Viniyog Parivar Trust Is An NGO Working Under The ‘‘Jain Sangh”
Donation Exempted Under S. 80 (G) Of Income Tax Act. Registered Under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act.

Cruelties in Abattior (!)  Hygienic  Meat (!!) My Foot !!!

Of late there is a spurt of articles and essays in the media on the subject of cruelty being inflicted on animals in the slaughter houses all over the country. These articles condemn the cruelty. However, at the root of these articles are anti-nation and traitor-like forces who wish total destruction of the cattle wealth of the nation and thereby drag the country initially towards economic slavery and thereafter to perpetual political slavery.

There is a hue and cry emanating from individuals and institutions concerned with animal welfare also voicing their concern about the cruelties in slaughter houses. However, there is a vast difference between the objectives of both these groups.

The objective of the first group is to instigate and agitate people’s mind against the cruelties and the unhygienic conditions in the existing abattoirs and thereby creating an opinion which favours setting up of modern abattoirs all over the country. The objective the second group is to propagate the view that the animals have as much right to their lives as human beings and as such, leave aside killing them, even inflicting minor cruelties on them is not acceptable.

However, unfortunately, the forces which have the welfare of animals at their heart are not sending a clear message conveying that the animals should not be killed at all. Instead, they only say that no cruelties should be inflicted on the animals. This is a half hearted approach and their agitated voice gets mixed up and emboldens the voice of other forces who are out to destroy the cattle wealth, and therefore, advocate setting up of modern abattoirs all over the country. The Government machinery immedi ately responds to this loud noise of the animal destructors and creates an impression that the policies and programmes of setting up large mechanised abattoirs all over the country is in response to the people’s demand and particularly in response to the de mands of animal welfare activists whether they are individuals or institutions. Very cleverly an atmosphere is being created which will justify and legitimise the setting up of large mechanised abattoirs in the entire rural landscape of India.

The Government propaganda machinery and their accomplice group of vested interests who are out to destroy the cattle wealth of the nation, advance various arguments in support of their view points. Some of the arguments extended by them are as under;

1) The modern mechanised abattoirs will produce `hyienic' meat in place of the unhygienic meat being produced presently in the
existing abattoirs.

2) Meat is a food for human beings.

3) 75% of the world’s population prefers meat eating.

4) Export of meat earns foreign exchange for the nation.

5) The modern abattoirs will be so set up that no cruelty will be inflicted on animals to be slaughtered in abattoirs.

6) The modern abattoirs will not result in any sort of pollution.

7) The meat industry provides employment and livelihood to the persons engaged in such industry.

8) The health of workers in the existing abattoirs is gravely affected by the conditions in existing abattiors etc... etc...

All the above arguments are misleading, baseless and fraught with ulterior motives.

While each one of the above arguments will be refuted a little later there is one basic question which needs to be answered and that question is, whether meat at all is a food for human beings and by human beings we mean civilised human beings. Nature has created human beings in an entirely different way, different from wild animals and other living species. Nature also endowed the human beings with the intelligence, wisdom and means to grow foodgrains to meet their sustenance requirement. Giving up hunting of animals for food and the switch over to agriculture, dairy etc. was a major step in the evolution of civilisation of human race. The taste of meat may lure individuals towards meat eating, but it cannot take the place of food; food which sustains life and which is a staple diet for the entire life of an indi vidual. The arguments of shortage of foodgrains and hence meat being supplemental to the requirements is a bogus argument. Mother earth and mother nature still have the capacity to grow foodgrains to meet the requirements of the entire mankind. The flaw lies in the distribution system or the system which affects access to foodgrains. If these flaws are corrected the problem of scarcity of foodgrains will automatically disappear. Meat is not food of civilized human race and any attempt to project it as such bares only the barbaric instinct of the advocates of meat eating.

Let us now examine each of the above listed arguments which support production of meat in modern abattoirs.

1) The first argument is that the modern abattoirs will yield ‘hygienic’ meat. It is a mockery to classify meat into ‘hygienic’ meat and ‘unhygienic’ meat. Meat itself is an unhygienic product irrespective of the conditions in the slaughter houses.The Western countries are so much advanced technologically and the slaughter houses in western countries meet the utmost stringent conditions of hygiene. Despite this, there is growing awareness and medical evidence in western countries that meat eating is the source of several serious diseases living organism always secrets various toxic acids and this process continues through out the life of the organism. Same holds good for animals also and their meat is always contaminated by such toxic substances and these substances enter the human body through the meat.

It will be worthwhile to note what our ancient shastras say about meat. There is one sloka which reads as under:

It means that innumerable bacteria get germinated in a piece of meat, whether it is in raw form, whether it is being cooked or whether it is already cooked. These bacteria do not come as a contaminating agent from outside but get germinated in the meat itself and that is why under the Aryan culture, the religious shastras forbade eating of meat. It is purely from the angle of health that meat eating was forbidden.

Even those who are allergic to messages emanating from religious ‘shastras’ and whose so-called logical minds accept only what comes from the West ‘with a scientific base’ (!) will also agree that meat eating is injurious to health.

In this background it will be appreciated that the bogies of‘hygienic’ and ‘unhygienic’ meat is deliberately created to sway the public opinion in favour of setting up of large abattoirs to serve the vested interests of the meat lobby and also the stooges in Government.

2) It is said that 75% of world’s population prefers meat eating.

Meat is not a staple item of food. Even these 75% of world’s population who prefer meat eating consume meat with foodgrains. Only the wild animals can survive on the diet of meat alone, the human beings cannot. Further, it is irrefutable that 100% of the world’s population survives on foodgrains. Human beings can live without meat through out the life but not without foodgrains even for a few days. When this is the situation, the priority of the Government should be to first concentrate on meeting requirements of 100% of the population i.e. foodgrains. There is so much hunger all over the world and there is so much shortage of foodgrains affordable by the poor masses. If the authorities are really concerned about the welfare of the masses they should first meet the requirements of 100% of the population rather that the requirements of 75% of the population.

It is now well known that 16 kgs. of foodgrains are required to be fed to an animal for increasing its body weight by formation of 1 kg. of meat. There are countries in Latin America where almost entire cultivable land is used to grow foodgrains for animals reared for slaughter and the human population there starves for want of foodgrains. Increasing meat consumption and promoting it to serve the causes of the vested interest will add to the shortage of foodgrains.

4) It is argued that export of meat will earn foreign exchange for the country. While this argument will be refuted a little later, this concept of commercial exploitation gives rise to a very pertinent question and that is, whether meat is an item of food to meet the local requirement of the country or a commodity to be traded in or to be exported. If it is considered as an item of food to meet the need of local population, it is excusable, though to a very limited extent. However, when it is perceived as a commercial commodity for earning commercial gains, it is highly objectionable. There is no prudence at all in destroying the precious wealth of the nation which is a permanent damage to the economic fabric in so many ways and earn some short term and short sighted gains.

Further, if earning foreign exchange is the aim to slaughter the precious wealth, it can be established that letting this wealth survive will help in earning manifold foreign exchange (by saving unnecessary expenses on import of chemical fertilisers, diesel, petrol and now even dung). How preserving the cattle wealth can result in saving of foreign exchange is a very vast subject and is left at that stage for the present.

The Aryan culture and the Rishis and Munis of our country had realised that meat eating can at best be an individual choice but cannot be a concept to be taken care of by the State authority. Despite the various adverse features associated with meat eating, if an individual in his own wisdom still choses to consume meat and other animal products, it could be his own choice. However, no State authority can and should take up the responsibility of providing meat for the consumption of the meat eaters and more so it can never think of exploiting this as a commercial venture.

5) It is argued that no cruelty will be inflicted on animals in the modern abattoirs. This argument is a mockery and a cruel mockery. How can the people who are concerned about the cruelties being inflicted on animals forget that forcibly taking away the life of an innocent animal by killing it is the utmost cruelty. How can one say that I am deeply anguished by the animal getting maimed but it does not matter for him if the animal is killed. This argument is so perverse and so hollow that it cannot stand even a moment’s scrutiny.

6) It is also argued that the modern abattoirs will not add to the pollution. This is impossible. In the present conditions of the slaughter houses, where discharge of abattoirs’ effluents is out in the open and is within the public gaze and hence the pollutant conditions are noticed and talked about. By modernising the abattoirs, is it possible that the abattoirs’ effluents will not get created? Is it possible that the abattoirs’ floors will not be washed clean of the animals’ blood? Is it possible that the carcasses of the animals will not be disposed off? All these will happen and will happen on larger scale. However, the only difference will be that all these effluents and their dischargewill be kept away from the public gaze. May be the water will be discharged not in nearby nalas or rivers but underground. Thus, instead of polluting the water above the earth surface, it will pollute the sub-soil water. Instead of dumping the carcasses in nearby open fields, the carcasses will be stored within large premises of such abattoirs and will be disposed off after extracting the marrow and other substances from such carcasses. Same thing will hold good for other effluent discharge.

7) It is argued that production of meat by setting up more and more abattoirs will provide employment to workers. This again is a hollow argument. All the slaughter houses of the country put together will not provide employment to as many people as those who can be provided employment by letting the animals live. This also can be proved by hard statistics to those who are interested. Lakhs of farmers, lakhs of herdsmen, lakhs of people living on the wool of sheep and goats, lakhs of rug weavers can be provided employment if the animals are allowed to live.

8) It is argued that the health of the workers in the abattoirs operating at present is adversely affected. This can be a reason to close down the abattoirs rather than setting up new and largeabattoirs. The basic reason for adverse effect on the health ofthe workers in the abattoirs is that they have to handle substances which are disease causing. They will come in contact with the same substances even in the modern abattoirs also.There is psychological aspect also to this problem.

The abattoirworkers who practically live their entire life in surroundings where violence in its crudest form dances around, become psycho logically insensitive, which affects them and their entire family which becomes immune to the finer feelings which only a human heart is capable of having. Workers accept employment in slaughter houses as they are compelled to cling to whatever sources of employment comes their way. If they have choice of another vocation, none would like to be engaged in such horrible occupation and this choice of another occupation may be provided tothem if the animals are allowed to live and various cottage and other industries based on such animals are allowed to flourish.

Thus it will be seen that all the arguments extended by the protagonists of modern mechanised abattoirs are absolutely hollow and are extended with ulterior motive of creating an atmosphere which will result in immense profits for those engaged in the trade of meat. The people at large must see through this game plan and raise their voice in agitation against the government’s policy of setting up of more and more large abattoirs in the rural areas of the country.

The onslaught of the western culture, western development model and western life style is weaning away our population towards a very disastrous future and the people should awake in time and thwart all possible efforts of the vested interests to lead the nation and its people on this disastrous path.