Who has the right to Public Spaces?

[The Supreme Court directive on street dogs exposes a glaring apathy towards the species that humans domesticated to provide protection and companionship] I was walking home at night last month when I felt a man following me. It is entirely possible that he was just a random pedestrian, but when I walked faster, he picked up speed too and when I crossed the road he crossed after me. It was scary, and since I was a couple of minutes away from home, I did the only thing I could- I called out loudly to our street dogs. Within moments, both of them bounded up, and leapt on me demanding cuddles. The man who I thought was stalking me melted into the darkness. Maybe it was just my imagination and the man had actually meant no harm, but as far as I am concerned, the street dogs had protected me when I needed them. The Supreme Court issues a directive not backed up by research! 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 new 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 by an ongoing programme of sterilisation and 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 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. Become a Medium member The media misuses data to tell the wrong story In order to give a level of credibility to an otherwise unscientific argument, graphs and pie charts were shared to prove that stray dogs were a menance. The data on 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 was on a downward trend, started increasing after the COVID Lockdown. This actually proves that sterilisation works, because even the half-hearted attempts at sterilisation were suspended during Lockdown, resulting in an increase in dog population and consequently an increase in potential man-dog conflict leading to an increase in cases of rabies. If the trend of data is to be believed, that more than anything else proves that sterilisation and vaccination is the 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, the people supporting the directive issued by the Supreme Court refused to listen. The controversy also exposed falut lines in society 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 thought 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, however, cannot be a binary, because there are too many nuances to the issue of stray dogs. 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. Who has the right to exist in public spaces? Are they meant for humans alone? My greatest objection is to the widely held belief 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. The Supreme Court has now come up with an interim order, which rolls back the recent directive and essentially asks that the existing guidelines on sterilisation and vaccination be implemented. It is now upto each of us to hold the municipal authorities accountable for ensuring that this order is carried out with compassion and alacrity. It is also upto us to treat animals with compassion and to teach our children to do so. When one set of humans is cruel to dogs, they become suspicious of all human beings- if we treat our street dogs with kindness, they reciprocate. We need 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.