A Feeling For Native Skins

It's a war directed against the Indian leather industry. A war conducted through negative publicity campaigns, picketing lines, hunger strikes and shoes piled up outside Indian embassies all over the world. The offensive launched by peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) against the inhuman slaughter of Indian cattle might have all the trappings of a western-style public opinion putsch, but, like all such admonishings addressed to the 'Third World', it seems to have missed out on the fact of certain basic Indian realities.

But then, it also isn't just another case of developed nations preaching ethics. To their credit, animal-rights groups like peta have sniffed out and laid bare the trail of widespread animal cruelty in India. On two separate occasions in '99, representatives of this international group observed the methods of transport and slaughter of cattle in southern India. They collected videotaped evidence of shocking cattle abuse that violates even India's own cattle protection and anti-cruelty laws.

In India, with a livestock population of more than 500 million, animal cruelty is rampant. Cattle is illegally smuggled into Kerala and West BengalÑthe two states where cow slaughter is legal. Border officials are bribed so packed lorries carrying starved and thirsty cattle can be let through. The animals frequently gore one another or suffocate on the way. And as lorry-drivers hurtle at breakneck speeds to deliver cattle consignments to the abattoirs, the cattle are often bloodied or dead on arrival. The result: a huge public outcry by peta supporters in Europe and the US urging western consumers to boycott Indian leather and leather products. Such has been the drive that global brands like Gap (with more than 3,000 stores worldwide) and its sister stores, Old Navy and Banana Republic, have been forced to discontinue using Indian leather in their products. Clarks International, a UK-based shoestore with 600 outlets, is placing its leather products from India "under review." Stores like J.Crew, Liz Claiborne, Fiorucci and Florsheim have also agreed to stop using leather from India and China. Hush Puppies and Nordstrom are also considering a ban.

"It's a wake-up call for India's leather industry," says Jason Baker, peta's India representative. "We don't want anyone to use Indian leather. In fact, we don't want anyone to use leather at all," says he, "but the industry isn't going to turn over and die, so we figured we could at least pressure them on Indian leather so that the suffering is reduced."

The pressure's working. peta officials first met the Chennai-based Council for Leather Exports and commerce ministry officials in the capital on May 11. Now, the Council has promised to work with the government to improve conditions for the transportation and slaughter of cattle. The Centre has also asked states to set up committees to enforce cruelty prevention laws. In response, peta has suspended its campaign for 60 days. The leather industry is certainly jolted and has made the necessary promises, but will they be kept? peta remains sceptical. Says Ingrid F. Newkirk, the group's president, "We hope it'll mean real progress... Only time will tell, but the clock is ticking and peta is watching."

Their doubts are understandable: the leather industry has been flagrantly violating environmental standards and labour norms. The brutal treatment of cattle might only be a drop in the ocean. But it's the pressure tactics employed by peta that's upset the industry. The feeling is that such attacks on public image are unwarranted and biased. As M.M. Hashim, chairman of the council, points out, Gap's order was only about $5 million in value, a small percentage of the total leather trade. But, as he says, the damage done to the image of Indian leather is more long-lasting and irrevocable.

The leather industry is up in arms. The Indian Council for Leather Exports has pointed out that the bulk of leather in India comes not from slaughter but from cattle dying natural deaths. Says D. Raghunandan, director of the Delhi-based Centre for Technology and Development (ctd), an ngo working for the revitalisation of rural artisanal leather tanning: "Ms. Newkirk's tirade betrays gross ignorance not only of India's leather industry but also of its society, culture, history as well as of contemporary practices in India's villages where most of her cattle live and die." Averring that ctd and associated ngos can testify to the system of removal of hides from fallen cattle, Raghunandan says peta's campaign is based on falsehood. "They should stop misinforming consumers and manufacturers.... Unless they're motivated by other considerations, such as the interests of Western industries and mncs to throttle a major Indian export, as is periodically attempted in the case of other Indian products such as readymade garments," he says.

For its part, peta claims that targeting Indian leather is just part of it's larger campaign against all leather products. Says the group's spokeswoman, Pamela Anderson (of Baywatch fame): "While we're asking Indian officials to crack down, peta believes there're many ways to tackle a problem, and educating and empowering consumers is one of the strategies we've found to be most effective." But many believe that peta's campaign is based on inaccuracies. Gap, for instance, admits there were some distortions in peta's leather campaign. "Our jacket labels indicate the source of manufacture, not the source of the fabric," says a Gap spokesman. "Less than 10 per cent of our leather comes from India. We could either spend time and money investigating how this leather was procured, or source it from elsewhere." The worry is that the second option will become a more sound business decision for other companies that find peta picketers on their doorsteps.

A cow is killed for both its meat and leather. But according to peta, their campaign is directed more against the leather industry as India's leather exports, about Rs 7,000 crore annually, exceed meat exports 10 times over. peta's focus is based on the assumption that domestic beef consumption is negligible. "Meat is a byproduct," says Baker, "most Indians don't eat beef. They mainly eat chicken." That statement might be a bit inaccurate, but Union minister for social justice and empowerment, Maneka Gandhi echoes it: "No beef is eaten in India. It's illegal to do so. It's eaten clandestinely. There's absolutely no market for beef here."

An average cow is valued at around Rs 5,000-Rs 7,000. When killed, its hide fetches 10 per cent of its value. While the meat, on average about 120 kg of beef, is valued at a minimum of Rs 30 per kg. While the export of beef (the meat of cows, calves and bulls) is banned, buffalo meat can be exported. At the same time, beef is produced and consumed within the country. "The production of beef in India is around 12,92,000 tonnes per year," says Dr G.S. Singh, deputy commissioner, food processing ministry. "All this is consumed in India." Meat, then, is no byproduct. Experts suggest the leather industry has borne the brunt of the attack as it's more export-heavy and more visible globally. Says Hashim: "During the last decade, Indian leather has developed in such a good way that it's competing with products of developed countries. But we are a soft target."

peta wants the Indian leather exporter to pressure the abattoirs not to accept cattle badly wounded or dead on arrival. But it'll take pressure from both the meat and the leather industry to do so. peta also needs to consider whether penalties for leather exporters will have a trickle-down effect. There're many processes raw hide undergoes before it becomes leather. Can middlemen, tanners, abattoirs and transporters all be taught a lesson in kindness to animals by caning the leather exporter alone?

India's cattle protection laws also need to be enforced. But as long as cattle slaughter is outlawed, illegal abattoirs will continue to flourish. Legalising cattle slaughter in India is also unthinkable. According to Hashim, there are about 4,40,000 slaughterhouses in India and modernising them under the pressure of a two-month moratorium is impossible. The solution might be a national cattle protection agency or stiffer fines for animal cruelty.

India's leather industry employs nearly 2 million people, with another 20 million working in ancillary industries. No wonder the council is taking a delegation of exporters to Europe in July to present their side of things to Western buyers. But finally, while peta's campaign is likely to improve conditions for cattle, the human and economic cost for India could be quite gigantic.