Berkley Center

Living in the United States, which refuses to ban pretty much any kind of food product (including items like coloring agents, diphenylamine, and synthetic hormones that have been banned in several other developed countries), my first reaction to any kind of food ban is one of incredulity. But the relationship we have with food and animals is very different in the West. Practitioners of Hinduism, the majority religion in the country, consider the cow to be a sacred living symbol of their religion that they would never think to harm. Reverence of the animal also stems from its usefulness—India is still very much an agricultural society, and animals are still a part of everyday life. It is not uncommon to see a cow resting on the side of the road, pulling a cart down the street, or working in a field. Their dung is an important source of fuel, and their dairy is used widely in Indian cuisine. In an affidavit, the Maharashtrian government reaffirmed this importance, stating that cow progeny is the backbone of the economy, and as a result it was necessary to preserve and protect them.

This relationship with cows is not true for everyone, however. Amongst Christians, Muslims, and Dalits, who do not share the same view against eating beef, part of the value of bulls comes from their meat. Many Dalits are unable to afford richer meats like chicken or lamb, and so eat beef, which is usually half the cost of chicken. Sometimes, they would eat dried meat of dead and decaying cattle, or innards or liver, which are even cheaper. For the impoverished lower-caste Hindus, these meats were the only affordable option for nutrition, and they are its main consumers. Many Muslims also earn their livelihoods from beef, where they work as traders or in the leather business. Due to the ban, they are now having trouble selling their bulls because of the ban, and many will be rendered jobless. The economic ramifications are large—despite the sacred status of cows, India is actually one of the top exporters of beef, although it mostly comes from bulls and buffalo, since the export of cow meat is against the law. Exports began in the 1960s and have grown sharply in the past decade. In 2013, nearly five billion dollars worth of buffalo meat was exported, mainly to Southeast Asia. A ban on slaughter would cause these exports, along with related animal product exports, to decline.

In any country, food is a highly political issue, and nowhere is this truer than in India. The ban on beef is not just about food, it’s about culture, and it threatens to inflame religious tensions between Muslims and Christians, and Hindus who aim to expand the tightened restrictions on beef to more states in India. These tensions have been growing in the past few years. As Indians head overseas in large numbers and develop a taste for beef, its consumption in India has increased. The rising export numbers also irk Hindu activists, who claim that exports of cow meat are on the rise. Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to institute a national ban on cow slaughter when campaigning last year, seeking to please the Hindu political base. Unfortunately, this action will come at a cost, as the beef ban can be interpreted as a blow to India’s efforts to balance the interests of competing religious groups. A beef ban would disproportionately impact minorities, while placating Hindus. While it remains to be seen if the beef ban will stick, and if it will actually protect and preserve the animals, it is clear that relations between minorities and the ruling Hindu majority will suffer.