BJP’s Cow Plank Will Boomerang Unless It Studies And Strengthens Cow-Nomics

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s order to the administration to immediately take care of stray cows is one more bit of evidence that the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) cow-protection posture is unviable unless the entire lifecycle chain of cattle is taken care of. Thanks to the new political pressures for cow protection in much of the Hindi belt, the old wink-and-nod system of the illegal cow economy is breaking down.

The current cow economy is partly illegal because when you ban slaughter, there is no one to take care of the cow once its useful economic life is over. The number of gaushalas and good Hindus willing to finance cow shelters is small relative to the need. There is thus a don’t-see-don’t-tell system in place where the original buyer of the cow takes care of it until it stops yielding milk; after that, it is quietly sold off to middlemen, who then ‘smuggle’ the cow for slaughter in illegal slaughter houses inside the country, or across porous borders in Nepal and Bangladesh. Along the way, various protection racketeers collect speed money to let cattle pass through. It is the breakdown of this system that is one contributory cause of cow vigilantism and violence.

Now that it is tougher to continue with this wink-and-nod arrangement of ordinary cow owners being complicit in its slaughter, most people just let them loose, and bands of stray cows now wander about the countryside damaging crops and other vegetation. In Rajasthan, and now UP, villagers spend sleepless nights to ensure that armies of cows don’t damage their crops before they are harvested. Without a proper policy, cow protection is a curse for them.

One need not buy the beef lobby’s argument about right to eat, or that cow protection laws are an imposition on others who have no qualms about eating its meat. It is perfectly logical for any state, whether driven by the sentiments of the people, or for other reasons, to ban the slaughter of specific animals. As sociologist Dipankar Gupta wrote in The Times of India some time ago, many countries ban the consumption of specific types on meat (dogs in Germany, Britain, Ireland, France), even if the reason is not religious. And “when a law prohibits the consumption, or slaughter, of a certain animal, then it applies to every citizen, without exception”.

To put it plainly, the ban on cow slaughter is not as illogical as some claim; what is illogical is to not think through the consequences of the ban, and investing in an ecosystem to ensure smooth policing and implementation of the ban. We need a new legal approach to taking care of the cow from birth to death. If this is not done, it will cost the BJP dear, and merely ordering district officials to take care of cows will not instantly solve the problem. There are reports that stray cows are being housed in schools, which cannot be a long-term solution, unless we want to stop educating our children and send them to school only to take care of cows.

So, what should a holistic cow protection economy look like? There can be many solutions, but one needs address the follow issues.

First, size of herd. Assuming the state and citizens have to provide for cows till moksha, it does not make sense to allow the cattle population to proliferate endlessly. We need to look at an optimum size that can be protected and economically supported. Unlike humans, who automatically control populations once they achieve a certain degree of economic prosperity, cattle may continue to proliferate if they are well taken care of. Hence the need to have limits on how many millions we want in terms of the country’s cattle population. If we can afford only so much, we should allow only so many to be born.

Second, the male problem. Since nature produces males and females in equal number among cattle, and males are not pretty much of use beyond insemination, we need an answer on what to do with male cattle. Should we allow sex determination tests – banned for humans for good reason – so that too many male cows are not born, and thus needing slaughter? Or should male cows in adulthood head straight for the pensioners’ gaushala?

Third, research. If we are going to invest in many gaushalas, it is logical to look for many more uses of the cow beyond milk and leather. This calls for research to derive additional value from cow side-products (medicinal properties of urine, use of gobar for gas and power, etc), and also investment in cow-care in old age. Investment in bovine veterinary facilities, medicine and food are vital so that old cattle can live in peace.

Fourth, use of leather and other parts after death. The Hindu restriction is only on cow slaughter, not use of its parts after death. While few Hindus may want to cut up cows even after they died in their sleep or of cardiac arrest, there are entire communities that have no issue doing this. Why not integrate the Muslim community both at the veterinary and caretaking end, and in the skinning of dead animals, so that they too are benefited? Will this not improve communal harmony? Open collaboration between the two communities in protection and disposal of the cow is better than covert collaboration on the slaughter of live animals which is illegal in 24 states, and often leads to violence.

Fifth, policing and cow census. If you want a ban, you must have effective policing and intimate knowledge of the cow population. If you don’t have this, you will have cow vigilantism and protection rackets that will sometimes turn violent. The police also cannot track all cows in the country; so, a system of licensing and birth registration is vital, so that the cow buyers will think twice while buying a cow only for its useful life, without taking responsibility for it when it becomes economically a burden. We don’t sell our pet dogs for slaughter when they get old, nor do we do that with old grandma even though her poor health may be draining the family’s wealth. For those who say the cow is our mother, maybe they should consider providing for her like they would for a mother.

While we do have regular censuses of livestock (the last one happened in 2014), it would make sense to have an even more granular understanding of the cattle population district-wise, village-wise, and age- and gender-wise. This will enable us to generate actuarial information over time which can be useful in estimating demand for gaushalas or other services.

In this context, an Aadhaar number for cows is not a laughing matter. If we can register millions of cars and bikes every year (over 20 million of them annually), and provide for their licensing and ultimate junking, why not apply the same logic for the cow?

Sixth, it is worthwhile. Naysayers will ask: why spend so much on cows when we still have so many poor? The answer is we must spend on the cow precisely because we must help the poor. The cow economy will provide thousands of new jobs in the countryside, and create its own supply chain of services. It will be economically viable at some point.

It is worth repeating: protecting the cow is not wrong in itself; it is the avoidance of responsibility for the ban that is the problem. The BJP will pay a high price politically for trying to milk the cow for votes, and then abandoning it to ruin the lives of those who buy it for economic benefits.