Bans and hypocrisy

Wednesday 20th October, 2021

The government has moved into overdrive to impose another ban. The Cabinet is reported to have granted approval for amending some laws and regulations to implement the previously announced ban on cattle slaughter purportedly to develop local agriculture and increase the domestic milk production. Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, and Minister of Agriculture Mahindananda Aluthgamage are scheduled to have the relevant Bills gazetted, we are told. The amendments are likely to be passed without a division in Parliament because the MPs do not want to be branded as proponents of animal slaughter although most of them will not hesitate even to have humans slaughtered to protect their interests.

The question, however, is whether the government will be able to develop agriculture without making fertiliser available to farmers. Cattle are no doubt useful to farmers, but agriculture cannot be developed without fertiliser. The Agriculture Minister continues to draw heavy flak for making little or no contribution towards the development of the agricultural sector. In fact, protesting farmers are blaming him for widespread crop losses owing to a severe fertiliser shortage, which is expected to cause a drastic reduction in paddy production as well during the next cultivation season and drive the prices of rice further up.

The government’s decision to ban cattle slaughter has been interpreted and/or misinterpreted in numerous ways. It is seen, in some quarters, as a move to please the Buddhists, many of whom do not consume beef. Some human rights groups and a section of the media claim that the ban is aimed at hurting the religious communities that eat beef, although the government insists that there is no ban on beef eating, and beef imports will be allowed. Conspiracy theories abound in this country. Whatever the reason, the ban on cattle slaughter will help save the lives of poor bovines and gladden the hearts of animal lovers.

What should be taken into account in banning slaughter is not the economic value of animals or their usefulness to humans, but the dumb creatures’ right to life. Hence the argument that the ban on cattle slaughter is an attempt to bolster the claim that Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country does not hold water, for other animals will not be safe, and the state will continue to promote animal husbandry, which is only a euphemism for satisfying human needs at the expense of poor animals.

The Buddha has asked his disciples to avoid trading in living beings and flesh among other things. Thus, if any government leader is planning to shorten his or her samsaric journey by acquiring merits from the ban on cattle slaughter, he or she is mistaken, for sins that accumulate (like Sri Lanka’s foreign debt) owing to the slaughter of other animals far outweigh the merits accruing from saving cattle. This is something our pious politicians ought to remind themselves of, today, when Vap Full Moon Poya Day falls.

Meanwhile, a video of a group of protesting farmers using a buffalo with its face covered with a picture of the Agriculture Minister’s visage has gone viral on the Internet. The animal looks restless maybe due to humiliation.

The buffalo is farmers’ best friend unlike politicians who take them for a ride and allow them to be exploited by various unscrupulous elements including politically-connected, wealthy rice millers; it carries heavy loads, helps till fields, and provides milk and manure without expecting anything in return, and moreover, it never steals or harms anyone. So, why should any buffalo’s face be made to look like that of a politician? Let the government be urged to ban the practice of using animals in political protests and insulting them in public.