A public interest litigation has been filed by Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh before the Calcutta High Court to stop animal sacrifices in temples across West Bengal..— .KARAN Singh, who is a well-known politician and author, wrote in his essay "Hinduism—An Overview", published in a book called Essays on Hinduism that, "In fact, Hinduism calls itself Sanatana Dharma, the eternal faith, because it is not based upon teachings of a single preceptor but on the collective wisdom and inspiration of great seers and sages from the very dawn of Indian civilisation.".Karan Singh is absolutely right in asserting that Hinduism is unlike Semitic religions which are based on fixed and identifiable principles of morality. Hinduism is not centripetal but, if I may be allowed to say, it is essentially centrifugal. Anyone with an iota of knowledge would know that within the folds of the Hindu religion, there are sharp divergences of views on the same question..Mahatma versus Manu.Many, including Karan Singh, see a modern incarnation of the great Hindu philosophers in M.K. Gandhi. Readers of Gandhi would know well that he was known for his eccentric views on social, philosophical, economic and political questions..Gandhi's views on Hinduism and, in particular, on the slaughtering of animals, are to be found in an essay called "Hinduism" (Young India, Vol. III) published in The Writings of Gandhi: A Selection, Edited by Ronald Duncan..“Karan Singh is absolutely right in asserting that Hinduism is unlike Semitic religions which are based on fixed and identifiable principles of morality..This is what we find there: "The central fact of Hinduism, howsoever is cow protection… The cow is a poem of pity. One reads pity in the gentle animal… The way to protect her is to die for her. It is a denial of Hinduism and Ahimsa to kill a human being to protect a cow….Also read: Even Ganapati cannot fix the breach of people's trust in the judiciary."I consider it positive irreligion to sacrifice goats to Kali and do not consider it a part of Hinduism… And so also, it seems to me that when cow protection became an article of faith with our ancestors, those who persisted in eating beef were excommunicated.".Was this indeed the case as the Mahatma asserts? Is slaughtering and consumption of meat, say of cow, buffalo or goat, really forbidden for the Hindus? Is this view shared uniformly by Hindus across the board?.For example, let me take you to a text that is today hated and revered in equal measure by the Left and the Right in India. The name of the text is Manusmriti or The Laws of Manu authored by the sage Manu..I shall quote from Wendy Doniger's 1991 translation. Manu not only recommends the consumption of 'tasty meats' (Chapter 3, Verse 227) but in verses 267–272 of the same chapter, provides us with a list of animals that should be slaughtered when one is performing oblations for one's ancestors..The list of animals includes fish, birds, goats, spotted deer, black antelope, gazelle, boars and buffaloes, rabbits and tortoises, leather-nose (it could refer to a white he-goat with long ears or a bird with black neck, white wings and a red head), sacred basil, large-scaled fish, the rhinoceros and red goats..So we can see that the culinary list of Manu is fairly long and variegated. What is even more surprising is that Manu, who otherwise thinks that the food touched by the 'lower'-caste person becomes polluted (Chapter 3, Verse 241) has no hesitation in saying this in Chapter 5, Verse 131, "The meat of an animal killed by dogs or killed by carnivores or by aliens such as 'fierce' Untouchables is unpolluted.".Manu, as we can see, took a 'Left' position on the issue of slaughtering and consumption of meats unlike the 'Father of the Nation', who took a position that is popular amongst typical right-wingers today..Who is the writ petitioner?.This brings us to a writ petition filed before the Calcutta High Court recently. The matter was heard on October 28, 2024 by a division Bench comprising Justice Biswajit Basu and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta..Also read: Rethinking the 'pure-veg' discourse through the lens of animal rights and marginalised communities.The petition has been filed by Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh. According to the petition, it is an institution founded by Rashtrapita M.K. Gandhi in 1941. The petition also says that veterans such as Acharya Vinoba Bhave, Jamnalal Bajaj and Janaki Devi Bajaj have been its patrons and heads of this institution..“Was this indeed the case as the Mahatma asserts? Is slaughtering and consumption of meat, say of cow, buffalo or goat, really forbidden for the Hindus?.Purportedly, it aims for the welfare of animals. The institution has been instrumental in getting animal preservation laws amended and enacted in five states. It was at the insistence of this institution, the petition avers, that Madhya Pradesh imposed a strict ban on the consumption of beef in 1991. The same was done subsequently in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Delhi, where the ban continues..Why have they approached the Calcutta High Court?.There is a famous temple of Goddess Kali at South Dinajpur, West Bengal. It is known as the Bolla temple. According to the legend, once a zamindar (landlord) was arrested by the British, for failing to pay taxes. He prayed to Goddess Kali that if he was exempted from paying taxes and released, he would offer a sacrifice..Goddess Kali herself rescued him and he built the temple to worship her. He was released on a Friday that followed the 'Rush Purnima'. So, after 'Rush Purnima' Kali puja is celebrated, where a large number of animals are sacrificed. The petitioner prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to stop such sacrifices not only at the Bolla Kali temple but at other temples across West Bengal..What happened at the court on October 28?.When the matter was taken up, Justice Biswajit Basu asked the petitioner if they wanted the court to pass an Order banning the slaughter of animals in the entire state or just for the Bolla temple located at South Dinajpur..The counsel for the petitioner, Vinay Shraff, informed the court that they were merely seeking direction with regard to the Bolla temple where Goddess Kali is worshipped..He then informed the court that during the festival as many as 10,000 animals including goats and buffaloes are slaughtered. He stated, "To have the protection of Article 25 of the Constitution of India, it must be proved that the same is part of the essential practice of a religion.".Also read: Caste and cuisine— societal implications of Zomato's Pure Veg Fleet.The counsel then drew the attention of the court to the averments contained in Paragraph 27 of the writ petition in which the petitioners state that they had met Shankaracharya of Dwarka Sharada Peetham Math, one of the four cardinal monasteries of Hinduism, Swami Sadanand Saraswati Maharaj, who happens to be an authority on the textual interpretation of Hindu scriptures..“Manusmriti says, "The meat of an animal killed by dogs or killed by carnivores or by aliens such as 'fierce' Untouchables is unpolluted." He had opined that as per the Vedas and Upanishads, animal sacrifice was not permissible. The Bench then informed the petitioner that "religious practices in Bengal are different from that of northern India". The counsel pleaded, "Let there be symbolic sacrifices. I am not praying that there cannot be any consumption."The Bench then reminded the Advocate General Kishore Dutta that the petitioner wanted to restrict its prayer only to one temple for now. To which the Advocate General replied that in that case no public interest is involved, it is a dispute between X and Y.He questioned whether the petition could be treated as a public interest litigation (PIL) under PIL rules since no public interest was involved. Secondly, there are numerous judgments of the Supreme Court that state that if a petitioner wants to ban the practice of animal slaughter, then the way to do so is to get legislation passed.Thirdly, the slaughtering of animals is protected by Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 1960. Section 28 of the Act states, "Saving as respects manner of killing prescribed by religion: Nothing contained in this Act shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community."The Bench then reminded the petitioner that Section 28 of the Act of 1960 has not been challenged. The petitioner replied, "I am not challenging Section 28. This particular sacrifice that is happening is not protected by it." “The court opined in a lighter vein that, "My Advocate General cannot live without a piece of fish on a daily basis." At the conclusion of the arguments, the Bench reminded the petitioner that the food habits in Eastern India differ majorly from other parts. It opined in a lighter vein that, "My Advocate General cannot live without a piece of fish on a daily basis." To which the Advocate General stated, "Yes, yes, I am a strict non-vegetarian."The petitioner reminded the court that another similar matter was being heard in Reforms Social Welfare Foundation & Anr versus Union of India & Others. The Bench, on the prayer of the advocate for the petitioner, decided to tag this matter with the pending PIL. The matter shall be taken up after the vacation when the regular court resumes its work.
