Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T03:05:39.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cows and Constitutionalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2019

ROHIT DE
ROHIT DE*
Affiliation:
Yale University Email: rohit.de@yale.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cows have been the subject of political petitioning in South Asia for over a hundred years. This article examines the changing relationship between communities and the state in India through the transformation of petitioning practices—from ‘monster’ petitions, to postcard campaigns and constitutional writs—by the proponents and opponents of the cow protection movement from the late nineteenth century through to the first decades of independence. The article shows that, instead of disciplining and formalizing popular politics, petitioning provides channels for mobilization and disruption. As Hindus and Muslims engaged in competitive petitioning to rally a public, persuade the executive, or litigate through the courts, the question of cow slaughter was recast from one of community representation to religious belief, to property rights, to federalism, and, finally, questions of national economic development. In the absence of representative government in colonial India, Hindus for cow protection generated massive petitions which argued that they represented popular democratic will. Despite the lack of a constitution, Muslim petitioners sought to establish a judicially enforceable framework to protect their right to cow slaughter. Independence, which brought both democracy and a written constitution, caused a fundamental break with older claims and forms of petitioning, and led to both Hindus and Muslims seeking to settle the debate through writ petitions before constitutional courts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 53 , Special Issue 1: Petitioning and Political Cultures in South Asia , January 2019 , pp. 240 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to the editor and the two anonymous reviewers of MAS for their generous comments on this article.

References

1 ‘The Fine Print in the Beef Ban Judgment’, 10 May 2016: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/EReAgu6J8Ad5CSGWqTAGUJ/The-fine-print-in-the-beef-ban-judgement.html, [accessed 10 September, 2018]; ‘Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea to Ban Cow Slaughter, Sale of Beef’, 8 November 2015: http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/delhi-high-court-dismisses-plea-to-ban-cow-slaughter-sale-of-beef/story-Q7RdfDoGLAzj8Im0F2Q3JL.html, [accessed 10 September 2018]; ‘Delhi HC to Hear PIL on Ban on Possession of Beef’, 5 May 2016: http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-hc-to-hear-pil-against-ban-on-possession-of-beef-2785061/, [accessed 10 September 2018]; ‘Madras High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Ban on Beef Consumption Near a Temple’, 26 May 2016: http://twocircles.net/2016mar26/1459006741.html#.WA4egSRyxX8, [accessed 10 September 2018].

2 ‘BSF Attacked by Smugglers, 6 Personnel Injured’, 2 August 2016: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/bsf-attacked-by-cattle-smugglers-6-personnel-injured-116080200639_1.html, [accessed on 10 September 2018].

3 There have been close to 4,000 petitions on change.org in the last five years demanding a cow slaughter ban in India, gaining between 40 to 9,000 signatures. See, for instance, ‘Stop Cattle Smuggling from West Bengal to Bangladesh across Indo-Bangla Border’, with 8,898 signatures: https://www.change.org/p/cattle-smuggling-from-west-bengal-to-bangladesh-across-indo-bangla-border-is-taking-new-routes-and-stop-cattle-smuggling-from-west-bengal-to-bangladesh-across-indo-bangla-border, [accessed 10 September 2018]; ‘Protect Cows and Their Sacrifice be Ban in India’, with 3,264 signatures: https://www.change.org/p/protect-cows-and-their-sacrifice-be-ban-in-india-naresh-kadyan, [accessed 10 September 2018].

4 Bayly, C. A., ‘The Pre-History of “Communalism”? Religious Conflict in India, 1700–1860’, Modern Asian Studies 19.2 (1985), pp. 177–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Edelman, Murray, ‘The Construction of Social Problems as the Buttress of Inequality’, University of Miami Law Review 42.7 (1987–1988), pp. 7–39Google Scholar.

6 McLane, John R., Indian Nationalism and the Early Congress (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Robinson, Francis, Separatism Among Indian Muslims: The Politics of the United Provinces’ Muslims, 1860–1923 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Freitag, Sandria, Collective Action and Community: Public Arenas and the Emergence of Communalism in North India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Pinney, Christopher, ‘ Photos of the Gods’: The Printed Image and Political Struggle in India (London: Reaktion Books, 2004), p. 108Google Scholar; Pandey, Gyan, ‘Rallying Around the Cow: Sectarian Strife in the Bhojpuri Region c. 1888–1917’, in Subaltern Studies Vol. II, Guha, Ranajit (ed.), (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

7 D. F. McCracken, ‘Note on the Anti-Kine Killing Agitation’, India Office Records, British Library (hereafter IOR) L/P&J/254/1894.

8 Office of the Assistant to the IG Police, Punjab, Special Branch, ‘Note on Agitation Regarding the Cow Question’, IOR/L/P&J/298/1884.

9 Sarasvati, Mitra Dayananda, Gōkaruṇānidhi (Tenāli: Satya Mitra Ārya, 1938)Google Scholar; [Gokaruṇānidhi] The Ocean of Mercy. An English Translation of Maharshi Swami Dayanand Saraswati's ‘Gocaruna Nidhi’ by Durga Prasad (Lahore: Virajanand Press, 1889). For a deeper engagement with both English and vernacular pamphlet literature on cow protection in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, see Adcock, Cassie, ‘Sacred Cows and Secular History: Cow Protection Debates in Colonial North India’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 30.2 (2010), pp. 297–311Google Scholar.

10 Office of the Assistant to the IG Police, Punjab, Special Branch, ‘Note on Agitation Regarding the Cow Question’, IOR/L/P&J/298/1884.

11 Appadurai, Arjun, ‘Gastro-Politics in Hindu South Asia’, American Ethnologist 8.3 (1981), pp. 494–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Letter from Charles Metcalfe, Resident at Delhi to J. Adam, Secretary to Governor General, 18 January 1818, reproduced in Dharampal, T. and Mukundan, T. M., The British Origin of Cow-Slaughter in India: With Some British Documents on the Anti-Kine-Killing Movement, 1880–1894 (Mussoorie: Society for Integrated Development of Himalayas, 2002), p. 85Google Scholar.

13 Yang, A. A., ‘Sacred Symbol and Sacred Space in Rural India: Community Mobilization in the “Anti-Cow Killing” Riot of 1893’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 22.4 (1980), p. 583CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 ‘Case for Notice of the Attorney General’, IOR/L/P&J/6/257/1889.

15 D. F. McCracken, Officiating General Superintendent, Thagi and Dacoity Department, ‘Note’, IOR/L/P&J/254/1894.

16 McLane, Indian Nationalism; Robinson, Separatism Among Indian Muslims.

17 McLane, Indian Nationalism, p. 273.

18 D. F. McCracken, Officiating General Superintendent, Thagi and Dacoity Department, ‘Note’, IOR/L/P&J/254/1894.

19 Lord Lansdowne's Minutes on the Anti-Kine Killing Movement, 28 December 1893, IOR/L/P&J/257/1894.

20 Freitag, Sandria, Collective Action and Community: Public Arenas and the Emergence of Communalism in North India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), p. 150Google Scholar.

21 Pinney, ‘Photos of the Gods’, p. 108; Pandey, ‘Rallying Around the Cow’.

22 Confidential Letter to Advocate General from D. J. Lyall, Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of India, IOR/L/P&J/6/376/1894, file 298.

23 In place of Regina v. x, the records of these trials were published as Gau Maharani v. Sita Ram Ahir, Gau Maharani v. Sheo Lochan and so on. See ibid.

24 Gandhi's writings are rife with references to ‘monster petitions’.

25 S.295, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

26 Queen Empress v. Iman Ali and Another, (1888) ILR 10 All 150.

27 See selections from newspapers in Northwest Provinces (and United Provinces) Newspapers Reports, IOR/L/R/5/65/1888.

28 The literature on this case also shows the opacity of the legal archive to historians. For instance, Mathew Grove castigates Frances Robinson and Gyan Pandey for providing the incorrect date of 1886 for the Allahabad High Court judgment when, in fact, the judgment was delivered in December 1887. Although this is the date Grove cites, the judgment was published and began to circulate only in 1888. In his review of this literature, Grove is particularly scathing about a number of factual errors and incorrect emphases in historians’ accounts of the court decisions. This is partly because scholars of the cow protection movement work with state archives, which hold executive and legislative records, and tend not to examine judicial sources, organized in the high courts or through legal publishing. See Grove, Matthew, ‘Law, Religion and Public Order in Colonial India: Contextualising the 1887 Allahabad High Court Case on “Sacred” Cows’, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 33.1 (2010), p. 92Google Scholar.

29 Office of the Assistant to the IG Police, Punjab, Special Branch, ‘Note on Agitation Regarding the Cow Question’, IOR/L/P&J/298/1884.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 Raghubar Dayal v. Ameeran Jahan, Second Appeal No. 1023 of 1881, Allahabad High Court, 4 May 1882 (Justices Brodhurst and Tyrell).

33 Nanbahar Singh v. Kabir Bux, AIR 1930 All 753.

34 Shahbaz Khan and Others v. Umrao Puri and Others, (1908) ILR 30 All 81.

35 Pir Ali Kasab and Others v. King Emperor, 56 Ind Cas 437.

36 Sheikh Muhammad Yakub v. Mangru Rai and Others, 7 Ind Cas 318.

37 Sheikh Muhammad Yakub v. King Emperor, 6 Ind Cas 454.

38 Subhan Mochi v. Babu Ram Singh and Others, AIR 1930 All 121.

39 S.42, Specific Relief Act, 1877.

40 Ori Lal v. Muhammad Yakub, [1914] 17 O.C. 354.

41 Suit No. 262 of 1931, cited in Kande and Others v. Jhanjhan Lal and Others, AIR 1936 All 1.

42 Suit No. 443 of 1933 (registered on 30 August 1932), cited in Kande and Others v. Jhanjhan Lal and Others, AIR 1936 All 1.

43 Kande and Others v. Jhanjhan Lal and Others, AIR 1936 All 1.

44 Rao, B. Shiva, Framing the Indian Constitution, Vol. IV (New Delhi: The Indian Institute of Public Administration, 1968), p. 56Google Scholar.

45 Gandhi, M. K, Prarthana Pravachan, 19 July 1947 (New Delhi: Sasta Sahitya Mandal, 1948), pp. 260–263Google Scholar.

46 M. K Gandhi, Speech at Prayer Meeting, 25 July 1947, ibid., pp. 277–280.

47 File 2-B/50, Rajendra Prasad Papers (Collection 1), National Archives of India (hereafter NAI).

48 Petition titled ‘Bharat Main Gobadh Turant Hata Deni ki Janata Ki Maang’ (‘The Public's Demand to Immediately End Cow Killing in India’), File 3-M/47, ibid.

49 ‘Mahatma Gandhiji Ke Naam Khula Patra’, Hindu dharma Pracharak Vibhaag, Srikrishna Bhandar, Gaurakshak Pakta, Jaipur, ibid.

50 Shanhi, Ornit, How India Became Democratic: Citizenship and the Making of the Universal Franchise (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Dhulekar, R. V., United Provinces, Constituent Assembly Debates (hereafter CAD), Vol. VIII, Wednesday, 24 November 1948 (Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat, 1949)Google Scholar.

52 Thakur Das Bhargava, East Punjab, ibid.

53 Koh-I-Nur, Lahore, 11 November 1882, cited in Selections from the Vernacular Newspapers Published in the Panjab, North-Western Provinces, Oudh, Central India, and Rajputana, pp. 771–772, IOR, Asian and African Studies Collection.

54 Zachariah, Benjamin, ‘Uses of Scientific Argument: The Case of “Development” in India, c. 1930–1950’, Economic and Political Weekly 36.39 (2001), pp. 3689–3702Google Scholar.

55 Thakur Das Bhargava, East Punjab, CAD.

56 In 1940, there were 11,56,00,960 oxen in India and by 1945 only 11,19,00,000 were left. That is to say, during those five years, there was a decrease of 37 lakhs in the number of oxen. Similarly, in 1940 the number of buffaloes was 3,28,91,300 and by 1945, this figure was reduced to 3,25,44,400. According to these figures, their number was reduced by four lakhs in these five years. Taken together, there was a total decrease of 41 lakhs. Thakur Das Bhargava, East Punjab, CAD.

57 Shibban Lal Saxena, United Provinces, CAD, 24 November 1948.

58 Seth Govind Das was an influential ‘Marwari’ businessman and served as a legislator for 32 years. His two main priorities were the adoption of Hindi as the national language and cow protection. He raised the issue of cow protection in the Council of State as early as 1927, served several terms as president of the All India Cow Protection Society, and was appointed a member of the Cattle Preservation Development Committee by the Ministry of Agriculture in 1947. He introduced a number of private member bills for a national ban on cow slaughter in the 1950s. See Hooja, Bhupendra, A Life Dedicated: Biography of Govind Das (Delhi: Seth Govind Das Diamond Jubilee Celebrations Committee, 1956)Google Scholar.

59 Seth Govind Das, ibid.

60 The request was made by S. Nagappa, who was also one of the few Backward Caste members of the assembly.

61 Bajpai, Rochana, ‘Constituent Assembly Debates and Minority Rights’, Economic and Political Weekly 35.22 (2000), p. 1837Google Scholar; Nigam, Aditya, ‘A Text without Author: Locating Constituent Assembly as Event’, Economic and Political Weekly 39.21 (2004), p. 2107Google Scholar.

62 It is surprising that none of the Congress members, like Nehru, who were otherwise opposed to or contemptuous of cow protection, spoke during the debate. They were possibly involved in back room negotiations that had taken place to get the cow protection amendment moved from fundamental rights to directive principles.

63 Syed Mohammad Saadullah, Assam: Muslim, CAD, 24 November 1948.

64 Chigateri, Shraddha, ‘Negotiating the Sacred Cow: Cow Slaughter and the Regulation of Difference in India’, in Democracy, Religious Pluralism and the Liberal Dilemma of Accommodation, Mookherjee, Monica (ed.), (Dordrecht, New York: Springer, 2011), pp. 137–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Adcock, ‘Sacred Cows and Secular History’.

66 ‘Protest of Mahomedans against Legislation for the Prevention of Cow Slaughter in Mysore’, FN 216/1930, NAI.

67 Dr B. R. Ambedkar, Bombay: General, CAD, 8 September 1949.

68 De, Rohit, A People's Constitution: The Everyday Life of Law in the Indian Republic (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Reform of Judicial Administration (New Delhi: Law Commission of India, 1958).

70 Writ Petitions Nos 136 of 1956, 128 of 1956, 144 of 1956, and 129 of 1957, Supreme Court Record Rood (hereafter SCRR).

71 Writ Petition No. 144 of 1956, ibid.

72 ‘Cow Slaughter Banned’, Daily Boston Globe, 9 January 1953.

73 Nafees Qureshi v. Union of India, 24 May 2017; Writ for Habeas Corpus 58469 of 2016, High Court of Allahabad.

74 Ayub and Others v. State of UP, AIR 1962 All 141.

75 ‘Conference of Butchers: Seeking Redress by Persuasion’, The Times of India, 15 April 1955.

76 For contemporary commentary on the same, see Rafiq Zakaria, ‘Legal Notes: Reasonable Classes in Good Faith’, The Times of India, 4 October 1958; Baxi, Upendra, ‘“The Little Done, the Vast Undone”. Some Reflections on Reading Granville Austin's The Indian Constitution’, Journal of the Indian Law Institute 9 (1967), p. 348Google Scholar. The Hanif Qureshi judgment entered canonical status in textbooks in Indian and comparative constitutional law as a freedom of religion case. See, for instance, Thiruvengadam, Arun Kumar, The Constitution of India: A Contextual Analysis (Bloomsbury: New Delhi, 2018), p. 201Google Scholar; Kommers, Donald P., Finn, John E. and Jacobsohn, Gary J. (eds), American Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, 2nd edn (Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield, 2009), p. 547Google Scholar; Hirschl, Ran, Comparative Matters: The Renaissance of Comparative Constitutional Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 95Google Scholar.

77 Art. 25(1) Constitution of India, 1950.

78 Sathe, S. P., ‘Cow Slaughter: The Legal Aspect’, in Cow-Slaughter: Horns of a Dilemma, Shah, Amritlal (ed.), (Bombay: Lalvani Publishing House, 1967), pp. 69–82Google Scholar.

79 ‘Counter Affidavit on Behalf of the State of U.P.’, Writ Petition No. 144 of 1956, SCRR.

80 Rafiq Zakaria, ‘Legal Notes: Reasonable Classes in Good Faith’, The Times of India, 4 October 1958.

81 Baxi, ‘“The Little Done”’, p. 348.

82 Mohd. Hanif Qureshi and Others v. State of Bihar (and Connected Petitions), AIR 1958 SC 731.

83 Written Reply in Union Minister for Food and Agriculture placed before the Lok Sabha, 5 December 1953, SCRR.

84 Saghir Ahmad v. The State of U.P., [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707.

85 Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, Report on the Marketing of Cattle in India (Delhi: Manager of Publications, 1956), p. 24.

86 The Gosamvardhan Committee noted that in the state of UP, there was a deficiency of 60,000,000 tons of straw; 104,000,000 tons of green fodder, and 26,520,000 tons of concentrates such as oil cakes, bran, oil seeds, etc. The court devoted considerable time to attempting to estimate the actual gap in available feed.

87 The Committee's report was unanimously adopted by both legislatures in UP in 1955 and laid the basis for the total ban on cow slaughter. ‘Cow Slaughter Ban in UP’, The Times of India, 11 February 1955, p. 8.

88 Report of the Cattle Preservation and Development Committee (Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture, 1949), p. 47.

89 The court quoted from the Assam Cattle Protection Act, 1950; the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1948; the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950; the Hyderabad Slaughter of Animals Act, 1950; and the Tranvancore and Cochin Notification, 1951.

90 Lala Hardev Sahai, ‘Sarvocha Nyayalaya ka nirnay godhan ko katal se naheen bacha sakta: Pashu visheshagyon ka safal shadyantra’ (‘Supreme Court Decision Could not Save Cows from Slaughter: Animal Experts’ Successful Conspiracy’), File 277, Purushottam Das Tandon Papers, NAI.

91 Ibid.

92 Dulla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1958 All 198; Ayub v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 All 141.

93 ‘Puri Math Chief on Fast, Cow Slaughter Ban Demanded’, The Times of India, 21 November 1966.

94 Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2006 SC 212.

95 Indira Jaisingh, Amritananda Chakravorty and Meher Dev, ‘It's Time the Supreme Court Untangled its Contradictory Rulings on Cow Protection’: http://thewire.in/59924/untangling-the-supreme-courts-contradictory-rulings-on-cow-protection/, [accessed 10 September 2018].