Gap Inc., a large U.S. retailer says it will “continue to buy leather garments from garment factories in India but suppliers around the world have been instructed not to use leather from India and China.” Gap is one of the largest clothing retailer in the U.S (1999 sales $11.63 billion). The sourcing policy extends to Gap subsidiaries like Old Navy and Banana Republic, which together have 2,932 stores around the world.

This follows two months of campaign by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA, a non-governmental organisation, across the United States against leather, and more specifically against leather from India, sold by Gap. PETA has made strong allegations backed by video that animals are ill-treated in India and that slaughterhouses do not conform to Indian law in the transportation of animals.

“We do not buy leather from tanneries. We buy leather garments from garment factories. Less than 10 percent of our leather garments come from India. We thought it most prudent to have leather sourced in other countries than spend resources investigating the condition of the tanneries,” said Alan Marks, (alan_marks@gap.com ) Gap’s vice president, corporate communications, from New York.  An executive at Gap’s New Delhi office said the retailer was buying only 7 percent of its leather garments from India.

Gap has been buying from India for around five years now.  A little over a year ago, it set up an office in New Delhi which was taken as a sign of its confidence in Indian products. The retailer was stepping up its purchases till the anti-India campaign began. M M Hashim, chairman of the Council for Leather Exports (CLE) believes that Gap has cancelled orders worth $ 5 million.

According to PETA (www.peta-online.org), India’s strict laws regarding the humane slaughter of cows are breached by “corrupt skin-traders who use bribes to smuggle animals across the borders at night”. It acknowledges that the cow is considered a sacred animal in India and that cow slaughter is banned in most states. Cows and calves are bought under the “false pretense that they will live out their lives in rural farms.” They are “marched to slaughter houses for days and crammed into lorries, causing many to suffocate in direct violation of the Constitution of India.”  Animals that collapse from exhaustion or injury “have their eyes smeared with chilly peppers and tobacco and their tails broken in an effort to keep them moving.”

PETA has broadcast an expose of the cattle trail with a narration by Pamela Anderson Lee (of Baywatch fame). It has posted pictures on the Web (www.CowsAreCool.com) that are quite moving. PETA says most Indians are unaware of the manner in which animals are treated during their death march.

But CLE believes targetting the leather industry is unfair because it uses hides and skins that are a byproduct. Animals are slaughtered mainly for meat and killing is the worst form of cruelty. India being a country of subcontinental size, isolated instances of cruelty to animals will happen, but that should not tar an entire industry.

D K Mittal, joint secretary in the ministry of commerce (jsmittal@hotmail.com)  emphasises that India’s leather industry gets most of its raw material from cows and buffaloes that have died naturally. Most states, barring West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka and the North-east have banned cow slaughter. There are laws governing animal treatment and transportation.  “We would have been very happy if this organisation (PETA) had shared its concern with us with full facts and figures and supported the efforts of the government because the objective is to ensure that cruelty to animals is reduced or eliminated.”

The ban on slaughter prevents the government from effectively regulating the conditions in which it is done.  Hashim says he has urged state chief secretaries to ensure that laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals are implemented and that animals are transported as mandated by law. “How can anybody be responsible for illegal, clandestine transport and slaughter,” he asks.

The leather industry is at pains to point out that it is just not viable to kill an animal for its hide. The skin constitutes merely 10 percent of the value of an animal. The industry wants an animal to be well preserved and properly transported. “We are interested in the hides and we ask farmers not to allow animals to graze near bushes because thorns can damage their skins,” says M R Ahmed, chairman of CLE’s  footwear panel.  “If any animal is transported cruelly that will damage its skin and the value of the skin comes down heavily. We cannot use the skin for a better purpose. The difference between good and bad skin can be as much as 60-70 percent.”

There is an apprehension that the campaign will snowball into a general retail boycott of Indian leather in the rich countries. PETA is now “eyeing” Florsheim shoes, Hush Puppies, Casual Corner, Nordstroms and other outlets that use Indian and Chinese leather. PETA says it will announce the next target of its anti-leather campaign in May.

“It is unfortunate that it should have come up in this way. And that too focussed only on a country like India. We have a dominant position as far as leather is concerned. It is a major sector for exports,” says Mittal.

Between April and January last financial year, India exported leather and leather products worth $1.312 billion – a decline of 6.83 percent over the same period the previous year. Leather goods accounted for the largest share at $333 million (a decline of 3 percent) followed by leather garments (down 20.25 percent) and leather footwear at $267 million (up 1.65 percent).

Germany is the largest buyer of Indian leather and leather products with a 19 percent share, followed by U.K (17 percent) and the United States (16 percent). USA ranks second with UK as a purchaser of leather garments; Germany leads while Italy follows.

But the U.S. happens to be the biggest importer of leather garments from around the world. “After President Clinton’s visit (in March) we were quite encouraged to explore the market. We built our factories to U.S. standards, were upgrading our tanneries and putting our house in order,” says Moti Lal Sethi, President of Indian Leather Garments Association (saroj@del2.vsnl.net.in).

 India’s leather industry has been polluting and has had to bear the brunt of judicial strictures. But the industry points out that it has been quick to adjust to international standards like the non-use of pentacholorphenols (PCPs) and azo dyes. According to CLE there is not a single tannery in the leather capital of India, Tamilnadu, that does not have access to an effluent treatment plant. Waste water treatment facilities are also being set up in other tanning centres like Kanpur, Jallandhar and Bangalore. A massive leather compex, with pollution control facilities, is being implemented near Calcutta where the existing tanneries will be relocated.

India’s leather industry employs 1.7 million people and helps the socially-disadvantaged, known as Scheduled Castes in officialese, earn a livelihood. And even though India has a cattle population of 195 million – the world’s largest – cows provide only 10.8 percent of hides. The rest are derived from goat and sheep. The fear is that the campaign against Indian leather will embrace these animals too.

But Maneka Gandhi, the minister for social justice and empowerment and an animal rights activist herself believes the leather industry has got what it deserves.  In the process of providing jobs to 500 people it has deprived five million of clean water, she says. The industry has polluted the Ganges. Public money has to be spent to clean up the mess left in the quest for private profit. According to her India’s leather industry “is environmentally polluting, it is morally awful and it is the reason why so many hapless animals are being killed.” (See story: Maneka says India’s leather industry is anti-social).

Gap, however, refrained from passing judgement. “We are not making a statement that the allegations are true,” Marks said. “We have no plans in the immediate future to change this policy,” which was agreed upon in March following a meeting with representatives from PETA. Gap said its buying policy could change only with “more research” and after it had created “standards that we expect tanneries and slaughterhouses to adhere.” Gap currently has standards for leather garment factories, not for tanneries.