After making old cows unviable to maintain, Madhya Pradesh wants to force farmers to pay for them

With reports of abandoned cows destroying crops, the state’s cow protection panel has proposed penalties on owners who set them free.

The Bharatiya Janata Party is scrambling to contain the fallout of its efforts to prevent the slaughter of cows, which have distorted rural economies in unforeseen ways. To deal with one unexpected consequence, a Madhya Pradesh government panel has now recommended penalties for farmers who abandon their cattle.

This highlights the incongruity of the effort to impose a cultural sentiment (the protection of cows) with the basic economic fact that someone has to pay for the upkeep of these animals.

Cow trade

Over the years, various state governments, many led by the Congress, have enacted laws banning the slaughter of cows as a way of respecting religious sentiments in a country where many Hindus hold the animal to be sacred.

Since 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s ascent to power at the Centre as well as its near-complete control of governments in what is known as the Cow Belt has added greater urgency to these rules. Some states have passed stricter laws and expanded the ban beyond cows to include other kinds of cattle.

Alongside these initiatives of the government, gau rakshaks, or cow protection groups, appear to have been given tacit support by the BJP apparatus across the country, leading to a series of lynchings of people accused of storing beef or transporting any sort of cattle. Although the prime minister eventually spoke up against the violence, state support to gau rakshaks has continued. In fact, the Centre has brought in new laws that impose many more restrictions on the sale of cattle, conditions that made it unfeasible for most owners to dispose of their animals.

The net effect of all this has been to turn the cow from an asset into a liability after a point. Where once farmers would have sold off cows after they stopped giving milk, the sale for slaughter is now mostly illegal and traders are afraid of attempting to acquire the animals. With no avenue to sell their cattle, farmers are choosing to abandon them rather than spend money on feeding the animals with no hope of any monetary return. This in turn has led to masses of abandoned cows that often wander into other farms, destroying crops and prompting an entirely new kind of man-animal conflict.

Man-cow conflict

In Bundelkhand, abandoned cows have been blamed for traffic snarls and adding to the water scarcity. In Lakhimpur Kheri, also in Uttar Pradesh, farmers locked 250 cows into a school to prevent them from wandering into fields, forcing the students to go home. Farmers are shooing away the animals with lathis and red chilli sprays. In Agra, abandoned cows were attacked with acid. Experts have said the large-scale abandoning of cows “is a sure threat not only to the dairy economy but more detrimentally to forestry, grasslands and also our urban facilities”.

Governments are now looking for ways to prevent stray cattle from causing more havoc. Madhya Pradesh is attempting to give every cow a unique tag, allowing the authorities to track the owner. The Centre has suggested this projectbe expanded nationally. Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Hansraj Ahir proposed 1,000 hectares of forest landed be allotted for cow sanctuaries in every district of every state where slaughter is banned. Others have recommended a cess on dairies like Amul and Mother Dairy, which will go towards the establishing of shelthers for unwanted cows. Lalu Prasad Yadav, on his part, suggested tying old cows outside the homes of Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leaders.

Abandoned farmers

The Madhya Pradesh government panel for cow protection now has a new suggestion. “We want to introduce a penalty for owners who abandon their cows,” Swami Akhileshwaranand, chairman of the executive council of the Madhya Pradesh Cow Protection Board, told the Indian Express. “The penalty will be slapped even if a cow is killed in road accidents because it’s proof that the owner has abandoned it.

If the proposal goes through, farmers will not only have been prevented from making an economically vital decision to sell fallow cows, they will also be forced to bear the expense of religious sentiments imposed by the government by having to spend money on rearing unproductive animals.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.