Street dogs: A resource crunch must not place cruelty over coexistence

Hysteria around the ‘menace’ of street dogs has been stoked, to a large extent, by India’s news media and magnified by social media. No doubt, it is the media’s role to make  people aware of risks to their security, based on evidence, and to ‘sensitize’ them on how best to manage such risks. 

However, it is also the media’s responsibility to cover the issue in a balanced, nuanced and defensible manner that recognizes potential inaccuracies and biases that can distort public perceptions and lead to unjust outcomes. Reports of street dog incidents by various news outlets in India are not just varied, they are often emotive and lacking in context, inviting the suspicion that a competition for eyeballs has led their frenzied coverage with little empathy for voiceless sentient beings. 

Also Read: Between love and fear: India’s stray dog dilemma

The suo moto action taken by a 2-judge bench against the perceived growing threat of street dogs, professedly in public interest, was probably an unfortunate fallout of such attention-grabbing reports. Unfortunate because the learned bench then proceeded to prescribe a specific, decisive, time-bound and ambitious action plan for municipal authorities—the very authorities that have failed in the last several years to implement rules for the humane vaccination and sterilization of street dogs. 

The notoriously inefficient municipal bodies not only failed to take any initiative of their own, or follow the rules, but may have actively contributed to the problem through their gross mismanagement of waste collection and disposal in urban areas, thus providing a rich foraging ground for these animals. 

Fortunately for these hapless beings, the Supreme Court took note of protests across the country, recognized both the unimplementability and unfairness of the said order, and set up an alternate 3-judge bench, which provided some relief to the animals in a subsequent ruling. However, this order too has been widely criticized for punitively loading the consequence of governmental inaction on the shoulders of civil society care-givers.

Also Read: Manu Joseph: Why the poor remain unseen casualties amid India’s raging dog debate

Apart from their failure to put in place adequately-resourced systems to vaccinate and sterilize street dogs and better manage food waste in urban areas, governments at various levels have also failed to give teeth to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960. 

In the less than two weeks between the apex court’s two orders, social media was abuzz with horrifying stories of street dogs being maimed, killed and dumped in unfamiliar locales. If true, such actions are sure to further break bonds of trust and increase conflict between humans and their ‘best friends.’ 

While the term ‘dog-lovers’ is being used in an implied derogatory manner by state institutions and civil society, dog-haters get away with impunity because of absurdly low penal provisions for cruelty, the incapacity or unwillingness of law enforcement agencies to take action and an over-burdened judiciary.

The human-street dog conflict in urban areas is a close-to-home illustration of the growing human-animal conflict across the country. There are increasing instances of human conflict with elephants, leopards and tigers, apart from the increasing displacement of lesser visible beings like snakes, etc. 

Also Read: Justice astray? The Supreme Court’s dog order is unfair and impractical

India’s human population growth and its growing affluence, at one level, is resulting in an explosive takeover of new lands—often in the country’s remaining eco-fragile areas—that leads to severely adverse consequences for our forests, agricultural and grazing spaces and water resources. All of this will accelerate inter-species conflict for scarce resources—amplified by the increasingly certain impacts of climate change. 

There is an urgent need for the human species to embrace the realization—and become conscious of the fact—that we are but a part of an ecosystem that is highly complex, inter-related and inter-dependent. 

It was heartening to read the statement of Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar, a Kerala high court judge, recognizing this reality last week, when he emphasized that existing laws to protect animals and wildlife were anthropocentric and should be reimagined to make them eco-centric. This, he rightly felt, would empower all judges to interpret these laws more uniformly. 

In essence, this is a critical call for the government, with inputs from experts and civil society, to go back to the drawing board and redraft rules for protecting animals and our ecosystems for the larger good of planet earth.

Also Read: Climate havoc: Jellyfish are getting in the way of electricity supply

In the meanwhile, news media outlets too need to invest in educating themselves for a wider and more systemic understanding of human life in an environmental context. Protocols to promote responsible reporting would also help. Given today’s information explosion, instant access to bias-reinforcing nuggets and potential for intemperate influence, the vanishing art of critical thinking needs to be revitalized. 

As Stephen Hawking said, “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." This insight should serve as a reminder of our need for intellectual humility as well as continuous learning. Mass communication must not contribute to a phenomenon increasingly being debated by academics, a phenomenon called ‘collective stupidity.’ 

The author is an independent expert on climate change and clean energy.