Prominent Muslim voices have asked the Prime Minister of India to declare the cow a national animal and subsequently ban its slaughter across the country. The head of India’s largest body of clerics, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani, stated that Muslims would have no objection to this move, as it would help put an end to mob lynchings.
Madani argued that since the majority of the country’s population considers the cow sacred and accords it the status of ‘mother’, the government should face no political compulsion to avoid declaring it the national animal. Former Vice President Hamid Ansari also weighed in on the issue, echoing Madani’s sentiments.
Also Read
Laws criminalising the possession of beef were first legislated in 2015 in Maharashtra and subsequently in Haryana, triggering a spate of violence known as ‘beef lynchings’. Other BJP-led states followed suit, and the lynchings continue to this day. Those who support a nationwide ban on cow slaughter argue that it is a constitutional requirement. Why, then, has it not been implemented nationwide? Let us examine the matter.
Article 48 of India’s Constitution is a Directive Principle, meaning it serves as guidance rather than enforceable law. It reads: ‘The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.’
There is an unusual contradiction here. The reasoning is framed not as religious, but as an economic and scientific argument. At the time of drafting, those pressing for a ban consistently brought up religious sentiments, yet they simultaneously claimed they did not want to impose a cow slaughter ban on unwilling minorities.
Two Congress members of the Constituent Assembly, Seth Govind Das and Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, even sought to introduce the prohibition of cow slaughter as a fundamental right of the cow itself. Others wanted buffaloes, bulls, and all cattle of all ages included in the ban. However, to maintain the appearance of a secular constitution, legislators sought non-religious justifications. They argued that cows were essential for nourishing children with milk and that slaughter was economically counterproductive because cows and bullocks served as a “moving manure factory.”
In a letter written on August 7, 1947, just a week before Independence, the soon-to-be President Rajendra Prasad wrote to Jawaharlal Nehru:
“There are two points which I had for consideration at our meeting yesterday. I mentioned the agitation which is spreading with tremendous speed about the stopping of cow slaughter, but as everybody was in a hurry to go, the matter was not considered. I have been flooded with postcards, letters, packets and telegrams making a demand that cow slaughter should be stopped by legislation … The Hindu sentiment in favour of cow protection is old, widespread and deep-seated, and it has taken no time to rouse at this moment to a pitch when it is difficult, if not impossible, to ignore it. I think that the matter does require consideration and we must take a decision, whatever it is, after due consideration.”
During the Constituent Assembly debates, Muslim representatives requested that if a ban were to proceed, the Hindu majority should lay out their religious reasons unequivocally. Zahir-ul-Hasan Lari from UP argued: “If the House is of the opinion that slaughter of cows should be prohibited, let it be prohibited in clear, definite and unambiguous words.”
Lari maintained that in the interest of goodwill and cordial relations, if the majority wanted a ban for religious reasons, “this is the proper occasion when the majority should express itself clearly and definitely.” He noted that Muslims were well aware that their faith permitted, but did not mandate, the sacrifice of cows. For Lari, the issue was less an interference with religion and more an infringement on personal liberty. He stated that while he did not wish to obstruct the protection of the cow, the economic argument was inherently weak, as modern agricultural development would inevitably rely on mechanisation rather than draught animals. His plea went unheeded, and the amendment was adopted.
This ambiguous state of affairs persists today. Maulana Madani recently highlighted another inconsistency: “In favour of the Uniform Civil Code, it is argued that when the country is one, the law should also be one, but the laws related to animal slaughter in the country are not equally applicable in all states.”
Commenting on the issue, author Rasheed Kidwai wrote that the Muslim clergy’s demand for a nationwide stance should be read “not as submission, but as a challenge. It asks the state to stop dithering. It asks the political class to stop profiting from confusion. It asks the country to decide whether the cow is a matter of governance or merely an unfair instrument of polarisation.”
Ultimately, the public must demand clarity on whether the Indian state is founded on secularism or religion. The Prime Minister, who has historically been vocal on the matter with his rhetoric against the “pink revolution,” can address this deep-seated issue and resolve it by enacting an honest, uniform law. It may or may not completely end beef lynchings, but it will certainly bring an end to the hypocrisy.
