Why did the government take close to five months to warm up to the protesting wrestlers? How come in a matter of days the Sports Minister Anurag Thakur changed his stand from “we have done everything the wrestlers asked for” and “now the law will take its course” to “we are willing to have a discussion” and “chargesheet will be filed by June 15”?Hidden in this spectacular climbdown is the failure of the government to understand the gravity of sexual harassment allegations against the erstwhile WFI chief BJP MP Brij Bhushan Saran Singh and also the resolve of the Olympians—Vinesh Phogat, Sakshi Malik, Bajrang Punia—at the helm of the protest. The wrestlers have shown that they aren’t some seasonal sloganeers. This realisation has dawned late on the government negotiators.For months now, there has been an attempt to dismiss the Jantar Mantar sit-in as a politically backed move by opportunists to take over WFI. In their frantic search for the layers of intrigue, the authorities remained blind to the crystal clear core of the case—the seven police complaints with graphic details of repeated abuse by Singh. On the eve of the new parliament opening, with the wrestlers planning a march to the capital, there were late night talks to pressurise the protestors. The wrestlers didn’t relent. They took to the streets and got detained. The pictures of Delhi Police’s high-handedness went viral, the International Olympic Council (IOC) found them disturbing and the global media put them on their front pages. The Sports Ministry should have known the country’s top wrestlers better. Vinesh, Sakshi and Bajrang are masters of a sport that gives an athlete just six-minutes to showcase the skills they have sharpened for years. Their minds don’t freeze under duress, they can’t be hustled into making rushed decisions. The ticking clock is their bio-rhythm, they know how to stretch seconds. Their aggression isn’t about bravado, it is a calculated computation of rewards and risk.The backstories of wrestlers, all from modest families from rural areas, have long periods of hopelessness. They haven’t got anything easy. They fight, they fall, they stand, they win—that’s been their life story.World Championship medalist Vinesh has been the face of the protest. A self-proclaimed “moofat” (straight talker), she by her own wish, mostly keeps away from the high-profile negotiations. She is the Stubborn One, the hard nut that doesn’t crack easily. It’s the time and place that shapes a person’s character and Vinesh had no option but to be strong-willed and stubborn.Vinesh was 9 when her father was shot dead by, what the family says, a mentally unstable relative at the front gate of their home. In their neck of the woods, Vinesh says, the life of a young widow was a curse. On the day her father died, mother Premlata lost the right to smile. It could be wrongly interpreted by the village’s men folk.Within a year of her father’s death, Premlata’s scans showed cancer. For the housewife, unaccustomed to the world outside home, this was a bolt from the blue. For chemotherapy she had to travel by bus to Rohtak. Illiterate and alone, she had to embrace the unknown, familiarise the unexplored. Circumstances would give Premlata a crash course in being worldly wise and be the single mother of a sporting icon.Last month at Jantar Mantar, on a sultry May evening, Vinesh had agreed for an Idea Exchange with The Indian Express sports team. During the interaction that went on for more than an hour, Vinesh got emotional when asked about mother. Hidden in the answer was the reason behind the stubbornness of the tough nut.“No one supported my mother. We grew up seeing her struggle. If a single woman, who was illiterate, could fight society on her own and make us big wrestlers, then we can do it too. If we don’t speak out today, then all the struggles of my mother would have gone to waste. I won medals, that’s all right, but if we win this battle, she will proudly say, ‘I gave birth to them’,” she would say.Sakshi too was an outlier in society where wrestling wasn’t a common career choice for young girls. Unlike the Phogats, she wasn’t from a wrestling family. Her father was a Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) driver and mother an anganwadi worker. Back in the day, girls didn’t train with boys. Sakshi’s coach Ishwar Dahiya once told this paper the taunts he had to hear when his academy turned gender neutral. “I was told that I was mad to have boys and girls wrestle together. Kya sher aur bakri ek ghat se peete hain? (Can a lion and a goat drink water from the bank?)” he says. The male as predator, the female as prey – it was a sickening, but apt, stereotype for a society where gender disparity had been normalised. Once again it was the mother’s push that put an Indian wrestler on the world stage. It was she who forced the family to sell their old home and move closer to the stadium where she trained. They were driven, they didn’t want their sacrifice to go to waste. .In the medal bout at Olympics, Sakshi was trailing 1-5 with two minutes to go. Lesser wrestlers would have given up but Sakshi was patient. She knew she had to pounce but the timing of the killer move had to be perfect. Her trademark ‘double leg’ attack gave her an 8-5 lead and a historic bronze. “Even when I trailed I knew I could win. I had to win,” she would say. At Jantar Mantar, for these past few months, that same ‘I had to win’ belief prevails.Bajrang, the engine behind the protest, epitomises this positivity. Known as the comeback man, he is at the head of the table at all negotations. Stories of his endurance are part of Indian wrestling circuit. It is said that once the Olympic bronze medalist did more than 1000 squats. It’s his strength and stamina that make him the last man standing at most bouts. Most of his famous wins are because of his final flourish. He tires his opponents, waits for an opening and drives in like a truck. Just when the world thinks he has sunk, he unties the ropes and surfacing triumphantly over the waters like Houdini.At the post Tokyo Olympics Express Adda in 2021, the two medalists Bajrang and Neeraj Chopra had come together to share their success stories. Here, he dwelled on a trait that makes them world beaters. It was after Bajrang gave the behind-the-scenes story of the bronze medal bout which he won with an injured knee. “The doctor had said you are responsible if you play because your injury can become worse and you might need surgery. I said even if it breaks, it doesn’t matter…. An Olympic medal comes first,” he had said.Nodding his head all through Bajrang’s answer, Chopra would intervene. “In Haryana, we have a saying, ke karegi tayari jab ladegi jidd aari, meaning sometimes our preparation may not be as good, but it’s our stubbornness that helps us win”. At least, the Sports Ministry should have known the jidd of our wrestlers.Send your feedback to sandydwivedi@gmail.com
Why did the government take close to five months to warm up to the protesting wrestlers? How come in a matter of days the Sports Minister Anurag Thakur changed his stand from “we have done everything the wrestlers asked for” and “now the law will take its course” to “we are willing to have a discussion” and “chargesheet will be filed by June 15”?Hidden in this spectacular climbdown is the failure of the government to understand the gravity of sexual harassment allegations against the erstwhile WFI chief BJP MP Brij Bhushan Saran Singh and also the resolve of the Olympians—Vinesh Phogat, Sakshi Malik, Bajrang Punia—at the helm of the protest. The wrestlers have shown that they aren’t some seasonal sloganeers. This realisation has dawned late on the government negotiators.For months now, there has been an attempt to dismiss the Jantar Mantar sit-in as a politically backed move by opportunists to take over WFI. In their frantic search for the layers of intrigue, the authorities remained blind to the crystal clear core of the case—the seven police complaints with graphic details of repeated abuse by Singh. On the eve of the new parliament opening, with the wrestlers planning a march to the capital, there were late night talks to pressurise the protestors. The wrestlers didn’t relent. They took to the streets and got detained. The pictures of Delhi Police’s high-handedness went viral, the International Olympic Council (IOC) found them disturbing and the global media put them on their front pages. The Sports Ministry should have known the country’s top wrestlers better. Vinesh, Sakshi and Bajrang are masters of a sport that gives an athlete just six-minutes to showcase the skills they have sharpened for years. Their minds don’t freeze under duress, they can’t be hustled into making rushed decisions. The ticking clock is their bio-rhythm, they know how to stretch seconds. Their aggression isn’t about bravado, it is a calculated computation of rewards and risk.The backstories of wrestlers, all from modest families from rural areas, have long periods of hopelessness. They haven’t got anything easy. They fight, they fall, they stand, they win—that’s been their life story.World Championship medalist Vinesh has been the face of the protest. A self-proclaimed “moofat” (straight talker), she by her own wish, mostly keeps away from the high-profile negotiations. She is the Stubborn One, the hard nut that doesn’t crack easily. It’s the time and place that shapes a person’s character and Vinesh had no option but to be strong-willed and stubborn.Vinesh was 9 when her father was shot dead by, what the family says, a mentally unstable relative at the front gate of their home. In their neck of the woods, Vinesh says, the life of a young widow was a curse. On the day her father died, mother Premlata lost the right to smile. It could be wrongly interpreted by the village’s men folk.Within a year of her father’s death, Premlata’s scans showed cancer. For the housewife, unaccustomed to the world outside home, this was a bolt from the blue. For chemotherapy she had to travel by bus to Rohtak. Illiterate and alone, she had to embrace the unknown, familiarise the unexplored. Circumstances would give Premlata a crash course in being worldly wise and be the single mother of a sporting icon.Last month at Jantar Mantar, on a sultry May evening, Vinesh had agreed for an Idea Exchange with The Indian Express sports team. During the interaction that went on for more than an hour, Vinesh got emotional when asked about mother. Hidden in the answer was the reason behind the stubbornness of the tough nut.“No one supported my mother. We grew up seeing her struggle. If a single woman, who was illiterate, could fight society on her own and make us big wrestlers, then we can do it too. If we don’t speak out today, then all the struggles of my mother would have gone to waste. I won medals, that’s all right, but if we win this battle, she will proudly say, ‘I gave birth to them’,” she would say.Sakshi too was an outlier in society where wrestling wasn’t a common career choice for young girls. Unlike the Phogats, she wasn’t from a wrestling family. Her father was a Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) driver and mother an anganwadi worker. Back in the day, girls didn’t train with boys. Sakshi’s coach Ishwar Dahiya once told this paper the taunts he had to hear when his academy turned gender neutral. “I was told that I was mad to have boys and girls wrestle together. Kya sher aur bakri ek ghat se peete hain? (Can a lion and a goat drink water from the bank?)” he says. The male as predator, the female as prey – it was a sickening, but apt, stereotype for a society where gender disparity had been normalised. Once again it was the mother’s push that put an Indian wrestler on the world stage. It was she who forced the family to sell their old home and move closer to the stadium where she trained. They were driven, they didn’t want their sacrifice to go to waste. .In the medal bout at Olympics, Sakshi was trailing 1-5 with two minutes to go. Lesser wrestlers would have given up but Sakshi was patient. She knew she had to pounce but the timing of the killer move had to be perfect. Her trademark ‘double leg’ attack gave her an 8-5 lead and a historic bronze. “Even when I trailed I knew I could win. I had to win,” she would say. At Jantar Mantar, for these past few months, that same ‘I had to win’ belief prevails.Bajrang, the engine behind the protest, epitomises this positivity. Known as the comeback man, he is at the head of the table at all negotations. Stories of his endurance are part of Indian wrestling circuit. It is said that once the Olympic bronze medalist did more than 1000 squats. It’s his strength and stamina that make him the last man standing at most bouts. Most of his famous wins are because of his final flourish. He tires his opponents, waits for an opening and drives in like a truck. Just when the world thinks he has sunk, he unties the ropes and surfacing triumphantly over the waters like Houdini.At the post Tokyo Olympics Express Adda in 2021, the two medalists Bajrang and Neeraj Chopra had come together to share their success stories. Here, he dwelled on a trait that makes them world beaters. It was after Bajrang gave the behind-the-scenes story of the bronze medal bout which he won with an injured knee. “The doctor had said you are responsible if you play because your injury can become worse and you might need surgery. I said even if it breaks, it doesn’t matter…. An Olympic medal comes first,” he had said.Nodding his head all through Bajrang’s answer, Chopra would intervene. “In Haryana, we have a saying, ke karegi tayari jab ladegi jidd aari, meaning sometimes our preparation may not be as good, but it’s our stubbornness that helps us win”. At least, the Sports Ministry should have known the jidd of our wrestlers.Send your feedback to sandydwivedi@gmail.com
Even as fanfare over the new Parliament building was projected as the major event, the image of the nation’s ace wrestlers being dragged by the police could not easily be set aside. These wrestlers publicly complained about sexual harassment and when there were efforts to whitewash the allegations, they resorted to a sit-in at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. Delhi Police, which reluctantly filed FIRs, have been very dutiful in pointing out that Jantar Mantar is a public place and wrestlers cannot be allowed to occupy it. In a way, Delhi Police are correct: Women are not allowed to occupy public places when they complain. As medal winners, they were accorded a place; as women and as complainants, they have none.The unresolved episode of their protests helps open our eyes to a number of systemic and public blind spots. All over the country, during the past few years, it has been common for the police to rush to file FIRs when self-appointed protectors of culture, nationalism and community pride ask for FIRs to be filed. But when it came to women wrestlers, it required the intervention of the Supreme Court for Delhi Police to file FIRs. So, the very first elementary systemic failure is the abdication of routine duty by the police. Nobody will be held accountable for that.Another failure may be laid at the door of the government — the sports ministry in particular but also the prime minister himself, who finds time to tweet and treat sportspersons to high tea when they win medals but refuses to even indirectly indicate concern in the matter of their alleged sexual harassment. More and more young women with talent are entering the arena of competitive athletic tournaments. They come, more often than not, from modest family backgrounds. The plight of women wrestlers and the neglect of their allegations of sexual harassment by authorities in sports bodies is poor advertisement for women’s participation in sports.Unfortunately, the Court extricated itself from the matter after the police assurance on FIRs. The present Court, granting that it has the best intentions, is beset with two self-inflicted limitations that debilitate the rule of law. The first is what constitutional expert Gautam Bhatia describes as the “executive’s court”. The Court tends to imagine and think the way the executive would do. Ironically, along with that, the other limitation of the Court has been that it very simplistically and romantically believes in institutional balance and separation. As a result, it has refused to actively enter into the executive domain — a virtue in ordinary circumstances but a problem when we are facing executive excesses without legislative control. The theory of separation of powers is fine on paper, but if the court shies away from entering into the executive domain in times of grave constitutional erosion, the rule of law is the casualty. In the wrestlers’ case, the Court refused to follow up on the matter. This distancing by the Court, which may be lauded for its nuanced balancing, has resulted in unfair treatment of the complainants and weakening of the rule of law.A more worrying trend witnessed in the past five to six weeks pertains to the vicious polarisation in the country today. Anything that remotely brings blame or questions at the door of the ruling dispensation is treated with suspicion and invites aspersions. The wrestlers have been criticised for taking too long to complain, for not having faith in the “committee” and for protesting publicly. In the cesspit of social media, sympathisers of the ruling party spew venom. Some would believe that there is an element of misogyny in this, but the undeniable point is the anger about putting the ruling party into a difficult position. In other words, we have lost the sense of perspective or proportion needed to make a distinction between political affiliation and concern about a larger malady. Political leaders would indeed feel gratified with the loyalty of followers but this adulation to the extent of extolling a moral wrong is fearsome — both for the leader and for society.Finally, where do we stand as a society in this episode? The allegations have been out there — along with the denials. This paper has reported the sordid details that sportspersons have listed in their FIRs. The moral question is: Are we stirred by this? By the images of wrestlers being dragged by police? By the details of predatory behaviour? If this happens to medal winners, what would be the plight of aspiring sportspersons?And this is not restricted to sportspersons, really. This applies, equally, to any other field. This is also not about sexual harassment alone; because at the root is the denial of equal citizenship. Ambedkar was keen on the element of “fraternity” — a word that adorns the Preamble. That word communicates a great responsibility on police, rulers, courts and on us as a society: That our nationhood and our constitutional democracy hinge on a sense of sisterhood among citizens.But in the wrestlers’ case, there has been no public outcry — only cautious commentaries in the media, a shameful silence by the elite, celebrities et al and cursory concern among the general public. It is a sad comment that only the “khaps” are coming out in support of the wrestlers. At the end of the day, the honour of women wrestlers will be easily reduced to a caste issue — protecting “our” girls (an unmistakably patriarchal outcome), rather than girls and women in general. While it is great that “kisan” leaders are coming out in support, it is also a limitation of the publicness of what a woman’s rights and dignity mean.Beyond the NCR and parts of Haryana, apart from a few token marches, public conscience is not stirred. Beyond formal visits to the venue of the protests, most political parties do not find this issue worthy of engaging on a sustained basis. All this indicates the fragility of our nationhood because we are willing to exclude questions of the rights and dignity of women, Adivasis, Dalits, Muslims, even though this exclusion shrinks the nation.At the moment, the wrestlers’ protest is drowned out, naturally, by the grief and shock of the train tragedy. But as our rulers remind us with supercilious smartness, tragedies like train accidents can be averted by the technology of Kavach. Hope that is true. But the plight of the wrestlers has shown that there are critical issues for which there is no kavach — neither law, nor public pressure.The writer taught political science at Savitribai Phule University, Pune
The Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020, which was brought into force by the previous BJP government, to impose a near total ban on cow slaughter in the state, is at the centre of a controversy again, now that the newly formed Congress government is making a move to withdraw the law.The Congress party indicated ahead of the 2023 state assembly polls, and during the poll campaign, that it intends to withdraw cow slaughter ban on account of difficulties faced by farmers due to restrictions imposed on the trade of sick and unproductive cattle by the 2020 law.The situation came to a head recently, after the new minister for animal husbandry in the Congress government, K Venkatesh, indicated the the party’s intent by saying “If bulls and buffaloes can be slaughtered, why not cows?”These remarks invited protests from the opposition BJP, which emphasised upon the sacrality of the cow in Hindu culture, and forced Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to indicate that any amendments to the 2020 law would only be done after due discussion. Randeep Singh Surjewala, Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP, also rebuked the animal husbandry minister for his remarks on Thursday.What is the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020?The law came into force in 2021 after being passed in the state legislative assembly and council by the ruling BJP government – amid objections by the opposition Congress and Janata Dal Secular parties. It is a stringent law to restrict the slaughter of all forms of cattle in the state.The 2020 law repealed and replaced the less stringent Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 which has been in the state since then. While the 1964 law banned the killing of “any cow or calf of she-buffalo” it allowed the slaughter of bullocks, and male or female buffalos if certified by a competent authority to be above the age of 12 years, incapacitated for breeding, or if deemed sick.Under the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020, cattle have been designated as “cow, calf of a cow and bull, bullock and he or she buffalo” and their slaughter is banned. The only exemptions are buffaloes above the age of 13 years and certified by a competent authority, cattle used in medical research, cattle certified for slaughter by a veterinarian to prevent spread of a disease, and very sick cattle.The new law has also increased punishment for breaking the law, to the range of three to seven years of jail, or fines ranging from Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakh or both. As per the 1964 law, the maximum punishment was for a period up to six months of imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs 1000.The new law also prescribes punishments for illegal transport of cattle, sale of meat and purchase or disposal of cattle for slaughter – namely, a prison term of three to five years, and a fine of Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakh.Why did the BJP introduce such a stringent law in the state?The ban on cattle slaughter has been a prominent demand of right-wing Hindutva groups like the RSS, the VHP and others, which form the core support base of the BJP. These groups have viewed cattle – especially the cow–– in a religious rather than an agrarian context.During the BJP’s tenure in Karnataka between 2008 and 2013 the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2010, was passed by the B S Yediyurappa led government.The 2010 law however did not receive the assent of the Governor, and the Congress party, which came to power in 2013 reverted to the less stringent 1964 law, which allowed cattle slaughter on a limited basis – especially those classified as being old, sick or unproductive on farms.After the BJP returned to power in 2019, the Cow Protection Cell of the party in Karnataka wrote to chief minister BS Yediyurappa seeking a re-introduction of the 2010 law that was shelved by the previous Congress government.“As the chief minister in 2010 you tried to enact the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2010. The Governor did not give his assent for the law to come into force. The Siddaramaiah government subsequently withdrew the bill,” the BJP Cow Protection Cell said in a letter to the CM dated August 27, 2019.“Now the BJP is once again in power in Karnataka and the party in its manifesto for the state assembly elections has stated the need for banning cow slaughter and introduction of a more stringent law than what was drafted in 2010. The government must examine the issue and introduce a bill in the next session of the state legislature,” the letter stated.In December 2020, the BJP government tabled and passed the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2020 in the state assembly while the opposition, Congress and JDS, staged a walkout. The opposition alleged gross violation of principles for functioning of the legislature by the BJP, in context of the manner in which the bill was tabled and passed without a debate.“It is considered necessary to repeal the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 to prohibit the slaughter of cattle and for the preservation and improvement of the breeds of cattle and to endeavour to organize agriculture and animal husbandry in terms of Article 48 of the constitution of India by enacting a comprehensive legislation,” the new law said in its statement of reasons for introduction.In February 2021, the bill was passed in the legislative council despite the BJP having fewer members than the combined strength of the Congress and JDS in the house. The two parties once again opposed the bill, with Congress leader BK Hariprasad stating that the BJP has double standards on cattle slaughter – one where it supports slaughter in states like Kerala, Goa, Manipur and Meghalaya, and another where it opposes slaughter.What have been the repercussions of the 2020 law?The agrarian economy has been majorly impacted by the 2020 law, especially in southern Karnataka, where cattle is an integral part of livelihood in terms of dairy farming and agriculture. Farmers have been up in arms over the ban on cattle slaughter, and there has been widespread complaints in the farming communities that the BJP’s ban on cattle slaughter has deprived farmers of alternatives when cattle fall sick or turn unmaintainable.The latent anger in the farming community against the cow slaughter ban, coupled with other aspects of the tenure of BJP government – including the high cost of fertilizers and fodder – is believed to have played a central role in the defeat of the BJP in the 2023 polls.Traditional cattle markets have been slowly shutting down and there were few merchants to buy cattle. Moreover, there have been also been incidents of right-wing cow vigilantes – who are granted immunity under the new law – taking law into their own hands to prevent the transportation of cattle for slaughter to states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu.“The government claims that the ban on cattle slaughter has benefitted the ecosystem but it has done nothing. Farmers would sell cattle earlier if they were unproductive but that cannot be done now. The cattle cannot be sold in the markets because a case will be filed against the farmer,” current Congress CM Siddaramaiah said in February 2023 as opposition leader.“Remove the cattle slaughter law, it is a hidden agenda and communal agenda. There are no buyers for sick and aged cattle. It is a loss for the farmers,” he said.What is the newly elected Congress government likely to do?One of the promises made by the Congress party in its manifesto for the 2023 Karnataka polls was “to repeal anti farmer laws enacted by the BJP government and to withdraw all politically motivated cases against farmers.”Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who has been a vocal supporter for the repeal of “anti farmer” laws like the cattle slaughter ban, the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) (Amendment) Act 2020, and the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2020, told a delegation of farmers recently that he will review calls for amendments to the Cattle Slaughter Act, the APMC Act and the Land Reforms Act.The Congress is likely to seek a return to the 1964 law, which imposed a ban on the slaughter of cows but allowed the restricted slaughter of cattle of other forms on the condition of old age, sickness and lack of productivity. The party is expected to project the move as being critical to the livelihood and economic survival of farmers, rather than a religious issue.“They (BJP) amended it once. We reverted it to the earlier provisions. They have amended it again. We will discuss it in the Cabinet meeting,” Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah said recently.However, the Congress party is likely to face strong opposition from the BJP on the matter and is expected to tread cautiously despite its numerical advantage in the legislative assembly. There are some concerns that a move to repeal the 2020 law ahead of the 2024 parliament polls may be detrimental to Congress interests in northern India, where the move could acquire a religious connotation that is unconnected to the realities of the agrarian economy.The word of caution given to the new Congress minister for animal husbandry by the Congress central leadership “to stay within his limits” on the cattle slaughter ban issue is seen as an indication of the Congress adopting a calibrated approach to fulfilling its poll promise to repeal “anti-farmer” laws enacted by the BJP.
The Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020, which was brought into force by the previous BJP government, to impose a near total ban on cow slaughter in the state, is at the centre of a controversy again, now that the newly formed Congress government is making a move to withdraw the law.The Congress party indicated ahead of the 2023 state assembly polls, and during the poll campaign, that it intends to withdraw cow slaughter ban on account of difficulties faced by farmers due to restrictions imposed on the trade of sick and unproductive cattle by the 2020 law.The situation came to a head recently, after the new minister for animal husbandry in the Congress government, K Venkatesh, indicated the the party’s intent by saying “If bulls and buffaloes can be slaughtered, why not cows?”These remarks invited protests from the opposition BJP, which emphasised upon the sacrality of the cow in Hindu culture, and forced Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to indicate that any amendments to the 2020 law would only be done after due discussion. Randeep Singh Surjewala, Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP, also rebuked the animal husbandry minister for his remarks on Thursday.What is the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020?The law came into force in 2021 after being passed in the state legislative assembly and council by the ruling BJP government – amid objections by the opposition Congress and Janata Dal Secular parties. It is a stringent law to restrict the slaughter of all forms of cattle in the state.The 2020 law repealed and replaced the less stringent Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 which has been in the state since then. While the 1964 law banned the killing of “any cow or calf of she-buffalo” it allowed the slaughter of bullocks, and male or female buffalos if certified by a competent authority to be above the age of 12 years, incapacitated for breeding, or if deemed sick.Under the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020, cattle have been designated as “cow, calf of a cow and bull, bullock and he or she buffalo” and their slaughter is banned. The only exemptions are buffaloes above the age of 13 years and certified by a competent authority, cattle used in medical research, cattle certified for slaughter by a veterinarian to prevent spread of a disease, and very sick cattle.The new law has also increased punishment for breaking the law, to the range of three to seven years of jail, or fines ranging from Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakh or both. As per the 1964 law, the maximum punishment was for a period up to six months of imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs 1000.The new law also prescribes punishments for illegal transport of cattle, sale of meat and purchase or disposal of cattle for slaughter – namely, a prison term of three to five years, and a fine of Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakh.Why did the BJP introduce such a stringent law in the state?The ban on cattle slaughter has been a prominent demand of right-wing Hindutva groups like the RSS, the VHP and others, which form the core support base of the BJP. These groups have viewed cattle – especially the cow–– in a religious rather than an agrarian context.During the BJP’s tenure in Karnataka between 2008 and 2013 the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2010, was passed by the B S Yediyurappa led government.The 2010 law however did not receive the assent of the Governor, and the Congress party, which came to power in 2013 reverted to the less stringent 1964 law, which allowed cattle slaughter on a limited basis – especially those classified as being old, sick or unproductive on farms.After the BJP returned to power in 2019, the Cow Protection Cell of the party in Karnataka wrote to chief minister BS Yediyurappa seeking a re-introduction of the 2010 law that was shelved by the previous Congress government.“As the chief minister in 2010 you tried to enact the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2010. The Governor did not give his assent for the law to come into force. The Siddaramaiah government subsequently withdrew the bill,” the BJP Cow Protection Cell said in a letter to the CM dated August 27, 2019.“Now the BJP is once again in power in Karnataka and the party in its manifesto for the state assembly elections has stated the need for banning cow slaughter and introduction of a more stringent law than what was drafted in 2010. The government must examine the issue and introduce a bill in the next session of the state legislature,” the letter stated.In December 2020, the BJP government tabled and passed the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2020 in the state assembly while the opposition, Congress and JDS, staged a walkout. The opposition alleged gross violation of principles for functioning of the legislature by the BJP, in context of the manner in which the bill was tabled and passed without a debate.“It is considered necessary to repeal the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 to prohibit the slaughter of cattle and for the preservation and improvement of the breeds of cattle and to endeavour to organize agriculture and animal husbandry in terms of Article 48 of the constitution of India by enacting a comprehensive legislation,” the new law said in its statement of reasons for introduction.In February 2021, the bill was passed in the legislative council despite the BJP having fewer members than the combined strength of the Congress and JDS in the house. The two parties once again opposed the bill, with Congress leader BK Hariprasad stating that the BJP has double standards on cattle slaughter – one where it supports slaughter in states like Kerala, Goa, Manipur and Meghalaya, and another where it opposes slaughter.What have been the repercussions of the 2020 law?The agrarian economy has been majorly impacted by the 2020 law, especially in southern Karnataka, where cattle is an integral part of livelihood in terms of dairy farming and agriculture. Farmers have been up in arms over the ban on cattle slaughter, and there has been widespread complaints in the farming communities that the BJP’s ban on cattle slaughter has deprived farmers of alternatives when cattle fall sick or turn unmaintainable.The latent anger in the farming community against the cow slaughter ban, coupled with other aspects of the tenure of BJP government – including the high cost of fertilizers and fodder – is believed to have played a central role in the defeat of the BJP in the 2023 polls.Traditional cattle markets have been slowly shutting down and there were few merchants to buy cattle. Moreover, there have been also been incidents of right-wing cow vigilantes – who are granted immunity under the new law – taking law into their own hands to prevent the transportation of cattle for slaughter to states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu.“The government claims that the ban on cattle slaughter has benefitted the ecosystem but it has done nothing. Farmers would sell cattle earlier if they were unproductive but that cannot be done now. The cattle cannot be sold in the markets because a case will be filed against the farmer,” current Congress CM Siddaramaiah said in February 2023 as opposition leader.“Remove the cattle slaughter law, it is a hidden agenda and communal agenda. There are no buyers for sick and aged cattle. It is a loss for the farmers,” he said.What is the newly elected Congress government likely to do?One of the promises made by the Congress party in its manifesto for the 2023 Karnataka polls was “to repeal anti farmer laws enacted by the BJP government and to withdraw all politically motivated cases against farmers.”Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who has been a vocal supporter for the repeal of “anti farmer” laws like the cattle slaughter ban, the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) (Amendment) Act 2020, and the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2020, told a delegation of farmers recently that he will review calls for amendments to the Cattle Slaughter Act, the APMC Act and the Land Reforms Act.The Congress is likely to seek a return to the 1964 law, which imposed a ban on the slaughter of cows but allowed the restricted slaughter of cattle of other forms on the condition of old age, sickness and lack of productivity. The party is expected to project the move as being critical to the livelihood and economic survival of farmers, rather than a religious issue.“They (BJP) amended it once. We reverted it to the earlier provisions. They have amended it again. We will discuss it in the Cabinet meeting,” Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah said recently.However, the Congress party is likely to face strong opposition from the BJP on the matter and is expected to tread cautiously despite its numerical advantage in the legislative assembly. There are some concerns that a move to repeal the 2020 law ahead of the 2024 parliament polls may be detrimental to Congress interests in northern India, where the move could acquire a religious connotation that is unconnected to the realities of the agrarian economy.The word of caution given to the new Congress minister for animal husbandry by the Congress central leadership “to stay within his limits” on the cattle slaughter ban issue is seen as an indication of the Congress adopting a calibrated approach to fulfilling its poll promise to repeal “anti-farmer” laws enacted by the BJP.
Taking cognizance of an investigation by The Indian Express, the Jharkhand government Friday formed a four-member panel to conduct a “high-level investigation” into “widespread irregularities” in the implementation of “Per Drop More Crop” – a key element of the Centre’s ambitious Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana – in the state.“Aapke report ka hawala dete hue ek samiti ka gathan kiya gaya hai. Samiti ke log vibhaag se hatt ke hain aur jaanch karne ka aadesh diya hai (I have ordered the formation of a committee based on your report. The panel members are not part of the [agriculture] department, and they have been told to inquire into the issue),” the state’s Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperatives Minister Badal Patralekh told The Indian Express. The panel has been told to revert with its findings in a week.In an investigation spanning a month-and-a-half, The Indian Express had visited 94 farmers in one of Jharkhand’s largest blocks — Chouparan in Hazaribagh — and two neighbouring blocks Churchu and Ichak, and found that for most, benefits of the scheme were only on paper. Among the findings of the investigation were misuse of Aadhaar cards to create beneficiaries, new equipment gathering dust, and some farmers not even aware that money had been collected by private companies in their name.Referring to the investigation, the BJP MP from Hazaribagh and former Minister of State for Finance Jayant Sinha tweeted: “We have been continuously highlighting the despicable corruption and the administrative decay in Jharkhand under the Hemant Soren government.” He further wrote that the Hazaribagh Deputy Commissioner must take “strict action”.In a letter to the Hazaribagh Deputy Commissioner Friday, Jharkhand Agriculture Secretary Abu Bakr Siddiqui wrote: “… attaching the photocopy of the edition of The Indian Express newspaper dated June 8, 2023… The news published in the newspaper seems to be of very serious nature… there are widespread irregularities reported in the newspaper in the implementation of drip irrigation system under Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sichai Yojna. It has been mentioned that in several blocks of Hazaribagh district – Chauparan, Churchu and Ichak – Aadhaar card and government funds are being misused in the implementation of this scheme… By not installing drip irrigation equipment by the implementing agency, it has been dumped at the beneficiary’s house. In such a situation, high-level investigation is necessary.”The four-member panel is headed by a sub-divisional officer and three members of the horticulture, sugarcane and agriculture departments.Agriculture Director Chandan Kumar, when contacted, said: “We have initiated an inquiry into the granular details. We will file FIRs against erring officials, and on the fudging of Aadhaar data. We will inquire if the companies are also responsible for wrongdoing, and if found guilty, we will blacklist them and also send data to the central government for further action.”In the course of its investigation, The Indian Express had found that only 17 of the 94 farmers listed as beneficiaries of the scheme were actually using drip irrigation. As many as 60 said they were “misled” into signing up for the scheme or had micro-irrigation equipment just dumped in their farms, and 17 said they did not know how their name made it to the list of beneficiaries. The investigation also focused on how the four-step verification process to ensure the scheme’s implementation had fallen flat under the watch of the state agriculture department, and was rigged by middlemen, who acting on behalf of companies, enrolled farmers as beneficiaries.
ON PAPER, a four-step verification process to ensure that the Centre’s micro irrigation scheme for farmers is implemented on the ground in Jharkhand is robust. But in practice, the process has fallen flat under the watch of the state agriculture department which is now waking up to how the process has been rigged by middlemen, who, acting on behalf of companies, enrolled farmers as beneficiaries.Take, for instance, the case of 70-year-old Lalji Thakur from Hazaribagh’s Lasodh village (Churchu block) and 65-year-old Arjun Singh from Ingunia village (Chouparan block). Both men are supposed beneficiaries of the scheme as per the records of the state agriculture department, with their Aadhaar details recorded in the system and third-party verification by Nabcons, a Nabard subsidiary, complete.Except, neither has a clue what the scheme is.According to Nabcons, Thakur has 4.34 acres in Lasodh village – far more than the one acre he told The Indian Express that he actually owns. An Aadhaar card is part of the verification records, but the photo isn’t his.In Singh’s case, there are similar discrepancies.The Indian Express sent both the Aadhaar cards from Nabcons records to the state Aadhaar office. An official who did not wish to be identified said they appear to have been photoshopped.Thakur told The Indian Express that a few men, who claimed to be representing a company, paid him a visit and took his Aadhaar card, promising benefits under some government schemes. He says he never filled out the form for the micro-irrigation scheme.A key part of the verification process – attestation by the mukhiya or a panchayat member – has also not happened. Sahdev Kisku, husband of mukhiya Punam Besra in Thakur’s village, said: “Just one or two persons do drip farming in my panchayat, that too on lease. I don’t remember signing any attestation document for Lalji Thakur. Also, he does not have that much land.”Typically, one of the 23 private companies empanelled by Jharkhand first reaches out to the farmers asking them to opt for the micro-irrigation scheme. If the farmer agrees, he needs to fill out a form with his details, including an “affidavit” which also has details of the land in his possession as well as his family tree (vanshavali). This is then attested by the mukhiya of the panchayat. Next, an elected panchayat member or a government employee must provide a “recommendation letter” verifying the details to be true.Post-installation, the farmer has to submit a “satisfaction letter” declaring the private company has installed the system properly. A third-party verification is then undertaken by Nabcons, which geotags (marks the latitude and longitude coordinates) of the land along with equipment. Nabcons also collects a video statement of the beneficiary along with Aadhaar details. Irrespective of the third-party verification, the agriculture department is required to independently verify 50 per cent of the beneficiaries.Like Thakur, Singh’s case is testimony to how this seemingly watertight system has loopholes. In Singh’s supposed video verification available with Nabcons, a person in his 20s can be seen holding up an Aadhaar card, details of which are not visible. “I don’t know who this person is. I have never seen him in my locality,” Singh said.When contacted, Nabcons Jharkhand Vice-President Suman Sahoo told The Indian Express: “This is a very serious matter and if there have been any loopholes in the verification process, we will have to re-strategise our verification process.”Sahoo said there were 15 verification agents or field monitors in the state to check if the drip or sprinkler irrigation equipment had been installed properly. Spelling out the challenges, he said, “Estimated area entered in the application details differs from the actual area in the field… (Company) agents show the same plot to different field monitors (verification agents) as different farmers’ fields. Farmer selection (by the private firms) is not done properly either, as some of the farmers don’t seem interested in using the micro irrigation system.”The state Agriculture Department said they pay Nabcons to verify beneficiary details. When contacted, Chandan Kumar, Director of the Department of Agriculture, said: “Since I took charge early this year, we have done a lot to make the process transparent. For the first time, we sent all beneficiary details to individual districts to make them public, and in April, we ordered all companies to give training to farmers on drip and sprinkler systems. We will take the strictest possible action against officials if we find any case of wrongdoing.”
On June 5, when a court in Uttar Pradesh’s Varanasi convicted jailed gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder of a local strongman Awadhesh Rai in 1991, his younger brother and Congress leader Ajay Rai hailed the verdict, highlighting that this marked the end of a 32-year-long wait for justice for his family.Awadhesh was 30 years old when he was shot dead. Ajay was then 22. According to the prosecution’s case, on August 3, 1991, Awadhesh was standing outside his house in the Maldiya area of Varanasi when some assailants arrived in a car and opened fire at him. Ajay Rai and an associate were present at the spot, who rushed Awadhesh to the hospital. However, he was declared dead on arrival.An FIR was registered against five accused, including Mukhtar Ansari and his associates, at the Chetganj police station. The complainant was Ajay, who claimed to have witnessed Mukhtar and other assailants gunning down his brother. According to former government counsel Alok Chandra, who had pursued the case, the murder was the fallout of a local “supremacy dispute”. Apart from being a local muscleman, Awadhesh was also engaged in politics and business.In the course of over three decades, Ajay, who switched several parties but continued his legal battle against Mukhtar in his brother’s murder case in which he was a witness and complainant. Before joining the Congress, he had been with the BJP and also the Samajwadi Party (SP).A musclemen turned politician himself, 53-year-old Ajay is a five-time MLA, who has been booked in several criminal cases over the years. He was said to be associated with gangster-turned-politician Brijesh Singh. He belongs to the Bhumihar caste, retaining his hold over his community as well as over Brahmins and seers of the Varanasi region. It is for this reason that the Congress fielded him from the Varanasi seat against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in both the 2014 and 2019 Lok Sabha elections.Ajay started his political career with the BJP, getting elected as the MLA on the party’s ticket thrice from the Kolasla constituency of Varanasi during 1996-2007. He was eyeing the Varanasi parliamentary seat and parted ways with the saffron party after it decided to field Murli Manohar Joshi from there in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections. He then joined the SP and contested against Joshi on its ticket. While Mukhtar Ansari also contested that election on the BSP’s ticket, Ajay came third after Joshi and Mukhtar.However, Ajay soon broke ties with the SP as well and decided to contest the Kolasla seat bypoll as an Independent candidate that he won.Ahead of the 2012 Assembly polls, the then All India Congress Committee (AICC) general secretary in charge of UP Digvijay Singh managed to get Ajay join the Congress fold. He then contested from the newly-formed Pindra seat in Varanansi as a Congress candidate and won.While Ajay could not win the 2017 election from Pindra and lost to Avadhesh Singh of the BJP, he was chosen by the Congress to contest against PM Modi from the Varanasi parliamentary seat in the 2014 general election, when Modi picked Varanasi as his constituency for the first time. In that election, when the then fledgling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)’s chief Arvind Kejriwal also took the plunge to contest against Modi, Rai finished third behind the runner-up Kejriwal.In the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, the Congress again pitted Ajay against PM Modi in Varanasi. While Modi garnered over 6.5 lakh votes, SP candidate Shalini Yadav secured 1.95 lakh votes, with Ajay again coming third with1.52 lakh votes. AICC general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra had then held a road show in his favour.After Mukhtar Ansari’s conviction in his elder brother’s murder case, Ajay hailed the court’s verdict, saying, “This is the end of a long wait for us. My parents, I, Awadhesh’s daughter, and the whole family kept patience… Governments came and went and Mukhtar strengthened himself. But we did not give up. Because of our lawyers’ efforts, today the court has found Mukhtar guilty in the murder case of my brother…we are thankful to the court.” He maintained that he and his family fought for 32 years for justice in the case.Ajay also demanded that his security be tightened now. “The man, who stood constantly against all odds should be provided security by the government. If required, I would continue to fight the case even in the Supreme Court,” he said. He has long been demanding security from the government, expressing fear for his life.A prominent Bhumihar leader of the Purvanchal region, Ajay is currently one of the six regional heads of the Congress party in UP. He is party in charge of the Prayagraj zone, where the Bhumihar community has a dominant presence. With the Lok Sabha elections less than a year away and the Congress continuing to remain on the margins of UP politics, Ajay’s work seems to be cut out now amid speculation that major players like the BJP and SP are also looking to make overtures to him.
A Varanasi court on Monday convicted gangster-politician Mukhtar Ansari for the murder of Congress leader Awadhesh Rai that took place more than 30 years ago.Awadhesh Rai, the brother of Congress leader Ajay Rai, was shot dead on August 3, 1991, at the gate of his Lahurabir residence. A case in the matter was registered against Ansari and others.“Mukhtar has been convicted in the Awadhesh Rai murder case of 1991. The court will pronounce its judgment later in the day,” a lawyer told reporters in Varanasi.Reacting to the development, Ajay Rai said, “This is the end of our many years of waiting. I, my parents, Awadhesh’s daughter, and the whole family kept patience… Governments came and went and Mukhtar strengthened himself.“But we did not give up. Because of our lawyers’ efforts, today the court has found Mukhtar guilty in the murder case of my brother,” Rai added.Earlier in April, a Ghaziapur court convicted Ansari and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment in an Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act case lodged at Mohammadabad police station in Ghazipur district in 2007. This is the fourth case in which Ansari, who is lodged at Banda district jail, has been convicted.More details awaited…
A Varanasi court on Monday convicted gangster-politician Mukhtar Ansari for the murder of Congress leader Awadhesh Rai that took place more than 30 years ago.Awadhesh Rai, the brother of Congress leader Ajay Rai, was shot dead on August 3, 1991, at the gate of his Lahurabir residence. A case in the matter was registered against Ansari and others.“Mukhtar has been convicted in the Awadhesh Rai murder case of 1991. The court will pronounce its judgment later in the day,” a lawyer told reporters in Varanasi.Reacting to the development, Ajay Rai said, “This is the end of our many years of waiting. I, my parents, Awadhesh’s daughter, and the whole family kept patience… Governments came and went and Mukhtar strengthened himself.“But we did not give up. Because of our lawyers’ efforts, today the court has found Mukhtar guilty in the murder case of my brother,” Rai added.Earlier in April, a Ghaziapur court convicted Ansari and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment in an Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act case lodged at Mohammadabad police station in Ghazipur district in 2007. This is the fourth case in which Ansari, who is lodged at Banda district jail, has been convicted.More details awaited…
