“The history of how Idea of India became the world’s largest exporter of beef, how Nehruvian secularist discourse is falsely projecting the meat and leather industry as one of the fundamentals of our now growing economy and how ‘I am a beef-eating Indian’ is the new secular shibboleth is embedded in the story of how both Gandhi and Nehru de-Hinduised the political and cultural public space of the country.”- Radha Rajan
Caveat: As Solzhenitsyn observed, there is no Stalinism without Leninism; because Gandhi for reasons which we now deduce, foisted Nehru on this country as the first Prime Minister, it would be just as right to say there is no Nehru without Gandhi; literally, ideationally and ideologically Nehru was Gandhi’s political heir, hand-picked by Gandhi.
Historical background to Idea of India
- because Gandhi saw Nehru’s political ideas to be closer to his own Idea of Congress (which was radically different from Tilak and Aurobindo’s Congress) and Idea of India,
- because Gandhi knew Nehru was possessed of similar ruthlessness to bend people and party to his will, and
- because Nehru unlike Patel never expressed even minimal note of dissent against Gandhi’s politics or abuse of women for experiments allegedly to test his brahmacharya, and tactically kept himself always on the right side of Gandhi, that Gandhi overrode the wishes of every provincial Congress and every Congress member who wanted Patel as Prime Minister, and tied the Nehru-millstone around the neck of this hapless country.
Verily, Nehru’s intolerant secularism derived from Gandhi’s intolerant pre-independence anti-Hindu politics and Gandhi’s Idea of Congress was the mother of Gandhi’s Idea of India.
Nehruvian secularist political public discourse has reduced this timeless, living Hindu civilization to “Idea of India” where
Gandhi described Maulana Hasrat Mohini thus: “In spite of his amazingly crude views about religion there is no greater nationalist (because in Gandhi’s words the Maulana had ‘insensate hatred of the English government and for Gandhi that was nationalism’) and no greater lover of Hindu-Muslim unity than the Maulana”. Maulana Hasrat Mohini celebrated the Moplah Jihad against Hindus.
Jayalalithaa describes Jihadi Tipu Sultan as freedom fighter for the only reason that Tipu fought the British, and passed a resolution in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly to build a memorial for Tipu in Dindugal district; Dindugal has a very large and politically influential Christian and Muslim population in Idea of Tamil Nadu
Prof. Nayanjot Lahiri, eulogising Emperor Ashoka’s seventh rock edict for its “liberal” views on religion confers upon him the high title “proto secularist”; and
Hindus wear the tolerant-Hindu dunce-cap and will not react to history becoming wild fiction
As Hindus begin removing the tolerant-Hindu dunce-cap from their heads, this carefully crafted Gandhi-Nehru Idea of India is unravelling rapidly and just how terrified Nehruvian secularists are with the process is best judged by the mass breast-beating of Congress ‘sarkari’ scientists, writers, historians and film artists including Shahrukh Khan (notwithstanding Anupam Kher’s untenable defence of this obnoxious ‘wannabe Amitabh’ Khan) against what their collective hysteria is calling “growing intolerance in the country”; even they do not dare to call it growing intolerance of Hindu society. In their mortal fear of Hindu assertion Congressi eminences pretend that Hindu assertion or Hindu backlash is only intolerance of “fringe elements/outfits”. The same self-delusion blamed the “fringe” for Gandhi’s assassination because the truth is frightening—that it was Hindu backlash then and it is Hindu backlash now. It was Hindu backlash which killed Gandhi then and Hindu backlash which killed Pansare, Dhabolkar and Kalburgi now.
Removing the tolerant Hindu dunce-cap comes with the attendant responsibility to speak the truth as Hindus know it
Caveat: The idea behind labelling Hindu backlash as “intolerance of fringe outfits” is not simply to separate the doers from the rest of Hindu society but to pin the dunce-cap called “tolerant Hindu” on the vast majority of Hindus and sit them in the corner of the nation’s public discourse space. The tolerant Hindu dunce-cap, far from being a compliment was a crafty tool to discourage Hindus from protesting or reacting to ceaseless challenges to their way of life and insults to their religious identity. The dunce-cap was also presented to Hindus as crown for their steadfast refusal to resist and wreak vengeance. The only concession that Idea of India was willing to make to Hindus as consolation prize for de-legitimising their religious identity was to grant them the right to cultural identity with the Machiavellian intent to secularise Hindu religious practices and customs. “Cultural nationalism” is consolation prize for Gandhi and Nehru’s destruction of Hindu nationalism. Cultural nationalism is like the Native American reservations which European White Christian predators granted to Native Americans after invading, occupying, pillaging and taking over their nation.
Whatever claims these award-returning doomsday soothsayers have to eminence or pre-eminence was acquired through Mephistophelean deals which they struck for over six decades with one Congress ruling family beginning with Nehru. Briefly, every one of these writers, scientists, artists and historians, whose bottoms until recently were glued in perpetuity to influential chairs, were given the glue as reward-award for being committed Nehru-family loyalists ready and willing to implement Nehruvian Idea of India through the institutions which were given to them as personal fiefdoms.
The history of how Idea of India became the world’s largest exporter of beef, how Nehruvian secularist discourse is falsely projecting the meat and leather industry as one of the fundamentals of our now growing economy and how “I am a beef-eating Indian” is the new secular shibboleth is embedded in the story of how both Gandhi and Nehru de-Hinduised the political and cultural public space of the country. The de-Hinduising process began with how Gandhi allowed only a certain kind of men and women the high privilege of being physically and mentally close to him in his ashrams, allowed only a certain species of men and women to rise within the ranks of pre-independence Indian National Congress, how a certain kind of Congress member from the Provinces was handpicked by Gandhi and Nehru to go to the Constituent Assembly, how a certain breed of intellectuals was planted by Nehru in all important academic, cultural, educational and research institutions including the Planning Commission and Indian Council of Historical Reasearch and how this species, this breed kept multiplying itself by keeping pace with Nehru’s family as the family perpetuated itself in the country’s polity, and how together they made this soulless, non-Hindu, anti-Hindu Idea of India.
In Idea of India, even in Modi’s times political correctness means Hindus must wear the tolerant Hindu dunce-cap as trade-off for “development”.
This process is eerily similar to how and why the Generic Church permits a certain kind of African, Asian and inside America, a certain kind of Indian to rise to positions of eminence and in recent times to even knock against the glass ceiling; the rise of persons like Kofi Annan, Karol Wojtyla, Mohamed ElBaradei and Ban Ki-moon in the world of international politics and Hillary Clinton, Preet Bharar, Bobby Jindal and Tulsi Gabbard in American politics and establishment are cases in point.
What these deluded hopefuls either do not know or will not acknowledge is that the Generic Church’s glass ceiling is reinforced with iron to withstand race, religion and gender ‘otherness’. Native Americans, Hillary Clinton, American Jews and Hindus, full black African-Americans (with no white blood and not married to a white) may rise high enough to knock on the glass ceiling, but they may not break it.
Intolerance began with Gandhi
The converse—how Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Gandhi stood by when Imperial London forcibly removed Tilak, Savarkar and Aurobindo from the political arena and did nothing, including not defending them in court, in their speeches or writings or raise their voices in protest, how Gandhi dealt with Subhash Bose, K.M. Munshi, Rajaji and N.B. Khare, all of whom were evicted brutally or with velvet gloves but evicted nevertheless from the INC because Gandhi was intolerant of dissent, how after 1947 Nehru dealt with Savarkar and N.B. Khare (one, the founder and the second, a stalwart of the Hindu Mahasabha) and how the US dealt with Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Ward Churchill, reinforces the proposition that only a certain kind of individuals are allowed to rise to high positions and vested with illusory power. In India, Gandhi and Nehru dealt muscularly and even mercilessly with Savarkar and N.B. Khare because of their steadfast Hindu nationalism.
Real intolerance which began with Gandhi is anti-Hindu
Absolute power which allows men (and women as afterthought) to rise, or the power to dislodge them or evict them from their positions rested historically with London, with Gandhi, with Nehru and his family, and rests now with America and the white Christian bloc which I call Generic Church. Nehru’s historians, Bipan Chandra, K.M. Panikkar, Romilla Thapar, Irfan Habib and their breed rose to “eminence” for the kind of history of India and history of the freedom struggle they were mandated to write. The end purpose of their lifetime’s work was to write the history of the Hindu nation and Hindu people without once using the word Hindu.
They wrote about Mughals and Turks, Persians, Muslim League and Moplah massacre, they wrote about brave Rajputs and fierce Marathas, Cholas and Pandyas, about Bahamani and Vijayanagara kingdoms, about brahmins, vaishyas and shudras and untouchability but not once has their history mentioned the word “Hindu”. Kshatriyas too, except when these historians write derogatorily about “caste” they are kept out of the historical narrative. Thapar and Habib, Bipan Chandra and Panikkar did not once use the word “Hindu” to describe or define anything except in derogatory context; they kept all traces of Hindu pride out of the narration and they kept out narratives which mandated use of words like Hindu heroes, Hindu warriors, Hindu saints or Hindu victims. There were no Hindus in Irfan Habib and Romilla Thapar’s history of India. If there are no Hindus, it follows there is no Hindu nation. The history of India’s freedom struggle was made Gandhi-Nehru centric which washed away jihad, Hindu victimhood, resistance to Gandhi and vivisection of Hindu bhumi without a trace from the narrative. In Gandhi’s Idea of India, Hasrat Mohini is a nationalist and Tipu Sultan becomes freedom fighter.
Real intolerance in this country was thus anti-Hindu and began with Gandhi who was only a notional Hindu. On the very rare occasions that Gandhi invoked Hinduism, it was only in speech; there was no Hindu content in his political activism and Gandhi never used Hinduism as counter to the Muslim League. Gandhi whitewashed the Ali brothers for the Hindus in the INC and stoutly refused to allow any political discourse inside the INC which would present the Ali brothers, Moplah massacre, Khilafat Committee, Muslim League, Jinnah or Direct Action as Jihad and Jihadis arraigned against Hindus and the Hindu nation. Congress sarkari historians have propagated the fiction that vivisection (secularism prefers to use the word partition which looks and sounds bloodless) happened despite Gandhi’s best efforts to stop it. The truth is Gandhi told Jinnah that he was agreeable to partition but partition as between brothers while Jinnah insisted it was partition of two nations.
Hindus wearing the “tolerant” dunce-cap never raised questions about Gandhi’s arrogance for arrogating to himself the authority to agree to partition the territory of this timeless civilization and did Gandhi really think partition among brothers was as a rule bloodless and without rancour? Refusing to learn anything from what Aurangazeb, a devout Muslim and Islamic scholar did to his father, brothers and sons, Gandhi offered to partition the nation with Jinnah and the Muslim League.
This was Gandhi’s Idea of India where tolerant Hindus will not express dissent, question his ideas and actions or raise the banner of revolt when he singlehandedly led the so-called freedom struggle which vivisected the Hindu nation. Tolerant Hindus with dunce-caps on their heads thought Gandhi served Hindu interests because unlike Jinnah, Gandhi spoke about Rama, Ramrajya, Ramanama and Bhagvad Gita; exactly how Hindus stood by and watched temple-going Jayalalithaa destroy the Kanchi Matham. Tolerant Hindus love Jayalalithaa for the same reason they love Gandhi because after she destroyed the Kanchi Matham, she made a well-publicised gesture of donating—donating, not offering—an elephant to the Guruvayoor Temple something which Karunanidhi like Jinnah never did and will never do.
Gandhi spoke minimally about Hinduism and only to the extent needed to keep Hindus within the Congress fold. Gandhi wanted the Congress vehicle to implement his agenda for the Hindu nation, the agenda for which Imperial London made the space by removing Tilak, Savarkar and Aurobindo, the agenda which Gandhi implemented successfully by first silencing all dissent, then disarming and finally disempowering powerful Hindus within the Congress. But because there was no Congress without Hindus, Gandhi made notional and laughable references to Rama and Ramanama, Ramrajya and Bhagavad Gita. Once partition became a certainty and the INC had served its purpose, Gandhi wanted the INC to be dismantled. That was before it struck him that partition had given a fillip to Hindu nationalism again and the Idea of Congress had to be retained as instrument to check and suppress forces of Hindu nationalism after independence; after independence Nehru’s Idea of Congress would implement Gandhi’s Idea of India.
Gandhi realized that Nehru, not Patel was best suited to continue the task. Gandhi instructed Acharya Kripalani to ask Patel to withdraw his candidature and when Patel obliged unquestioningly, Gandhi anointed Nehru as Prime Minister of the Interim Government. Gandhi overrode general disquiet in the INC against Nehru, brushed aside Congress will and unilaterally and undemocratically chose Nehru as Prime Minister of the Interim Government because the Prime Minister of the Interim Government would take over as first Prime Minister of independent India.
Gandhi’s INC was like the Kaurava Court in Hastinapur. Patel was to Gandhi what Bhishma was to Dhritrashtra. If Bhishma equated Hastinapur with the throne and the throne with Dhritrashtra, Patel, in the fateful years between 1915 and 1945 equated Gandhi with Hindu interests and fallaciously juxtaposed him with Jinnah; Acharya Kriplani, Rajendra Prasad and Rajaji were Dronacharya, Kripacharya and Vidhura while Nehru was Duryodhana who would be king.
After Gandhi, Nehru institutionalised this anti-Hindu intolerance when he packed academic, administrative, educational, cultural and research institutions with those who would serve his Idea of India. Hinduism, Hindu temples, Hindu way of life and Hindu religious and cultural sensitivities were the intended target of Gandhi’s politics and later of Nehru’s secularism which elevated scientific temper, the declared antithesis to Hindu religious practices, to exalted heights of Nehruvian secular Brahman. Scientific temper spawned Rationalism as its own intolerant philosophy and positioned itself against Hindus and Hinduism. If scientific temper de-sanctified the cow, rationalism mocked worship of the cow.
Intolerance is Abrahamic and monotheist
The method used by Gandhi and Nehru to handpick their private army which would now erase Hinduness or Hindutva from the nation’s consciousness is startlingly Abrahamic and similar to the oath of allegiance which must be taken by persons who become naturalised citizens of America and this oath is only a political manifestation of what the Church demands of new converts to Christianity.
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law….” (Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America)
The oath of allegiance is the best example of Abrahamic intolerance, replicated by Gandhi and Nehru to the detriment of Hindus and Hindu nation. The oath begins not with a promise of allegiance but with the demand to renounce, abjure and reject all prior loyalties, affections, identities and relationships. Thou shalt worship no other God but ME is the cardinal tenet of Abrahamic monotheisms. As price for the privilege of keeping on the right side of Gandhi and Nehru, Hindus had to abjure, renounce and give up all public display of their Hindu identity. They may not speak or write owning up to or defend varna, jaati and kula, Hindu temples and Hindu religious sensitivities. Their new identity was Gandhi loyalist, Nehru loyalist, Congress loyalist or Secularist. In this Idea of Idea tolerance was equal to secularism which is equal to allowing Muslims and Christians to be religiously and politically Abrahamic while politically ambitious Hindus in electoral politics or government administration, in the interest of secularism and to avoid being labelled communal, were discouraged from being Hindu. To be a Hindu in politics and administration in Idea of India came with weighty disincentives.
In India, Nehruvian secularists designed the glass ceiling to separate Hindu nationalists from the tolerant Hindu and to separate parliament from government. Hindu nationalists may now rise to reach parliament and knock on the glass ceiling but they may not break it; not yet.
Beef and the intolerance debate
Notwithstanding Gandhi’s affection for the cow “because the cow is a useful animal” nether Gandhi and Nehru nor their Idea of Congress acknowledged that the cow was sacred to Hindus. Because Gandhi declared Congress was not a Hindu party and Indian raj was not Hindu raj, neither Gandhi nor Nehru and their Idea of Congress included cow protection in the Congress Creed and therefore never campaigned against cow slaughter.
The Constituent Assembly, like Gandhi’s Idea of Congress for obvious reasons resembled the royal court of the Kauravas. It could not be expected of this instrument whose content was provided by Gandhi and Nehru to make cow protection a basic feature of the Constitution. Instead totally in keeping with Gandhi’s affection for the cow which was a useful animal and in keeping with Nehru’s total indifference to both the holy cow and the useful cow, cow protection like Uniform Civil Code was moved to Directive Principles, a section which dealt with issues which may charitably be termed borderline-irrelevant to their Idea of India. Sixty-eight years after independence no parliament has committed itself to bringing in a uniform, all-India law banning cow slaughter. So successful is the pivotal role of the tolerant Hindu dunce-cap in shaping and influencing political discourse on cow and beef that no senior Hindu politician even in the BJP has thus far summoned the courage or conviction to say cow is sacred to Hindus, cow slaughter violates Hindu religious sensibilities and the BJP is committed to bringing in a law banning cow slaughter with the rider that sale and consumption of beef will be banned constitutionally. Modi has not said it and neither have Amit Shah, Arun Jaitley, Manohar Parikkar or Sushma Swaraj; and Maneka Gandhi’s head will almost certainly roll if she were to break ranks to call for banning cow slaughter.
“With the new government taking charge in May last year, growth in meat exports did indeed see a dip in the April to June quarter. While exports rose 24 per cent in April 2014, shipments slowed in next two months—growth was a modest 10 per cent for the April to June period. But it has recovered since, rising 16 per cent in the first half of 2014/15 and 17 per cent in the first 10 months. Meat export is now a $5 billion industry, not only replacing basmati rice as the biggest revenue earner in India’s processed foods category, but also making India the second-biggest meat exporter. The supportive policies Modi railed against remain in place—the government still offers a grant of up to Rs.15 crore to set up new abattoirs or modernise existing ones.” (Reference)
Facts about beef
If the mandate of Nehru’s historians was to re-write the history of the Hindu nation without any mention of Hindus in the narrative, Nehru’s economists in the Planning Commission were mandated among other things to make meat and hide an integral part of economic planning and implementation. If the ideological origins of de-sanctifying the cow may be attributed to Gandhi, the origins of commodifying the cow, other animals and their meat, thereby de-legitimising and rejecting ahimsa as this nation’s defining characteristic and emerging as the world’s top exporter of beef may be found in Nehru’s economic agenda for the country and in the character of the economists in the Planning Commission. Speaking of institutionalised intolerance in Nehru’s Idea of India, renowned economist Bibek Debroy, in an interview to Times of India had this to say:
Q: “A debate has been raging on the issue of intolerance in the country. What has been your experience?”
A: “What is generally not known is that Jagdish Bhagwati was essentially made to leave Delhi School of Economics and had to go abroad because his life was made very uncomfortable. He left DSE because there is a certain prevailing climate of opinion and if you buck that, your life is made uncomfortable.”
In the course of the second five-year plan, a committee of economists was set up to examine the Second Five Year Plan. Dr B.R. Shenoy, member of the Panel of Economists constituted to analyse and apprise Nehru about the ambitious Second Five-Year Plan which made the self-destructive transition from investing in agriculture to investing in industries, was the only one to strike a dissenting note. As one of the several examples that Bibek Debroy gave for Idea of India’s institutionalised intolerance, he asked “Do you find Dr Shenoy’s name mentioned in the history of union policy-making? No. He was completely ostracized. He could not get a job in India and he ended up in Ceylon.”
“The second Five Year Plan centered on a shift towards developing capital goods and heavy industry for long-term economic benefit. Of the Rs 4,672 crore in public spending, there was a significant shift in allocation from agriculture to industry between the first and second Five Year Plans. During that period, agriculture spending fell from 37 percent of public spending to 20.9 percent, while industry allocation increased from 4.9 to 24.1 percent.” (Economic Milestone, Second Five Year Plan (1956))
It must mean something that while Forbes India thought the Second Five Year Plan was a milestone, B.R. Shenoy wrote a dissenting report on it; the only dissenting note as it turned out in the Kaurava Court.
Some numbers about meat production and beef export
India officially does not export cow meat. While “beef” is cow meat in Government of India trade jargon, beef is the legally accepted name for meat of all bovines. I know from personal experience that pregnant cows, milch cows, pregnant buffaloes, very young cow and buffalo calves aged between 2 and 5 years, calves less than a year old, heifers—all of them are transported to Kerala for slaughter from Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, sometimes even from Maharashtra and from cattle markets in Tamil Nadu. This means all bogus pronouncements of no cow slaughter and no cow meat export, the country was slaughtering cows, even pregnant cows, pregnant buffalos (so much for worshipping mothers and motherhood) are being slaughtered either for domestic consumption or for export or both. Nehru and Nehruvian economics alone has degraded this ancient civilization to the world’s largest exporter of beef. India is also all set to become the world’s largest meat producing country in the world.
- Meat exports from India commenced in 1969.
- According to data released by Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) under the Ministry of Commerce, Indian buffalo meat exports touched an all time high of Rs 13,917 crore in value terms in April-October 2013, representing an increase of nearly 58% over same period last year. In terms of quantity too, there has been 23% rise in buffalo meat exports from India.
- India has about 58 per cent of the world’s population of buffaloes. Two schemes in operation in the country, namely, Salvaging and Rearing Male Buffalo Calves (SRMBC), and the Utilization of Fallen Animals scheme (UFA) have created new incentives to slaughter previously under-utilized buffalos.
- India has now 40 world-class export-oriented integrated meat processing plants and 35 meat processing units. A few more are in the pipeline.
- The share of bovine meat in the total meat production in India is about 60% as against small ruminants (15%), pigs (10%) and poultry (12%). To produce the necessary quantities, the extraction rates in cattle are about 6%, buffaloes 11%, sheep 33%, goat 38% and pigs 84%.
- Among Indian states, Uttar Pradesh (UP) has emerged as the biggest exporter of buffalo meat, followed by Punjab and Maharashtra. Besides having the country s largest buffalo population, UP has also has the highest number of abattoirs-cum-meat processing export units. The state has 317 registered slaughterhouses and, in addition, 24 export-oriented units for buffalo meat. Of total Indian carabeef exports, 67% originates from this state.
- Hind Agro Industries, Al Noor Exports, Al Nafees Frozen Food Exports, Frigerico Conserva Allana, Rustam Foods, Rayban Foods Private are some of the major exporters from UP. “The state has 645 cattle markets, which ensure that there is a steady supply of the raw material,” said an exporter. Spurting meat exports from India reflects the importance attached to the livestock sector in the country’s agro-economy.
- According to estimates of Central Statistical Office, the value of output from the country’s livestock sector at current prices was Rs 4,59,051 crore in 2011-12, which is about 24. 8 per cent of the total value of output from agricultural and allied sector at current price. The value of output from the meat group in 2011-12 was Rs 83.641 crore.
- India is endowed with the largest livestock population in the world. It accounts for about 58 per cent of the world buffalo population and 14.7 per cent of the cattle population.
- MPS meat processing systems of the Netherlands is the global market leader in the supply of advanced red meat slaughtering systems, CO2 stunners, blood collection plants, carcass splitters, food logistic systems, and industrial wastewater treatment systems. Helmus Damen, Area Sales Manager, MPS Meat Processing Systems, The Netherlands, in a brief interview with Agri Business & Food Industry, talks about his company’s India plans, why India is a big market in red meat processing markets, issues like after-sale service and pricings, food safety, among other things. Excerpts: “You must have some attractive plans and offerings for India. What are they?” “We have our MPS Lines in operation in India already for 20 + years. We have also installed several MPS buffalo and sheep lines in India where we have produced critical parts in India, by our design and specifications, as such reducing costs to acceptable levels for the India market. In addition MPS has its internal and external global training management solution where not only the technical, maintenance and operation staff is trained but also trained on the application (who, what, where, when)”.
- India is set to become world s largest meat exporter, while in production—5.5 million tonnes valued at Rs 83,600 crore in 2011-12—it ranks eighth.
- There is huge demand for halal meat, the market for which is growing rapidly throughout the world, specifically in the Middle East.
- Per capita meat consumption in India is low—around 5 kg as compared to the world average of 47 kg. This shows the huge potential for expansion. The meat industry is likely to grow at a good pace, say, at a compound growth rate of 8% over the next five years. The processed meat industry is growing even much faster, at about 20%.
- Considering the increasing demand for buffalo meat, Government of India has commissioned three modernized abattoirs in Hyderabad, Kolkata and Shimla. The Government has plans to set up 25 more new abattoirs, including modernization of existing ones, in the ongoing Twelfth Plan at a cost of Rs. 240 crore.
- Indian meat is exported to 65 countries, the biggest markets being Vietnam (40 per cent), Malaysia (nine per cent), Thailand (seven per cent) and Saudi Arabia (six per cent).
- A visit to the districts of Meerut, Aligarh and Muzaffarnagar in western Uttar Pradesh—the state is the country s meat hub, exporting $3 billion worth per year—shows rearing buffaloes has indeed become much more popular than keeping cows. Nor is the phenomenon confined to Uttar Pradesh. “Booming meat export has triggered large-scale farming of buffaloes in states like Maharashtra and Punjab,” says Mohammed Ather, Managing Partner of New Delhi-based meat exporters, the Azan Group.
- Two large, new markets are likely to be added soon—Russia and China. Russia has approved buffalo meat imports from India after its Western sources dried up, following the sanctions imposed on it by West Europe and the US over the Ukraine standoff. “India can expect $500 million to $1 billion increase in buffalo meat exports once shipments to Russia picks up,” says Santosh Sarangi, Chairman, Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) a division of the Commerce Ministry, with which all abattoirs and meat processing plants have to register.
- So too, India and China signed a memorandum of understanding in 2013 over China providing market access to Indian meat. “It is well-known that much of our meat exports to Vietnam ultimately reach China,” adds Sarangi. “Direct access to China will lead to another quantum jump in exports.”
From her answer to a question on the country’s import and export Union Minister for Commerce and Industry in the Rajya Sabha on 18th March 2015, we know:
From April 2013 to February 2014, the value of exports from leather and leather products was 5078.84 million USD and the value between April 2014 and February 2015 was 5661.16 million USD.
Value of export of Meat, Dairy and Poultry products for the same period was worth 4773.01 million USD and 4942.06 million USD respectively.
The value of total exports for this period was 284 billion USD and 287 billion USD
The percentage of the value of export of Leather and Leather products and Meat, Dairy and Poultry products is less than 2% each of the value of total exports and together less than 4% of total exports
The Indian GDP in 2015 is around 2.2 trillion USD. The country’s total exports are around 13% or less than 1/7 of the GDP and based on the figures presented by Union Minister for Commerce and Industry, the value of exports from leather, leather products, dairy and meat export is less than 4% of the value of our total exports. (Reference)
This being the case, intolerant Hindus who refuse to wear the tolerant Hindu dunce-cap and sat down in the corner of national public discourse space must ask Modi Sarkar to reconsider the nation’s meat production and beef export policy. Notwithstanding the fact that revenue from exports from the livestock sector is less than 4% of our total exports, it is still a fact that the beef industry is resource intensive. The numbers of India’s Asian Water Buffalo is decreasing alarmingly; as alarmingly as the numbers of elephants and camels. By commodifying animals and using language which takes away the sanctity of their lives in Creation, successive governments from Nehru to Modi have built and are building our economy from killing—from the flesh, blood and bones of defenceless animals which if they could would run away or protect themselves from humans and their greed.
Closing word: This timeless civilization is soulless today. There is more to life than “acche din” and development. From the table below readers can see that there was a massive leap in meat production, around a 100% leap, between years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Even states which prior to this period were not big meat producing states are now showing high numbers for meat production. Crying “intolerance” cannot brush aside the fact that Idea of India is escalating its attacks against Hindu religious sensibilities to test Modi and his government to see how they react to the provocation. So far, Modi and his government have shown great resilience to withstand the infamy being heaped upon them; but equally true is the fact that Modi and his government have also not warned these intolerant Idea of India goons that needless provocation of Hindu religious sentiments will come with a cost. If the government will not take steps to protect Hindu religion and its articles of faith, well then intolerant Hindus who have unpinned the tolerant dunce-cap from their heads will continue to do all it takes to discourage such affront. – Vigil Online, 12 November 2015
» Radha Rajan is an author, political commentator, and animal rights activist in Chennai. She edits the website Vigil Online.
 Gandhi’s Idea of India: “Hindusthan belongs to all those who are born and bred here and who have no other country to look to. Therefore it belongs to Parsis, Beni-Israelis, to Indian Christians, Muslims and other non-Hindus as much as to Hindus. Free India will be no Hindu-raj, it will be Indian raj based not on the majority of any religious sect or community but on the representatives of the whole people without distinction of religion. I can conceive a mixed majority putting the Hindus in a minority. Religion is a personal matter which should have no place in politics”. (Gandhi was talking to a group of correspondents during the visit of the Cabinet Mission. Refer Eclipse of the Hindu Nation: Gandhi and his Freedom Struggle, Radha Rajan, NAPL 2009, page 362)
 How Gandhi dealt with Subhash Bose, K.M. Munshi, Rajaji and N.B. Khare:
Subhash Bose: “Bose’s anger with Gandhi intensified after Gandhi failed to save Bhagat Singh from the gallows, and when Gandhi refused to make release of political detenus in Bengal a pre-condition for his talks with Irwin and when he saw that despite the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, the three rounds of the Round Table Conference did not provide any impetus towards political independence, and when he clearly perceived that Gandhi s piloting of the INC was not carrying the movement forward but that people s initiatives for freedom were being thwarted and even paralyzed by Gandhi in the name of passive resistance and doing justice . Gandhi repeatedly violated the Mahabharata dictum of reciprocity to the detriment of Indian national interests. Once Gandhi declared Bose’s victory was his defeat, the slavish INC did not dare murmur a protest and several Working Committee members including Maulana Azad and Rajendra Prasad obediently offered to resign. Taking their cue from Gandhi’s statement to the press on Bose’s re-election (see end of chapter) the Congress Ministries too threatened to resign. Gandhi’s psychological warfare against Bose succeeded and Bose resigned as Congress President on 29th April, 1939. Not content with inciting revolt in the Congress ranks to force Bose to resign, Gandhi, who had resigned from the primary membership of the Congress and had also announced his retirement from politics, drafted the Congress Working Committee resolution of August 11, 1939 which removed Subhash Bose as President of the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee on “disciplinary” grounds (read opposing the Gandhi-drafted Tripuri Resolution). Gandhi was determined to evict Bose completely out of the Congress and this he did in step after measured step; Bose was a serious impediment to Gandhi’s despotic control over the Working Committee.
“The Working Committee has come to the painful conclusion that it will fail in its duty if it condones the deliberate and flagrant breach of discipline by Subhas Babu. The Working Committee therefore resolves that for his grave act of indiscipline Shri Subhas Babu is declared disqualified as President of the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee for three years as from August 1939. The Working Committee trusts that Shri Subhas Babu will see the error of his ways and loyally submit to this disciplinary action. The Working Committee has taken note of the indiscipline of many other Congressmen including responsible officials. But it has refrained from taking any action as the members acted under the inspiration of Shri Subhas Babu.” (Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, page 285)
N.B. Khare: “Whenever Gandhi was not sure of compliance or on those occasions when he was challenged or simply overruled, Gandhi both privately and publicly degraded those who thus challenged him. In 1938, Gandhi forced the Congress Working Committee to expel N.B. Khare, the Prime Minister of the Central Provinces on the pretext that Khare had dared to deal directly with the Governor of the province without consulting the Working Committee or the Parliamentary Board; what it actually meant was that Khare did not allow Gandhi to play remote control. After his expulsion from the Congress, N.B. Khare rose to become a prominent leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, giving rise to the suspicion that Gandhi may have exerted pressure on the CWC to expel Khare possibly because of Khare’s latent Hindu nationalism.”
“Press cuttings on the ministerial crisis in C.P. make most instructive reading. That the resolution of the Working Committee condemning the action of veteran leader like Dr. Khare would come in for some severe criticism was a foregone conclusion. But I was not prepared for the ignorance betrayed by the critics on the functions of the Working Committee. Dr. Khare was not only guilty of gross indiscipline in flouting the warnings of the Parliamentary Board, but he betrayed incompetence as a leader by allowing himself to be fooled by the Governor, or not knowing that by his precipitate action he was compromising the Congress. He heightened the measure of indiscipline by refusing the advice of the Working Committee to make a frank confession of his guilt and withdraw from leadership. The Working committee would have been guilty of gross neglect of duty if it had failed to condemn Dr. Khare’s action and adjudge his incompetence. I write these lines in sorrow. It was no pleasure to me to advise the Working Committee to pass the resolution it did.” (Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, pages 464, 499)
K.M. Munshi: “K.M. Munshi expressed his disagreement with the Gandhi-Congress creed on non-violence on the grounds that while he agreed in principle on ahimsa he did not think he could practice it given the communal tensions in Bombay.
“Shri K. M. Munshi came to me as soon as it was possible after his return to Bombay. In the course of the discussion, I discovered that whilst he accepted in the abstract the principle of ahimsa with all its implications, he felt the greatest difficulty in acting upon it, the more so as with his intimate knowledge of Bombay he was sure that he could not carry the Hindus with him, much less the Muslims. He knew that the numerous Hindus who were under his influence would look to him for guidance and would seek his advice. He saw no way of convincing them that they could defend themselves through ahimsa. As a political weapon and therefore of immediate use in the midst of the riots which looked more like a miniature civil war, he could not make any effective use of ahimsa. With him the question was not one of interpretation of Congress resolutions but of being truthful to himself and to the country. In view, therefore, of the following resolution by the A.I.C.C. explaining the Wardha statement, I advised that the only dignified and brave course for him was to resign from the Congress and attain freedom of action unhampered by restrictions entailed by the Congress non-violence.” (Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, page 288)
Rajaji: “Rajaji allegedly resigned from the INC because he advocated acceptance of Partition which he considered inevitable (rightly, it would seem in retrospect, considering Gandhi had no plan to avert Partition and did not allow the Congress to even think it should be averted by all and every means); only he proffered his own formula for Partition famously called the CR Formula. But, possibly discomfited over Bose s expulsion and with the INC s inability to stand up to Gandhi’s control over the CWC, its paralyzing weakness vis-à-vis the Muslim League and its consequent growing irrelevance, Rajaji convened a meeting of non-Congress legislators in Madras and asked the Governor to invite him to form a ministry under him as Prime Minister. The Muslim League wanted Pakistan and Rajaji who saw the growing incapacity of Gandhi-led Congress to deal with the Muslim League advocated separation but on terms different from that of the Muslim League (Rajaji favoured partition of the country which included partition of Bengal and the Punjab accompanied by total transfer of population) to enable the immediate formation of a national government. But Gandhi refused to see the writing on the wall and strangely enough Patel too and both were of the opinion that Rajaji’s public espousal of separation may precipitate the British Government to move in that direction. Neither Gandhi nor Patel saw the advantages of having Rajaji argue his case from within the Congress which would have polarized opinions more sharply and clearly; instead Gandhi asked Rajaji to resign from the Congress and campaign for his formula from outside the Congress.” (Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, page 291)
 B.R. Shenoy’s dissenting note may be read here (PDF).
 To get a real idea of how it is only intolerance of those who are now lecturing to Modi and Hindus about tolerance which drives research, cultural and educational institutions read “Intolerance has always existed: Niti Aayog’s Bibek Debroy”
Humpbacked Brahma cattle being bled to death—for halal beef—in the Shatish & Atul Sabharwal-owned Al Kabeer abattoir in Rudraram village, Medak district, AP.
Senior lawyer and Congress politician Kapil Sibal and his wife Promila: Promila operates three beef processing and export companies in New Delhi called Arshiya Exports Pvt. Ltd, Hacker Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (a subsidiary of Arshiya Exports) and Arihant Farm House Pvt. Ltd. Note that the names of the companies are designed to hide from the public their very real killing business!
- Meat Tech Asia 2016 in Bangalore
- India: Top buffalo meat exporter
- Our Indian clients are making money with chicken
- Indian buffalo meat has become a serious business proposition
- Contrary to fears, buffalo meat exports are thriving under the Narendra Modi government
Filed under: beef, cow, development, india, indian government, intelligencia, intolerance, m.k. gandhi, narendra modi, nehru-gandhi family, psychological warfare Tagged: | award wapsi, beef, beef export, cow protection, cow slaughter, idea of india, intolerance, jawaharlal nehru, mohandas karamchand gandhi, narendra modi