What the Supreme Court Order on Stray Dogs Tells Us About Us as Human Beings

It was a deserted lane. The street lights threw insufficient light. The only sound was the cars honking on the main road many meters away. I felt rather than saw a man following me. It is possible he was a random pedestrian rushing home like me, but when you are a woman, your senses are always on high alert. I walked faster and he picked up speed. I crossed to the other side, and he followed me. There was nobody in sight, and home was at least 100 meters away. I was petrified, and did the only thing I could think of. “Raja. Amelia. Where are you?”, I called. Within moments, two furry bodies had launched themselves on me. As I cuddled the excited duo, the man disappeared into the darkness. Maybe he had genuinely meant no harm, but as far as I am concerned, the street dogs came up to protect me when I needed them.

A couple of days after that incident, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the “stray dog menace” and directed the Delhi government to round up all stray dogs and to relocate them to shelters or pounds before a specified date. This, the Supreme Court said, was in response to a news report of a six year old girl succumbing to rabies after being mauled by stray dogs. This was done without verifying the numbers (much less attempting to understand the data) and without any knowledge or understanding of canine behaviour and of ways to keep dog populations in check.

It is common knowledge that the only scientifically proven method of controlling rabies is by keeping the population of dogs within manageable levels through an ongoing programme of sterilisation and periodic vaccination. Removing dogs from their natural habitat only creates a vacuum which is quickly filled by dogs from other localities. Even worse, it is the friendly dogs that get caught more easily, and their place is taken by the aggressive dogs who are also less likely to have been vaccinated and therefore more likely to be carriers of rabies and other diseases.

The figures of the number of dog bite and rabies cases do not stand up to scrutiny and are clearly overstated, but even if we take them as given, they do not tell the story that people think they tell. Data shows that the number of dog bite cases which had earlier been on a downward trend, started increasing after the COVID Lockdown. During the Lockdown, sterilisation programmes had been suspended, leading to an increase of the dog population and a consequent increase in potential of man-dog conflict. Properly interpreting the publicly available data, proves that sterilisation and vaccination is indeed the solution to the so called stray dog menace, not taking dogs away and locking them up in shelters. Sadly, even when this was pointed out to them, the people supporting the directive issued by the Supreme Court refused to listen.

The Supreme Court directive and the public outcry against it exposed fault lines which always existed but which we chose to ignore. Most people, whether for or against the Supreme Court order, dug into their respective positions and refused to even listen to the arguments of the other side, much less engage in a constructive discussion. This attitude was particularly disappointing when displayed by people who self-identify as Liberals- many of whom seemed to think that indulging in name calling was a suitable response to a difference of opinion.

There were attempts to reduce the issue to one of having to choose between “innocent children” and “aggressive dogs”. This issue, however, cannot be a binary, because there are too many nuances to it. Not even the most vocal opponents of the order were saying that the lives of children were less important than that of the dogs. All that people were saying is that the only scientifically proven and sustainable solution to the problem is to intensify the programme to sterilise and vaccinate street dogs, because it is only through sterilisation that the population of street dogs can be kept in check.

“If you love dogs so much, adopt them”, the people who were opposing the Supreme Court directive were told. This is a ridiculous argument from any perspective- individuals cannot and should not be expected to take responsibility for the failure of the government. The population of street dogs did not go up because people feed dogs – if anything feeding the dogs ensures they are less aggressive – the population went up because the sterilisation programme was suspended. More to the point, “adopt a dog” is an elitist solution to a nationwide programme. In a country where most people live in houses that are so small that there is barely enough space for human beings to live in, how can families be expected to take in a dog? The street dogs residing in most lower income neighbourhoods, for all practical purposes, are pets of the entire community. They might live on the streets, but the families feed them, play with them, and provide medical attention when required. In return the dogs serve as neighbourhood watchmen and provide companionship. Taking these dogs away is actually detrimental to the community.

I also oppose the contention that “public spaces are for humans and dogs do not belong there”. Human beings domesticated dogs, and dogs have been co-developers of our rural and urban landscape. Our cities belong as much to dogs as they do to humans, and we do not have the right to exile them from our neighbourhoods. What humans can and must do is to ensure that the population is kept in check through sterilisation and that dogs are vaccinated to protect them and us from preventable illnesses. Most cities in developed countries have managed to keep the population of street dogs under control, and this has been accomplished by a combination of a strict implementation of sterilisation and vaccination programmes, and a strong emphasis on the adoption of stray and rescue dogs. If other countries could do it, so can we if we have the will.

Instead of ensuring that the municipal governments fulfil their mandated responsibility of vaccinating and sterilizing street dogs, why is the Supreme Court demanding that they be taken off the streets? Why is the Supreme Court not demanding that schools take on the responsibility of teaching children to treat animals with compassion? If we treat street dogs with compassion and kindness, they reciprocate- it is only when humans are cruel to the dogs that they become suspicious of all humans. What we desperately need is to develop greater compassion and respect for the creatures we share our cities with.

A few months back, the “Man v/s Bear” question divided the internet- “if you are female and alone in the woods, would you rather encounter a man or a bear?”. I do not have an answer to that question, but I do know that when I am alone on a dark street, there is nobody I would like at my side more than a protective street dog.