BAN on CATTLE NOTIFICATION: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 23 rd May , 2017
Email: sabrangind@gmail.com
BAN on CATTLE NOTIFICATION: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 23 rd May , 2017
Unconstitutional: Modi Govt’s Ban on Sale of Cattle
The Centre's notification restricting the sale of cattle in the country is glaringly unconstitutional and an affront to federalism besides being a blow to farmers. The centre cannot create any law or issue orders/notification on a subject that is in the State list, in the division of legislative powers between the centre and states. Livestock is a state subject.
In the State List under Schedule VII: Paras 15 and 16 cover livestock.
Here is the original notification, issued under the Prevention of Cruelty Act, assuming powers that the basic Act itself doesnt have. Sabrangindia has broken the story yesterday along with scroll.in
http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2017/176216.pdf
It can also be read here.
Interestingly, the world's first animal protection law was passed by Hitler in 1933 to ban the Jewish Koushar meat and to selectively harass Jewish biologists.
Already some states and other individuals and organisations are expressing outrage and expressing their desire to approach the Supreme Court where it is hoped it will be struck down as un-Constitutional.
Here are some of the Orwellian terms of the Notification:
Restrictions on sale of cattle.— The Member Secretary of the Animal Market Committee shall ensure that-
(a) no person shall bring to an animal market a young animal;
(b) no person shall bring a cattle to an animal market unless upon arrival he has furnished a written
declaration signed by the owner of the cattle or his duly authorised agent—
(i) stating the name and address of the owner of the cattle, with a copy of the photo identification
proof ;
(ii) giving details of the identification of the cattle;
(iii) stating that the cattle has not been brought to market for sale for slaughter;
(c) every declaration furnished to the Animal Market Committee shall be retained by it for a period of six
months from the date on which it is furnished to them and the Animal Market Committee shall, on
demand made by an Inspector at any reasonable time during that period, produce such declaration and
allow a copy of it or an extract from it to be taken;
(d) where an animal has been sold and before its removal from the animal market, the Animal Market
Committee shall—
II (i) 17
(i) obtain the expenses incurred for each animal, as approved by the District Animal Market
Monitoring Committee, so as to provide the basic facilities for animals and people;
(ii) take an undertaking that the animals are bought for agriculture purposes and not for slaughter;
(iii) keep a record of name and address of the purchaser and procure his identity proof;
(iv) verify that the purchaser is an agriculturist by seeing the relevant revenue document;
(v) ensure that the purchaser of the animal gives a declaration that he shall not sell the animal up
to six months from the date of purchase and shall abide by the rules relating to transport of
animals made under the Act or any other law for the time being in force;
(vi) retain such record for a period of six months from the date of sale;
(vii) produce such record before an Inspector on demand being made by him at any reasonable time
during that period and allow a copy of it or an extract from it to be taken;
(e) the purchaser of the cattle shall –
(i) not sell the animal for purpose of slaughter;
(ii) follow the State cattle protection or preservation laws;
(iii) not sacrifice the animal for any religious purpose;
(iv) not sell the cattle to a person outside the State without the permission as per the State cattle
protection or preservation laws;
(f) where a cattle has been sold and before its removal from the animal market, the proof of sale shall be
issued in five copies, out of which first copy shall be handed over to purchaser, second copy to seller,
third copy to tehsil office of the residence of purchaser, fourth copy to the Chief Veterinary Officer in
the district of purchaser and last copy to be kept intact in the record by the Animal Market Committee.
NHRC Orders Investigation Into Complaints of Torture in Bhopal Central Jail
NHRC orders investigation into the complaints of torture in the Bhopal Central Jail
The National Human Rights Commission(NHRC) ordered a sup moto inquiry into allegations of torture by undertrial inmates of the Bhopal Central Jail. The Order was made today.
On Thursday, May 25, undertrial activists of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India(SIMI) have had their beards forcibly shaved in Bhopal's New Central Jail and are being compelled to chant "anti-Islamic slogans", their families have told the National Human Rights Commission. The Jamia Teachers Solidarity Association (JTSA) and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) facilitated their complaints before the NHRC.
The NHRC Order dated May 26, 2017 to provide some respite to the under-trial prisoners in Bhopal's New Central Jail. After repeated pleas made by civil activist groups, wives and relatives of the 21 under-trial prisoners in Bhopal's New Central Jail, the NHRC has finally ordered the DIG (I) of the Commission to form a committee headed by the SSP to conduct a spot investigation of the issue and submit a report at the earliest. Sabrangindia had reported on the delegation meeting the NHRC.
The apex human rights authority in the country has heard the appeals made by the hapless families of the under-trial prisoners who are being tormented and subjected to mass human rights violations. They are being kept in solitary confinement without food, water, medical aid. They are routinely being thrashed, tortured, humiliated as they are forced to shout anti-Islamic slogans and their beards are being shaven. The atrocities have touched such a peak that one of them has become partially blind.
The Order in its conclusion reads:
“If the contents of the complaint and its annexures thereto, are believed to be true, it is certainly a matter of concern for the Commission, which demands an impartial enquiry. There are a number of serious issues like the confinement of Under-Trial Prisoners in solitary cells, non-supply of food, denial of medical treatment, inhuman behaviour on the part of jail officials towards these Under-Trial Prisoners and so on. The matter has been thoughtfully considered by the Commission and it is of the view that true facts need to be ascertained in the first instance. The DIG (I) of the Commission is requested to constitute a team of officers, headed by an SSP to conduct an on the spot investigation and submit their report at the earliest in respect of the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.”
At the start the NHRC registered the case as case number 1126/12/8/2017, Dairy number 77871/CR/2017.
The rest of the Order at the beginning, reads
"A representation has been received from Ms. Nazma Bi and nine others, most of them residents of district Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. They are relatives of 21 Under Trial Prisoners who are lodged in the Bhopal jail. All these prisoners are the members of the SIMI organization and are facing trial in different criminal cases. The applicants have alleged that all these 21 Under Trial Prisoners are being subjected to physical and mental torture, after the incident of jail break occurred on 31.10.2016, when 8 Under Trial Prisoners had escaped from the judicial custody and were later killed in encounter with the police. It is mentioned that the individuals have been raising their grievances before the Court but no action on their complaints has been taken. As stated, on 26.04.2017, one of the Under Trial Prisoners, Mohd. Iqrar during video conferencing stated before the Sessions Court that he is being beaten up by the jail officials, daily after the incident of jail break occurred. He is forced to shout anti-religion slogans and his beard has also been forcefully, trimmed by the jail officers. He expressed apprehension that the jail officials may kill him inside the jail. Another Under Trial Prisoner, Inamur Rehman has told his brothers- in-law on 05.05.2017, when they had gone to meet him in the jail, that he is being beaten up by the jail officials, very less food and water is being provided to him and there are injuries inflicted by blunt objects on his body. The statement of Inamur Rehman on an affidavit was submitted to the Sessions Court, on 06.05.2017. Abu Fazal, one of the Under Trial Prisoners, during video conferencing has deposed before the Court that he is being physically tortured and also being forced to convert from his religion. Kalid Ahmed, Mohd. Irfan, Zubair Nagori, Mohd. Javed and other co-prisoners have more or less same grievance that they are being physically tortured and being deprived of food, water and basic daily need items. Mohd. Zubair, Mohd. Adil, Mohd. Irfan, Sajid @ Guddu have alleged that they are being kept under solitary confinement, without any break. It is also mentioned that Under Trial Prisoners, Adil Wahid, Mohd. Aziz, Habib and Sazid have submitted their complaints to the State Human Rights Commission, on 16.12.2016, but the State Human Rights Commission has not taken cognizance of their complaint. One of the prisoners, Mohd. Irfan has alleged that he requires immediate treatment of his right eye but the jail authorities are not providing him any treatment. He has further mentioned that now he is not able to see from his right eye and the sight in the left eye is also deteriorating. He has sent a complaint to the Chief Justice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 16.01.2016. Upon perusal, it emerges that all these Under Trial Prisoners are allegedly being physically and mentally tortured in judicial custody. They are not being provided basic amenities and health care facilities. They are being kept in solitary confinement and not being allowed to meet their relatives for more than five minutes. It is also mentioned that the jail officials always remain present when the relatives of these prisoners visit them, in the jail. Apart from this, the Commission has also received a communication, raising the same issue from Ms. Kavita Srivastava of People’s Union of Civil Liberties and other Human Rights Defenders, associated with different organizations."
On May 24, a collective of organisaitons met the NHRC on the case of torture of the 21 prisoners in Bhopal caught in various cases related to SIMI, in Dec 2013. They were a total of 29 undertrials. of which 8 were killed in the fake encounter that happened on 31st Oct, 2016 in bhopal. 21 are left behind in Bhopal central jail and one convicted from Karnataka. Justice Murugesan of the NHRC gave the delegation a hearing.
Last year, in November 2016, the sudden killings, after 'jail breaks' as claimed by the Bhopal Central authorities and police had drawn nation wide outrage as eight undertrial prisoners had been shot dead in cold blood, on the eve of their likely acquittal from a court.
Related Articles:
1. What the Bhopal jailbreak, killings teach us: Patriotism isn't blind obedience to the government
2. Rakesh Sharma Demolishes The Script of M.P Police on Bhopal Encounter
3. The brazen Bhopal encounter killing is linked to the bogey of SIMI in Madhya Pradesh: JTSA
Taiwan, 1st Asian Country to Legalize Gay Marriage, Shouldn’t India Follow Suit?
In a landmark judgement delivered on May 23, judges from Taiwan's Highest Court ruled in favour of Chi Chia-wei, legalizing gay marriage, making the small, island nation the first in Asia and setting a precedent for other Asian countries.
The court has given the country's parliament two years to amend existing laws or create new ones to ensure equal treatment of individuals with respect to marriage laws.
Back home in India, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Naz Foundation V. Government of NCT Of Delhi And Others, had ruled in favour of the LGBT community in 2009. The Court had asked the Indian parliament to amend laws according to the recommendations of the 172nd Law Commission of India Report. The report may be read here.Sadly, little has been done in this regard. The LGBT community still suffers from exploitation, discrimination and denunciation. Hopefully, this progressive judgement passed by the Taiwan High Court will motivate the Indian law makers to finally frame laws to protect the preferences and rights of its diverse populace.
Just like India, in Taiwan the fight for rights of the LGBT community, is not recent. The issue of same-sex marriage has been a source of contention for decades in Taiwan. The key plaintiff, Chi Chia-wei, a gay-rights activist, has been fighting for gay rights since the 1980s and first sought a gay marriage license 16 years ago according to Focus Taiwan Reports. Chi Chia-wei’s suit claims that the prohibition against same-sex marriage violates the rights guaranteed in the Constitution by Article 7 which declares that all citizens, irrespective of sex, religion, ethnic origin, class or party affiliation, to be equal before the law, and Article 22, which states that all other freedoms and rights of the public that are not detrimental to social order or public welfare are guaranteed under the Constitution.
The obiter dicta of the Grand Justices reflect their liberal, reformist outlook.The Justices called sexual orientation an "immutable characteristic that is resistant to change." This, in our opinion is the most logical definition of the sexuality of an individual, knowing that it is internal and natural and not an externally developed sentiment. The court further said that, “Allowing single people to have the autonomy to decide whether to marry and whom to marry, is vital to the sound development of personality and safeguarding of human dignity, and therefore is a fundamental right."
The alliance of Taiwan Religious Groups for the Protection of the Family and representatives from Buddhist, Taoist, Christian and Lamaist groups, rallied against this decision of the Court. However, it was the key campaign issue for President Tsai Ing-wen, who took office one year ago, and the legislature has been weighing a change to Taiwan's Civil Code.
Taiwan will now join 20 other countries from across the world which have legalised same-sex marriage. Netherlands was the first to legalise same-sex marriage(2000), followed by Belgium (2003), Spain and Canada (2005), Finland, Ireland and United States (2015) and now Taiwan (2017). India, certainly has a lot learn from this international reform. The first step in the right direction was taken by the Delhi High Court in 2009 as discussed above, but the Supreme Court took a U-turn in 2013, when it overruled the order of the Delhi High Court.
The Supreme Court Judgement may be read here.
What the Indian diaspora fails to understand is that Homosexuality is innate to the Indian culture and has been a part of our multihued heritage. Ancient texts such as Shrutis and Smritis make a mention of the existence of Homosexuals and Trans genders. The Kamasutra, another ancient Indian text makes explicit mention and portrayal of various relations existing between individuals of different as well as same genders. Sculptures and paintings in the Khajurao Temple, Ajanta and Ellora caves are evidence of the deeply rooted connection of homosexuality and Indian heritage.
Quite contrary to this, the ‘progressive’, ‘modern’, Indian society of today considers acts of homosexuals and transgenders as taboo. Accepting the Tibetans and not the Transgenders, allowing communal movements and not LGBT movements, criminalising homosexuality and not marital rape; isn’t this a reflection of the hypocrisy of the Indian polity?
The percentage of the population strongly preferring same-sex, sexual acts and relationships, and thus identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual, is thought to be somewhere between 1% (a figure generally considered too low) and 10% (a figure generally considered too high). In India 25 lakh individuals have been identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual, as per a report submitted to the Supreme Court in 2012. The irony is, these are only the few who have come out of the closet. The rest, perhaps the majority, still fear the stigma attached hence, do not reveal their sexual orientation and identity. The Indian laws lag behind when compared with the rest of the world as they fail to identify, accept and protect the members of the community.
On the contrary, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 criminalises homosexuality primarily on the basis of the form of sexual intercourse. This is the biggest obstacle in the path to equality. The Constitution of India – the supreme law of the land, protects and promotes diversity, ensures an egalitarian society where freedom should no longer be a privilege. Although Part III of the Constitution provides certain rights to the citizens, it only covers those citizens who form part of the ‘popular morality’. The LGBT community does not form part of this ‘popular morality’ and hence is neglected. It is the right of each member of the LGBT community to be treated equally like other citizens, to live with dignity as enshrined in A 15 (1), (2), Part III, Constitution of India. As given, “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”
It is important that the ground of ‘sex’ must include the sexual orientation of the individuals along with the ‘gender’ as these develop over time, differently for every individual depending on the genetical make up. Further, A 19, Part III, Constitution of India, provides certain rights and freedoms to individuals which we are well aware of. Of course, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India and maintenance of public order. The LGBTQ communityis not harming the integrity and sovereignty of India and clearly forms an integral part of our society. At the same time, we know, it may be against the ‘popular morality’ but is not against ‘constitutional morality’ or public order. Then why are those belonging to the LGBT community prevented from taking an apartment on rent or buying a house or property? Why are the queer individuals discriminated against on public forums? Why is it difficult for a transgender to get a white-collar job? Why is a homosexual harassed, treated as an inferior being, abused, exploited, stigmatized? Clearly because the Constitutional interpretations have not expanded so as to include them.
As citizens of India, can’t lesbians, gays, transgenders and bisexuals live their lives with as much freedom as the rest of the Indians? Provisions need to be made to enable these individuals to acquire property, reside in a house, work freely and violations of the same need to be made punishable. A 21, Part III, Constitution of India, states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Though not explicitly, the A 21, does provide Right to Privacy to the citizens of India. Thus, what individuals do in private with consent should not be a crime. If the state does not involve itself in consensual sexual acts of heterosexuals, why should it criminalise consensual sexual acts of homosexuals? S 377, Indian Penal Code, 1860, is a draconian law of the British colonial powers, with a misconception that homosexuals indulge in anal sex which amounts to sodomy. The law fails to take into account, the feeling of mutual love, care and security that partners provide to each other. Thus, if two men find happiness in cohabiting, they should be allowed to do so and S 377 should be amended. A 14, Part III, Constitution of India, provides, “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision is not reflected in the current scenario. Evidence of mass human rights violations of members of the homosexual community is obvious, numerous cases have also been filed. However, little has been done by the police and other authorities to provide protection to the LGBT community. The courts still do not rule in the community’s favour. Thus, the question remains, are the doors of the Courts really open for the LGBT community in India?
Our fight here is not just to decriminalise sexual acts of homosexuals but to ensure that they are provided with the same rights as other citizens of India. We need to fight for their right to marriage, right to procreate or have children, right to work without discrimination, right to consent any and all acts done with partners, right to seek justice in the formal court of law and finally, right to be included and accepted as part of Indian society.
Related Articles:
ADVANCE QUESTIONS TO INDIA (FIRST BATCH) UPR Process 2017
Mumbai Pride March: LGBT supporters share their hopes for the future
What the Women’s March on Washington can learn from Black Lives Matter
Concentration camps’ opened for Gay Men in Chechnya
Torture and Threats on SIMI Accused, Allege Families: Bhopal Central Jail
Undertrials forced to shave beard and chant 'anti-Islamic' slogans, NHRC told
Undertrial activists of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India(SIMI) have had their beards forcibly shaved in Bhopal's New Central Jail and are being compelled to chant "anti-Islamic slogans", their families have told the National Human Rights Commission. The Jamia Teachers Solidarity Association (JTSA) and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) facilitated their complaints before the NHRC, reports The Telegraph.
The 21 undertrial prisoners are being brutally beaten and threatened with death by jail authorities in the capital of BJP-ruled Madhya Pradesh, wives and relatives of four of the men told rights panel member Justice (retd) D. Murugesan here yesterday.
"My husband is being routinely tortured, humiliated and forced to shout anti-Islamic slogans," said Shama Parveen, wife of Mohammed Javed, a farm labourer arrested a year after their marriage in December 2012.
"He fears for his life: the jail authorities have told him he would be killed and his death shown as suicide," she told the newspaper after handing the families' petition to the rights panel.
Shama and the relatives of Mohammed Irfan, Mohammed Adil and Mohammed Zubair – all Ujjain natives -said all 21 men had been put in solitary confinement and were being denied medical treatment, morning and evening walks, the chance to meet co-prisoners – even enough food.
Farzana, wife of Adil and mother of a 10-year-old son, said the prisoners were being allowed only five-minute meetings with their families, that too in the presence of anti-terrorist squad personnel who deny them any privacy.She said that several of the prisoners, held for years without conviction, had gone into depression.
The families said the ill-treatment had intensified after the alleged "encounter" killing of eight Simi operatives hours after they had broken out of the same jail on October 31 last year.
Relatives of the dead have alleged "cold-blooded murder", prompting chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan to order a judicial probe, which raised several questions about the police's version of events. "I'm not allowed to meet my husband for more than five minutes a week, but before last year's encounter we were allowed 20-minute visits. He is being tortured and forced to chant anti-Islamic slogans," Farzana told this newspaper.
"We have written to the chief minister, Prime Minister and senior government officials but nothing has happened." Madhya Pradesh director-general of police Rishiraj Shukla told this newspaper: "We have no knowledge of these allegations. If the National Human Rights Commission asks us, we'll get the necessary probe done."
According to the petition, Mohammed Iqrar, one of the 21 accused, had recently told the trial court through video-conferencing that he was being physically tortured, carried injuries on his head, thighs and hips, had his beard forcibly shaved and had been compelled to chant anti-Islamic slogans.
The petition says the court has not acted on the allegations, and that Iqrar has been threatened with death if he speaks to the magistrate ever again about the jail conditions."There is a common feeling among several of these undertrials that they may be killed by jail authorities. They fear for their lives," the petition says.
Rights commission registrar A.K. Kaul said the panel had "received the complaints of torture and abuses meted out to Simi activists in Bhopal jail", and would soon pass an order.The commission had issued notices to the Madhya Pradesh government after the "encounter" killings that followed the October jailbreak. Nothing much has happened after the state sent its report on the events.
The delegation has demanded a probe and immediately send a team to the jail to meet the suspected Simi activists.
Perfume Yourself Before Meeting Yogi CM, Dalits Ordered
Is this the Indian Constitution and the Rule of Law at work? When poor Dalits, whose economical and social condition demand immediate concern, are asked to poweder and persome themselves before a meeting with the state’s chief minister?
Patrika reports that authorities in Kushinagar asked Mushars of Mainpurkot area to take bath and apply talcum powder and perfume before going to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The administration distributed bathing soaps, shampoo, talcum powder and perfumes among poor Mushars. The officials clearly instructed them to remain clean and tidy during chief minister’s inspection.
Actually, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath was scheduled to inspect Mushars’ locality in Mainpurkot village of Kushinagar on Thursday morning. The Administration was leaving no stone unturned to make this 25 minutes-long inspection a smooth affair. Deprived of development even after 70 years of independence, the locality virtually witnessed a ‘turn around’ as each and every official of the administration was busy in giving the locality a facelift. Some of them were constructing toilets in Mushars’ homes, others were busy in repairing the approach – road. Drains were cleaned. Sanitation works were conducted even inside the houses as well.
An elderly Mushar of the village said,”Sahebs came and gave us soaps, shampoo, powder and perfumes. They told us to apply them before going to the chief minister.”
Who gave these orders, obnoxious and unlawful in content? The CM or the bureaucrats?
Modi Sarkar’s Ban on Sale of Animal for Slaughter Signals Death of Cattle Farming, Farmers & Trade
The new rules of the Ministry of Environment and Forests notified on May 25 as ‘new rules’ under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, now bans sale of cattle for slaughter in open markets across the country. Not only cows, but bulls, bullocks and camels now can no longer be sold for slaughter. So it’s not just cow meat but all beef that now cannot be sold or slaughtered for consumption.
As importantly, the ministry has notified another rule that makes it mandatory for the owner of the animal to bear the cost of its upkeep in a shelter. If the owner is unable to pay, it should be recovered as land arrears, the rule says. The cost will be specified by the state government every year on April 1. So will this mean land grab by the government in return for cattle that cannot be sustained or nurtured?
Unions of Farmers and organisations see these new rules formulated by the late environment minister Anil Dave before his death, as a direct and dangerous assault on agriculture. They said that in a time of distress, sale of cattle was one of the important ways through which a farmer overcomes financial difficulties. Enacting such stringent rules to regulate sale of cattle will push farmers further into debt.
According to the new rules published late on Thursday, May 25 evening, the Centre has banned sale of cattle, which includes bulls, cows, bullocks, buffaloes, steers, heifers, calves and camels, for purpose of slaughter. The cattle can be sold only to agriculturists and not for slaughter.
The rules further stated that a cattle bought cannot be resold for a period of six months. The purchaser has to produce his name and address to the market committee and the officials have the right to inspect the person’s premises to ensure the cattle is not sold for six months from the date of purchase.
Rules are considered subordinate legislations which are framed to ensure the parent law is implemented properly. The Centre has titled the new rules Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2016.
The following are the provisions that govern sale of cattle under the new rules:
“(a) no person shall bring to an animal market a young animal;
(b) no person shall bring a cattle to an animal market unless upon arrival he has furnished a written
declaration signed by the owner of the cattle or his duly authorised agent—
(i) stating the name and address of the owner of the cattle, with a copy of the photo identification
proof ;
(ii) giving details of the identification of the cattle;
(iii) stating that the cattle has not been brought to market for sale for slaughter;
(c) every declaration furnished to the Animal Market Committee shall be retained by it for a period of six
months from the date on which it is furnished to them and the Animal Market Committee shall, on
demand made by an Inspector at any reasonable time during that period, produce such declaration and
allow a copy of it or an extract from it to be taken;
(d) where an animal has been sold and before its removal from the animal market, the Animal Market
Committee shall—(i) obtain the expenses incurred for each animal, as approved by the District Animal Market
Monitoring Committee, so as to provide the basic facilities for animals and people;
(ii) take an undertaking that the animals are bought for agriculture purposes and not for slaughter;
(iii) keep a record of name and address of the purchaser and procure his identity proof;
(iv) verify that the purchaser is an agriculturist by seeing the relevant revenue document;
(v) ensure that the purchaser of the animal gives a declaration that he shall not sell the animal up
to six months from the date of purchase and shall abide by the rules relating to transport of
animals made under the Act or any other law for the time being in force;
(vi) retain such record for a period of six months from the date of sale;
(vii) produce such record before an Inspector on demand being made by him at any reasonable time during that period and allow a copy of it or an extract from it to be taken;”
Are the rules the result of a Supreme Court direction last year? That is the interpretation being given by the Modi sarkar, at any rate. The court, had reportedly, acting on petitions filed by animal rights activists, asked the Centre to regulate cattle trade. Officials at the Animal Welfare Board of India told scroll.in on condition of anonymity that the rules do not ban slaughter of all cattle. Rather, it only regulates the sale of cattle in markets. In case someone wants to sell the cattle for slaughter, it could be done legally outside the markets subject to slaughter rules implemented the respective states.
It is unclear from the rules what the other locations are, where sales can take place outside animal markets. India has about 3,900 slaughter houses licensed by local bodies, according to a planning commission report for 2007-’12. The total cattle population in India is 190 million, according to the 2012 livestock census. Animal markets have traditionally acted as a conduit between the farmers and the butchers.
For instance, before the trade both seller and buyer will have to produce documents before the committee to prove their identity and that they own farmland. After buying a cow, a trader will have to make five copies of proof of sale and submit them at the local revenue office, the local veterinary doctor in the district of the purchaser, animal market committee, apart from one each for seller and buyer.
The rule also prescribes about 30 norms for animal welfare in markets, including water, fans, bedding, ramps, non-slippery flooring, veterinary facility and separate enclosure for sick animals.Introducing inspector raj, the regulation makes it mandatory for veterinary inspector to certify proper loading and unloading of animals to ensure they are not cramped inside trucks. The inspector can mark any animal unfit for sale.
In most states except Kerala and in the north-east, the slaughter of cows is banned. Ever since the Bharatiya Janata Party government took over in May 2014, there have been several incidents of cow vigilantes indulging in violence against those suspected to be selling cows or eating cow meat.
Farmers in distress
The new rules have not gone down well with farmers’ unions, who feel that such tough regulations on sale of cattle will cripple the rural economy.
Vijoo Krishnan, national joint secretary of the All India Kisan Sabha, said in times of drought, selling of cattle was an important way through which the farmers managed financial distress. While the government may say that sale of cattle for slaughter outside the markets are still legal, the bare fact was that most such sale happens within the market places as farmers may not have the means to transport cattle over long distances.
“To say you cannot sell the cattle for six months from the date of purchase or cannot sell infirm cattle will cripple the farmer in a drought situation,” he added.
Krishnan said in many states, restrictions on cow sale have forced the farmers to let the animals loose as they could not afford fodder in times of distress. “Take the case of Tamil Nadu, which is facing severe drought. When farmers cannot feed themselves, how do you expect them to feed an infirm cattle?” he asked.
He added that if the Centre wants farmers not to sell infirm cattle, it should make arrangements to procure and take care of them.
The rules also provide for extensive paper rules. When a cattle is sold, five copies of the sale documents should be made and filed with relevant officers for future verification. Authorities also have the powers to seize and animal and detain it in a separate enclosure if the animal is found to be unfit for sale by a veterinarian.
Krishnan added that in a context where self-proclaimed cow protectors are unleashing violence across the country, such rules may pose a serious threat of security of farmers. “These rules could lead to mob regulations,” he alleged.
K Balakrishnan, former legislator and farmers’ leader in Tamil Nadu, said the new rules would only lead to an unofficial ban on slaughter. “Where are the registered slaughter houses to sell directly? In most districts in Tamil Nadu, recognised slaughter houses do not exist,” he said.
After the Yogi Adityanath governnment took over in Uttar Pradesh in March, many slaughter houses were temporarily shut for not following regulations.
Balakrishnan also pointed out that hardly any farmer knew about the draft rules published by the Centre in January to solicit views. “The draft rules are always in English and Hindi. How will a farmer in a remote village in Andhra Pradesh or Kerala or Tamil Nadu understand these rules? Essentially, they are regulating a crucial aspect of a farmer’s life without consulting them. This a fraud on us,” he charged.
The idea behind such regulations was to protect cattle illegally transported. “But in the final rules, they are taking away the rights of the farmer.”He added that the village custom of a cattle fair is under assault through such regulations.
A Security Hole in What’s App Can Allow ‘Anonymous’ Posts That Spread Lies, Venom & Vitreol: Fix It!
Why are the Indian authorities not acting against this loophole that allows instigators and abettors of crimes to go scot free?
A security hole in Whatsapp allows anyone to go anynomous on Whatsapp in India. Whatsapp has two ways of verifying identity — either via an SMS or via a voice call, what is called the call me option.
By using the ubiquitous public pay phone which has no ownership associated with it, one can receive the OTP in voice on the phone and use it to verify one's identity. This associates the Whatsapp with the Public Pay Phone number which cannot be attributed to a particular owner and thus one can hide oneself.
Given the huge use of Whatsapp — Whatsapp is increasingly becoming the medium of communication and the assumption is that given that Whatsapp users usually are tied to a mobile number, their identity can be found.
Just as an example, radio stations receive messages from listeners on Whatsapp. The Bangalore airport authorities receive feedback or complaints on Whatsapp.
Imagine the potential of misuse when whatsapp can be used anonymously. Whatsapp has been informed of this security hole. They have refused to fix it. It is high time Indian law enforcements take action before this hole is misused.
The following youtube video illustrates the security hole.
What False and Vicious Whatsapps Can Do, Have Done: Take Lives
Social Disharmony Through Whatapp
Jharkand
Recently, in Jharkand, seven persons were lynched to death after scurrilous rumopurs of child kidnappings were spread on Whatapp. Too late,the local police sought to act on rumours that were being spread on What's App for over a month on alleged 'child kidnappers' on the prowl. Read more about this here
In October 2016, 22- year old Minhah Ansari was flogged to death in Jharkand after a false Whatsapp image of him behading a calf was circulated. Unbeknownst to the young men, Sonu Singh, the district head of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad's Jamtara unit, had complained to the police that Ansari had posted a photograph of himself with a calf on a WhatsApp group on October 2, followed by another of him posing with beef.
Read more about this here
Maharashtra
Barely a few months ago, a professor was beaten up, arrested, and suspended in the climax of a grand, long war waged against him.“I had never imagined that a WhatsApp forward would cost me my job, my dignity, and everything that I have loved”, said Professor Sunil Waghmare, worriedly. “I want my life back. I have had no experience of fighting injustice of this scale before” he says, referring to the mob that humiliated and slapped him within the campus premises, in public view. He was forced to leave his small room in Khopoli after the incident, and left for his village along with his family.
Read more about this here
Haryana
And in Mewat, a doctored video on Whatsapp School attendance in this Haryana district fell to as low as 5% after a doctored video began to do the rounds on social media. Mewat fathers are standing guard outside schools after rumours about injections causing sterility
In February, the Union health ministry had launched a campaign to administer the measles-rubella vaccine to children between the ages of nine months and 15 years. The campaign started with the states of Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Karnataka, Goa, and Lakshadweep. The campaign was yet to reach Haryana.
The first half of the ABP News programme summarised the rumours that had spread in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, while the second half featured experts, including doctors, debunking them. Only the first half of the programme circulated on WhatsApp in Mewat.
Read more about this here
And the story begins with the Muzaffarnagar violence opf September 2013 when vicious Whatsapp messages were used to spread hatred and vitriol against Muslims living in four districts of western UP.
Why are the Indian authorities not acting against this loophole that allows instigators and abettors of crimes to go scot free?