AMID the heaping of heavy tariffs and loud growls by United States President Donald Trump, the loudest bark reverberating across India is of the stray dogs. The packs of free-roaming canines in cities, towns, villages, metros have cornered the biggest attention, even forcing the Supreme Court to expedite its proceedings by setting up a special bench to reconcile claims of compassion and safety. After ordering the capture of stray dogs in Delhi and putting them in shelters, the apex court has reconsidered its order permitting release of such dogs after vaccination instead of putting them all in shelters.

 

The new order has come for the entire country, forcing the civic authorities to revisit their plans (if any!) to deal with the menace of stray dogs harming citizens. The apex court’s balancing act has delighted animal rights activists and pet lovers but the dangers posed by violent strays still remain unattended. By ordering retention of only rabid and aggressive animals in shelter homes or similar facilities, the Supreme Court has put the onus on the municipal authorities to determine the difference between a violent and non-violent stray dog. How it will be measured remains an interesting process to be seen. Till then, people will have to find their own safety mechanism against the packs of dogs roaming on streets. Violent attacks by stray dogs, especially targeting children and old people, is a reality that cannot be denied. Dog bites have caused several deaths around the country.

 

Disturbing visuals and reams of news clippings about kids being mauled by packs of dogs are not a figment of imagination. It is a serious problem which needs immediate solution before it threatens daily life, limits movements and racks up medical expenses for families. The fact that India carries the world’s heaviest burden of rabies cannot be brushed aside as another statistic filling academic columns. There is nothing against dogs. They are a wonderful species, a beautiful companion for humans. The sense of responsibility and duty a dog exhibits when in a caring company is absolutely heart-warming. Dogs have remained an integral part of our culture for a long time. From being seen as a constant cohort of our Gods to leading daring operations for our security forces, dogs have had a special place in human society.

 

The Indian family concept also makes caring for stray animals an ethical responsibility. “One roti for the cow and one roti for the dog” has remained an untold rule in many families as they partake food each day. It is a different relation born out of the philosophy of ‘bhutdaya’, seeking animal welfare. Animals do deserve love and respect from humans. The issue is not about the showering of love on these animals; it is about the half-hearted efforts of empathy towards free-roaming or abandoned dogs which has led to the present problem. Dog lovers take pity on the strays and offer food as per one’s capacity. It ultimately makes the dogs habitual to such feeding. Without any set place or amount of food on offer, the practice of feeding strays at will makes them hungry for more. In the event of disruption in this practice of compassion, the dogs often become violent out of hunger and attack humans. Animal behaviour experts have been cautioning about this practice of pampering strays without taking their full responsibility.

 

et, dog lovers have left it to the municipal authorities to handle the after-effects of their limited compassion. Experience has shown that the second part is wrapped in total ambiguity for want of resources, poor infrastructure and absence of accountability. The dependence on Animal Birth Control (ABC) has proved ineffectual. It mandates impounding and sterilisation of strays to stop further breeding. With no State touching the required number of 70% sterilisation coverage, the plan has failed miserably. And with protection of animal rights activists, food from dog lovers at any site, the population of dogs has exploded to dangerous levels. Containing the population of strays can be achieved only through the ABC mechanism.

 

It is an expensive solution but then it is also the moral responsibility of States to take measures to fight a dangerous problem. The Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) championing the cause of stray dogs also need to be an equal stakeholder in implementation of the ABC. Some of them did try but funds crunch hindered their efforts. Now, with the Supreme Court making it clear that sterilisation of stray dogs remains the most potent weapon to deal with this menace, it is incumbent upon the State and the animal rights activists to factor in the rights of other humans to access public spaces without the fear of a dog bite and join hands to implement the order in its letter and spirit. Implementation of ABC measures also entails removing strays from public spaces and bringing them to shelters or veterinary hospitals.

 

It should not be a cause of consternation for dog lovers or animal rights activists. Compassion will not be cancelled if dogs are removed from roads. It is a necessary step in the right direction. Stemming the problem at this juncture needs some strict measures, and controlling their population remains the best bet for humans to move around without the fear of getting mauled by a hounding pack. While the buck stops with the civic authorities to create an infrastructure for sheltering stray dogs at places managed with veterinary standards and ensure utilisation of vaccines “in actual”, it is also time for the dog lovers to get realistic about the dangers of stray menace. Perspectives of compassion have a place in social discourse but it must not override the human right to safety.