Street Dogs: The Harsh Truth Nobody Admits

Questioner: Namaste Acharya Ji. I am also part of the bookstore team in Kanpur and we prepare and do some awareness campaigns regarding “Operation 2030” that covers the part of climate change, and veganism is also a subset of that problem. Two days back, there was a directive by the Supreme Court regarding the stray dog issue of Delhi and NCR region. When we read that news, parallelly there was another thing that started outpouring on social media, which was basically the emotional outpour by animal activists, vegan activists, dog lovers, and all that was going on.

In that context, I would really appreciate it or I would really request you to please help me interpret this situation in a better way. The next part of this question is: How is this activism, or the emotional activism going on against this on social media, justified?

Acharya Prashant: First of all, you have to appreciate both the parties principally involved in the equation: The Supreme Court and the dog lovers, the animal activists. Both have valid points.

Where the Supreme Court is coming from is that the stray dog population in India is close to 7 crores now (Source: GlobalPETS). You add pets to that, it is 10 crores, and that's a big number. And the number of dog bite cases runs into several millions. The number of rabies deaths runs into several thousands annually, I suppose 15–20,000 per year. That's a very large number. Rabies, as you know, cannot be cured once it happens, and you die a very painful death. Even if you do not get rabies, the number of dog bite cases is just too many to be ignored. That is where the Supreme Court seems to be coming from. You have to appreciate the position of the court. This has become a threat to the public at large. That's the position the supreme court is taking.

Then you look at animal activists, dog lovers, and obviously, they have a point. They are saying, "Dogs have been man's companions for thousands of years. And they live around our settlements, our communities, and there is a certain bonding between man and dog. Suddenly we are saying we will round them all up and take them outside and put them in shelters.”

We very well know that we do not have that kind of capacity in shelters. We also know the estimated investment it would take. We probably have not budgeted that. How is that going to happen? These dogs were roaming the streets free, sometimes cared for. Now you will pack them up in ill-maintained shelters, and they will not have food. They will not have freedom. They will fight among each other, they will bite each other, and there will be transmission of disease and all kinds of ills. You can just imagine. So, the animal activists' point has to be appreciated.

However, there are nuances that we need to understand when we broaden the picture beyond the immediate pain and the immediate emotional reaction. Yes, the Supreme Court is right in saying that dogs have become a problem, a big problem. And the dog lovers are very right in saying that dogs are not just animals; they are community. But please see where it all begins from, and then you will understand where we are positioned.

Some 20,000 to 40,000 years back, there was an animal that you could call a wolf. Not really a wolf, but related to wolves. You could call it a cousin to wolves.

So, this animal started coming closer to human settlements. Not all members of its species, but those members that were a little more calm by temperament, less aggressive, a little friendlier, a little more docile. They started coming close to the peripheries of human settlements. Why? Because they would get food. They would get food there. And humans didn't object to that. Humans, in fact, probably to some extent supported and promoted that. Why? Because these animals would form some kind of a ring, an external boundary, and protect them from other animals and also warn them of impending attacks or threats.

The process continued, and this wolflike animal, even today if you see, the name for our common dog here, the pet, is Canis familiaris, and that for the modern wolf is Canis lupus. So, they come from the same family.

Then this wolflike creature that came close to humans started breeding. Evolution was at play. Only those members stayed close to humans that were calm, more calm, and had a milder temperament. Only those. And after every successive generation, the characteristics of this animal kept changing by a little. It started wagging its tail, which wolves don't do. It started losing its weight and size. It started, over thousands of years, looking remarkably different from wolves, and it became adept at mingling with human beings.

So, it developed the ability to read human emotions and it came to be known as a dog. So, in some sense, this species was born out of human touch, human relationship, human company. This is a very special species, the dog species. It didn't take birth really in the jungle. It was born around us and because of us.

One important thing that it provided was scavenging services. So, all the rubbish that you would throw at it, it would clean up. There was no manufacturing then, no industrial goods, there was only organic waste, and most of that organic waste would be cleaned up by the dog species. So, dogs became a very close companion of human beings. That's how dogs were born. You could say, if you can understand how dogs took birth, you'll also understand what is happening now.

So, dogs became part of the human community, human folklore, our tales, and our homes. And then came cities, and not much changed because dogs came firstly to eat from man. And the first cities had a lot of dumping spots and public garbage. So, the scene didn't change much for dogs. Their principal relationship with man was based on availability of food near the man. Right? That's how the wolf came to man. The wolf had to run around and hunt and said, "No, it's better to go near these people. They eat, they throw the waste, the remains, and I can have all that and I can just sit there and guard them, and they seem to be happy with it. It's a deal." And the deal remained because even in cities, and of course in villages, man was still throwing around enough stuff for the dog to survive.

The dog, in turn, was providing services, like guarding homes, sometimes acting as a guide or night watchman — many things. The dog was not useless. The dog was being put to work. The dog became part of the way we lived and also the way we worked. The dogs were included in our professions, our vocations. So all that continued, but the fundamental thing was availability of dumped food.

Fast forward to the 1960s, '70s, '80s, places like Europe, Japan, Canada, US; the availability of waste in urban places reduced dramatically because of cleanliness and because of door-to-door collection of waste. You don't have to pile it up somewhere. And even if you are dumping the waste somewhere, it is in a secured bin that dogs cannot enter. Some vehicle will come and take the whole thing away. And the urban dog population greatly reduced because there was no food to eat. That is the situation in Europe and Japan. That is how the trajectory of the dog population responds to the trajectory of urbanization.

The more a place urbanizes, the more the free-ranging dog population diminishes. The stray dogs, that is, for the simple reason that there is no food for them to eat — gated colonies, secured societies, prosperous neighborhoods where there is a lot of money. Those people like cleanliness, and where there is cleanliness, there can be no dogs because they'll get nothing to eat. Simple reason.

And dogs came to human beings in the first place just to eat. And now that relationship cannot exist because in urban areas, by definition, it'll be very difficult for stray dogs to survive. And that's what has happened. If you go to European capitals or Tokyo, you won't find any street dogs, really. But does that mean that those places don't have dogs? They do have dogs, but as pets.

Millions of dogs as pets. Millions of dogs. Also, because the more you urbanize, the more the family size reduces. The more the family size reduces, the more people feel like keeping pets for company. Are you getting it? And the same thing is bound to happen in India as well. You cannot stop that.

Also, as we know, there were mass sterilization programs. The dogs were not necessarily chased away to shelters. They were taken away, vaccinated, sterilized, and left to their original areas. Once they are incapable of breeding, you find the populations of the dogs start declining over a few years. And that will happen, right? The dogs can be left there, but now they can no longer have offspring. And that's what happens.

The dog populations in urban areas are bound to reduce, but they will continue in the peri-urban areas near slaughterhouses, in the semi-urban areas or in the rural areas. There, they'll continue, and they'll continue there too, only as long as those places don't get sufficiently developed. Even in those places, as they keep developing, it will be difficult for dogs because dogs need garbage. Stray dogs need garbage. If a village becomes totally clean, it will also become inhospitable to dogs, more or less. And the dog population is bound to dwindle. That has happened in all places that have developed. That will happen in India as well. Are you getting it?

So, there are only two options then for stray dogs: either integration or extinction. Integration into the family or extinction from the road. We are not talking about the extinction of dog species. We are talking of extinction of stray dogs, the being on the roads as a lifestyle for dogs that will go extinct. You go to a developed place, and you will not suddenly find a dog in the middle of the road. That does not happen. For that matter, a cow or a buffalo, you will not find that there. So, there has to be either integration or extinction.

Now what does integration mean?

They'll have to be adopted. That's a simple solution. If you love dogs, adopt them. Otherwise, no activism can succeed against historical forces. Maybe you can succeed against a particular court order, but you cannot stop the march of history. Time is all-powerful, and there are certain patterns in time that you cannot resist.

With urbanization, it will become difficult for dogs. It has become difficult for dogs in other places. It will become difficult for dogs in India also. And that's what you see unfolding in Delhi NCR. You cannot stop that. The only way to stop that is integration. And integration means putting your money where your mouth is. Let dogs into your homes. If you really love dogs, adopt them. Bring them in. Open your gates.

You cannot say the dog will remain on the street. If the dog will remain on the street, see, please understand we are living in the age of climate change, and not just climate change, the cities have local hotspots, right? We are talking of roads of cement and asphalt, and it's hot. You know, when there are summers, dogs love to dig into the soil. The more a space gets urbanized, the more it also gets cemented, the more the temperatures rise. You cannot just wish dogs to be around in urban spaces. That is very, very impractical. You cannot wish them to be around. But yes, they can be inside. They cannot be around, but they can be inside. And when they are inside, then you take due responsibility and due care, right? Because it is not just rabies. There are several other infections related to dogs.

It is not just that human beings suffer because of dogs. Dogs do suffer. They are eating your waste. Obviously, that's not a welcome situation. Look at how they live. Look at how they get crushed under the wheels. Look at how they are beaten up. Look at how they fall ill and die. That's not a welcome situation. So if we are imagining that we can have dogs around, that is not going to happen. History does not support that. You're thinking of a utopia that will not materialize. Dogs can never be around, at least not for long. Maybe for 10, 20 years you can somehow afford that, not much beyond that. You'll have to bring dogs inside.

If you're really sincere, don't just protest on the roads. Bring the dogs inside. You leave the dogs on the roads, just feeding them won't help. It's not just food that an organism needs. If you are feeding them and leaving them there, what about the public nuisance? Yes, it is true that dog bites occur. Yes, it is true that people are afraid of taking walks in the dark for fear of being chased by packs of dogs. Yes, it is true that there are cyclists, bikers, and pedestrians who get chased by dogs, and then the bikers meet accidents, and then there are deaths. Yes, that happens. And obviously, in all those things, the poor dog also gets killed. So, leaving dogs around in an urban environment is not a good idea. Old people are afraid of taking walks. Kids are afraid of going out. Yes, that is happening. That is not just fear-mongering. That actually happens.

But dogs are beautiful creatures, faithful creatures, and they have been with us for like 40,000 years. They're great as pets. I know for sure. I've had dogs. I've had several animals. Dogs are one of the smartest and emotionally very responsive. Bring them in. That's the only way. That's the way of the whole developed world. That's the way of history. Are you getting it?

Right now, the whole debate and the outrage around it is centered on street dogs. Let the dog remain, not as a street dog. Let the dog remain not as a stray dog. Only then can the dog survive. Otherwise, the dog will be wiped out, at least from the urban environment.

Now let me come to another aspect of the whole thing. Yes, it is obviously beautiful when we see our species caring for another species. It is also understandable that care will first touch those who are around us, the nearest to us. If you are a caring person, a responsible person, a compassionate person, it is natural that your compassion will first touch the beings who are physically around you, especially the closest to you. So, it is all right to have compassion for dogs. It is beautiful to care for other species. Yes.

But why care for just one species? We all know dogs are lovely. But let's also, beyond the emotion, put things in perspective. In India alone, we said we have 10 crore dogs. That's a lot. Dogs are not in danger of mortal extinction. On the other hand, in India itself, we have at least a hundred species of animals and birds that are either critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable, and we don't talk of them. This obsession with just a few species is the bane of the animal world.

You know how far this obsession has taken us? 96% percent of all animal biomass, which is the weight of all animals, comes from just a few species that we have domesticated (Source: Our World in Data). 8 or 10 species contribute to 96% of the biomass of the animal kingdom. And the remaining millions of species contribute just 4% of the mass because we care only for those species that are around us. Those species have proliferated — dogs, cats, chickens, buffaloes, cows, sheep, camels, pigs. These species have become so numerous that they have encroached upon the rights of the entire animal kingdom. Food is being grown to feed these species, and food is being grown by hacking down jungles where the other species live.

So, because these few species are useful to human beings, just as dogs are useful to human beings, there are some 7 or 8 other species that are useful to human beings in various ways, mostly as food. Because these 7 or 8 species are useful to us, we have artificially bloated their population to an extent that they now make up 96% of the animal kingdom by mass, and we care only for these few species.

If you go to a vet and you say, "I want to bring a zebra to you," he will not know what to do with it because even our veterinary sciences have taken care only of the animals that are of use to us. So, we have medicines for cattle, for cats, for dogs, and that's about all. For chickens, and that's it. Other animals, we don't care for.

So, if you are really an animal lover, if you say you are an animal lover, why are you not caring about the millions of other species? What kind of selective, species-specific love is this? What kind of love is this?

On one hand, it is heartwarming to see human beings coming out for other species. But then one feels like wondering, why only one species? Do you know the rate of species extinction? Hundreds of species are going extinct every day, hundreds or maybe thousands, and this rate of extinction is 10 to 100 times greater than the natural rate (Source: World Wide Fund for Nature). So, we are killing them. On one hand, we are killing hundreds of species every day — not just killing, but wiping out, making them extinct. On one hand, we are wiping out hundreds of species every day. On the other hand, all our affection is reserved only for the few species that are of use to us. What kind of selfishness is this?

If you are an animal lover, I want you to be vocal about the millions of species, but instead, you are focusing only on these two, three, four. Now, these two, three, four, I also care about. Yes, obviously. But not only these two, three, four. Are you getting it?

Climate change is the biggest threat, the mortal threat to animals. Climate change is the one factor responsible for the maximum misery to animals. Climate change and deforestation together — and climate change and deforestation are both linked to each other. If I am really an animal lover, if I'm honest, then the first thing I'll speak about is climate change. But instead, we find people calling themselves dog lovers and focusing only on dogs and having nothing to do with the climate.

In fact, they'll feed their dogs several kinds of packaged foods, dogs as pets, packaged foods that are manufactured at the cost of the climate. So basically, in keeping one animal of one species alive, you are bringing untold and deep misery to hundreds of members of hundreds of other species. Now, what kind of animal love is this? Feeding chicken to dog. Feeding fish to cats. Let me be blunt, and forgive me for that.

Calling yourself an animal lover or an animal activist and not having climate at the very top of your agenda is sheer hypocrisy.

Rescuing 1 or 2 or 5 or 50 animals is a wonderful thing. But if we love to rescue 2, 5, 50 animals, why doesn't our heart bleed for the crowds of animals we are slaughtering every day, and not just slaughtering, making them extinct forever every day? How are these two things compatible? One dog we want to rescue, and I'm glad we rescued that dog. When you are rescuing that dog, I too will come to lend a helping hand. Wonderful! But even as you rescue that dog, you are silent when it comes to the millions of deaths happening daily. What kind of animal love is this? Getting it?

So, there are these two sides: the side of the court and the side of the public. And they both have valid points, but I think both are missing the bigger picture. What the Supreme Court is proposing is not very practical, from what I could gather. You take away dogs from a place. Obviously, you have not taken away dogs from its neighboring place, right? Assuming you take away dogs from NCR, but NCR has a boundary, and you haven't taken away dogs that lie outside that boundary. The moment you take away dogs from NCR, dogs from outside the boundary will eagerly come in to fill up the vacuum.

Because dogs are territorial, which means that territory was earlier not available to the dogs outside the boundary. Now they'll happily come over and breed, and in no time you will find that the dog population is back to where it started from. So, this sounds impractical, also inhumane. I just cannot calmly visualize dogs all crowded together in some kind of a dog shelter, and I don't know what measures we have to ensure the welfare of the dogs there. So, I cannot accept that it's going to be a pleasant experience for the poor animals there. The Supreme Court position suffers from these flaws, in my opinion.

What the animal activists are doing, I think, is more reaction than compassion because

Compassion includes wisdom. Compassion cannot be person-specific or species-specific. If you have compassion, then you will let it radiate out to everyone.

Yeah, that's what I have to say in this.

show_less