Written by Anjor Bhaskar
In 1778, when the “People of the United States” ratified their Constitution and formed the world’s first modern democracy, they sought to form a “Perfect Union” based on the values of justice, liberty and welfare. However, this was a democracy only for “propertied”, “white” “males”. Women, Native Americans, African Americans and people of colour were denied basic rights, including the right to vote. Slavery was legal in most parts of the USA. Slaves were seen as commodities, and their enslavement and exploitation were considered essential for agriculture, since they mostly worked in the production of crops such as tobacco, wheat, indigo, rice, sugar and cotton. Slave ownership was justified using economic, cultural, historical and even moral arguments.
Meanwhile, abolitionists—those seeking to abolish slavery—argued that the principles of liberty and justice enshrined in the Constitution should be applied to all, including slaves. Many abolitionists, like Elijah Lovejoy, lost their lives trying to advocate for slaves to be seen as “people” with rights under the Constitution. Finally, 87 years after the adoption of the so-called ‘democratic’ Constitution, in 1865, the 13th Amendment was ratified under President Lincoln, officially abolishing slavery. Five years later, in 1870, the 15th Amendment was passed, extending voting rights to Black people. Thus, it took 92 years after the passage of the Constitution for Black people to be finally considered “persons” worthy of rights under the US Constitution.
Other countries, like France, followed a similar trajectory. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) is one of the foundational documents of the French Revolution. The Declaration proclaimed universal rights in theory, yet enslaved people were still considered ‘property’, without any rights.
The Indian Constitution is hailed as a landmark Constitution that gave people equal rights irrespective of caste, gender, sexual, racial, religious or class identity. Therefore, unlike the “We the People” in the US Constitution of 1778, the “We the People” of the Indian Constitution of 1950 is considered much more inclusive.
However, as we celebrate 76 years of the adoption of our Constitution, it is worth asking whether someone may have been left outside the ambit of “We the People of India”.
It turns out that a large group is still left out—animals.
While the makers of our Constitution were conscious of several forms of discrimination, such as sexism, casteism, communalism, classism and racism, and included protections against these forms of discrimination, it seems they were unaware of another prevalent form of discrimination—“speciesism”.
All forms of discrimination—such as sexism, casteism, communalism, racism or classism—are based on the belief that some groups are morally superior to others and, therefore, more deserving of rights and entitlements. Similarly, speciesism is the irrational belief that some species are morally superior to other species. This belief justifies the unequal treatment of animals. Just as casteism is the belief that there is a hierarchy among human beings, speciesism is the belief that there is a hierarchy among species, with human beings at the top. It is this speciesism that makes us value a human life more than a dog’s, a cat’s or a monkey’s life. It is the same speciesism that makes us value a dog’s, cat’s or monkey’s life more than that of a goat, chicken, fish, pig, sheep or turkey. It is this speciesism that makes us wince in pain when a dog is hurt, while ignoring (or even paying for) the torture or slaughter of a goat.
To address speciesism in the Constitution, animal rights activists have been arguing that legal and constitutional personhood status be granted to all animals. Granting personhood to animals would imply that constitutional values such as liberty, equality and fraternity would extend to them. This would enable the state to frame laws and establish institutions to protect the rights of animals.
Clearly, this is not likely to happen in a day, a year or even a decade. Animal exploitation is deeply rooted in our lives, cultures, traditions and practices—just as patriarchy, slavery, racism and casteism were deeply rooted in our culture, traditions and economic lives at the time of the making of the Constitution. The livelihoods of millions of people are linked to it. Animal-based foods are the main source of nutrition for many communities. Animal-based foods have also been used as a tool for discrimination and to justify violence against people. All these factors make the issue of animal personhood highly contentious and politically sensitive.
While this is true, it is now established beyond doubt that animals are sentient beings. Charles Darwin wrote about animal sentience and their capacities for “love, memory, attention and curiosity, imitation, reason, etc.” as early as 1871. The 2006 book Animal Ethics and Trade: The Challenge of Animal Sentience concludes that “over the last 30 years, scientific opinion has moved sharply to agree that animals are indeed sentient beings”. Recognising this sentience, the Indian Parliament passed the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution was introduced in 1976, making it a fundamental duty of every citizen to have “compassion for living creatures”.
This sentience means that animals value the rights to life, liberty, fraternity and freedom from exploitation just as humans do. The question is: how long can we continue to hide behind culture, tradition, economics and politics to deny them these rights?
Anjor Bhaskar is faculty at Azim Premji University. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the organisation he represents.