Livestock Bill Creation and Withdrawal Shows Govt’s Disregard for Farmers’ Livelihoods

Sagari R. Ramdas

The Union government on June 7 introduced the Livestock and Livestock Products (Importation and Exportation) Bill, 2023, as a replacement for the existing Livestock Importation (Amendment) Act, 2001. It has invited comments from the public and importers and exporters within ten days.

However, on June 20, the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, which had notified its intention to replace the Act with the Bill, withdrew it, citing animal welfare and other sensitivities.

The Bill was criticised by animal rights activists and organisations affiliated to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh like the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS). Although the BKS said that the Bill was ‘a panacea for the stray animal menace’, it also opposed the Bill saying it hurt religious and cultural beliefs. The activists cited the Bill’s potential to worsen animal abuse.

At the same time, it’s important to note that while the government appears to have shelved the Bill for the moment, it still stands accountable to its trade policies on the export of livestock and livestock products.

Government’s lack of consideration for caretakers of livestock

The original Act of 1898 regulated importation of animals, primarily to prevent the introduction of new diseases into the country. The 2001 amendment included a clause in the Act to regulate the import of livestock products, which included all varieties of meat, milk, eggs and their products, embryos, ova, semen, and pet foods of animal origins.

The draft new Bill, which has now been withdrawn, under section 2(e), had widened the definition of livestock to encompass every domesticated animal in India, including cats and dogs. It also included an entire new section on pro-actively promoting and developing the exports of livestock and livestock products.

It’s noteworthy that during both the creation and withdrawal of the Bill, the government did not consider the livelihoods and lives of the millions of caste-oppressed landless, marginal, and small farmers who depend on livestock for their survival. These farmers are the caretakers of nearly 70% of India’s livestock.

Therefore, as mentioned earlier, while the government appears to have shelved the Bill for the moment, it stands accountable as it enters into the ‘Make in India – export from India’ policies on livestock and livestock products.

Decline in indigenous livestock population

Livestock development, agriculture, land-use, and forest policies have led to rapid decline of the indigenous livestock population. Now it stands to further shrink with an export-driven animal and livestock products policy.

Successive livestock census over the past 75 years have clearly revealed the massive decline in the population of various indigenous livestock breeds such as cattle, buffaloes, goats, sheep, horses, donkeys, mules, pigs, yak, camels, dogs, and poultry. Several indigenous breeds are identified as rare, endangered, and threatened.

Some of the critical policy decisions that have contributed overwhelmingly to this loss are listed below.

• Industrialising dairy policies to promote high-producing dairy animals, thereby marginalising the role of our vast and diverse ecologically unique populations of multipurpose indigenous bovine breeds selectively bred over centuries by diverse caste-oppressed communities, to meet draught, milk, beef, manure, leather needs.
• Strict anti-bovine slaughter policies that systematically deter rural farmers from rearing cattle because of a collapse in the resale value of old animals. Added to that, the increasing fear of being lynched to death, if you happen to be a ‘non-Hindu’, also deters farmers from rearing cattle.
• Farm mechanisation policies that have resulted in the replacement of draught animal breeds across the country.
• The flawed land-use policy, characterised by the absence of genuine land reforms, has worsened the accumulation of land in the hands of a privileged dominant-caste minority. Additionally, policies have led to the appropriation of common grazing lands and watering sources. This includes no-graze forest policies despite the inclusion of grazing rights in the Forest Rights Act of 2006. These factors have significantly limited the ability of rural citizens, who don’t own land, to engage in animal rearing.
• A highly capital-intensive and industrial system of green revolution agriculture, which is the predominant mode of farming today, has led to the scarcity of fodder. This is due to practices such as monocropping with poor or no crop-residue, replacing diverse cereals, legumes, and oilseed crops that previously provided varied crop-residues for animal feed. Furthermore, the extensive use of combined harvesters on paddy and wheat fields have resulted in nearly 50% of the potential crop residue left standing on the field, which is then burnt to prepare the land for the next crop. Additionally, the extensive use of weedicides and herbicides has decimated the availability of natural grasses, herbs, creepers as animal fodder.
• The capitalisation of Indian animal farming, coupled with volatile global markets, throws out millions of caste-oppressed small producers and their animals from their animal farming livelihoods. Every market collapse, something that has become endemic to globally interlinked livestock products trade regimes, impacts the marginal and small farmers. This export-driven livestock production framework severely impacts these small producers who continue to depend on animals as a source of livelihood and nutritional security.
• The draft Bill, which proactively promotes the export of animal genetic resources from India, violates the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The rules of the Biological Diversity Act, notified in 2004, lays out under Section 22 (7) that local Biodiversity Management Committees have to be consulted on matters concerning the approval of use of biological resources that are located in their jurisdiction. Furthermore, under Section 16 (1), the National Biodiversity Authority can prohibit access and use of biological resources if it is an endemic/rare species or if its use will adversely affect the livelihoods of local communities.

The impact on caste-oppressed communities

An overwhelming majority of India’s indigenous animal breeds are bred and reared by the adivasis and caste-oppressed Vimukta Jatis (Denotified Tribes/ Semi-nomadic Tribes/ Nomadic Tribes), Other Backward Classes, and Dalit communities.

The Aseel poultry, frequently referred to as the mother of all poultry breeds worldwide, is bred across generations by the Konda Reddy and Koya adivasis of the Eastern ghats. Similarly, the Kadaknath, an Indian breed of chicken, is reared by the adivasis of Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh; the Gir cattle and Jaffarbadi buffalo are reared by the Rebaris of the Gir forest; the black wooled Deccani sheep is bred by the Dhangars, Kurumas and Kurubas covering the vast deccan plateau encompassing Maharashtra, Telangana, Karnataka up to the northern reaches of Tamil Nadu. Likewise camels are essential to the Raika community of Rajasthan.

Every ‘recognised’ and ‘unrecognised’ breed reflects an intrinsic and complex relationship between the animal and the people who have been breeding those animals over centuries. This Bill undermines the rights of these keepers of animal resources, who rear their animals with love, joy, care, and an economic purpose, which may be destroyed by the export-oriented approach to animal farming.

The Bill also reveals the government’s stand on beef.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has criminalised beef and outlawed cattle slaughter whenever it has come to power. And yet, it is willing to export beef. This is evident from section 2 (f) of the Bill which defines livestock products as meat and meat products of all kinds including fresh, chilled and frozen meat, tissue and organs of bovines.

The inclusion of bovines raises questions whether the government is trying to legalise slaughter for export, but at the time, it’s considered illegal domestically.

Is this a convenient way for the government to make huge profits from beef, which is India’s largest byproduct of the dairy industry, where cattle contribute 48% of the total annual milk produced? Is this a way for the government to strategically remove beef from the domestic platter via its anti-slaughter laws, and thereby compromise the nutritional security of one in every 13th Indian?

The export framework of livestock development, which this Bill, now withdrawn, aimed to legalise, would have posed a huge threat to the rich, yet rapidly diminishing diverse livestock wealth of the country, as also to the livelihoods of millions of caste-oppressed citizens who depend on these livestock for their livelihoods.

(Sagari R. Ramdas is a veterinary scientist associated with the Food Sovereignty Alliance, India. Courtesy: The Wire.)

❈ ❈ ❈

In another article, “The Livestock Export Bill has been Withdrawn for Now But Disregard for Live Animal Trade Remains”, Varda Mehrotra & Alok Hisarwala write (extract):

The proposal (bill) triggered an immediate outcry. In response, the bill has now been withdrawn, which might seem to show a commendable – even, unusual – willingness to listen to wider social views.

But this does not quite close the matter. The fact that it was proposed at all inadvertently draws attention to the growing importance of India’s export of live animals for slaughter. A cursory search through trade data across the internet shows that a multi-million dollar export of live animals from sheep, goats and bovines (buffaloes and cattle) to geese, chickens and turkeys takes place annually through various export-import policies from India.

World Bank data ranks India as the second largest exporter of live goats, mainly to the Middle East. Indian ports proudly report export of live farm animals alongside mining products as evidence of their success, seeing no difference between inanimate resources of trade and sentient animals.

Reports by Brooke India and Donkey Sanctuary confirm widespread illegal trade in donkey meat, skin and live donkeys from Andhra Pradesh to China at an alarming rate. India remains the second largest exporter of bovine meat, with a $2-billion export trade with Vietnam alone.

The bill, which for now stands withdrawn, is no mere accident, but an attempt to consolidate and strengthen an existing trade regime in live animals and products derived from them.

As a country rich in biodiversity and culture, India is in a unique position to set the stage for ethical, sustainable practices. The live export of animals from India is an abhorrent practice that must be vehemently opposed on multiple fronts.

Not only does it perpetuate unimaginable cruelty against sentient beings, but it also exacts a heavy toll on the environment and poses significant risks to public health. It is time to confront the inherent moral, ecological, and health implications of this trade and take decisive action to end it.

Central to the concerns raised by this proposed legislation are animal welfare issues. The live export industry has a disturbing track record of creating conditions for the extreme suffering of animals. Animals have to endure long and painful journeys, packed tightly into cramped, unsanitary conditions. The overcrowding, inadequate ventilation and lack of access to food, water, and rest lead to immense stress, injuries, and compromised welfare.

Live animal export has major environmental implications. It requires substantial energy resources, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, and the realities of dealing with animal wastes mean pollution and waste issues at both the departure and destination points.

The live export trade also poses significant risks to public health. The close proximity and confinement of animals during transportation create ideal conditions for the rapid spread of infectious diseases. As the pandemic years have shown, the potential transmission of zoonotic diseases from animals to humans is a real and pressing threat.

Past instances globally have shown that live exports contribute to the spread of diseases such as avian influenza and foot-and-mouth disease, putting not just the livestock but human lives at risk as well. These diseases can jump borders and seas, potentially leading to global outbreaks.

It is important to acknowledge that much of the public outrage against the current bill has emerged from inclusion of dogs and cats, seen as household pets, in the definition of livestock. Some, more worryingly, have described it as a panacea to India’s stray animal problem – don’t kill them at home, but “export” the problem (and the sin associated with its slaughter) and profit from it.

While the angst over potential feline and canine suffering is wholly understandable and justified, it prompts a larger ethical inquiry. Are we prepared to delineate which animals are deserving of protection and which are not?

The distress faced by cows, pigs or goats during live exportation is no less poignant or severe than the afflictions suffered by dogs or cats. It’s high time that Indians abandon the unjust practice of appraising the worth of one species against another, and instead confront the core issue at hand – the very concept of live export itself.

No creature, irrespective of its species, should ever endure the terrifying ordeal of being transported overseas like an inanimate object. All animals, from beloved companion animals in homes, to farm animals traditionally seen as commodities, share the same capacity for fear, pain, and stress.

Insisting on their equal consideration challenges the conventional perception of animals as merely resources for human use. This acknowledgment of their intrinsic worth provides the foundation for a more compassionate and ethical stance towards all living beings.

The withdrawal of this bill has not altered existing policy. India continues to be a major player in the export of live animals and livestock products. This is happening even as consumption of red meat at home is being weaponised at unprecedented levels, against the marginalised and the poor, especially Muslims and Dalits.

(Varda Mehrotra is an animal and climate activist and founder of Samayu. Alok Hisarwala runs the Centre for Research on Animal Rights. Courtesy: Scroll.in.)