Meanwhile, bowing to PETA campaigners like Pamela Anderson Lee, the Dalai Lama and Paul McCartney, American and European leather retailers J Crew, Clarks, Florsheim, Fiorucci and Liz Clairborne have ended their contracts with Indian manufacturers. Gap, Banana Republic and Old Navy were the first ones to stop using Indian leather.

A press release issued by PETA states that its "focus may now shift to a possible tourist boycott of states with the worst record (in observing animal rights), such as Tamil Nadu, a favourite western destination". All this because border guards allegedly take bribes to allow shipments of cattle to Kerala and Karnataka for slaughter.

When asked why tourism is being targeted for the `sins' of the leather industry, PETA's director of investigations, Poorva Joshipura, says, "Well, it has nothing really to do with tourism. But we are doing it because the leather industry is concentrated in that state. Also, the Tamil Nadu government has been least receptive to PETA's demands for cleaning up the leather trade. We want them to take the issue more seriously," she adds. At this rate, the world might as well give up India as a tourist destination altogether. It would also be interesting to know whether the leather trade in other countries is much cleaner than ours.

The press release says PETA has reached an agreement with 37 European and North American protection organisations for a 60-day moratorium on efforts to pressure overseas customers of Indian leather from buying such goods. It has "applauded" the assurance given by the chairman of the Council for Leather Exports (CLE), H Mohammed Hashim, that he will take action against the cruelty being inflicted on the cattle. Hashim has promised not to procure hides originating from the Deonar slaughter house in Mumbai, and to meet government officials to ensure the enforcement of animal rights. But these assurances are not new, and PETA has always demanded concrete action instead of lip service.

In truth, the NGO has come in for considerable flak for its one-point campaign against Indian leather. It does not have a problem with cattle being slaughtered, and is asking only for better transport and upkeep facilities on the way to the slaughter house. In the light of this demand, banning Indian leather seems rather like amputating a limb to remove a scar.In no way does the situation on the ground improve. Joshipura concedes that the move seeking to ban Indian leather was a tactic aimed at getting the leather industry to "accept responsibility for its acts". Like the move to ban tourism is aimed at bringing the Tamil Nadu government to its knees. And what about the foreign exchange India is losing apart from a loss of face? "Well, the importers have said that they will resume their deals with India once the clean-up is done," she offers.

No alternatives are being offered to small traders and workers engaged in the leather trade. Assuming that the CLE does stop procuring hides from Deonar, what about the workers who stand to lose their livelihood? "Well, their health is also suffering on account of the harmful chemicals and procedures adopted in tanneries," says Joshipura. Does that make it easy for them to give up the only means of livelihood they have? "Well, there are alternatives to leather like synthetic stuff and so on. They can always find jobs there," says Joshipura, taking a rather simplistic view of the employment scene in India.