Amid calls from sections of the Muslim community for the cow to be declared a national animal, records of Constituent Assembly debates from 1948 show that two Muslim members asked the framers of the constitution to clarify the government’s position on cow slaughter, with one even proposing to include the ban directly in fundamental rights.
Several organizations among Muslims are demanding that the cow, which is considered sacred by large segments of Hindus, be granted the status of the national animal in India. The current national animal is the tiger. The cow currently has no such official status, but demand for it has historically come from Hindu nationalist groups and BJP lawmakers.
The push for the Islamic oath came ahead of Eid al-Adha, a holiday during which animals, including goats and cows, are traditionally sacrificed. Maulana Arshad Madani, head of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind faction called Afar himself, made the demand, which he said he had even made at an inter-religious conference in Mumbai in 2014, that the cow be declared a national animal, and that strict legal provisions be enacted against its slaughter and trafficking.
Discussions in November 1948 show that two Muslim members of the association – Syed Muhammad Saadullah and Z. H. Larry – They were not opposed to clarity on this issue. In fact, they both argued that if a country intends to ban cow slaughter, it should say so frankly and clearly rather than leaving room for ambiguity.
Read also | Why do some Islamic organizations want to declare the cow the national animal of India before Eid?
“I don’t want to obstruct the framers of our constitution, I mean the Constituent Assembly, if they come out in public and directly say: This is part of our religion. The cow must be protected from slaughter, and therefore we want it stipulated either in fundamental rights or in directive principles,” news agency PTI quoted Sadollah as saying.
Discussion about the cow protection clause
The discussion was held to consider an amendment moved by Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, which said: “The State shall endeavor to regulate agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and, in particular, shall take steps to preserve and improve the breeds of cattle and to prohibit the slaughter of cows and other useful livestock, especially milking and draft cattle and their young ones.”
Another member, Seth Govind Das, suggested changes to expand the definition of cow by including bulls, oxen and young cattle.
“I don’t want to obstruct”
During the discussion, Saadallah referred to the Qur’anic principle “There is no compulsion in religion,” meaning there is no compulsion in religion.
He said he would not stand in the way if the association directly declared that cow protection was a religious issue.
He added: “We are not here to obstruct the position that the majority community will adopt. But the idea should not remain in the minds of the Muslim public that they can do one thing, even though in reality they are not expected to do so.”
At the same time, he said he could not support the proposal if the justification was given mainly for economic reasons.
Saadullah also rejected the suggestion that Muslims slaughter cows to hurt Hindu sentiments.
“Fortunately or unfortunately, Muslims are people who eat meat,” he said. “The price of mutton is so high that many poor people cannot afford it. So, in rare cases, they are forced to use beef. As far as I know, only barren cows go to the butcher.”
Referring to Assam, he added, “Talking about Assam, the hill people are the worst culprits in this regard. In Shillong, there is only one Muslim butcher for every 70 hill people who trade in beef… In the name of the economic front, I cannot extend my support to the proposal moved by Pandit Bhargava. I am sorry that, for the reasons already mentioned, I am forced to oppose the Seth Govind Das amendment.”
ZH Lari also addressed the Assembly during the discussion and said that the matter should not be left unclear.
He said: “I came here not to oppose or support any of the amendments, but to ask the Council to fully clarify the position and not leave the matter in any ambiguity or doubt.”
Why was the text not included in basic rights?
Bhargava, while responding to the discussion, said he did not want non-Hindus to feel forced to accept something against their will if it becomes part of fundamental rights.
“On the practical question, in my opinion, it would make no difference at all if the spirit of the amendment were faithfully formulated, wherever that amendment was placed,” he said.
He explained the proposal in three parts: improving agriculture through scientific methods, improving livestock breeds, and protecting cows and useful livestock from slaughter.
BJP’s demand, traditionally
The demand to declare the cow as a national animal is not new and has come mainly from within the BJP. Cow protection has been a declared part of the BJP’s agenda, with the party’s 2014 manifesto pledging to protect the animal as part of preserving India’s cultural heritage, in line with a long-running campaign by the party’s parent body, the RSS, for tougher legislation against cow slaughter.
But criticism from Muslim leaders and opposition parties remains that the BJP’s stance on beef is inconsistent. While the party has imposed a strict ban on cow slaughter in many states, especially in northern and central India, it has taken a more lenient approach in Goa and some northeastern states including Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Tripura.
(With inputs from PTI)
