The August 22 modified order of the 3-member bench of the Supreme Court on stray dogs overturning the 2-member bench order of the same court of August 11 (original order) has been hailed gushingly and with tears of joy by the stray dog activists. The modified order has pan-India applicability, ordaining the release of stray dogs after sterilisation to the same streets they were picked up from, whereas the original order triggered by the suo motu initiative of the 2-member bench was directed at the Delhi government, asking it to banish stray dogs completely from the Delhi streets.
The only imperfection in the original order was it didn’t pay heed to logistics—not enough dog shelters to house and nurture about two lakh stray dogs. While it didn’t ordain culling of stray dogs, stray dog activists have equated housing them in cramped places as nothing short of culling. Be that as it may, let us see what other countries do with stray dogs. In the USA, as indeed in large parts of Europe, stray dogs are conspicuous by their absence. A rare abandoned dog is put in a dog rescue centre where accredited dog trainers train and tame them before selling them to those willing to adopt them. In the state of Massachusetts, US, domestic dogs are culled if they bite someone the second time. That puts the fear of God in their masters, who keep them on a short leash lest they pounce on unsuspecting pedestrians. In short, the onus of domestic dogs not making a nuisance of themselves or menacing others is strictly on the owners, who carry a bunch of poop bags when they walk their dogs to mop up the dog excreta for eventual disposal at the first available dustbin. Switzerland mandates hanging a red light around the dog’s neck during nights so they don’t come under the wheels of vehicles. The short point is no civilised nation allows latitude to, or indulges, stray dogs while being considerate to domesticated dogs.
Stray dogs are a positive nuisance despite the innocent protestations to the contrary by their lovers. Rabies infected or not, they are territorial and often maul innocent passersby. Their nocturnal vigil may lessen the burden of security guards in apartments, but their incessant barking interferes with the sleep of the residents of the locality. Early morning workers, like newspaper boys or milk delivery persons, are particularly vulnerable to their attack, as are those returning home at ungodly hours. Activists hail them for their scavenging role, little realising that their poop left uncleaned on streets adds to the mountains of dirt our urban streets are infamous for. BTW, in India, even domesticated dogs pounce on unsuspecting public when left unattended at parks and at lift/elevator entrances.
It is against this backdrop that the 22nd order of the apex court must be analysed threadbare. It asks the municipalities to sterilise stray dogs and release them back at the same place they were picked up from. Tall order indeed. Are our municipalities equipped to round up stray dogs that proliferate at lightning speed, sterilise them and release them back? No way. It has ordered municipalities to earmark specified places for their feeding so that they are not fed at public places, thereby sullying them besides terrorising the public. To be sure, feeding at public places, especially parks where the elderly walk, is responsible for the defiling of our public places, but can the municipal authorities really earmark exclusive areas for stray dog feeding? Even if they do, can the stray dogs be expected to hotfoot to such places every time they are hungry? Also, the bandwagon effect engendered by the humongous number of hungry dogs might well result in dog-eat-dog fights becoming a grim and frightening reality in those exclusive feeding centres. The modified order also allows dog lovers to adopt stray dogs. Will they? Will they pick up the ill-nourished, growling, and truculent stray dogs and keep them as their pets, spending a considerable amount of money on vaccination and routine checkups? Highly unlikely because if they had really cared for them, they would long ago have adopted them without being told to do so by the apex court. Lastly, the modified order makes a concession in favour of confining them in shelter homes provided they are rabidly aggressive. Who will certify such aggressiveness? In short, the modified order is idealistic and utopian. It has not addressed the nitty-gritty of almost all its facets.
The original order raised hopes of India joining civilised nations in the matter of making our streets clean and safe, but the modified order has upended all such hopes. That stray dogs become harmless after being sterilised stretches credulity. All that sterilisation does is stop bountiful procreation, but it doesn’t stop them from pouncing on and mauling innocent passersby. Alas! If only we had made a beginning with ending the stray dog menace. The next logical step could have been a drive against humans—spitting and littering. Only Delhi and other metros read the riot act to those sullying metro premises and coaches. Weekly collection of organic and reusable waste in the USA is worthy of emulation in India too. A shopkeeper in the US is ordained to provide for the collection of eating paraphernalia like paper cups and plates, whereas in India street vendors care two hoots when their customers throw away the cups and plates with singular nonchalance, as if cleanliness is neither their business nor that of the customers.
Granted, animal rights are as important as human rights, but to allow stray dogs to roam our streets unchecked and unchallenged is foolhardy. Let us, by all means, be dog lovers but not by casting them onto the streets. BTW, would the animal activists also like bovines to roam our streets and block traffic on the roads?
S Murlidharan is a freelance columnist and writes on economics, business, legal and taxation issues.
