Where’s the beef?

Krishen Kak

Circulating over the web are many nauseatingly gruesome videos of cows in India being trucked to slaughter, and many revolting grisly videos of their slaughter for their meat. Their meat is commonly called “beef” and this essay raises questions of the ‘what’ and ‘where’ in India is “beef”. The opening focus is on official aspects at the national and international level; we look at official aspects at the level of some States, and conclude with the reality of the Indian beef industry and some questions that must concern all patriotic Indians.

The Directorate-General of Foreign Trade of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry prescribes the “Indian Trade Classification (Harmonised System) Classification for Export & Import Items”. The following points are relevant:

§ in Ch. 1, “cattle” is only the cow species (s.no.8 in the table there enters “buffaloes” separately).

§ in Ch. 2, Note 1 says “beef” is....and this is only the cow species.  Note 3 refers to buffalo offal, and Note 5 again has “cattle” and “buffaloes”.  Serial nos. 18 and 19, and serial nos. 22 and 23, have “beef” referring to the cow species only.  Buffalo is “buffalo meat”.  

The 2002 report of the National Commission on Cattle in its Preface refers to “Sub-Group VII (on Cattle and Buffaloes) of the Working Group on Animal Husbandry and Dairying, which was set up by the Planning Commission for the Tenth Five Year Plan proposals”, thus repeating the officially-drawn distinction between “cattle” and “buffaloes”. 

This distinction is found in other official records too. So it is clear that while “cattle” and “beef” colloquially and in the claims of our so-called “secular” activists  may or may not include the buffalo and its meat, legally and officially in India “cattle” is only the cow species, and “beef” is the meat of the cow species.

The legality of cow slaughter (and therefore the sale of beef) varies from State to State. The export of beef is banned (though the NCC report and media reports refer to efforts to sneak this back in, and there are web advertisements openly for the export of beef. There can be no doubt that beef is being exported from India, with the full knowledge and connivance of the Indian State).

The slaughter of other domesticated species such as the buffalo and the sale and export of their meat is legal, though conditions generally apply.

However, the ITC-HS classification also has “bovine animals”, which is cattle + buffaloes.Therefore, in this essay, “cattle” is used only for the cow species and “beef” for cattle meat, and “bovine” is used for cattle + buffaloes collectively. Official data of bovine meat export is only of buffalo meat and there is official data in regard to buffalo slaughter and meat. There is no official data of the export of beef, and there is little, if any, official data in the public domain of cattle slaughter for beef, that too presumably for domestic consumption.

The NCC report cites official figures for the increase in beef production from 70,000 tonnes in 1976 to 12,16,000 tonnes in 1992 to 13,78,000 tonnes in 1997. It also quotes a press report of official sources in 1996 saying that 70% of the beef was exported to the Middle East. The Export Import Data Bank of the Department of Commerce shows statistics from 1996-97 which year has the export of “meat and edible meat offal” but there is no entry for “beef” in that year or thereafter.

The FAO website has a report titled “Indian Meat Industry Perspective” by Dr SK Ranjhan (he features too in the opening para of the Preface of the NCC report). The report gives data from 1975 to 2001-2002 in which latter year India’s meat export was 243,560 MT of which 98% was buffalo meat, the remaining 2% being of sheep, goat and poultry. Within India, the “meat production is estimated at 4.9 million tons (sic)… Buffalo in India contributes about 30% of total meat production. The contribution by cattle…30%”. In other words, “the share of bovine meat in the total meat production in India is about 60%”. The growth rate of beef production is 2% in 1975-1985, 3.8% in 1985-2000. The report gives buffalo meat export figures from 1997 to 2002, but shows no export of beef. This report with an FAO url gives a clarion call for a Pink Revolution:

If India had the “Green” Revolution, the “White” Revolution, and the “Blue” Revolution, can the “Pink Revolution” be far behind? The Green Revolution had led to self-sufficiency in food grains, the White Revolution saw India occupy the Number One Position in milk production in the world, and the Blue Revolution brought about increase in fish production. This proves that the Indian farmer is Progressive. What he needs is the lead in the right direction. Contribution of buffalo in bringing about the White Revolution in India is well known. India is now poised to achieve the Pink Revolution through buffalo. If this could be done, India can also achieve the Number one position in meat production……

These views are echoed on the official website of the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, which too calls for a Pink Revolution to succeed the Green, White, and Blue ones. It is clear that, while there was official awareness of beef export, primarily to the Middle East, till 1996, after that – officially – there has been no export of beef from India.

Curiously, the US Government presents a very different picture for India. The Foreign Agricultural Service of the US Department of Agriculture in its April 2012 report on “Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade” opens with the headline “World Beef Exports: India Takes Lead in 2012” and a chart “India Fuels Growth in World Beef Trade”. One reason identified for this “growth” is “increased slaughter”, and the forecast for India is an increase to 3.5 million tons, currently at 1.5 million tons “making it the world’s leader”. India’s exports rose from 672,000 tons in 2008 to 1,525,000 tons by April 2012. Our main markets are Southeast Asia, the Middle East and North Africa.[8]

The USDA Foreign Agricultural Service’s Global Agricultural Information Network for 2011 reports that “according to the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, the state of Uttar Pradesh in India is the largest producer and exporter of buffalo meat, accounting for roughly 70 percent of the production. South India produces around 17 percent of the total buffalo meat with the state of Andhra Pradesh accounting for the largest share”. There is aggressive government intervention to promote buffalo meat production in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and West Bengal.

“Indian consumption of buffalo meat averages approximately two kilograms per person per year” and, “while Indian buffalo meat competes on a cost basis, there are several other factors which impact trade. Specifically, all Indian buffalo meat is produced according to halal standards”. Not surprisingly, “the vast majority of export growth in 2010 was to Middle Eastern and North African Countries (Only 2 of the top 10 growth markets were outside of this region). This was led (sic) by Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, UAE, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Syria”. Of the 55 countries listed as “partner countries” in the table “India: Beef Exports”, Pakistan is there, registering a dramatic decline in its “beef” import from India, and Bangladesh does not feature at all.

The US Department of Agriculture defines “beef” as cattle meat. The American buffalo, which is not a true buffalo, is the “bison”, to be distinguished from the Asian water buffalo, which has no entry in the USDA glossary. The USDA further recognizes that the American buffalo (bison) and the water buffalo are not the same, and that bison (i.e., American buffalo) meat is not the same as “beef”. The buffalo that is exported from India is definitely not “beef”, and this is said so in the texts of the USDA’s FAS reports but where it is cleverly assimilated to “beef” by being called “carabeef” (though there is no entry for this either in the USDA glossary).

American officialese then proclaims Indian water buffalo meat as “beef” all over the world, and media headlines mockingly trumpet “Holy Cow! India is the World’s Top Beef Exporter” and “Growing Beef Trade Hits India’s Sacred Cow”. Ask yourself why the US Government portrays India as a beef-culture, even as it distinguishes between the meat of its own buffaloes and cattle, and it knows our water buffalo meat is not beef.

The USDA’s April 2012 report on “Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade” also tells us that India’s broiler meat production rose from 2,490,000 tons in 2008 to 3,200,000 tons by April 2012, our domestic consumption rising from 2,489,000 tons in 2008 to 3,190,000 tons by April 2012. We do not feature in the broiler meat exports list and we do not feature at all in the swine/pork data.

Interestingly, the Indian government itself recognizes in the National Research Centre on Pigs’ “Vision 2030” document the very favourable economics and considerable significance of pork production in poverty alleviation, especially of tribal communities in the country. It is relevant that, in global meat production in 2012, beef is estimated at 57 million tons, pork at 104.4 million tons, and broiler meat at 82.2 million tons. In other words, the global demand for pig meat is almost double the demand for bovine meat.

It makes “secular” economic sense that the Indian State promote and market pig meat rather than bovine meat. But the State won’t, and the Integrated Sustainable Energy and Ecological Development Association suggests why in its Booklet No.190: “Pig Introduction: Breeds and Characteristics”, where it informs us of the comparative cheapness of good quality pork and of the contribution of swine farming in India to 6 to 7% of the total meat production in the country. It notes that “the importance of pigs for raising the low nutritional standard of our country cannot be over-emphasized”. It lists as the first “constraint” in pig rearing the fact that “consumption of pork is forbidden by certain religions and pig production is not encouraged. Thus it is not an universally accepted food”.  

Please note that beef is also “not an universally accepted food”, but the Indian State does not find itself “constrained” from extending to the cow-sensitive religions the same “secular” sensitivity that it extends to the pig-sensitive religions. “Around one hundred worshipers of the cow laid down their lives in 1966, during the agitation seeking for total ban on cow slaughter in Parliament Street, Delhi, when they were shot down for raising slogans like ‘Gomata ki Jai’” – s.103, Ch.1 of the NCC report. 

The Constitution of India in Article 48 directs 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.

This would appear to exclude buffaloes.

The Constitution of India in Article 51A(g) requires that:

It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.

“Living creatures” will include buffaloes.

Bovine slaughter is governed by State laws, and the report of the National Commission on Cattle has a convenient summary in its Annexure II(8), discussed in its report in s.17, Ch.2. The NCC is specific about certain State governments, notably West Bengal and Kerala, flouting laws, judgments and sentiments against cow slaughter. “The State of Kerala can be termed as the ‘Cow Slaughter State’, where the main business in the market is slaughter of cattle and sale of beef” - s.138, Ch.1.

The following in regard to legislation of bovine slaughter is taken from the NCC summary after checking the concerned State Government’s website: 

Andhra Pradesh - The A.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 bans the slaughter of cattle females and allows it conditionally of the males. It should be obvious that there could be ways of getting around these conditions. The “main activities” of the State Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries do not include the meat industry. There is an A.P. Meat and Poultry Development Corporation Ltd but it has no website of its own. There is no numerical data given of bovine slaughter within the State.

Kerala – no legislation – only local rules banning bovine slaughter “unless the animal is over 10 years of age and is unfit for work or breeding or the animal has become permanently incapacitated for work or breeding due to injury or deformity”. It should be obvious that there could be ways of getting around these conditions. The Department for Animal Husbandry has no reference to the bovine meat industry. The Kerala State Planning Board in its economic review 2011 for “Agriculture and Allied Sectors” notes:

6.69   Cattle population in Kerala which was 33.96 lakh in 1996 declined to 21.22 lakh in 2003 and further to 17.40 lakh by 2007. The crossbred cattle population which stood at 22.87 lakhs (67%) as per 1996 Census decreased to 17.35 lakh numbers and in percentage terms increased to 82% by 2003. It further declined to 16.21 lakh numbers and in percentage terms increased to 93% in 2007. This increase in proportion of crossbred population was made possible by expanded health care facilities and artificial insemination services available in the State.

6.71……Though meat production is increasing over the years, it cannot cater to the demand fully…..meat other than poultry meat [increased] from 102026 tonnes in 2009-10 to 108398 tonnes in 2010-11 registering an increase of…6.24 percent…over the previous year.

There is no data specific to bovine meat. The chapter on “Trade Flows” has no data specific to the bovine meat trade. The State Plans too do not refer to the bovine meat industry. The State Animal Husbandry Department “is committed to provide MILK, MEAT and EGG for ALL...”but there is no reference specifically to bovine meat.

Presumably, towards this carnivorous public objective, the government-supported Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University runs a meat plant and the government-ownedMeat Products of India Ltd markets Mattupetty Premium Beef with “the meat…obtained from superior quality animals reared at KLD Board farm”. KLD Board is the Kerala Livestock Development Board, and some of the beef animals are statedly younger than 10 years. Whether the KLDB connects with the National Research Centre on Meat is unclear since the NRCM’s Annual Report 2009-2010 does not mention beef at all. 

Apart from some gory pictures of beef carcasses, the official Kerala website is quite sanitary about its beef industry. This is the State that the NCC labeled The Cow Slaughter State. It is non-official sources that reveal the reality of cattle slaughter in Kerala, for example:

The meat trade in Kerala evokes images of a savage cattle trail: cows and bulls jammed into trucks and box cars coming from Tamil Nadu, Karnataka or Andhra Pradesh, or tied horn-to-horn in small groups, trudging across the inter-State border. The crossover is often done surreptitiously, the animals going without food, water or rest and with broken tails and bones, dislocated necks, chilly-peppered eyes and horn-gouged body parts… In 1998, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, engaged locally in livestock development, estimated that a total of 11 lakh head of cattle “migrate” thus to Kerala every year. The figure could be higher today. Only 4.16 lakh head of cattle pass through government checkposts, the rest are smuggled in. Eventually, all of them end up in slaughterhouses lining the State's towns and villages. There are 774 authorised abattoirs and, according to government officials, over three times that number of unauthorised meat stalls……State Animal Husbandry Department statistics indicate that nearly 4.83 lakh head of ‘white’ cattle (excluding buffaloes) are slaughtered legally in the State, producing 24,278 tonnes of beef every year. The Department estimates that three times the number are actually killed every year, the rest in the unauthorised sector, the total beef production thus being 72,834 tonnes……According to the State Animal Husbandry Department, of the 4.83 lakh head of ‘white’ cattle slaughtered in the authorised centres, 4.16 lakh are cattle imported from neighbouring States. Such legal trade is a mere one-third of the total beef business in Kerala and there are no reliable statistics on the unauthorised trade……On a small scale at least, beef is now regularly exported from Kerala to West Asia and countries like Malaysia… The State government also has plans to promote the export of beef, and is currently working on a Rs.30-crore project with the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) to create “disease free zones” for cattle, aimed at the export market”

(“Beef without borders” by R Krishnakumar, Frontline, Aug 30 – Sept 12, 2003).  

Tamil Nadu - The Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958 is not listed at in the list of State Acts available at the Government Publication Depot. However, the NCC summary says that from Aug 30, 1976 “slaughter of cows and heifers (cow) is banned in all slaughterhouses in Tamil Nadu”. It is not clear whether this affects the import of beef into Tamil Nadu, since the consumption and sale of beef is openly advertised there. The Animal Husbandry Policy Note 2012-2013 opens with a quote of MK Gandhi - “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way in which its animals are treated”. Some bovine livestock figures are given, and there is a remark on the “decrease in unproductive animals in the State”. There are references to “meat” but it is not clear whether this includes bovine meat. Section 10.2 is titled “Meat Inspection” and there is mention of taeniasis, trichinosis and hydatidosis. Of these, taeniasis at least can be an infection of beef. Section 11 is informative about the legislation on the prevention of cruelty to animals, but not at all about its implementation. As with other States, the official website is quite sanitary about its beef trade.

West Bengal – the NCC has The West Bengal Animal Slaughter Act, 1950; an official WB site has The West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950 which allows bovine slaughter under certain conditions. It should be obvious that there could be ways of getting around these conditions. The State Government’s website lists a Department of Animal Resources Development but there is no mention of “meat” in the Annual Administrative Report 2011–2012, and the page for the Livestock Census in West Bengal says “This Account Has Been Suspended”. The West Bengal Food Processing Industry Policy 2011 has just a passing reference to “meat”.

The West Bengal government website is even more sanitary about any bovine meat industry within its borders than the Kerala one. However, the non-official website Love4cow in “Why Delhi-Dhaka ties ride on the cow” is more forthcoming. Excerpts: 

Discussing the issue with journalists in New Delhi on September 17 last year, BJP Member of Parliament and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi accused Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav of being bribed by the cattle smugglers to lift the ban on transport of cattle. As many as 300 animals are stuffed into each railway wagon, violating the law which allows only 10, she said. All these trains are bound for Howrah, the main station for Kolkata. Most of the animals die due to the cramped conditions, and are sold to leather and meat dealers in Kolkata. 

“The Howrah Cattle Dealer Association in Howrah runs the illegal trade by bringing lakhs of cows, buffaloes, bullocks and bulls from northern states like Punjab, Haryana to West Bengal where these animals are slaughtered or smuggled to Bangladesh,” she said. “Bangladesh has thin cattle population of its own, but its exports of beef runs into lakhs of tonnes.”

……every third head of cattle in Bangladesh is smuggled in from India. Many come from as far away as Haryana and Punjab. An estimated 20,000 to 25,000 animals enter Bangladesh almost everyday through West Bengal alone. While the trade is illegal on the Indian side, it becomes legal the moment the livestock enters Bangladesh. Some estimates put the annual turnover from leather, meat and meat exports from smuggled Indian cattle in Bangladesh at over Rs 25 billion (more than half a billion dollars)…… There is a massive cattle mafia which stretches all the way across to Haryana and other places, where cow slaughter is illegal. Most of the cattle are sent to West Bengal by train, where buffalo slaughter is legal, but the numbers far exceed the demand in that state. 

West Bengal’s official and illegal pandering to beef-eating cultures, notwithstanding even Supreme Court judgments, is recorded by the NCC for as far back as 1958 - ss.82, 83, Ch.1, NCC report. See also s. 61 – “The ghost of secularism and concern for the Vote Bank of Bengali Muslims seems to over-rule even the judgments of the Supreme Court in the Writers’ Building in Kolkata even now. The tragedy is that even Mamata loses ‘mamta’ for the cow, as is evidenced by her interruption and, subsequent walk-out from Parliament on 25.5.96, when President Shankar Dayal Sharma, during his customary address to both Houses in Central Hall of Parliament, declared the resolve of the BJP Government, led by Atalji, to take up suitable measure ‘in order to ensure cow protection, and to impose a total ban on the slaughter of cows and cow progeny’”.

Assam - The Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 1951 (1950 in the NCC summary) – bare act not on site. According to the NCC, the slaughter of all cattle is allowed with certain conditions. It should be obvious that there could be ways of getting around these conditions. The government’s website says nothing about any bovine meat industry.

According to the NCC, Manipur, Meghalaya and Nagaland have no legislation. Their official sites and those of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram have pages that do not open. There appears to be no information on their sites of their bovine meat industry. Tripura has a “Revised Perspective Plan for Attaining Self Sufficiency in Animal Origin Food” - but there is no specific reference to bovine meat.

Finally, we come to mainstream media and other reports on the reality of Indian cow slaughter and the beef trade. The following are typical: “Growing beef trade hits India's sacred cow” by Arezou Rezvani, Benjamin Gottlieb and Elise Hennigan, for CNN, April 19, 2012. Excerpts: 

While the bulk of Indian exports is buffalo meat bound for Middle East and Southeast Asian markets, the growing middle class in Arab countries has sparked a new craving for cow beef…… there is concern that Hindu-mandated bans on beef could hamper the industry's future growth, particularly in states like Kerala and West Bengal where the practice is legal. …… “Cow beef could be a very lucrative business in India,” said Dr. S.K. Ranjhan, the director of Hind Agro Industries Limited, who believes that religious attitudes may stand to change once the extent of business opportunities are realized. “I think five-to-10 years from now, people won't be so scandalized by the sale of cow beef.”…… The strict laws against cow slaughter in the majority of India's provinces have forced the lucrative cow beef trade underground. An estimated 1.5 million cows, valued at up to $500 million, are smuggled out of India annually, which some analysts say provide more than 50% of beef consumed in neighboring Bangladesh.

*

“Where's the beef? Indians don't want to know” by Mark Magnier, Los Angeles Times, May 02, 2010. Excerpts:

Estimates suggest 1.5 million cows, valued at up to $500 million, are smuggled annually, providing more than half the beef consumed in Bangladesh.

The cows come from as far as Rajasthan, about 1,000 miles away. Many trade hands several times en route.

At the Panso market in Jharkhand state, an interim stop about 300 miles from the border, the 15,000 or so cows passing through each week fetch about $100 apiece, local vendors say.

Animals that arrive exhausted are injected with Diclofenac sodium, a banned anti-inflammatory drug, to energize them. Most of the traders are Muslims. Many of the drivers and handlers are Hindus. At the border, crossings are usually done at night.

Most cows pass through West Bengal state, which shares a 1,300-mile border with Bangladesh. The state's communist government maintains a neutral line on religion, allowing cows to be openly slaughtered and traded.

The profits can be significant. A $100 medium-size cow in Jharkhand is worth nearly double that in West Bengal and about $350 in Bangladesh. Indian residents along the border complain that the markup also attracts illegal migrants from Bangladesh, who steal cows at night and dart back home.

*

“Blood On The Border” by Tusha Mittal, Tehelka, 15 Oct 2011. Excerpts:

…….illegal cattle trade, valued by insiders at Rs 5,000 crore……While the cattle trade is illegal in India, the sale of Indian cows in Bangladesh is legal and taxable. Cows are herded into Murshidabad from Punjab, Bihar and Haryana and sold at weekly markets dotting the border. With an average sale of about 1,000 cows in 20 such goru haats in Murshidabad, nearly 20,000 cows gather at India’s eastern tip every month. With the price of beef nearly double in Bangladesh, it is unlikely that the cows are going anywhere else…….

*

 

The NCC report, Preface (see also ch.3, vol.2):

“We are constrained and deeply hurt to note that even in the State Capitals, under the very noses of the Chief Ministers, Secretaries and the Director Generals of Police, slaughter and massacre of even cow and calf, which is prohibited in almost all the States, except Kerala, takes place almost every day in suburbs, busy localities and townships, not to talk of villages. In Bhuvaneshwar, daily slaughter of cow and its progeny is taking place for providing beef to the zoo animals, as the Commission found, after rushing to the spot and catching the culprits red-handed.

But whether it is Cuttack or Patna, Ranchi or Kolkata, Mumbai or Bangalore or Jaipur, Government’s inability to stop the cow slaughter with iron hands continues, and the excuse given is that it is a social problem to be abetted and tolerated shamelessly for years together. The various State Governments have admitted their inability to stop the coming up of large numbers of illegal slaughter houses and their similar inability to stop the mass smuggling of cattle to Bangladesh and Kerala, from the States of U.P., Haryana, Rajasthan and M.P. in the North and A.P., Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in the South. This admission should put the present Central Government on red alert. In Mewat, daily slaughter of thousands of cows are going on with the Governments of Rajasthan, Haryana and U.P., all turning a blind eye to it, presumably due to being soft towards Mews[Meos, who are Muslim].

“I cannot understand why in a Hindu-majority country like India, where rightly or wrongly there is such strong feeling about cow slaughter, there cannot be a legal ban. In all the Muslim countries, even those who are considered to be most modern, I doubt if pork would be allowed to be sold, or served in public places. I think the same would be true for Israel. Likewise, in some Christian countries on certain days of the year no meat is eaten or sold” 

– Jayaprakash Narayan.

*

When our “Government looks the other way”, it is legitimate for Indians to ask “where’s the beef?” because the Indian State refuses to see it.

It is legitimate to ask why the Government of India and so many State governments connive in the illegal slaughtering of cattle and the illegal trade in beef.

It is legitimate to ask why the Indian State has so conspicuously failed to implement Article 48 of the Constitution.

It is legitimate to ask why the Government of India and so many State governments turn a Nelsonian eye to the stomach-churningly cruel and generally clandestine domestic beef industry and the stomach-churningly cruel and totally illegal beef export from India.

It is legitimate to ask why the Indian State so conspicuously fails to implement Article 51A(g) of the Constitution.

It is legitimate to note that the major domestic and export markets for Indian beef are the beef-eating cultures to the politico-religious sensibilities of which the Indian State displays a craven and pseudo-secular sensitivity.

Finally, it is legitimate to ask why the Indian State restrains itself from the aggressive promotion of swine husbandry and pork marketing because beef-eating religions consider the pig profane, but does not restrain itself from the aggressive promotion of the bovine meat industry even though a much larger number of Indians consider the cow sacred.

Source:

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2361

Muslims flee as communal violence scorches UP village

A large number of members of the minority community are uneasy about returning to their homes in Asthan village in Pratapgarh district of Uttar Pradesh, from where they had to flee 10 days ago following violent communal clashes over the rape of a Dalit girl. Violence had rocked the village, located nearly 150 km from Lucknow, after the 13-year-old Dalit girl was allegedly gangraped and murdered by four Muslim boys from the same village.

In the communal flare-up following the incident, houses and shops belonging to the Muslim community were burnt down by an angry mob after local authorities failed to initiate any action against the accused.

No effort was made by district authorities to get a post-mortem done on the victim.

The disturbance started when the victim's family and other villagers decided to take the funeral procession through the Muslim locality.

Most families, terrorised by the violence, have chosen to leave the village in search of a safer haven. The administration has deployed armed personnel in the village but this has failed to restore their confidence.

"We would have returned by now, but it appears that visits by leaders of different political parties have been responsible for raising the tension once again. We are scared to go back to Asthan," a villager told Azam Ansari, a resident of Pariyavan village, four km away from Asthan.

Ansari told this scribe over the telephone, "I myself tried persuading some of the Asthan people to return to home, but they are still terrified after what they have gone through".

The issue has also come up in the state assembly, where Parliamentary Affairs and Urban Development Minister Azam Khan has drawn much flak over it. He chose to use offence as the best form of defence by reminding Opposition Bahujan Samaj Party of the incidents of rape and communal clashes that took place during Mayawati's regime.

He claimed, "Action had already been ordered by the state government and nearly a dozen people have already been taken into custody."

He added, "It was to send a positive message that we ordered the suspension of both the district magistrate and superintendent of police; the new team is taking effective steps to rebuild the confidence of the people."

Congress leader Pramod Tiwari demanded a judicial probe into the incident. He also demanded higher compensation for the victims, who were given an ex-gratia payment of Rs 50,000 as their homes were razed during the violence.

No mention was made about whether any compensation had been offered to the family of the rape victim.

Source:  http://www.rediff.com/news/report/muslims-flee-as-communal-violence-scorches-up-village/20120630.htm

The Uncertain Future of Hindus

Dr. Gautam Sen

(Prof Gautam Sen has formerly taught political economy at the London School of Economics for more than two decades.) 

Hindus have suffered a succession of setbacks in recent years, intensifying a retreat that dates back to the partition of India, indeed earlier. The electoral fortunes of their putative defenders seem to make little difference to their political circumstances. Their ethnic cleansing from Jammu & Kashmir continues unabated and the plight of Hindus in Bangladesh remains desperate, echoing the fate of Hindus earlier in Pakistan. Islamic terrorists are routinely attacking their places of worship within India itself. And elected political leaders have sought to crush one of their supreme spiritual leaders, the Kanchi Acharya. India’s religious minorities are also displaying a truculent assertiveness that underlines Hindu powerlessness and hints at yet darker times ahead. 

Yet, perhaps all is not lost and a measure of historical perspective is required to assess what is likely to happen in the circumstances Hindus encounter. Once Greek thought was virtually eradicated by the combined onslaught of the Germanic invasions and the upsurge of Christianity (which became seriously intolerant after 500 AD) it took almost another 500 years for the European Renaissance to begin re-discovering Greek logic and reason. The revival did not triumph wholly even after the Enlightenment and the intolerant barbarian supremacists are still with us right now. Islam had already joined Christianity in the race for world conquest and domination. It reached an apogee under the Ottomans in the sixteenth century, having swept aside much of the Christian Byzantine world earlier. The Islamic lust for political power and Christian quest for world domination remain an unfinished agenda and military conquest the principal instrument for its attainment.

This same catastrophe could befall Hinduism because the beginnings of their intellectual revival in the late 18thC have stalled since independence – a coincidence? In an act of perversity, the RSS self-consciously turned its face against intellectual endeavour when it was founded. Guru-ji thought Hindus needed to organise themselves and intellectual life a luxury that they could ill-afford. It is true that Hindus were disorganised and a remedy was essential, but the actual choice made was paradoxically stark since activism and thought are surely two sides of the same coin. The consequences of that fateful choice are still with us and the Hindu movement is simply not intellectually equipped to deal with the complex situation Hindus face today. Ironically, the movement was able to achieve political power by recourse to an issue outstanding from the medieval period while the world around changed so rapidly that they found themselves in quite unfamiliar territory. And too many people in the movement remain ignorant about basic issues in the wider world, wielding organisational clout to silence serious intellectual criticism. 

The imminent specific danger India faces is its de jure territorial disintegration, accompanied by the casting to the winds of Hindu society and what promises it may embed. This is already happening in significant areas of the Indian subcontinent, including the Indian Union itself. Hindus are also facing the most diabolical and sophisticated assault from the Church, both Catholic and the various Protestant denominations. The Church enjoys a huge presence in the global media and within India too as well as possessing huge economic and organisational resources. The Churches have cleverly insinuated themselves into the imperial ambitions of their Western home states, reinforcing the political support they receive from these states for their nefarious engagement with the weak and the poor of the third world. The resulting danger of subversion is visible in everything from the vicious campaign by Michael Witzel and his colleagues against Hindus in California to the way the Dalit movement has been seized and subverted by various Churches. The latter rightly perceive the Dalits to be the most promising vehicles for forcing the retreat of those who identify themselves as Hindus and demoralising them. 

This is a highly effective campaign, which most Hindu activists simply do not understand nor are they capable of comprehending in their current state of self-confident arrogance and blissful ignorance. Instead of the mostly tenuous cliches being peddled by Hindu activists everywhere one needs to read the history of Christianity with care. I would recommend Peter Brown’s, The Rise of Western Christendom, and Robert Bartlett’s, The Making of Europe in particular, for a start, to understand the immense longevity of their project for world domination. Islam remains their sole global rival. Hindus merely constitute a sideshow despite their supposed numerical strength, which is an oft-repeated empty fact that obfuscates by creating a silly sense of reassurance. 

Experience of most societies tells us that there is no point berating Hindu politicians and their associates for behaving in a self-serving manner. The standard textbook theory shows convincingly that politicians in open, pluralist societies act like selfish egotists. They achieve power by auctioning policies in exchange for cash and votes. There is a vast and persuasive literature that outlines how the process works, from the role that political institutions play in it to contrasting representational outcomes between majoritarian (India) and proportional voting systems. The latter empowers small political parties more than the former. There is no reason to expect that pluralist politics will lead to a different high-minded outcome in India. 

Politicians in all societies display the behavioural pattern required for their own survival. The espousal of conventional morality is only an aspect of their public relations and ideological sound bites are a means of communicating with their core supporters. These voters are the least likely to abandon them because they regard other alternatives as even less attractive. Thus, the actual policies implemented by political parties are designed to please voters who might actually defect to a rival. Of course there is a modest margin for truth and integrity in politics, but such principles are mostly honoured in the breach and have been marginalsed in India, more than in most other societies. Deceit and double-dealing are the norm in politics everywhere though Hindus perhaps excel in it unduly.

This is why what is missing in India is a consensus on obvious national interests, although that is not a non-issue even in large, mature democratic societies like the US. But in India everything is up for grabs and the lack of a national consensus has worsened in the past decade or so of the supposed Hindu upsurge. It is so bad that the police in Bihar and UP are alleged to have actually escorted bombers through their areas of jurisdiction to their targets in Delhi. Also, note there are virtually no successful prosecutions of terrorists (except that they get executed rather than arrested in J&K, as it should be). The accused from the Mumbai blasts remain unpunished and the notorious film star that helped them remains a high profile public figure, adored by millions of Hindu fans! The reason for this dismal situation is largely due to the fact that national consciousness is weak in India. In most societies, historically, such a consciousness was created by the state and ruling elites (see Linda Colley’s, Britons for a revealing illustration). 

In India anti-national forces, especially the Left and the Muslims and increasingly the Church (as distinct from traditional Indian Christians who are patriotic members of the Indian air force and navy in particular) have made sure that any move to advance a national consciousness is instantly labeled communal and anti-secular. Foreign governments, especially the US, have had a major role in this successful attempt to keep India divided in the past. The US government may now be changing its priorities because of geopolitical reasons, but the Church is unlikely to allow Indians to learn patriotism since that would contradict their proselytising activities - whatever would happen to their potential converts? 

Apart from the routine deceit of politicians, large political systems suffer from collective action problems owing to the difficulty of aggregating opinions and articulating policy arising out of it. This is primarily a technical issue, worsened in the Indian case by manifold social, regional, ethnic and caste divisions, with all these faultlines being assiduously cultivated by India's legion enemies. By contrast, Muslims have reaped huge political dividends by overcoming this potential collective action issue and managing to vote as a bloc. By controlling anything up to 125+ Lok Sabha seats, where their votes determine who will win, they can pretty much dictate to candidates. But Islam, historically, has had a tradition of the mosque organizing political life and, in the Indian case, the votes of their illiterate constituency. Can you imagine a similar organizational nodal point for Hindus? 

India’s mediocre leaders unfortunately chose a parliamentary system of government in 1947 because they failed to look beyond their noses, i.e. beyond Westminster in the UK. Large societies need presidential systems of government to prevent small groups (read minorities in India) having a veto over the political system. Since the President’s constituency is national recalcitrant minorities of whatever shape, whether religious, regional or indeed purely sectional would therefore find it more difficult to veto policies held by society at large to be in their common and therefore national interest. 

There are variants of a presidential system to choose from and it would have the great additional merit of forcing the issue of their identity on Hindus and indeed propelling some sort of national awareness, even if that doesn"t automatically mean patriotism. I fear this highly desirable outcome is now beyond reach. Nor is it any longer possible to have the kind of presidential authority parliamentary leaders with large majorities can enjoy temporarily. Eventually, the forces of division assert themselves because of the very imperious "presidential" behavior that the temporary primacy of a parliamentary majority may allow the Prime Minister in a parliamentary system. This is exactly what happened to the victorious Indira Gandhi after 1971.

Is it possible that the BJP will announce that it would agree to fight the next national general election on this constitutional issue alone and guarantee that it would then immediately announce an election for an Indian president? Perhaps they could even offer, as a gesture of goodwill, to abstain from putting up a candidate of their own in order to encourage others to support the idea of a Presidential system of government. Of course such a change will require other complex constitutional arrangements to be put in place, involving the distribution of powers between a President and the legislature as well as India’s regions. There are many such models of government internationally that could guide a unique Indian solution. I believe this prospect would galvanise the country and an electrifying election would occur, with many ordinary and prominent people campaigning for such a constitutional transformation. 

Let me finish with a small ray hope. While the forces seeking to cut India down to size seem potent there are some countervailing factors. There is growing Hindu anger and despair that can be organized though not by the present discredited Hindu politicos, who are, alas, beyond redemption. Urbanisation, which is proceeding apace in India, is connected to this sense of Hindu outrage because it tends to replace an essentially parochial consciousness with a more national perspective. Even so-called ‘backwards’ develop a more national sense of their being once they are educated beyond high school; actually two years in higher education seems to do it. This is why the disgraceful HRD minister wants reservations in premier institutions, but is careful to ensure that little education takes place at lower levels at all; nearly nil in much of UP state schools, for example. Both the Muslims and uneducated Hindus need to be kept that way for India’s current thieving politicians to survive and live like kings; just look at life styles of OBC and Dalit leaders. 

Finally, barring the presidential alternative, which would be a huge step forward at an institutional level, a minimum of good governance can be a vote winner. This seems unlikely to become a political platform because virtually all politicians have their snouts in the trough, secular and otherwise. But look at how the people of Goa and Punjab reacted to the upright and efficient General Jacob, who, by the way, has been treated poorly by the powers that be ever since, almost certainly because he proved so popular. 

When President's rule ended and elections were called in Goa, people took to the streets with the slogan that they preferred to be ruled by Jacob instead!! The good General used to stand outside government house at 8.30 am, looking at his watch and listing who was coming into work on time! By the way, he is also India's greatest military hero since Shivaji, but the Arab lobby made sure that he was not Bharat Ratna because he is Jewish. In 1972 a British military commentator described his victory in East Pakistan as one of the six greatest military triumphs of the 20th century, truly a period of gigantic wars.

Habibullah preaching Azadi for Kashmir

Hari OM

National Commission for Minorities chairman Wajahat Habibullah was in Srinagar on Sunday, 17 June, to take part in a seminar on “Jammu and Kashmir and the Federal Models of Shared Sovereignty”, organized by the Political Science Department of Kashmir University in collaboration with the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation. The CDR is a Delhi-based controversial think-tank; its activities have been funded by the Government of India from time to time.

The truth is that the CDR has been working for the separation of Jammu and Kashmir from the Indian constitutional framework. It, like the Kashmiri leaders of all hues, believes that Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory, that New Delhi has brought Jammu and Kashmir under the ambit of various Central laws and institutions by questionable means, that New Delhi has willfully eroded the special status of Kashmir, that New Delhi has to “assuage the hurt feelings of the alienated Kashmiri people” (read Muslims) by accepting all of their demands, and that the solution to the Kashmir problem has to be such as is acceptable to both Pakistan and the Kashmiri people.

Jammu and Ladakh are conspicuous by their absence in all of the CDR’s formulations. In fact, the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation considers Jammu and Ladakh and nearly 50 per cent of the state’s population that lives in these two regions, as irrelevant.

As for Mr. Wajahat Habibullah, he has been advocating the division of Jammu and Kashmir into five geographical (read religious) zones, and the creation of five regional assemblies - one each for the plain areas of Jammu Pradesh, hilly and mountainous areas of Jammu Pradesh, Shia-majority Kargil district, Buddhist-majority Leh district, and Sunni-majority Kashmir.

Mr. Habibullah was one of the main speakers at the CDR seminar. Given his previous record, it was expected that he would speak the language of Kashmiri separatists and vouch for a solution that not only renders the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and Public Safety Act (PSA) ineffective for all practical purposes, but also enables the people to enjoy an independent status with both India and Pakistan sharing sovereignty in Jammu and Kashmir, which is legitimately Indian. He lived up to these expectations.

Speaking about the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Public Safety Act, he said: “I personally believe that AFSPA should be done away with. The Government of India is working on a model to frame rules that would govern the AFSPA as so far we have no rules to govern the controversial Act. A clause in the AFSPA even surpasses the powers of Prime Minister and President of India. There is a clause that a soldier can shoot without seeking orders from the superiors. This clause even exceeds the powers of two top dignitaries”.

Regarding the PSA, he said, “It is a matter (revocation) to be resolved by Jammu and Kashmir Government. The Act was passed in 1982 by the Jammu and Kashmir Government. The Government of India can’t interfere in it as it is a state Act. People demanding scrapping of this Act should approach the Jammu and Kashmir Government”.

This is fairly obvious that the Minorities Commission chairman, like Kashmiri leaders, both “mainstream” and separatist, wants these two Acts to be thrown out root and branch. In other words, he wants the Army, paramilitary forces and state police to fight secessionism with their hands tied behind their backs, and suffer at the hands of the secessionists. He wants unbridled freedom for those in Kashmir who hate and despise India and everything Indian, including Indian laws, and want a dispensation independent of India.

Yet Mr. Habibullah continues to hold a constitutional post in New Delhi. Moreover, the Congress-led UPA Government had appointed him first as Chief Information Commissioner and then chairman, National Commission for Minorities, while knowing well that he is biased towards one community’s misplaced aspirations, and pro-separatist.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh even appointed him as his emissary so that he could speak in the Working Group on Centre-State Relations and persuade the members of this Working Group to divide our Jammu and Kashmir into five communal zones and help the votaries of Greater Kashmir accomplish what they wanted: Establishment of Greater Kashmir comprising Kashmir and Muslim-majority areas of Jammu and Ladakh. The Working Group on Centre-State relations, appointed by Manmohan Singh in 2006, was headed by Justice Sagheer Ahmad, who submitted his report without discussing it with group members and wound up the group without further ado. To this day, members do not have a copy of the Report, which is simply unheard of, and a sad reflection on the manner in which the UPA has conducted itself on the sensitive issue of Jammu and Kashmir.

Mr. Habibullah also expressed himself on the issue of shared sovereignty: “While finding out a political settlement (read communal settlement) of Kashmir, two things need to be kept in mind. When Shimla agreement took place (in 1972), it was decided that what is with Pakistan would remain with it and what is with India will remain with it and the Line of Control (LoC) will also remain same… Kashmiri people need Azadi – feeling of freedom. I have been reiterating this again and again. Kashmiri people should move forward by feeling the freedom of democracy”. Since Pakistan never abided by the Shimla Accord, just as it disregarded the UN resolution on vacating occupied Kashmir, how can any agreement be unilaterally binding on India alone? Naturally Mr. Habibullah does not say.

Three things were crystal clear from his exposition on shared sovereignty. One, Jammu and Ladakh have no place whatsoever in his scheme of things. Two, the aspirations of the people of Kashmir (read Muslims) have to be respected; they need be given the kind of independence they want from India. Three, he remembers only the 1972 Shimla agreement, and not the February 1994 Parliamentary unanimous resolution which rendered the Shimla agreement redundant. The 1994 resolution has mandated the Government of India to integrate into the Indian Union Pakistan-occupied-Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, using all possible means. That no regime has been sincere in this quest is another matter.

Yet can one legitimately blame Mr. Habibullah for being so irrational and communal? No; because India permits anybody to say anything and go scot-free. We are not a Republic in the true sense of the term. We are a Banana Republic where the powers-that-be in New Delhi are least bothered to censure those who have been working overtime to disintegrate India or ensure yet another communal partition of the country.

The worst part of the whole situation has been the total and abysmal failure of the main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party. Had it played the part of a responsible and effective opposition, New Delhi would not have dared to do what it has done to promote the likes of Wajahat Habibullah who continue the unfinished task of Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his ilk. But when the BJP, including its parent RSS, is unable to checkmate the towering ambitions of its Jinnah-loving leaders, this too, is no surprise.

The author is former Chair Professor, Maharaja Gulab Singh Chair, University of Jammu, Jammu, & former member Indian Council of Historical Research

Source: http://vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2348

Delhi their home but pandits yearn for Valley

It was the Janmashtami of 1990, and Rashneek Kher, a 16-year-old Kashmiri pandit in exile in the squalid refugee camps of Jammu, stood in line at the milkman's. In addition to selling milk, the vendor also stored copies of the morning newspaper, which Kher would hungrily pore over. That day Kher read that his house was burnt down. "My father didn't speak to anyone for a month. He had built that house himself," says Kher. 

According to United Nations High Commission for Refugees, 26.4 million ended 2011 as internally displaced people, a figure far higher than the number of refugees. Kher and his clan know what internal displacement means, having lived like refugees in their own country since 1990, when an estimated 3.5 lakh pandits left the valley. Yet their flight from Kashmir remains shrouded in silence. 

"All we want is an acknowledgment of what happened. People say pandits fled Kashmir. But Hindus didn't run away. We had no option but to leave," says actor Sanjay Suri, who was 19 when his family left Kashmir. "The mass exodus took place in January 1990. But we stayed on till August 1, when my father was shot dead by militants," says Suri. He recalls his anguish when a government officer in Jammu asked him to prove his father was dead. His family is among those who had to sell their homes in Kashmir. "I can't describe what it feels like when you knock on the door of the house where you grew up and somebody else opens it," he says. 

"The exodus of Kashmiri pandits is the largest internal displacement in India since partition. And yet, so little is said about them," says filmmaker Onir, speaking to TOI from Berlin. He earned accolades for the representation of a Kashmiri pandit widow returning home in his film I Am. 

Some like Sumati Thusoo (21), have never lived in Kashmir. "My mother was pregnant with me when our family left Kashmir," says Thusoo, who was born in Jammu and grew up in Chandigarh. 

When the pandits left Kashmir, many believed they'd return home once the violence subsided. "During the winter of 1989, when I left Kashmir to spend my holidays in Delhi, I thought I'd be back in a few weeks. But it has been 22 years," says Amit Raina. Artist Veer Munshi, another pandit in exile, has made Kashmir the subject of his work. He has photographed the remains of his own home, long burnt down. 

Munshi feels education helped pandits rehabilitate themselves. "I have seen parents forcing children to study even within refugee camps." 

Surviving Jammu's refugee camps was the next big ordeal for Kashmiris. "My grandmother lived for only three months after we shifted to the camps," says Vinod Bhan, recalling the miserable years his family of five spent in a 10ft by 10ft space. "We would sleep on the roof, even when the temperature was 42 degrees," says Bhan. 

A yearning for home drove Kher to form Roots in Kashmir, a forum for pandits scattered across India. The group has 4,000 Facebook members. Those who live in Delhi meet each Friday at CP. Kashmir is what binds them. It's also an open wound festering in their hearts. Kher's group is disillusioned with the government and the Hindu right-wing BJP which "took our votes but paid lip-service to our cause." 

They want to return to Kashmir, but not to the places they earlier lived. "We want the government to carve out a separate province within Kashmir for pandits. We can't live with the people who persecuted us," says Kher. 

But some, like Suri, feel this won't solve the problem, but will create an exclusive Kashmir. "We need to build bridges between pandits and locals in Kashmir," says Suri. Onir says the loss of Kashmir's multiculturalism has created a vacuum in the valley. Munshi, who believes in reclaiming the composite culture of the land, feels ordinary Muslims in Kashmir should not be confused with Islamic terrorists. "The only solution is through dialogue between those who fled the valley and those who live there today. But this hasn't happened. Somewhere, the government has failed both Kashmiri pandits and those who continue to live there," says Onir.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Delhi-their-home-but-pandits-yearn-for-Valley/articleshow/14280328.cms

Man murdered for marrying Muslim girl

A 24-year old man was hacked to death allegedly by the brother of a Muslim girl and his associates for marrying her, triggering tension in Idalakudi area of the district, police said.

Ramesh, a goods carrier operator based here, had married the girl belonging to Idalakudi some months ago though her family had opposed it, they said.

On June 14, two persons had stopped Ramesh's vehicle and taken him to Idalakudi where a seven-member gang including the brother of his wife attacked him with iron rods, police said, adding he succumbed to injuries at a hospital yesterday.

As the news of his death spread, a group indulged in stone pelting in some localities in the area while some people blocked traffic to protest the violence, they said. Police rushed to the spot and dispersed both the groups.

Six hundred police personnel had been deployed in the affected areas, they said. Besides additional reinforcements had been rushed from Rajapalayam and Palani, police said. Shops in Idalakudi and Ilangadai areas remained closed. Two persons were arrested and a hunt is on to nab the remaining five accused, they said. The situation was tense but under control in the area, they said.

 

Source: http://www.asianage.com/india/man-murdered-marrying-muslim-girl-738

Nothing's sacred: the illegal trade in India's holy cows

Andrew Buncombe reports from Kaharpara on a bloody war between rustlers and border guards

Even in the dog days of summer, the quiet paddy fields that mark the border between India and Bangladesh look as supple and green as the soft stems of herbs grown in a window box. But the daytime tranquillity belies a stark reality. This delta region of the Ganges river is a place of often deadly conflict that underpins an activity many in India would rather not discuss. Every year, hundreds of thousands of cows – considered sacred in India, with export of the beasts banned – are illegally smuggled into Bangladesh where they are turned into shoes, belts, bone china crockery and, of course, meat.

"There is smuggling here every day," said Umesh, a member of a three-man Indian Border Security Force (BSF) team on duty at a watchtower near the village of Kaharpara, just a few hundred yards from the Bangladesh border. "The smugglers will take 50, 100 or 200 cattle at a time. We try to create an ambush and surround the smugglers."

The story of the annual smuggling of an estimated 1.5 million cattle says much about modern India – about the sometimes hypocritical treatment of supposedly sacred cows, the political power of right-wing Hinduism and the corruption that allows the £320m illegal trade to flourish. But ultimately this story is about supply and demand. Hindu-majority India has an estimated 280 million cows but killing and eating them is legal in only a handful of states. Meanwhile, Muslim-majority Bangladesh, where beef is eaten with relish, suffers from a shortage of cattle. Half of the beef consumed in Bangladesh comes from its large, western neighbour.

The snaking border that divides the two countries runs for 1,300 miles. Here in the Murshidabad district of West Bengal, 150 miles north-east of the state capital Calcutta, large sections of it are unfenced. It is a lure both for human traffickers and gangs from both sides of the border smuggling cows.

Villagers, who claimed not to know any smugglers but appeared to know the intricacies of the operation, said cattle were brought by truck from states across eastern India such as Bihar, Orissa and Jharkhand. Some may even be brought from further away. Despite the effort involved, the mathematics is persuasive. An animal that might sell for £60-£80 in the country's cow-belt hinterland will here fetch £130. Once inside Bangladesh, they could change hands for £225 or more.

"Those buying the cows always look to see how fat it is. They feed them husks from the paddy," said Mohammed Ashraf, a blacksmith who was hammering into shape a glowing curved sickle that locals use to cut the rice crop that is harvested three times a year.

Yet the trade comes with a deadly price. The BSF has been accused of killing hundreds of cattle smugglers, as well as civilians not involved in the trade. A 2010 report published by Human Rights Watch (HRW) suggested that more than 900 people had been killed with impunity by the BSF over the past 10 years. It also said locals claimed some BSF members were complicit with the smuggling and took bribes. This year, an incident in which an alleged smuggler was badly beaten by the security force personnel was captured on video.

"Over the last decade, they used excessive and indiscriminate force, shooting at villagers on suspicion that they were smugglers," said Meenakshi Ganguly, HRW's south Asia director. "While many may have been engaged in cattle rustling, the BSF ignored the most basic principles of protecting the right to life. Instead of arresting suspects, they shot and killed them. The BSF claimed they had to use lethal force as self-defence, an argument hard to believe since the police reports on the weapons recovered usually [refer to] sickles and sticks."

Asked about the allegations, a BSF spokesman said: "The BSF is a disciplined and professional force [and] exercises utmost restraint in the use of any force. The BSF has also an impeccable record of upholding human rights."

Ms Ganguly said that since issuing its report, the BSF had started using rubber bullets which led to a drop in fatalities. But, villagers said their evenings were still sometimes disrupted. "We hear the gunshots at night-time. Sometimes the smugglers get shot. It's mainly people from the other side of the border," said Mr Ashraf. Locals said the smugglers often used teenagers to transport the cattle across the border in the belief the security forces were less likely to shoot a youngster.

There is a clear antagonism between the guards and the villagers. Some locals said the BSF troops retaliated against anyone they could find. Matir Rahaman, a rice farmer who was cycling back from the fields, said he had been badly beaten by BSF personnel. "One night the cows came over the border and the paddy got smashed. I went to the BSF and said, 'Why is this happening'. They said, 'You are smugglers' and they attacked us with [metal-tipped bamboo sticks]," he alleged.

Ashfaqur Rahman, a retired Bangladesh diplomat who now chairs the Dhaka-based Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies, said the matter was sensitive but that legalising the export of cows or beef would put an end to corruption and violence. "There needs to be wise counsel on both sides," he said.

An irony is that India is expected to become the world's largest exporter of beef – from non-sacred buffaloes, rather than cows – by next year. According to an estimate recently published by the US Department of Agriculture, India is likely to export 1.5 million tons of beef in 2012, a 25 per cent increase from last year. Its biggest markets are south-east Asia, the Gulf and Africa.

Cows have been considered sacred in India for centuries, and in only a few states is killing and eating them legal. More recently, a movement by Dalits, or so-called untouchables, demanding the right to eat cows has gathered pace. In 2004, Indian historian DN Jha published the controversial The Myth of the Holy Cow, which argued that during the period when a number of the most important Hindu religious texts were produced, people in India ate cows.

Kancha Ilaiah, a Dalit activist and a professor at Maulana Azad National Urdu University in Hyderabad, believes Aryan invaders of Hindu promoted the (white) cow over the (black) buffalo. "The buffalo predates the Aryans," he said.

There have been attempts by the Indian authorities to review the ban on cow exports. Earlier this year, a report by the government's central planning committee suggested changing the law to allow the export of beef. The plan was hastily dropped and explained away as a "clerical error" amid an angry backlash from right-wing Hindu organisations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and so-called "cow protection" groups.

Among those who complained was the UN-affiliated International Organisation for Animal Protection. The group's India director, Naresh Kadyan, said: "It is the fundamental duty of Indians that [everyone] should respect all animals. We strongly opposed the lifting of the ban and the government made a U-turn," he said. "The cow is a very important animal for Hindus."

Revered and worshipped: Saintly beasts

Elephants

In Thailand, the elephant is considered the national animal, and it is also revered in Burma, Cambodia and Laos. Particularly auspicious is the white elephant – not a distinct species but an albino or elephant with particularly pale skin – which Buddha's mother is said to have dreamt about before the birth of her son. The appearance of a white elephant in the reign of a monarch or leader is meant to signify good fortune and power.

Cats

The ancient Egyptians took their worship of animals to artistic heights with statues to honour their feline gods, which frequently featured cats' heads on human bodies. Cats were prized for their useful rat-catching abilities, and some argue they were first domesticated in the region.

While cats are no longer worshipped as gods in modern Egypt, they are certainly preferred as pets to dogs, which are traditionally considered unclean in Islam.

Monkeys

Their association with the Hindu faith – the monkey god, Hanuman, helped Lord Rama defeat the evil king Ravana – has largely protected India's monkeys in the face of much annoyance at their mischievous and sometimes aggressive ways. Delhi's tens of thousands of monkeys are a frequent nuisance, stealing food, breaking into homes, and even attacking people. But residents continue to feed them.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/nothings-sacred-the-illegal-trade-in-indias-holy-cows-7808483.html