Crowds hurled rocks at police while chanting anti-government slogans. Police used batons and tear gas to disperse hundreds of angry Kashmiris. They gathered in the streets to protest a ban on beef.
In 1932, the slaughter of cows and the sale of beef in Kashmir became illegal. The law has not been enforced for the past 70 years. But a court ruling has ordered authorities to strictly enforce the 1932 beef ban. Under the law, slaughtering a cow can be punished by up to 10 years in prison and a fine.
Kashmir is a disputed region in South Asia. It is divided into three parts. China and Pakistan administer two sections of the country. India administers the third section, which consists of the territories of Kashmir and Jammu.
Many in the Indian-controlled Kashmir territory are angry. Unlike the rest of India, Kashmir is majority Muslim. Most Kashmiris do not believe killing cows is wrong. The rest of India is majority Hindu. Hindus believe cows are sacred.
Most Kashmiri Muslims prefer to eat goat meat. But many regularly eat beef because it is cheaper. Kashmiris see the enforcement of this law not only as an attack on their personal rights, but also on their religion. One Islamic religious rite is the sacrifice of animals.
So why is an 83-year-old law that had been ignored for decades suddenly being enforced? In 2014, a lawyer named Parimkosh Seth petitioned Kashmir’s High Court. His petition asked that the law banning the sale of beef be enforced.
According to the Kashmir Age, Mr. Seth claims even his Muslim friends congratulated him when the court order was passed. He says the ban will help create harmony between Hindus and Muslims because “it bans hurting the religious sentiments of one community.”
Lawyer Syed Faisal Qadri filed a petition with the government in September. The petition seeks to strike down provisions in the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) banning the slaughter and sale of cows. The RPC is a criminal code put in place by Maharajah (Great King) Ranbir Singh who ruled Kashmir in 1932.
Mr. Qadri argues that the sections of the RPC forbidding the slaughter and sale of cows contradict the Constitution. India’s constitution grants citizens the fundamental right to practice their religion. He claims that the beef ban intrudes in citizens’ personal and religious life.
The two sides are clear. Mr. Seth says the slaughter and sale of beef hurts Hindus—it is an offense against their religion. Mr. Qadri counters by saying banning the slaughter and sale of beef constrains Muslims’ ability to practice their religion as well as their personal rights. Which makes the better case and why?
