Gauri Gharpure studied journalism at Columbia University, New York, on a Fulbright grant. She makes paper jewellery. Follow her on twitter @gaurigharpure
----------------------------------------------
Being let off with a warning and a measly Rs 50 fine imposed for cruelty against animals is being rightly decried by the popular #NoMoreFifty campaign on social media
----------------------------------------------
We call ourselves a culture that prides its diversity and tolerance. But are we, really? It is not just religious and linguistic bigotry that pokes holes in our masquerade of peaceful coexistence. Cases of animal cruelty that have come to light in recent times also lay bare our spiritual and functional hypocrisy.
Take for example, the Chennai medical student Gautam Sudershan and his friends, who captured and then threw a dog off the terrace of their hostel on July 4. Two days back, the video of a man in Pune beating up a woman and her daughter for sheltering stray dogs went viral. Near home, cases of abuse and ill-treatment of animals lovers, not just the animals they try to shelter, have reportedly surfaced in Miramar and Dona Paula.
While I write about animal cruelty, I also must admit that, personally, I believe that some "animal lovers" take it too far: Their outreach to adopted strays or pedigreed animals sometimes ignores the limitations of the size of their homes, or their finances and the readiness to meet the food and medicine expenses if their adopted friends are to be kept in a good shape. "Animal lovers" are equally to blame for the rising cases of in-breeding and genetic illnesses, abandonment, neglect and causing undeniable inconvenience to neighbours by hoarding more stray dogs and cats than one can safely or hygienically handle.
Some "animal-lovers" also spend precious energy in heated discussions of vegetarianism versus non-vegetarian preferences versus vegan ethics. There is even blaming, name-calling and trolling by "vegan animal lovers" who demand proof of loyalty from "non-veg animal lovers." I consciously keep away from (and do not relate to) such heightened sensitivities of some animal activists in this column. I discuss the issue simply to appeal to anyone who harbours basic kindness and tolerance, irrespective of their dietary choices and irrespective of whether they "love" animals or not.
Let's face it, not everyone can - or should be expected to - love animals with a throbbing intensity. But, can't a civic amount of tolerance be expected even of those who are indifferent to animals? Forget tolerance, today we are witnessing full-blown acts of violent defiance. This Monday, for example, in Kottayam, Kerala, party workers of Youth Front (Mani) caught, killed, hung up carcasses of up to 10 stray dogs on wooden rods to protest against the rising stray-dog menace. Youth Front state president Saji Manjakadambil has reportedly said they will "take law in their hands" if the issue is not immediately dealt with.
Is it becoming fashionable, of late, "to take the law in hands"? Are we becoming a vigilante state? Such heights of impunity and sadistic violence, which starts with animals but extends to humans as well in our country, needs a far bigger implication - both legal and societal. Being let off with a warning and a measly Rs 50 fine imposed for cruelty against animals is being rightly decried by the popular #NoMoreFifty campaign on social media.
The BBC article, "Do India's stray dogs kill more people than terror attacks?" carries good insight and statistics in spite of its controversial headline. Soutik Biswas of BBC reported in the May 2016 article that there are more than 30 million stray dogs, and that more than 20,000 people die of rabies every year. India accounts for 35 per cent of the world's rabies deaths, the highest. While killing of dogs (as a population control measure) has been outlawed since 2001, many village councils have covertly taken to culling.
But, it is equally undeniable that the stray-dog menace has escalated because of civic inaction and citizen apathy. For example, in Kerala, where systematic culling of dogs is being proposed by many political parties, Animal Birth Control programmes get negligible fund allocation and are almost non-existent. Garbage disposal, especially in meat markets, has been criticised repeatedly. Both these man-made mismanagements have created uncontrolled growth of stray animals and have led to disastrous circumstances.
The connivance of planned culling operations by local bodies depicts a larger rot. The playing down (or adrenaline-pumped escalation) of dog-lynching shows how those elected to provide basic amenities and ensure safety of the citizens first fail in their duties and then conveniently condone acts of grave cruelty and illegality to hide their own short-comings. If we had efficient governing bodies that implemented corruption-free Animal Birth Control programs and anti-rabies drives - and if we had responsible citizens who also saw to sterilisation of the puppies they keep feeding in their localities - we would not have seen such a day in the first place.
Perhaps, throughout the history of mankind, cruelty has first been experimented, practiced and mastered on mute animals. Animal cruelty, without doubt, is a precursor to deplorable psychotic crimes and has been routinely linked with serial killers. Why, as responsible adults, we reproach and punish children when they jump on ants and caterpillars on the footpath? Because, research and child psychology shows that continuous, unchecked dominance on defenceless creatures by toddlers can create an abusive and sadistic personality in the future.
So, the question arises: should we classify cruelty against animals as being different from cruelty of any other kind? This question may sound fanciful, utopian and impractical to some. But, isn't it time we pull up our understanding of cruelty, of what we allow to pass in a society where a large number of citizens profess belief in "Ahimsa" (non-violence) and "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" (The world is my family).
