In Defence of Animals
By K. B. Jindal
Summary
The article "In Defence of Animals" by K. B. Jindal argues that animals require legal and moral protection because they cannot advocate for themselves, prompting the Jain Journal to advocate on their behalf. Jindal begins by citing specific articles from the Constitution of India to establish the state and citizen's mandate to protect animal life. Article 48 directs the state to organize agriculture and animal husbandry scientifically, specifically taking steps to preserve and improve cattle breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves. Article 48A further obligates the state to protect and improve the environment, forests, and wildlife. Additionally, Article 51A outlines the fundamental duty of every citizen to protect the natural environment, including wildlife, and to have compassion for all living creatures. To contextualize the modern disregard for these constitutional mandates, Jindal incorporates opinions from prominent thinkers. He quotes Jawaharlal Nehru, who reflects on how animals and birds might view humanity, suggesting that despite culture and civilization, man remains wild and more dangerous than wild animals. Jindal then traces the historical evolution of human dietary habits, noting that before settled cultivation, animals were a necessary food source. However, with the advent of agriculture and civilization, plant-based foods became the principal source of sustenance. Despite this shift, selective poaching and hunting persisted, eventually reducing animals to mere delicacies. The article highlights how modern scientific classification of food, focusing on components like carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, has unjustly elevated animal protein to the status of a balanced diet, while plant-based proteins are deemed inferior. Jindal argues that these outdated dietary habits continue to drive environmentally destructive practices and the unjustified killing of innocent creatures, even when sufficient food alternatives exist. He cites a specific legal source to reinforce this point: a judgment delivered on 16th December 1992 by Shri C. K. Chaturvedi, Sub-Judge 15 Class, Delhi, in the case of K. K. Khatri Vs. Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry and Others. This judgment is used to illustrate the dichotomy in human perspective, where consumers distance themselves from the act of killing by passing responsibility to butchers, thereby fueling a profit-driven slaughter industry based on market demand.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This article underscores the profound ethical and legal imperative to protect animal life, arguing that despite constitutional mandates and evolving scientific understanding, the unjustified slaughter of animals persists. It highlights how historical necessities of survival have morphed into culturally ingrained practices, further complicated by the modern dietary focus on animal protein. The text exposes a critical dichotomy where consumers disassociate themselves from the violence of killing, shifting moral responsibility to butchers, while market demand continues to drive profit-motivated slaughter. Ultimately, the article asserts that in an era of sufficient food alternatives, the continued killing of innocent creatures represents an unjustified violence that contradicts both constitutional duties and fundamental principles of compassion.