Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<keyword id="47181" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Rishikesh">Rishikesh</keyword>, the place of spiritual importance as well as a dream destination for every water sports aficionado residing in Northern India, is in trouble. The conformist group, <keyword id="58549" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Vishwa-Hindu-Parishad">Vishwa Hindu Parishad</keyword> (VHP) wants to put a ban on all water adventure activities in Rishikesh because “young people of both sexes come to these rafting camps, mingle, drink and indulge in objectionable activities on the banks of the holy river, where sadhus and saints gather to meditate.” 
 And this is not the first time when VHP, or shall we say the purported progressive reform party, has shown up their irrational side. Earlier they had screened remonstration against non-Hindus entering into holy city Kashi; objected to the use of loud speakers in mosques; and had issues with increasing consumption of Chinese products in the country. And this time around, they are asking the <keyword id="44522" type="CITY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Uttarakhand">Uttarakhand</keyword> state government to ban water sports in Rishikesh; something which facilitates the state with a huge chunk of its income. 
 
The big question that arises now is: Is VHP’s demand really valid? We tried to find out. 
 
Water Sports: What it offers to the state? 
No one can deny that Uttarakhand’s chief source of earning is Tourism and nothing else. The state is a large contributor to the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and has also been providing employment at a large scale. As per the report published by Government Tourism Department, the state, in 2011-12 granted line of business to 11.49% of total employment of the country. Foreign tourist arrival observed a jump of 5.9% in 2013. Not just this, but a lift of 14% in the foreign exchange earnings were also observed in the same year. This clearly goes on to prove the kind of positive financial impact water sports activities in Uttarakhand have on national GDP. 
 
And it would have continued to do so if the newly-crafted state of Uttarakhand, which showed- a <a href="http://uttarakhandtourism.gov.in/utdb/app/webroot/files/market/2.pdf">mounting graph</a> of growth under the tourism business sector, hadn’t witnessed a terrible catastrophe two years ago. The state is currently on its way to regain its strengths (which is tourism and water sports), but the current criticism and demands by VHP will act as an inhibitor. 
 
Two sides of VHP’s claims 
While the liberal in us is finding it tough to accept the ban and the claims that VHP is making, the practical person in us is seeing the other side of the coin as well, which is: the wrongdoings and illegal activities that are taking place in the state under the veil of water sports. We are referring to illegal drug trafficking, illegal alcohol consumption, and the crimes people commit under the impact of alcohol and drugs. These are some of the issues, which everyone is aware of, but no strong action has been taken on it yet. When we discussed the matter with few tourists who visited Rishikesh recently, especially those who preferred sports activities, acknowledged that alcohol consumption on the banks of Ganges is being looked upon as an amusing activity by most of them. Not just this, illicit brokers supplying drugs to tourists in the state are also a dark reality. 
 
Ban is not the SOLUTION When it comes to finding solutions to the problems that are currently marring the state’s reputation, imposing a ban on a sports activity which stands for fun as well as adds to the state’s GDP is not an intelligent thing to do. Why can’t the state government come up with few check points to ensure that this highly lucrative business doesn’t get hit. For instance, we think that the <keyword id="173532" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="40" keywordseo="Uttarakhand-government">Uttarakhand government</keyword> can consider this two-pronged strategy for their own benefit: 
 
1. Put a security check on local residents and dealers involved in illicit drug trading. 
2. Keep a close track on unauthorized rafting camps, which promote such activities and defame the holy city. A random audit check is a feasible and effective idea to begin with. 
 
However, at the same time, even citizens and tourists should behave responsibly and stay away from illegal activities; law and order is for their own benefit, isn’t it? 
 
<a href="http://www.exploita.com/devprayag/white-water-rafting/fhh/867">Image Credit</a>

Should VHP’s demand of banning water sports in Rishikesh be mulled over?

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Netflix took down an Indian film after receiving backlash from right-wing Hindu groups.</li><li>The film depicted a Brahmin woman cooking and eating meat and suggested a Hindu deity ate meat.</li></ul>Netflix pulled an Indian film from its platform just days after it began streaming after backlash from right-wing Hindu groups, reports say."Annapoorani: the Goddess of Food," a film made in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, follows a young woman from the Brahmin caste as she aspires to become one of India's best chefs. It was released in theaters in December and on Netflix later the same month.As part of her journey, the young woman cooks and eats meat, defying the wishes of her family and the traditions of the Brahmin caste, which <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/r-friction-over-indias-beef-trade-heats-up-after-attacks-2015-2">historically practices vegetarianism</a>.The Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a hardline right-wing Hindu group with ties to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/r-indias-modi-seeks-humble-tolerant-new-image-after-poll-rout-2015-2">Prime Minister Narendra Modi's party</a>, accused the film of being "intentionally released to hurt Hindu sentiments" and promoting "love jihad," <a target="_blank" href="https://www.onmanorama.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/2024/01/11/netflix-removes-nayanthara-annapoorani-right-wing-groups-allege-movie-promote-love-jihad.html">according to</a> a complaint it filed to Mumbai's police. The phrase <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/india-love-jihad-law-results-multiple-arrests-of-muslim-men-2020-12">"love jihad"</a> refers to an Islamaphobic conspiracy theory purporting that Muslim men are seducing Hindu women to convert them to Islam.VHP also condemned the film for implying that the major Hindu deity Lord Rama ate meat while in exile. The group protested outside Netflix offices on Wednesday.Netflix removed the film from international streaming following the controversy, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/nayantharas-annapoorani-removed-from-netflix-after-film-hurts-religious-sentiments-2487296-2024-01-11">India Today reported</a>. The studio behind the film, Zee Studios, issued a statement apologizing "for the inconvenience caused and hurt caused to the sentiments of the respective communities," The Guardian <a target="_blank" href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/jan/12/netflix-pulls-indian-film-annapoorani-the-goddess-of-food-after-backlash-from-rightwing-hindu-groups">reported</a>.<h2>'Fanaticism won, creativity lost'</h2>It's not the first time Netflix and other streaming platforms have faced pressure from religious Hindu groups.In 2020, Netflix faced <a target="_blank" href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/23/media/a-suitable-boy-netflix-india-intl-hnk/index.html">boycotts</a> in India after an adaptation of the book "A Suitable Boy" contained a kissing scene between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman, drawing accusations of promoting "love jihad" from some Hindu viewers. And, in 2021, the cast and crew of an Amazon Prime political drama, "Tandav," <a target="_blank" href="https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/3/2/amazon-apologises-to-indian-viewers-over-tandav-controversy">apologized</a> after hardline Hindu groups accused it of mocking Hindu gods.Netflix has also pulled other titles from its platform after receiving backlash. The streaming giant <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-hasan-miinhajs-patriot-act-episode-saudi-arabia-khashoggi-2019-1">took down an episode of Hasan Minhaj's "Patriot Act" in Saudi Arabia</a> after it received a legal complaint from the kingdom in 2019. In 2020, a judge in Brazil <a target="_blank" href="https://news.sky.com/story/netflix-ordered-to-pull-film-depicting-jesus-as-a-gay-man-11904267">ordered</a> Netflix to take down a short film depicting Jesus as a gay man.Some in the film industry have criticized Netflix's decision to pull "Annapoorani" from its platform."Fanaticism won, creativity lost. Shame on @NetflixIndia for giving in to majoritarian bullying," actor Siddharth <a target="_blank" href="https://twitter.com/DearthOfSid/status/1745364350276374937">wrote</a> on X."A dangerous precedent being set. Censoring left, right, and 'center' until we won't be allowed to breathe," actor Pavarthy Thiruvothu posted on an Instagram story.Netflix did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Netflix removed an Indian film after religious viewers criticized meat-eating characters

More than a century-old religious dispute⁠— the first case was filed in 1885⁠— became a land title suit is awaiting the final word from India’s Supreme Court, which is expected to give its verdict in the Ram Temple-Babri Masjid (mosque) dispute in <keyword id="6354931" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya">Ayodhya</keyword> very soon. The Hindu sides contend there should be a temple for Lord Rama in the 2.7 acre land because one was destroyed for construction of the <keyword id="43572" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Babri-Masjid">Babri Masjid</keyword> in the 16th century. The dispute continued escalating until December 6, 1992 when the mosque was demolished by those who wanted a temple. As it stood at the Supreme Court, there are 50 parties in the case but the broad issue is whether there should be a temple or a mosque in the disputed site or should the land be divided among the sparring parties as ruled by the Allahabad High Court in 2010. 
 <div type="Youtube" id="-tpuk6l1GVE" title="What is the Ayodhya Dispute?" thumbUrl="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-tpuk6l1GVE/mqdefault.jpg"></div>



 The Allahabad High Court divided the Ayodhya title into three equal parts between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram the deity represented by Triloki Nath Pandey (an RSS volunteer and Vishva Hindu Parishad functionary), and the Sunni Waqf Board. The appeals at the Supreme Court are against this verdict and the contentions of all 50 parties to the case can be subsumed in the claims of the three primary parties to the case who got parts of the land in the High Court case. Ram Lalla Virajman Interestingly, the reference to Ram Lalla Virajman is to the deity of Lord Rama, represented by a human, legally called ‘next friend’, Trilok Nath Pandey, a member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Both in India and the UK courts, there are legal precedents that have accepted deities as juristic entities in the past. The primary claims of Ram Lalla are as follows: <ul><li>Decree of declaration stating that the entire site (building and adjacent area) belongs to the deity.</li><li>Perpetual injunction against the defendants, prohibiting them from interfering in any manner in the construction of a new temple under the trusteeship of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.</li><li>The representative of Ram Lalla is opposed to the division of the land title as it holds that the deity is indivisible.</li></ul>Nirmohi Akhara The Nirmohi Akhara is a math (a monastery) for ascetic devotees of Lord Rama. The Akhara claims to be existence since at least 1400 AD, according to some accounts, and that it has been managing the temple much before the construction of the mosque. With the current appeal at the Supreme Court, the Akhara wants the management and control of the temple back in its hands. For that, the Court has to first agree that a temple can be built there. The Akhara only came into the national spotlight in 1959 when it moved the court against the transfer of control of the disputed site to the state government. That 1959 lawsuit was borne out of incident on December 22, 1949 when a set of Hindu idols were placed under the dome of the Babri Masjid. But the Akhara has claimed that those idols were always there. <ul><li>stay the operation of the High Court's judgment that granted the three-domed structure to the Sunni Waqf Board and Shri Ram Virajman</li><li>Allow pooja (worships and rituals) of Lord Rama at the site and bar anyone from removing the deities as directed by the Supreme Court in the 1993 judgement.</li></ul>Gopal Singh Visharad Gopal Singh Visharad is an individual who moved the Faizabad court in 1950 demanding his right to worship at the disputed site saying his ancestors had been doing so before the mosque was established. Later that year, another appellant, Paramhans Ram Chandra Das, filed a suit seeking permission for "worship and darshan without any check, obstruction or interference". The Faizabad civil judge consolidated the suits filed by Visharad and Das and in the final verdict handed the disputed site over to the state government, which is when the Nirmohi Akhara jumped into the court battle demanding rights over the land. The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs A Waqf is a body recognized by Muslim Law, the Sharia, which owns and manages properties donated for a religious purpose. They are regulated earlier under the Waqf Act of 1954, and now under the Waqf Act of 1995, approved by the Indian Parliament. In the Ayodhya dispute, the Sunni Waqf Board has spearheaded the claims of the Muslim community from 1961, after the state government had seized control through the Faizabad court verdict. The Board wanted control over the mosque and the removal of the idols inside. The consolidation of the three cases⁠— Visharad, Das, and the Sunni Waqf Board⁠— became the main case in 1964. After the demolition of the Babri Masjid by kar sevaks, members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, in 1992, the Waqf Board sought to get the mosque restored. After 2010, the Board appealed at the Supreme Court against the division of the disputed site into three parts by the Allahabad High Court. Shia WAQF Board Interestingly, despite being a Muslim organisation, the Shia Waqf Board (representing a sect) has supported the cause for a temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya and sought that the Muslim parties should give up their claim. The Shia Waqf Board has claimed ownership of the disputed land, not the Sunni Waqf Board. Babur, who is said to have built the mosque in the disputed site, was from the Shia sect among Muslims. The Shia Waqf Board has appealed that the Supreme Court must hand over the part of land that was given to the Sunni Waqf Board, by the Allahabad High Court verdict, to the Hindu parties. In return, the Shia Waqf Board has demanded that the Babri Masjid must be rebuilt in another site. See also: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/a-curious-rift-emerges-in-sunni-waqf-board-a-party-to-ayodhya-case-ahead-of-a-verdict/articleshow/71681803.cms">A curious rift emerges in Sunni Waqf Board-a party to Ayodhya case-ahead of a verdict</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/ayodhya-issue-days-ahead-of-a-verdict-muslim-parties-refuse-mediation-and-settlement/articleshow/71646131.cms">Ayodhya issue: Days ahead of a verdict, Muslim parties refuse mediation and settlement</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/lawyer-tears-up-pictoral-map-as-courtroom-drama-peaks-on-the-last-day-of-ayodhya-arguments/articleshow/71613741.cms">Lawyer tears up pictoral map as courtroom drama peaks on the last day of Ayodhya arguments</a>

The Ayodhya case has 50 parties⁠— but you need to know only these 7 claims

<keyword id="1671" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Shah-Rukh-Khan">Shah Rukh Khan</keyword>’s upcoming movie <keyword id="6361860" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Raees">Raees</keyword>, which is said to be loosely based on the life of Gujarati illicit liquor business tycoon Abdul Latif, has once again run into troubled times. 
 
If reports are to be believed, Latif’s son Mustak Ahmed Abdul Latif Shaikh has sent legal notices to the makers and actors of <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/Raees-teaser-How-Shah-Rukh-Khan-loves-to-tease-his-fans/articleshow/48109350.cms" target="_BLANK￿￿￿￿">Raees</a>, including Shah Rukh Khan, Nawazuddin Siddiqui, Ritesh Sidhwani and director <keyword id="33868" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Rahul-Dholakia">Rahul Dholakia</keyword>. In the notice, he has asked why they are making a film on his father’s life without his consent. 
 
Sheikh thinks that while his father was a famous businessman with deep roots in society, this movie would be projecting him in bad light, which is why he has asked for an explanation about the makers’ motives. 
 
This, however, is not the first time that <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/Salman-Khan-avoids-Box-office-clash-with-good-friend-Shah-Rukh-Khan/articleshow/48265347.cms" target="_BLANK￿￿￿￿">Raees</a> has faced tough times. For his remarks on the intolerance row, Shah Rukh Khan faced opposition from the members of Vishwa Hindu Parishad when he was shooting for Raees in Gujarat. Not only this, since the leading lady of the movie, debutante <keyword id="701143" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Mahira-Khan">Mahira Khan</keyword>, is from Pakistan and Shiv Sena had called for a ban on Pakistani artistes in Maharashtra, the Mumbai schedule had to be shot under tight security. 
 
Looks like the film is having some serious trouble in its production, but the teaser of the movie, along with the fact that Shah Rukh Khan is going to play a grey character after a long time, we are hopeful that the film would be worth the trouble. 
 
Here is the teaser of the movie.

Shah Rukh's just got sued!

The just concluded winter session of <keyword id="145182" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Parliament">Indian parliament</keyword> will go down in the history for more reasons than one. It was just this time around that religious issues rocked the Parliament than anything else. Whether it was an inciting speech by a minister of state rank Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti or the opposition holding the Rajya Sabha at ransom over ‘ghar wapsi’ being carried out by Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Sangh Parivar; the Parliament developed a deep gash during this session. 
 Opposition kept insisting that the <keyword id="71" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Prime-Minister">Prime Minister</keyword> addresses the Parliament over these issues. While Prime Minister <keyword id="6354477" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Narendra-Modi">Narendra Modi</keyword> did give statement on the comments made by Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti, Ghar Wapsi was something he didn’t want to mess with. He stayed away even while the opposition parties demanded his explanation on the issue. 
 It isn’t that this is the first time Parliament went this bad over PM’s presence in the house. In December 2009, the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stayed away from the Parliament for most of the session while the now ruling BJP sat in the opposition. Tables have turned now, with majority of BJP MPs occupying the seats. Though Congress and other parties have less or miniscule presence in <keyword id="6355187" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lok-Sabha">Lok Sabha</keyword>, it was through the Rajya Sabha that the opposition parties decided to wield their swords over. 
 
In all, the winter session of the Parliament was a mix of controversy and passing of bills. Though the government managed to pass a number of legislations over some key bills that were aimed at reformation such as coal blocks allocation and insurance bill; the end result was a little less tangible than desired. 
 
The month-long session saw Lok Sabha set a record of sorts by passing 18 legislations in 22 sittings, including coal mines allocation and labour laws. 
 
A good three hours were lost owing to disruptions initially over Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti’s remark which left Prime Minister Modi more than red-faced. This over, the crucial time at Rajya Sabha was taken over by opposition creating ruckus over Sangh Parivar’s, perhaps badly-timed programme such as Ghar Wapsi where Muslims and Christians were brought back into the folds of Hindu religion, albeit clouded in grey shades. 
 
Though RS passed 12 bills through 22 sittings, 62 hours were lost over issues that involved religious conversions and bringing back the black money into India. 
 The reforms agenda suffered a major hit with insurance laws which were to raise the cap of FDI remaining pending. The coal mines bill that would have paved way for fresh coal blocks to be allocated in fresh auction following their de-allocation by <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> in the past also remained pending. 
 
With this, the government’s to-do list seems to have just gotten longer. This disruption, which isn’t new to Indian Parliament have given the government a huge blow on its economic-overhaul plans and subsequent measures. 
 
The government had listed over 37 bills to be passed during the session that just concluded enveloped in lots of bitterness. While this number was the target, legislators in both houses only managed to pass only 11 bills out of the entire lot. Lok Sabha worked more diligently than Rajya Sabha. 
 
The reason for this could also be that while Lok Sabha had more number of BJP MPs, with the opposition parties terming it the ‘arrogance of numbers’ with BJP having 282 seats in its kitty over 545 member assembly, the otherwise peaceful Rajya Sabha saw more number of disruptions, thus causing a lot of damage to the long term goals of the government. Congress holds 68 seats in the RS against the 43 seats in the house held by BJP. 
 The only time both opposition and ruling parties came together and unanimously said something was post <keyword id="42462" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Peshawar">Peshawar</keyword> attack where hundreds of school children were killed by extremist groups in Pakistan. All the parties unvaryingly condemned the 26/11 attack mastermind Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi being granted bail by a Pakistani court. The result of this was astounding. In a rare show of strength, Pakistan didn’t release Lakhvi and he was retained in the custody of Pakistan following Pakistan’s federal government approaching the Supreme Court challenging his bail. 
Image: wikipedia

Winter Logjam In Parliament: Cold Finish For The Season

<keyword id="2520139" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Cow-trafficking">Cow trafficking</keyword> and slaughtering are words which don’t exist for many Indians, but visit the east and you would encounter the harsh reality — it (cow trafficking) is a regular affair, and a lucrative business for smugglers and butchers. This is precisely the reason why the country’s total cattle population declined from 20.45 crore in 1992 to 19.90 crore in 2007. 
 It is sad that cows are battling for life in India, a country where they are regarded as sacred and worshipped by the majority population. Our Vedic scriptures, which refer to them as ‘mothers,’ attached great importance to cows, and encouraged people to value as well as preserve them. Even Mughal emperors such as Akbar were against <keyword id="2520140" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Cow-slaughtering">cow slaughtering</keyword> — the fact was highlighted during a hearing on The <keyword id="2520142" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="West-Bengal-Animal-Slaughter-Central-Act">West Bengal Animal Slaughter Central Act</keyword>, 1950. “Mughal Emperor Babar saw the wisdom of prohibiting the slaughter of cows as and by way of religious sacrifice and directed his son Humayun to follow this. Similarly, Emperors Akbar, Jahangir and Ahmad Shah, it is said, prohibited cow slaughter,” the Supreme Court had said. 
 
Cow traffickers spreading their wings across India The network of cow smugglers is spread across different states. According to local estimates, about 20,000 to 30,000 cows are smuggled to Bangladesh every day. The smuggling reaches its peak during <keyword id="6417740" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Eid-ul-Zuha">Eid-ul-Zuha</keyword> (<keyword id="6622052" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Bakrid">Bakrid</keyword>). From Bangladesh, they are exported all over the world, especially the Middle East, where beef is in huge demand. The route traffickers take for illegal export of cow is: cows from UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha and states as far as Haryana and Punjab are first transported to <keyword id="6357783" type="CITY" weightage="80" keywordseo="West-Bengal">West Bengal</keyword> from where they are smuggled to Bangladesh through <keyword id="55201" type="COMPANY" weightage="100" keywordseo="Murshidabad">Murshidabad</keyword>, the bordering district of India and Bangladesh. 
 On August 29, about 2000 cows stuffed in 100 trucks were caught in Govindpur (Jharkhand). The trucks, which were carrying cows from the neighbouring states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand for being sacrificed on the occasion of Eid-ul-Zuha (Bakrid), were on their way to West Bengal. These trucks, jam-packed with cows, were found by the volunteers of <keyword id="2520141" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Akhil-Bharatiya-Gau-Raksha-Mission">Akhil Bharatiya Gau Raksha Mission</keyword>, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang Dal and BJP activists. 
 
Holy cows facing the worst in West Bengal 
In Bihar, export of cows for any purpose is banned. In Muslim-dominated Jammu and Kashmir, there is a punishment of up to 10 years of imprisonment if someone is found guilty of cow slaughter. Even possession of flesh of slaughtered animals is a punishable offence with imprisonment up to one year. Transport of cows outside Jammu and Kashmir for slaughtering is also prohibitted. 
 
Sadly, the West Bengal police and administration isn’t taking any stern action in this regard. The Akhil Bharatiya Gau Raksha Mission activists allege that the West Bengal police behave rudely whenever they approach them to lodge complaint. According to them, when their activists rescued some cows in Kolkata’s Lalbazar, police threatened to arrest them under non-bailable sections. Now, the big question that arises is: Is the state police under some ‘external pressure’ not to act against the perpetrators? 
 
There surely seems to be some connection. The West Bengal government’s sheer apathy towards cow slaughtering has been witnessed on several occasions. For instance, the Bengal government used the provision granted in the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Central Act*, 1950, to allow cow slaughter on Eid-ul-Zuha (Bakrid). After this relaxation, more than one lakh young and healthy cows got slaughtered in Kolkata every year on this occasion. 
 
The Calcutta High Court intervened and struck down the exemption provided by the state government in 1982. The Bengal government and butchers took the matter to the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court’s judgment. But, in spite of the court order, the West Bengal administration hasn’t taken any concrete measures; except for cosmetic steps like publishing advertisements in local newspapers. 
 
The Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of India says that in West Bengal, the contempt of the Supreme Court's judgment is going on since 1994. “Any amount of follow-up action by the animal welfare organisations to persuade the state administration have not achieved the desired results. On the contrary, some peaceful agitators pleading with the administration for compliance with the Supreme Court order were rounded up and put behind bars on the occasion of Eid-ul-Zuha (Bakrid) in the year 2002.” 
 
Better fate awaits cows 
Except for West Bengal and the northeastern states, other states have been making effort to save cows. In 1982, the erstwhile Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, wrote a letter to chief ministers of 14 states, asking them to enforce the ban in letter and spirit. Sadly, the ban has remained only in ‘letters’ and never in ‘spirit.’ 
 
With the Narendra Modi-led government in power at the Centre, one can hope that stern action would be taken against the smugglers. After all, Modi had talked about the issue during his election campaign and promised to take care of farmers and their cattle. He ruthlessly attacked the UPA government for ‘pink revolution’ and increase in export of meat, including beef, while his supporters chanted Modi ko matdaan, Gai ko jeevandaan slogan. 
 
However, after coming to power, we have not seen any action from the BJP government on this front yet. Agreed, that government has several high-priority tasks at hand, but cow protection is also the need of the hour — not because of the religious sentiments attached, but for maintenance of the ecological balance. If slaughtering of cows goes on rampantly, they may get to the verge of extinction, which would disturb the ecological chain. 
 
* The West Bengal Animal Slaughter Central Act, 1950: The act was passed to “control the slaughter of certain animals with a view to increase the supply of milk and to avoid the wastage of animal power necessary for improvement of agriculture. Section 2 lays down that the Act applies to animals specified in the sched­ule. The schedule to the Act covers bulls, bullocks, cows, calves, male and female buffaloes, buffalo calves and castrated buffaloes.” However, the Act also has a provision for lifting the ban for religious, medicinal or research purposes.

You Searched For "Vishwa Hindu Parishad" and got 6 results

Should VHP’s demand of banning water sports in Rishikesh be mulled over?

Roohi Gupta

Netflix removed an Indian film after religious viewers criticized meat-eating characters

Yoonji Han

The Ayodhya case has 50 parties⁠— but you need to know only these 7 claims

BI India Bureau

Shah Rukh's just got sued!

Nandini Sharma

Winter Logjam In Parliament: Cold Finish For The Season

Preetam Kaushik

With Cow Trafficking And Slaughtering On Rise, ‘Mother’ Cow Struggles For Existence

Manish Kumar

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides