A split between theory and practice – TheLeaflet

There is a clear disconnect between the postulations of formal legislation providing for animal welfare on one hand, and the implementation of such measures on the other.

—–

IN Animal Welfare Board of India versus A. Nagaraja (2014), the Supreme Court laid down one of the most progressive judgments concerning animal rights in any jurisdiction in the world. Considering the bull-taming sport ‘jalikattu’ endemic to Tamil Nadu and bullock-cart racing in Maharashtra against the rights of animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (‘PCA Act’), the court remarkably held that the rights of the animal under PCA Act overrides cultural or traditional reasons supporting the practice, which was held to be violative of the impugned rights. Crucially, the court examined the rights of animals under Article 21 of the Constitution, along with the PCA Act and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, and held that the fundamental right to life, and dignity, extended to animals.

While the merits of placing non-human animals within the paradigm of rights is debatable, the underlying policy implication of stressing on the dignity of animals, in their own rights, is undeniably progressive. Put within a historical context, numerous animal scholars, particularly in the West, point to how the East (and specifically referring to Hindus) contains a rich tradition of environmentalism and animal welfare, dating back several centuries. In popular culture and literature, this narrative of the East is often used as a reference point against the overly materialistic, “modern” and imperial mode of Western living.

In 2014, the Supreme Court remarkably held that the rights of the animal under the PCA Act overrides cultural or traditional reasons supporting the practice, which was held to be violative of the impugned rights. Crucially, the court examined the rights of animals under Article 21 of the Constitution, and held that the fundamental right to life and dignity, extended to animals.

With specific reference to intensive animal farming operations, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2011 is the primary regulation, along with the parent legislation and other associated rules. On paper, these rules provide various measures and safeguards that are meant to protect animals from unnecessary suffering and cruelty – Rule 2(c) defines the slaughterhouses as to be registered entities under state and central regulations, Rule 3(1) bars slaughtering of animals outside of registered slaughterhouses, Rule 3(2) prohibits slaughtering of animals as per various conditions meant to reduce the suffering of animals, and Rule 4 lays down essential requirements for functioning of slaughterhouses, such as veterinary inspection, certificates of fitness issued for animals and adequate reception or resting areas.

Furthermore, as per Section 11(1)(d) of the PCA Act, Section 96(2)(xxvii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1978 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001, conveying or carrying animals in a manner that causes them discomfort, pain or suffering is a punishable offence. As per Section 11(1)(h) of the PCA Act, it is a punishable offence to neglect an animal by denying her sufficient food, water, shelter and exercise, or chaining/confining the animal for long hours.

Also read: “Once one begins to realize that animals experience the same emotions of sorrow and grief as us, it is difficult to continue to treat them as inhumanely as we do.” Norma Alvares in conversation with Anand Grover on the importance of animal and environmental rights.

In practice

Given the proliferation of such rules, the ruling of the Supreme Court in A. Nagaraja, as well as its rich cultural history of environmentalism, one may be forgiven for believing that there is a real initiative within the Indian agri-businesses and governance spectrum to adhere to legal standards of suffering mitigation towards animals. However, in praxis, the situation is direly farcical – most of the slaughterhouses in India are not even registered, thereby excluding them from authorized oversight (for e.g., the state of Uttarakhand has no legal slaughterhouses at all).

Noted animal welfare activist and politician Maneka Gandhi had in 2017 revealed some of the horrific conditions in which cows, pigs and chickens were kept in, for several hours (while having boiling water being poured upon them to loosen their skin), before being slaughtered without following the prescribed conditions, thereby making a mockery of several central legislation at once. Several farms and markets in Maharashtra, Delhi and Haryana were studied, and it was reported that cruelty-free slaughtering conditions, such as stunning prior to slaughter, were not followed in any of the markets. In 2016, over 6,500 kg of beef was seized from an unlicensed slaughterhouse in Dharavi. Illegal slaughterhouses, by and large, are the norm in India as opposed to the exception. From an ethical standpoint, it has been noted that the tragedy of India and other low- and middle-income countries adopting the same cruel practices that Western nations are phasing out, owing to a mixture of legal oversight and lack of technical expertise.

The non-registration of Indian slaughterhouses is a cardinal factor in perpetuating farm animal cruelty in India.

The non-registration of Indian slaughterhouses is a cardinal factor in perpetuating farm animal cruelty in India. Academic Dr. Yamini Narayanan writes that this lack of registration of slaughterhouses, characteristic of the distance between prescription and practice in animal regulation in the country, is by an informal design rather than being merely an accident. She explores this point in the specific context of cow slaughter in India – she studies why, despite cow slaughter being criminalized in most states and aggressively persecuted by vigilante groups (gaurakshaks), India remains one of the top exporters of beef in the world. She concludes that the combination of legal restrictions on slaughter and transport, and the absence of regulatory oversight and enforcement channels, have created informal political economies of cow slaughter that depends on jugaad, a theory and practice that, borrowing from academic Ravinder Kaur, “carries multiple meanings ranging from skilful reasoning, argumentation, trick, cunning device, adaptability, adjustment, being inventive, dexterous, and clever.”

Such tactics abuse loopholes in animal regulations, and are deployed to the detriment of animals throughout the production process: rearing, transport, slaughter – each of these stages are marred with various instances of cruelty, and corresponding concealment of such cruelty, against the animal, Narayanan has written. These instances expose a basic fact surrounding animal regulation – so long as the ethical, moral and cultural value of animals are viewed solely from a commoditization angle, such abuses and cruelty of humans over non-human animals will not only remain, but shall also get normalized. For instance, India’s beef export model is predicated on selling low-quality carrabeef, which necessitates volume over quality; this, to a degree, explains why the conditions of rearing and transport of bovines (which are better maintained in Western nations through more robust oversight) are ignored as a matter of economic efficiency. This is the natural outcome of debasing the dignity of nonhuman animals to a productive resource.

Also read: Dog’s brutal murder galvanizes Kerala HC to suo moto examine government inaction on protection of animal rights

The disconnect

The reason that these brutalities have come to the surface is because of courageous undercover reporting from concerned activists and journalists; yet there is a worrying trend, especially in the United States wherein, backed by powerful agribusiness lobbying groups, various “Ag-Gag” laws are being implemented that seek to criminalize undercover reporting of the gruesome and illegal conditions in which the abattoirs are maintained and operated in. This is particularly worrying for India, as without such reporting, the cruelty inflicted upon factory farms become further invisibilized and opaque – severely compromising farm animal advocacy in the country. But, how has the Indian animal rights movement responded to the issue of systemic farm animal abuse, and does it address the root causes of the issue?

So long as the ethical, moral and cultural value of animals are viewed solely from a commoditization angle, such abuses and cruelty of humans over non-human animals will not only remain, but shall also get normalized.

In the Indian animal rights and welfare movement, the most preeminent target of censure has been Section 11 of the PCA Act that limits the fine to be paid for acts causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals at Rs. 50. This is manifest from the ‘#NoMore50′ campaign (alluding to the meagre fine under the provision) that is a mainstay of the Indian response to animal cruelty, and has been supported by several political leaders and celebrities. In 2020, advocate Sankalp Golatkar filed a petition in the Supreme Court contending that the root cause of the exponential rise in animal cruelty cases in India is the “infinitesimal penalty” provided under the statute. This can be referred to as the punitive turn in the Indian animal rights response.

While it is true that the fines entailed under the impugned legislation are nowhere near commensurate to the instances of brutalities against nonhuman animals and should be revised, this focus belies a general lack of thrust on the issue of factory farms in India, despite being the most systemic and widespread form of animal abuse.

Firstly, as has been explored earlier, there is a clear disconnect between the postulations of formal legislation providing for animal welfare on one hand, and the implementation of such measures on the other – the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules contain clear conditions to be followed for slaughter of animals to mitigate instances of torture and cruelty, yet these conditions are flouted both in plain sight (as revealed by Gandhi, referenced earlier), and under the cloak of concealment facilitated by the state authorities looking the other way (about which Narayanan has written, also referenced above). It is unclear as to why, in the absence of meaningful change in attitude and duties towards animals, higher sanctions would not lead to even more opaque forms of exploitation carried out against animals.

Secondly, even if proper implementation of the fine could be ensured (a tall order given India’s numerous regulatory loopholes), this strategy does not address the systemic factors underlying the rapid growth of intensive animal farms, driven by the solely-profit based interests of the animal-industrial complex that in fact thrives on the wanton and hidden exploitation of animals.

Also read: Tripura High Court bans sacrifice of animals and birds in temples, upholds ‘right to life’ 

The need of the hour is better channels of accountability and oversight against the numerous abuses carried out by illegal slaughterhouses that are unfortunately the mainstay of the Indian animal-industrial complex; more fundamentally, this must be paired with awareness and scholarship building across society, and decision-making guided by the engagement of diverse stakeholders.

Although the pros and cons of a punitive approach are beyond the scope of this piece, the failure of harsh punishments in addressing criminal offences that occur due to structural and systemic reasons is now widely recognized within criminology across the world. It is submitted that the need of the hour is better channels of accountability and oversight against the numerous abuses carried out by illegal slaughterhouses that are unfortunately the mainstay of the Indian animal-industrial complex; more fundamentally, this must be paired with awareness and scholarship building across society, and decision-making guided by the engagement of diverse stakeholders.