In Defence of Animals

Summary

K. B. Jindal’s essay argues passionately for animal rights from both constitutional and ethical perspectives. He notes that India’s Constitution requires the state to take steps to preserve animal breeds and prohibit slaughter (Article 48), to protect wildlife and forests (Article 48A) and to ensure that every citizen has a duty to protect the environment and have compassion for living creatures (Article 51A)file:///home/oai/share/split/Jain_Journal_1994_Vol29_No2_In_Defence_of_Animals.pdf#:~:text=Article%2048%3A%20The%20state%20shall,have%20compassion%20for%20living%20creatures. Yet animals cannot petition for their rights; thus, public advocates must speak on their behalf. Jindal cites Jawaharlal Nehru’s observation that humans remain more dangerous than wild animalsfile:///home/oai/share/split/Jain_Journal_1994_Vol29_No2_In_Defence_of_Animals.pdf#:~:text=,called%20Wild%20Animals. He reviews human dietary history, noting that early humans hunted out of necessity but with the advent of agriculture they acquired plenty of plant-based foodfile:///home/oai/share/split/Jain_Journal_1994_Vol29_No2_In_Defence_of_Animals.pdf#:~:text=,This%20was. Nevertheless, hunting and meat consumption continued under more socially acceptable terms like “sport” or “game,” and many people insist that animal protein is essential despite ample plant protein sourcesfile:///home/oai/share/split/Jain_Journal_1994_Vol29_No2_In_Defence_of_Animals.pdf#:~:text=JINDAL%20%3A%20IN%20DEFENCE%20OF,basic%20elements%2C%20are%20considered%20inferior. Jindal points out that such beliefs are largely cultural; non-vegetarian diets persist due to habit rather than necessity. The author criticises the way animal slaughter is commercialised, with hideous euphemisms that conceal crueltyfile:///home/oai/share/split/Jain_Journal_1994_Vol29_No2_In_Defence_of_Animals.pdf. He argues that by buying meat, consumers indirectly fund the killing of sentient beings, thus violating the constitutional call for compassion. Jindal further highlights the environmental impact of animal husbandry: forests are cleared to graze livestock, and methane emissions from animals contribute to climate change. He contrasts the efficiency of cultivating grains and pulses with the enormous resources required to produce meat. The essay urges readers to adopt vegetarian diets, support legislation to protect animals and educate others about the ethical and environmental consequences of meat consumption. Jindal envisions a society in which animals are recognised as co-inhabitants rather than commodities; he advocates stricter enforcement of animal welfare laws, the abolition of cruel entertainments such as hunting and bullfights, and the inclusion of compassion education in school curricula. He also calls attention to the linguistic disguises that cloak violence—terms like “mutton,” “beef” and “game” sanitise the reality of killing goats, cows and deer and distance consumers from the suffering inflicted on animals. The essay emphasises that animals have intrinsic value and that a truly civilised society must extend justice and empathy to all creatures, not just humans. It concludes by calling on individuals to reflect on their dietary choices and to act in accordance with India’s constitutional directives and Jain principles of non-violence.