New Restrictions on Cattle Slaughter
On May 30th, 2017 "The Hindu" publicized their newspaper for the day. Among all the articles one of them stood out the most due to its protentional pivotal effect on the dietary health future of India. Located on the first page as the newspaper's opening article the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee is standing against the Centre's newly imposed law. This government decision places restrictions on the sale of cattle for slaughter in animal markets under the prevention of cruelty to animals act, proposed in 1960. Ms. Banerjee will assail to the newly proposed law by consulting her lawyers and will ultimately make a case against the Centre in court. Her debate stems from the fact that the law proposed, which impedes certain aspects of the meat market, is encroaching on the States powers. Furthermore, the Chief Minister questions the law's timing as it concedes with Ramzan. According to the Islamic Foundation (2017), it is a one-month long religious event in which the Muslim population must not only abstain from certain actives such swearing, gossip and other sinful acts but also must follow a strict fasting routine consisting of only two meals served before dawn and after sunset.
The article's main topic technically deals with the restriction of cattle slaughter for consumption in a country where it is not a main dietary ingredient, under such circumstances one would expect all to agree with the law thus for there to be any opposition the strikes as a surprise, it goes against what is normal. The reasoning behind the Centre's proposition is not mentioned but it is safe to assume that India's progressive movement towards modernization must be at play. With this information in mind, one wonders about the implications that the lack of meat causes for the overall health of the residents. It sums up to: is keeping the tradition, which results in low meat consumption, worth the health of the population? To reach a veracious and accurate decision it is indispensable to use non-apocryphal sources such as scientifically backed literary works. Pereira and Vicente (2012) have found that meat, in general, contains a healthy amount of B-complex vitamins, zinc and phosphorus. As far as the concern for meat's high fatty acid and fat content goes they show that it is all dependent on the cut used. Again, Pereira and Vicente (2012) show that meat is a unique source of heme-iron proving it to be crucial for any diet. The opposition on the subject constantly quotes the multitude of research showing the relevance between red meat and cardiovascular diseases as well as the WRCF's research supporting the hypothesis that red meat may cause cancer. However, work done by Mcafee et.al (2010) shows methodological inconsistencies with the existing literature relating red meat to Cardiovascular disease (CVD) as well as the WRCF's statement in regards to red meat causing cancer. Additionally, the literature reinforces red meat's function as the moderator of lipid profiles and the dietary source of essential nutrients.
One of the biggest controversies in this article is that the main speaker and authority on the article is a female and one in a political seat of power. According to the website "elections.in" Ms. Banerjee has not only been the Chief Minister of West Bengal for 6 years but has also held positions as Railway of Minister of India and Minister of Coal and Minister of State. Additionally, she’s been the only woman to ever hold all three positions making her one of the most powerful women in India according to "India today" (2015). The controversy comes from the fact that in India women are at a bigger disadvantage when compared to its western, modern counterparts such as the United States. They are seen as less capable and are socially assigned very specific gender roles, none of which include holding positions of power. In some areas they are expected be of taciturn nature, talking only in specific situations. For example, women will hold blame in rape cases "You shouldn't have been out at night" and many times, from a cultural perspective, don't have reproductive choices (Dr. Indiraa, May 23, 2017). With such cultural impediments, it is not only atypical but astonishing to see a woman in such a cogent position. As a voice of authority, she couldn’t be any more of a perfect fit for the article as the law affects the regions for which she is responsible for, yet the paper leaves the reader wanting more in order to fulfill a complete picture on the case. The acute amount of information given about the Centrals’ views and reasoning for proposing such actions is not included. This information would help reach a more equivocal and unbiased view on such a subjective and ethically based subject
The article's main topic technically deals with the restriction of cattle slaughter for consumption in a country where it is not a main dietary ingredient, under such circumstances one would expect all to agree with the law thus for there to be any opposition the strikes as a surprise, it goes against what is normal. The reasoning behind the Centre's proposition is not mentioned but it is safe to assume that India's progressive movement towards modernization must be at play. With this information in mind, one wonders about the implications that the lack of meat causes for the overall health of the residents. It sums up to: is keeping the tradition, which results in low meat consumption, worth the health of the population? To reach a veracious and accurate decision it is indispensable to use non-apocryphal sources such as scientifically backed literary works. Pereira and Vicente (2012) have found that meat, in general, contains a healthy amount of B-complex vitamins, zinc and phosphorus. As far as the concern for meat's high fatty acid and fat content goes they show that it is all dependent on the cut used. Again, Pereira and Vicente (2012) show that meat is a unique source of heme-iron proving it to be crucial for any diet. The opposition on the subject constantly quotes the multitude of research showing the relevance between red meat and cardiovascular diseases as well as the WRCF's research supporting the hypothesis that red meat may cause cancer. However, work done by Mcafee et.al (2010) shows methodological inconsistencies with the existing literature relating red meat to Cardiovascular disease (CVD) as well as the WRCF's statement in regards to red meat causing cancer. Additionally, the literature reinforces red meat's function as the moderator of lipid profiles and the dietary source of essential nutrients.
One of the biggest controversies in this article is that the main speaker and authority on the article is a female and one in a political seat of power. According to the website "elections.in" Ms. Banerjee has not only been the Chief Minister of West Bengal for 6 years but has also held positions as Railway of Minister of India and Minister of Coal and Minister of State. Additionally, she’s been the only woman to ever hold all three positions making her one of the most powerful women in India according to "India today" (2015). The controversy comes from the fact that in India women are at a bigger disadvantage when compared to its western, modern counterparts such as the United States. They are seen as less capable and are socially assigned very specific gender roles, none of which include holding positions of power. In some areas they are expected be of taciturn nature, talking only in specific situations. For example, women will hold blame in rape cases "You shouldn't have been out at night" and many times, from a cultural perspective, don't have reproductive choices (Dr. Indiraa, May 23, 2017). With such cultural impediments, it is not only atypical but astonishing to see a woman in such a cogent position. As a voice of authority, she couldn’t be any more of a perfect fit for the article as the law affects the regions for which she is responsible for, yet the paper leaves the reader wanting more in order to fulfill a complete picture on the case. The acute amount of information given about the Centrals’ views and reasoning for proposing such actions is not included. This information would help reach a more equivocal and unbiased view on such a subjective and ethically based subject
As mentioned this article is highly controversial but only to those who've been subjected to India's culture, those that haven't wouldn't bat an eye at the news. For example, in the United States, we consume high amounts of meat and a law acutely easing the consumption wouldn't be out of the norm. Only activists and those personally affected would be the group reacting. However, here in India meat consumption is rather taboo to some due to religious beliefs, a world of difference when compared to our cultural norms. Furthermore, Ms. Banerjee favors freedom of choice in food consumption (Kolkata, May 30, 2017) resulting in her opposing the restriction proposed by the Centre. Going against what is considered normal is conspicuously received with a feeling of unease for some of the Indian population. These are problems that are not present in other countries, such as the United States, or at least don't hold the same level of meaning. She is also highly respected as she is the only woman holding a position of influential power. This is the one thing both our western culture and the Indian population can react equivocally to. Both countries face their share of predicaments when it comes to the roles a woman can hold but I must mention that the gender gap has a stronger presence in India. The fact that this is the only woman to hold a political position of power truly shows the solipsist view Indian society holds in respect to the subject.
The situation is of great importance to the Indian population, in one hand a law which further limits meat consumption restricts its progression towards modernization but it ends up preserving its antiquarian cultural tradition of having a vegetarian diet. On the other side, Ms. Banerjee's impeding stand against this movement shows a great amount of progress towards India's cultural modernization. Meat consumption would decrease cultural traditions but will add a whole new world of variables to the dietary field. This can even result in improvement in the economy as the production of cattle meat is part of a bigger market for the rest of the globe. Personally, I favor Ms. Banerjee's standpoint for meat as it opens opportunities for dietary benefits and offers a progressive movment. It is worth mentioning however that the Centre is responsible for creating policies and as such its ability to do so isn't really encroaching on state powers. This makes the battle like an uphill one for Ms. Banerjee thanks to her argument is based on "the Centre encroaching its powers". On a brighter note, I do appreciate the limitation on cattle slaughter for it maintains Indian's unique cultural tradition, the sight of cattle sharing the road with cars, walking freely is not only a shock but a welcomed new sight.
The situation is of great importance to the Indian population, in one hand a law which further limits meat consumption restricts its progression towards modernization but it ends up preserving its antiquarian cultural tradition of having a vegetarian diet. On the other side, Ms. Banerjee's impeding stand against this movement shows a great amount of progress towards India's cultural modernization. Meat consumption would decrease cultural traditions but will add a whole new world of variables to the dietary field. This can even result in improvement in the economy as the production of cattle meat is part of a bigger market for the rest of the globe. Personally, I favor Ms. Banerjee's standpoint for meat as it opens opportunities for dietary benefits and offers a progressive movment. It is worth mentioning however that the Centre is responsible for creating policies and as such its ability to do so isn't really encroaching on state powers. This makes the battle like an uphill one for Ms. Banerjee thanks to her argument is based on "the Centre encroaching its powers". On a brighter note, I do appreciate the limitation on cattle slaughter for it maintains Indian's unique cultural tradition, the sight of cattle sharing the road with cars, walking freely is not only a shock but a welcomed new sight.
References
Mamata Banerjee Biography. (n.d.). Retrieved 03 June, 2017, from http://www.elections.in/political-leaders/mamata-banerjee.html
Mcafee, A. J., Mcsorley, E. M., Cuskelly, G. J., Moss, B. W., Wallace, J. M., Bonham, M. P., & Fearon, A. M. (2010). Red meat consumption: An overview of the risks and benefits. Meat Science, 84(1), 1-13. DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.08.029
Ramadan. (n.d.). (3 June, 2017) “Ramadan 2017” Retrieved from http://www.islamicfoundation.ca/ramadan/
De’Pereira, P. M. D. C. C., & Vicente A. F. D. R. B. (2013). Meat nutritional composition and nutritive role in the human diet. Meat Science, 93(3), 586-592. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.09.018
Mamata Banerjee Biography. (n.d.). Retrieved 03 June, 2017, from http://www.elections.in/political-leaders/mamata-banerjee.html
Mcafee, A. J., Mcsorley, E. M., Cuskelly, G. J., Moss, B. W., Wallace, J. M., Bonham, M. P., & Fearon, A. M. (2010). Red meat consumption: An overview of the risks and benefits. Meat Science, 84(1), 1-13. DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.08.029
Ramadan. (n.d.). (3 June, 2017) “Ramadan 2017” Retrieved from http://www.islamicfoundation.ca/ramadan/
De’Pereira, P. M. D. C. C., & Vicente A. F. D. R. B. (2013). Meat nutritional composition and nutritive role in the human diet. Meat Science, 93(3), 586-592. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.09.018