Cloaking discrimination in animal welfare

The Cabinet decision to prohibit cattle slaughter has been rationalised on the basis that it will boost agriculture and domestic milk production. The policy decision to amend laws pertaining to cattle slaughter will in effect end local beef production. Once it comes into effect, the ban will not only wipe out livelihoods for thousands of meat vendors, it will also cause distress to livestock farmers in places like the North Central Province.

The Government’s cattle slaughter ban announcement coincided with a report by Amnesty International on the discrimination of and violence against the Muslim community in Sri Lanka. Naturally, a ban on local beef production will disproportionately affect the country’s Muslim population. In fact it is crucially important to identify this executive action for what it is, and dispense with the illusion that it has anything at all to do with the welfare of animals. Cattle slaughter bans have been implemented in certain Indian states too, where hardline nationalists command control of legislatures, as a subtle and cruel way to target the Muslim community. The Sri Lankan Government’s forced cremation policy had the same vindictive motive, even if it was couched in the language of public health and safety.

At the outset, it is important to point out that there is no moral or economic rationale to this action. If one is to make the moral argument of treating animals humanely then the question that begs an answer is why ban only cattle slaughter while poultry, pork, mutton industries continue? Are these animals unworthy of being saved? Or is beef being singled out because of consumption and livelihood patterns linked to this animal protein by ethno-religious demographic?

The cow is sacred in Hinduism. Due to centuries of Hindu influence, either consciously or unconsciously, Buddhists in Sri Lanka have placed the animal on a similar pedestal. While the Muslims are certainly most involved in the slaughter of the cattle, in Sri Lanka beef is consumed by Buddhists, Hindus and Christians as well. Somehow, in countries like Sri Lanka and India, where ruling parties have veered sharply right-wing, cattle slaughter bans have become a dog-whistle against the Muslim community. Since 2013, the issue has been weaponised by extremists in Sri Lanka to attack the Muslim community. 

Those who advocate for animal rights and humane treatment of all beings, can either reduce their own consumption of animal products and thereby reduce demand or increase calls for better conditions for animals bred for meat and dairy, including humane slaughter. There are many ways to approach the issue, to ensure that animals raised for meat (and not just cattle), are treated humanely. Questions about the beef industry and its contribution to global warming have many climate activists urging people world over to reduce consumption. Animal welfare policies and climate change are relevant and valid discussions that Sri Lankans should engage in as global citizens. But the Government’s recent decision to ban cattle slaughter has nothing to do with any of that. Indeed, the last time the Government brought up the cattle slaughter ban, it presented a concurrent proposal to import beef for consumption locally – the clearest possible indication that the ban had nothing to do with animal welfare. 

From an economic perspective the policy would signal the demise of the local beef industry almost immediately, but it would also severely affect the dairy industry. Livestock farmers dispose of ageing and ailing animals by selling them for beef. Sri Lanka’s beef industry is as rudimentary as that. Without a beef industry, livestock farmers will be saddled with ageing cattle, the veterinary costs alone becoming an economic burden they are not built to bear. It is important to recall that the Government was forced to retract its cattle slaughter ban decision several months ago because of appeals and protests by livestock farmers, most of them SLPP voters in the North Central Province. 

It defies logic that even after seeing the devastating impact of the ill-conceived fertiliser ban that has brought the agriculture sector to its knees, slashed export crop output and driven farmers across the country to the street, the Government would take yet another decision that would undermine the rural economy. The only logical conclusion therefore is that the cattle slaughter ban is nothing more than a desperate attempt by an increasingly unpopular administration to shore up support within its tribal, nationalist, primal base. For a Government that has pig-headedly refused to reverse the forced cremation policy for nearly two years, there is no bridge too far when it comes to isolating and marginalising minority communities if it helps to consolidate political support.