Murder in Kolkata
The gruesome murder of a lady doctor at the R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata is shocking. Now that the CBI has taken over the investigation, one hopes that we will get to know the truth. The reason for the slovenliness on the part of the authorities needs to be explained. Police pickets in hospitals are a must.
Mani Nataraajan,
Chennai
We live in a society where humanity has almost expired. The case is a chilling reminder of the Nirbhaya case of 2012. Do we deserve to live in a society where there is no protection for girls? Do we need to wait for a decade or more to punish the perpetrators?
Chandrani Das,
Jammu
The brutality numbs the heart and soul. Keeping politics aside, the perpetrators must be brought to justice soon. There has been a total failure on the part of the administration, including the authorities of the medical college in providing adequate security for the staff.
Dr. Biju C. Mathew,
Thiruvananthapuram
Need for stability
If unaddressed, instability in the South Asian region could have a catastrophic impact. As the global power equilibrium has shifted to the Indo-Pacific region, the stability of South Asia is inevitable to counter the assertiveness of China. India could take a cue from ASEAN and its triumphant regional cooperation.
M. Rishidev,
Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
Stray dog policy
In the Opinion page article, “Court shifts the tide on stray dog policy” (August 8, 2024), the writers have clearly allowed their animal rights agenda to override their responsibility as officers of the court to provide factual information regarding court judgments.
The stray dog menace in India is not a conspiracy theory and the country has had the ignominy of being the stray dog and rabies capital of the world for several decades. Disturbing, horrific reports and CCTV footage of children being mauled by packs of stray dogs are all too frequent. By all accounts, the ABC policy has failed profoundly. In this scenario, referring to people, including victims who oppose the policy of having stray dogs roam streets, as “dog haters” is infantile at best and misanthropic at worst. The writers mention the sterilisation policy backed by the World Health Organization (WHO) but conveniently forget to mention that as per the WHO, sterilisation as a population control measure is only meant for pet dogs and must also be coupled with mandatory licensing of pets, a zero-tolerance policy for stray dogs on the street and their permanent removal, sheltering and euthanasia, all of which the ABC policy and the writers themselves are vehemently opposed to.
All the above measures are in fact supported by law in India and the writers fail to mention the supremacy of various laws including Municipal Acts, Police Acts, local bylaws and Central Statutes, ‘forgetting’ perhaps to mention that the parent Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, authored by animal welfarist (as opposed to animal rights activist) Rukmini Devi Arundale, overrides the subordinate ABC rules, recognises the negative impact of stray dogs as well as their suffering as homeless animals, mandates their permanent removal from public areas and sheltering and allows for their euthanasia, avoiding unnecessary suffering.
As such, the subordinate ABC rules violate their parent Act in principle as well as in practice, forcing dogs to remain homeless and in perpetual conflict with citizens. Again, none of this is promoted by WHO or practised in any civilised nation or any country that has successfully controlled stray dogs. Rather, globally, stray dogs are permanently removed, sheltered/rehomed or euthanised.
One would assume that as lawyers, the writers would be aware that ‘Compassion’ under Article 51A(g) is an undefined, subjective and unenforceable ‘duty’ that simply asks citizens “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures”. This would include compassion for the weakest and most vulnerable in society being torn apart by stray dogs, the environment, other animals and humans affected by numerous dog vector diseases including rabies and leptospirosis and dog faeces and wildlife being currently slaughtered by stray dogs. But for animal rights activists, Article 51A(g) inexplicably and conveniently means stray dogs have greater ‘rights ’than citizens to roam the streets and even attack people, and they have the ‘right ’to feed them there.
Most importantly, and legally, ‘compassion’ towards animals under the PCA Act is meant to protect animals from “unnecessary suffering” and not necessary suffering that may be caused in the upholding of human rights or out of human necessity – i.e. for food, medicine, protection, livelihoods, etc. Anyone proposing otherwise is free to give up eating vegetables as the tilling of a small potato field requires the displacement and killing of small wildlife at genocidal levels.
Last but not the least, the writers omit to mention the May 2023 Jallikattu judgment of the five- judge constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India laid down that not only does the Constitution of India not recognise or give ‘rights’ to animals but also upheld the PCA Act stating, “Exceptions are incorporated based on the “doctrine of necessity”. Clause (b) to Section 11(3) deals with the destruction of stray dogs, out of necessity, otherwise, it would be harmful to human beings”, a judgment that overrides all others on the issue, including the May 2024 one referred to by the writers.
The May 2024 judgment of the Supreme Court did not give prevalence to the ABC Rules nor “shift the tide” on the issue but needlessly sent the matter back to High Courts, stating that Municipalities must act in “accordance with the law.” This means the enforcement of Central Statutes such as The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, The Rights of People with Disabilities Act, The Prevention and Control of Contagious and Infectious Diseases Act, The Wildlife Protection Act, State Municipal and Police Acts, relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Article 21 Rights of citizens and innumerable Supreme Court judgments re-enforcing the Fundamental Right to Life of citizens (including freedom of movement, liberty, right to sleep peacefully at night, right to safe shelters, right to safe, disease-free and obstruction-free public places and streets, especially for people with disabilities), all of which mandate the permanent removal of stray dogs from public places, allow for their humane euthanasia and prohibit the feeding of stray animals.
The writers would not be amiss to reconsider the notions of “scientific temper”, “compassion” and “humanism” that they implore others to have, and instead promote the idea of dogs as domestic, companion animals to humans, to be protected from a life of suffering caused directly by their homelessness via the ABC Rules, causing conflict with citizens, the spread of diseases, filth on the streets, the decimation of livestock and wildlife and the endangerment of children across the country.
Meghna Uniyal,
Director, Humane Foundation for People and Animals,
Pune
