impact. “Slaughter of
cattle is mostly of the male. It’s only the old, diseased, unproductive females that may end
up being slaughtered,” - Sagari Ramdas, a veterinarian with the Food Sovereignty
Alliance, who works on preservation of indigenous breeds of cattle. “Growth of cattle
depends on several factors such as the availability of grazing lands, including the forest
cover, feed and fodder, water, labour and healthcare. It also depends on the purpose of
rearing the animals which could be rearing cows for milk, rearing male cattle for field work
or selling them for slaughter. Declining utility of male cattle due to mechanisation of
agriculture, coupled with the ban on their slaughter may be pushing farmers to rear less
cows, she added.
5. CONCLUSION
Cow slaughter has now become a political issue and many state governments have
imposed a ban on cow slaughter without finding alternate solutions to manage these
low productive cattle. This project found out that the economy of the Maharashtra where
the total ban is imposed has been severely affected. Maharashtra economy have taken a
hit of 10,000 crore INR ($1495 million). Hence a total national ban on beef will severely
affects the economy. An all India ban has the potential to pull down India’s annual GDP
growth rate by about 2 per cent. Maharashtra might afford the economic loss of ban on
beef since it is the India’s richest state but definitely not other states afford the economic
loss due to the ban of meat. The ban also adversely affects the livelihood of the rural
communities especially the most disadvantaged communities.
It is interesting to note that In contrast, the legal position on cow slaughter in Kerala offers
what appears to be the fairest setup at present – there is no state legislation concerning
the slaughter of cattle. However, no ‘fit for slaughter’ certificates are granted unless the
animal is over 10 years of age, and is unfit or permanently incapacitated for work or
breeding due to injury or deformity. No doubt our cattle wealth must be saved but
introducing a legal ban to save cow would mean treating the symptoms and not the
disease. Unfortunately, no serious efforts are being made to conduct in-depth studies to
identify the root-causes of this issue and find a suitable solution.
REFERENCES
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2016/03/09/why-indias-chief-economic-adviser-has-
beef-with-talking-about-beef-bans/
What the Bombay High Court verdict on beef ban means- Indian express, Mumbai