I am extremely disturbed at the appalling misinformation being spread by media, activists and individuals on public domains regarding the State’s handling of Free-Roaming Dogs. I am equally shocked at the knee-jerked reaction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE” on the issue of rising rabid infected dog attacks. I am equally appalled at the State’s empty-handed approach at the lack of handling the increasing attacks on humans especially children by both Rabid and Non-Rabid Dogs. We as a society are blaming everyone and everything on this issue and refusing to take responsibility of any sort. Hence, this piece is written as a call to action by all responsible Indian citizens to evolve a peaceful society that lives in harmony with our four-legged tail wagging absolutely loyal friends instead of descending into a civilisational war with these animals who cannot fight us on equal terms. For decency’s sake, I will refer to them as community dogs here and not as Strays.
We, As a Civilisation are at a cross-roads in this century. This fact has not been more evident than in the question of handling our four-legged children of this soil. The reality is that the problem of community dogs being a menace to human lives can longer be ignored. A laissez-faire attitude will only spiral our society into anarchy requiring more and more activism that creates spirals of chaotic churns of noise and knee-jerk reactions. It is equally important that as a civilization we inform the world that we can thrive in harmony with our four-legged friends, that urban centers need not be human-exclusive alone modeled after West-Inspired industrial centers. Their Lordships who asked every activist whether the lives of children lost from dog attacks can be given back have thus confirmed the existence of a fundamental civilisational question – which lives are more important today human or animal? This is a question that we must answer as a civilisation, whether “our” dogs are entitled to accompany us in our way forward into the future. The knot in the question is on “Our” and the meaning of “Our Dogs”.
Now, I am not going to do a comparison with other countries handling of the problem because a study would show that India’s problem is very unique. It stems from the fact that there is an unwritten shadow classification of dogs in India into Stray Dogs and Pet Dogs.
Before delving further, we must understand how our existing legal framework as a whole treats the lives of our community dogs and readers will understand why we are faced with a civilisational question.
The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960 defines “animal” u/s. 2(a) as any living creature other than a human being. Section 2(d) defines a domesticated animal as an animal that is “sufficiently tamed to serve some purpose for the use of man”. These Definitions place an Animal Life form below to that of a Human Life form. The Act defines a “Captive animal” but there are no provisions for a “Captive Animal” anywhere in the act. Section 11(1) declares some acts as “treating animals cruelly” but refrains from defining what “cruelty ( to animals) ” actually is in addition to strange wording of the section’s heading. Section 11(3) recognizes certain acts as not falling under “treating animals cruelly” of which Section 11(3)(b) recognizes an exception to Section 11(1) as “the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or 5[by such other methods as may be prescribed]”. Section 14 of the Act declare a Nothing – Barred permission towards experimentation on animals for some vaguely worded reasons like towards knowledge or alleviating diseases. The 1960 Act is thus the foundation for the legal framework in the issue of Stray Dogs.
The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules 2023 under Rule 7 classify dogs into a) Pet Animals – dogs owned and kept indoors and b) Street dogs or community owned Indian dogs or abandoned pedigreed dogs which are homeless, living on the street or within a gated campus. The earlier 2001 rules merely classified dogs into Pet Dogs and Street Dogs. The 2023 rules are more exhaustive and details methods of capture, birth control method, precautions in the center for the safety and welfare of the dogs than the 2001 rules. Most commendable is the requirement of round the clock care of diseased and of “rabid dogs” and the requirement of allowing the diagnosed “rabid dogs” to die a natural death whereas diseased dogs are entitled to be euthanised under exhaustive conditions. The Local Administrative Authorities such as municipalities, panchayats and district administration are responsible to implement the rules.
The absence of even a definition of “Stray Dog” under the Act can be understood that, from the perspective of this legislative framework An Animal is unequal to a human and A Stray Dog is inferior that it is not even defined except for being killed off in some way or other. In many cases, The Judiciary also found it easier to resort to the rules framed u/s. 38 of the Act that is the 2001 rules, rather than to tussle with the above said reality of the Act. The Delegated Legislation Rules are always subservient to the Legislature Enacted Act of 1960. Hence, the rules cannot overturn a foundational principle enforced by the Act. One such Case decided by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR. V. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS & ORS.2006 AIR KER 201 makes an interesting read on the dilemmatic approach of the judiciary in this issue.
Now, one may ask why is there no definition of a “Stray Dog” in the Act. A further question would be what is the basis of classifying “Pets”, “Strays” and “Community” Dogs. It is quite apparent as to how the legislature in 1960 saw the Dogs roaming the streets. The 2001 rules toe-d the framework of the Act more closely. The 2023 rules recognizes existence of community dogs and accepts the reality of suffering stray dogs and adopts a pragmatic, scientific and humane approach. Since the nation is grappling with the issue of Rabid Dogs, let us see this position from the perspective of the current problem. The probability of a Pet Dog getting infected from any disease including rabies is less than that of a dog roaming the streets or the community today due to awareness amongst pet owners very much similar to those in the British Government Establishment, though degrees of awareness varied. The probability does not change even after considering cases of Human Wrongs. The question then would be why not make inoculation of every community dog an enforceable law?
There exists an apathy against community dogs in a social and institutional perspective and this apathy did not come into existence suddenly in 2025. The Apathy is the hurdle standing in the way of finding answer to our civilisational question, undoubtedly having origins in European Colonialism.
The 1960 Act does not define a “Pet Animal” much less a “Pet Dog”. It is obvious that the 1960 Act is suffering from Colonial Myopia where the legislature acquiesced to the European Way of Looking at Dogs. The Pet Dog of Europe is a “Tame” Dog that listens to Human Command. Read Section 2 of the Act again to understand how this principle is incorporated in our law.
Indian Native Breeds exist on a wider spectrum of characteristics. Much of these breeds were evolved with a larger civilisational view in mind by our ancestors in the sense that they could ‘choose’ to bond seamlessly with their human family and hunt, play and guard independent of commands. They were much superior to the European Hounds. The British successfully corrupted the rich genetic databank of our native breeds by condemning them as “strays” ( the actual title is illegal to be spoken in Tamil Nadu) and not as “community” dogs. The British deliberately dismantled this native ecosystem of community dogs by rampant cross-breeding coupled with abandonment resulting in dilution of the USP of these native breeds amongst Colonially educated Indians. Aggressive marketing, Industrial Style European breeding societies for European Dog Breeds resulted in widespread conversion of native breed community dogs into “stray dogs”. Deliberate Misinterpretation of Indian Knowledge systems and Religious conversions as Evangelical Christian Dogma does not recognise animals to have souls also played a major role in abandonment of community dogs that were very much part of the “family” and not some “inferior dangerous animal as a pet”.
The Government of Tamil Nadu in the newly adopted Tamil Nadu Dog Breeding Policy, 2024 declares that the business of breeding dogs, pet shops is a multi crore business. While the recognition of many Tamil Nadu origin native dog breeds in the policy is commendable, the policy also declares these breeds unfit for living in Tamil Nadu’s urban, semi-urban spaces that has a discouraging effect in the minds of Educated Indians today.
It is glaring on the face of both the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023 and the Tamil Nadu Breeding Policy, 2024 that “open hearted commercial free adoption of native breeds and healthy community dogs” is not a part of the State’s Agenda and it is left to voluntary organisations to promote the same – if they choose to. The Animal Welfare Board of India has an Adoption Protocol that is outside the scope of the legislations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE” has expressly warned (paragraph 11(I) to XIV of the order) against adoption of community dogs and has openly declared that the place for community dogs for community dogs is only government shelters and they shall not be released even after sterilization. Though this decision is to be reconsidered by a larger bench of the Court, the opinion of the Highest Court of the Country is a Civilisational Wrong. The State playing into the strong western assumption that 21st Century Indians will not support a cultural movement of adoption of Community Dogs is a Civilisational Wrong.
On the other hand recognition of business in ‘Pet Dogs’ only strengthens the colonial mindset of preferring European and Non-Indian Origin Dog Breeds. A Owner or Breeder may argue that most foreign breeds today are engineered to be well-suited to Indian Climate. The question remains why deliberately change the genetic makeup of a Non-Indian Origin Dog Breed to suit Indian Climate Conditions? Does The mindset of Foreign is better than Indian run so deep that we are willing to “engineer” Life Forms despite facts stating otherwise? A very cruel argument has emerged in intellectual and literary circles that the abandonment of community dogs is due to the casteist mindset of the Indian Society. This same argument is not applied for the uprootment of Non-Indian Dogs from their native conditions. There are many instances of Non-Indian Dogs aggressively attacking children in India. A recent breeding ban imposed by the Central Government resulted in widespread opposition by Breeders’ societies and institutions that were seeded from Colonial times. Europe’s current view of animals cannot be applied in our country because the basis of European protection to animals flows from the christian ethos of stopping short of recognizing “ souls” in animals instead declaring them as “sentient beings”.
None of the Rules recommend adoption of community dogs post sterilisation as a way to encourage these children of the soil to find their “family” as they naturally inclined so. The Rules are Clear – It is Government Shelter for the Community Dogs and Homes for the Pet Dogs. The Rare Community Dog find a real home due to some kind soul. It is not yet patently “illegal” or “criminal” today to throw open your doors if one is able, to one or few community dogs and such dogs also get the best medical treatment equal to a pedigreed dog. I fervently hope this door remains open for it is the last door for the community and native dogs to find homes within our families and reintegrate into Indian Society. This sentiment is echoed in a judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Maya D.Chablani v. Radha Mittal 2021 SCC ONLINE DEL 3599 where the entire history of British influenced intervention into community dogs is discussed in great detail and the need to reintegrate Indian Dogs into society is recommended with detailed observations as to the nature of Indian Native and Community Dog Breeds. It makes for an inspiring read.
To Conclude, we must ask the fundamental civilisational question as to how as a nation and a civilization are we going to enable the four legged children of the soil thrive for the joy and benefit of our future generations. Mandatory Care of Rabid Dogs and Merciful Euthanasia of Diseased Animals as the last of last resort with collective decision making is one step in Civilisational Right done by the State within the current framework. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS V. ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD AND ANOTHER 2017 SCC 2 144 recognized references to the Isha Upanishad to stress the fact that Human Beings are not above nature and that No Species must encroach upon rights and privileges of other species. This is opposite to the Western Dogma that Animals are inferior to Man. The spirit of such dogma forms the foundational feature of the PCA Act, 1960 and by extension the Rules under the act. Civilisational Right Action is to dismantle such colonial dogma based frameworks and assist the State in being a proactive force in enforcing the law. Mere Hypocritic Protests in the name of activism motivated by Vested Foreign Interests is Civilisationally Wrong. Not Educating Children as to how to touch, play and behave with animals and to teach children not to see every animal as a threat or a food source is a Civilisational Wrong. Let us use this golden opportunity to rectify a Historic Wrongs and do what is Civilisationally Right, We, As A Civilisation Owe it to our Voiceless Loyal Companions who, Over Centuries of running aside us, have made us what we are – Human.
