Comment

There has been much hullabaloo about a recent Bombay high court decision to allow the civic authorities to kill stray dogs that are a public nuisance. The opinions published in most newspapers are mostly pro-dog, which is why I am prompted to make this case for people.

Pro-dog should not mean anti-people. Many people have been victims of dog bites and blood-curdling dog chases, and they need as much protection as dogs do. If not more. Contrary to what some animal lovers may believe, ordinary people are not bloodthirsty or keen to kill dogs. But when people feel threatened by aggressive dogs, fear makes them opt for violent solutions. Dog-lovers have a duty to make sure that our streets are free of rabid dogs, and also for educating the public on what to do when confronted with aggressive dogs. Going to court is not the answer. It delays solutions.

Let me confess: I am not comfortable with dogs. My attitudes were shaped by early experiences with dogs that chased me with murderous barks, and I have never really recovered from them. I am sure other city people have had similar experiences; some have actually been bitten by dogs, and have had to take painful shots to avoid rabies.

I believe that cities should be free of strays. Anyone who thinks otherwise should prove his point by adopting them and taking responsibility for their behaviour. If I love cows and want them to roam around Mumbai, I have to ensure that they are not dropping dung all over or chewing up somebody's grass. It is my responsibility.

The man-dog relationship evolved thousands of years ago when man was hunter-gatherer, and the two found benefits in working together. But in today's urban centres, this synergy does not quite exist. Of course, you can keep dogs because you love them; you can raise them to sniff out RDX; you can train them to guard your house. But they cannot be roaming about town by themselves. Dogs in cities must have owners. Strays, thus, have no place in urban centres unless dog-lovers want to own them.

If you really love dogs, you have to provide a solution to society. The solutions are obvious: the city should not let its stray dog population grow. To ensure a decline, dogs have to be sterilised; if they are rabid or carry other diseases, they should be killed (or culled, if you are squeamish about the word killed).

I am told that it takes around Rs 1,000 or less to have a dog sterilised. Cities like Mumbai, Delhi and Bangalore have enough resources to take care of this cost. If the municipal corporations are unwilling to do the job, civil society and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can.

But this is where dog-lovers have failed. It does not take much money to start a funding drive to neuter strays or ensure their adoption by dog-lovers. I am personally prepared to send a cheque of Rs 10,000 to anyone willing to do that in Mumbai to prove my point. I am sure every middle-class citizen, not to speak of the rich, would be more than willing to contribute to keep our streets dog-free.

The question the pro-dog lobby needs to ask itself is this: do we want the problem solved humanely or do we want victim-vigilantes to massacre or poison dogs? The stray menace has become worse because the pro-dog lobby has asked slow-moving courts for a solution. And we are not even happy with the solution. If there were a few thousand stray dogs in Mumbai when the court case started, they are now roaming the streets in lakhs. By the time the Supreme Court finishes hearing the matter (months? years?), the stray dog menace will have grown to overwhelming proportions.

Can dog-lovers avoid responsibility for all this delay? Are they a part of the solution or part of the problem? I wonder.