Banished without even being heard ?

 The Statesman, August 15th (Independence Day)

The news about the recent Supreme Court judgement on street animals came as a shock and surprise to many. The judgement basically pronounces that street dogs be removed completely from the streets of Delhi and sent permanently to supervised shelters in the outskirts in a time bound manner.

Though the judgement stems from a pure hearted intent to protect children from fatal diseases like rabies contracted from dog bites, the solution offered is harsh and can adversely affect the welfare of other groups in the city. Just as our children deserve safety and protection, so do the species we cohabit with. The judgement is tantamount to playing God as it literally removes an entire subspecies from its natural habitat. It goes against the friendly vibe of ‘the world is one family’ if we cannot try to coexist peacefully with street dogs (with the many useful checks and balances already in place). The oft exchanged reverent blessing of ‘Om Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah’ (may all beings be happy) starts sounding hollow when not practised on ground.

Other aspects of the judgement are disquieting as well.

To begin with, the two judges who gave the ruling made it clear that they will confine themselves only to taking the views of the government representatives. The government, as recently as 2023, notified a set of rules called the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules as an amendment to the prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. These are based on international models (WHO) and were arrived at after extensive consultation with animal welfare organisations and studying court judgements on animal issues. The rules unambiguously specify that animals cannot be dislocated from their current habitats in the city. However, in this recent court hearing, the government representatives themselves have opined that stray dogs should be removed and relocated to shelters. This complete volte face undermines the hard work of all the animal welfare agencies that worked together to frame these rules and ignores important recommendations of seasoned animal experts.

That the judges resolutely declined to entertain inputs from any other groups of concerned citizens/animal experts goes against the central tenet of a fair judicial proceeding. The entire framework of litigation is based on an equal opportunity for those on both sides of an argument to be heard. The perspective of one side must not be summarily dismissed or dispensed with. It does not imbue citizens with a sense of security if their voice is not heard.

The ‘accused’ in this case, vulnerable animals who cannot speak for themselves, have been unfairly bracketed into one single cohort and been left without any representation. How can an entire species be banished from a city without a formal procedure and detailed deliberations with all stakeholders? Especially when intent to cause harm cannot be ascribed to them as they do not have the intellect of humans. When even the most depraved criminals - such as those who were involved in the deliberate gang rape of Nirbhaya, are given several chances to be heard, to appeal etc. how is it that nobody is allowed/invited to present the case for the welfare of simple street dogs?

Though rabies has certainly contributed to the deaths of a few children, the number of cases would be far less compared to other medical problems like malnutrition or infectious diseases related to poor water sanitation that takes the lives of thousands of children. These prevailing problems have been around for decades, yet have not attracted such extreme measures, positive or negative. 

One learned judge has questioned that when dogs are taken up for sterilization, why are they put back in the same place that they were taken from? While judges may be very experienced in the application of human laws, being conversant with some of the laws of Nature is equally important. It is well established that several species of animals, including dogs, are territorial. Whereas humans can buy and formally possess land, animals mark out their territory in different ways (the description of which is outside the scope of this article). Suffice it to say that dogs feel just as disoriented when removed from their usual habitat as internally or externally displaced humans do. Hence the key decision by the court wherein it has ordered that 5000 dogs should be rounded up and sent to shelters in the next 8 weeks (and the rest thereafter), can unintentionally come across as cruelty to animals. Moreover, an entire species cannot be penalised for the bites by a few, just as all human males cannot be held responsible for the many incidents of domestic violence or sexual assaults.

The logistics of eventually rounding up close to 10 lakh dogs are gargantuan. There are few private and government veterinary hospitals dedicated to animals in Delhi/NCR. Since the numbers of dogs that will suddenly be placed under government care are so large, has the court truly satisfied itself that there are enough shelters, veterinary doctors, and animal handlers to deal with this excess load? If facilities are overwhelmed like they were in Covid, we can safely assume that several dogs will be underfed, ill-treated and packed unceremoniously into crowded spaces. Are the judges comfortable with this scenario? There are enough relevant legislations pertaining to street dogs (the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 325 of BNS) Constitutional safeguards (Articles 48A, 51A), state list rules (item 14), and previous judgements (Animal Welfare Board of India vs Nagaraja & Ors; 2014), to name a few, which ensure their personal safety. It is certainly the inherent responsibility of courts to ensure that pre-existing laws are not violated in any manner. 

If MCD officials are pressed into rounding up stray dogs for the next couple of months or years, would we see an even greater pile up of garbage and dirt in the city, clogged drains, and water logging, or would the government hire more MCD personnel to execute their regular duties satisfactorily? The judgement also decrees that a dog which inflicts a bite on human is to be caught in 4 hours. This judicial proclamation compels MCD and other officials to give dog related issues precedence over their other responsibilities. This is likely to lead to a collapse of normal civic services for citizens.

The judgement has far-reaching negative social consequences as well. Several citizens of Delhi are dog lovers. Many of them have a deep bond with street dogs, consider dogs a part of their family, spend time and their hard-earned money feeding them day and night, giving them the affection they deserve and protecting them from the ravages of city life. Snatching these dogs away from their human carers is like forcibly separating children from their parents-an incredibly insensitive and mean gesture. It can leave these citizens feeling depressed and bereaved. Do their lordships want to bring about an air of gloom in the city and send several kind hearted citizens down a spiral of sorrow, anxiety, and mental health problems? Will their lordships take the moral responsibility of this new catastrophe?

The importance of dogs in the lives of humans is well known and cannot be stressed enough: whether in their role as friends, saviours, healers, disaster squad dogs, sniffer police dogs, guide dogs for the blind and so on. Dogs guard homes and offices and their presence as pets is very therapeutic. The recent judgement forbids citizens from adopting any of these stray dogs as pets. This is bizarre, as it would contribute partly to solving the problem. Also, it fosters discrimination between individuals as poorer citizens who may like to adopt a pet may not be able to afford exorbitant pedigreed dogs on their meagre salaries. Is keeping a pet dog going to become the privilege of the rich? Are we class conscious humans going to create a class divide amongst animals too? Will we have a stratification among dogs where only adopted pets get to live a good quality of life and Indies/strays get banished to shelters?

It is indeed very painful to see a child or an elderly person suffer injuries whether it is a premeditated attack by a human criminal or an accidental dog bite. Pro-active and sensible steps taken to ensure the physical safety of our loved ones are very welcome and necessary but they should be such that we do not sacrifice our humanity or our sense of balance and proportion.

 

 

 

A traveller's view

 The Statesman May 2025

An increasing number of people use public transport for economic reasons, environmental concerns and so on. The recent collapse of a valuable customer service, Blusmart, robbed the traveller community of one robust travel option. Some of Blusmart’s likeable features included a homogeneity of cars, speed limit monitoring, good cooling, and assured rides. Being a frequent user of several app-based cab services, I have benefitted from the comfort of having such a facility yet also reflected on some gaps that if addressed, can truly enhance the experience for the user. 

Currently, luck appears to play a big part in the sort of vehicle one gets when one books a cab. There do not appear to be any standards laid down to ensure basic quality of the interiors or exteriors of the cars in the fleet.Even dirty, dented, or dilapidated cars have on occasion been given the tag of a ‘prime sedan.’ Whereas, the proud owner of such a sedan may be as pleased as punch, the customer is most certainly not! The air you inhale during the ride hinges a lot on the habits of the driver. If the driver smokes, you may well be imbibing the stale aroma of cigarette smoke, and if the driver uses a purifier, there are pleasant smells wafting about. Also, the tools you get at your disposal, to beat the heat and humidity vary from mini fans to air conditioners to just handles to slide down the windows. Perhaps a quick glance at your horoscope may well alert you as to what to anticipate during the ride that day! 

So too with drivers. Most drive reasonably well but their habits and personalities can impact your day.Sometimes, passengers who have just booked a cab may be deluged with unnecessary calls from the drivers. For commuters using the precious morning time to finish off their breakfast or complete their dressing, it is an unwelcome intrusion. Many cab drivers hail from states other than Delhi and are unfamiliar with Delhi roads. This puts them completely at the mercy of Google maps, a whimsical navigation tool. Often enough, a flyover or two turns placed close to each other can throw the driver off route with adverse time consequences for the passenger. Since passengers make phone calls during the journey and responses are clearly heard in the close confines of the car, a few drivers eavesdrop and then join in the conversation as if it is the most natural thing in the world.For example, if I give any medicine related instructions to patients or staff, I find that the driver who has guessed my profession, will suddenly begin telling me about various ailments in his body without any preamble and without even inquiring what my speciality is!

Many of these micro level issues can be easily addressed if the cab services are held accountable for monitoring the basic cleanliness level of cars, and providing hired drivers orientation workshops on Delhi routes, and some tips on customer interaction.

At a macro level, these app based services are given special facilities by the regulators. They are allowed ‘dynamic pricing’ which allows them to charge different rates for the same distance. Thus, the business fluctuations are transferred to the commuters who must absorb the problems of short supply of drivers. In fact, now there is an explicit choice to tip the driver and get available cabs quicker. This does not seem right. If people were to ‘tip’ doctors in the emergency room or judges for jumping the queue or getting faster services, it would amount to corruption.Yet in this essential service, this feature is allowed which then favours those with extra funds to spare. 

Since the app-based cars take customers from their homes to workplaces and shopping malls etc., they have very precise data on customers – where they live, where they work, where they like to shop and travel etc. We have no way of knowing whether this information is sold and to whom. It makes customers vulnerable. The app service also uses clients to get feedback on the car and driver; things they themselves should vet in the first place. My own experiences of using these cab services range from the downright scary to the truly pleasant. An unnerving journey one night was with a driver who doubled up as a music jockey during the journey. He commenced by playing songs with vulgar lyrics which were assiduously ignored by me. Not feeling satisfied he tur – ned around and specifically asked me whether I was enjoying the (cheap) music. I politely de c li n ed and said our generation preferred slow ghazals. I hoped that the reference to an older generation might make him disinterested in the passenger. However, he instead started playing different ghazals and after each one would turn round to stare at me, repeatedly asking whether I had liked it. Apart from his constant turning around in his seat being risky for our collective safety, it made me truly uncomfortable. I did not really know what I could to do to change the situation at that late hour. I felt utter relief when I reached home. Another regrettable incident was when I was dumped unceremoniously on a dark road in front of a long boundary wall (the end of which was nowhere in sight) in the late evening wearing a sari, adorned with jewellery and carrying a heavy gift. The driver insisted that the journey map showed ‘done’ so I must exit from the car. I tried to appeal to his logic that the journey’s end should coincide with an entry gate or building at least but the driver was adamant that his responsibility to me had ended so I must disembark straightaway. No amount of reasoning or persuasion worked.Finally, I was forced to walk about 3/4ths of a kilometre on the dark stretch carrying a heavy load and looking nervously over my shoulder till I finally reached the entrance which was on the other side of the compound. 

There are also many instances when the ride has been a truly joyful one. Some drivers are very courteous, wish you politely, keep to themselves, and will be good Samaritans when it matters, such as patiently waiting for you when you buy an urgent drug from a chemist en route. One elderly driver I happened to be journeying with swerved left a little sharply which resulted in a collision with two motorcyclists, one of whom got a few superficial injuries. I expected a fight to break out and feared for the old driver.The driver got out of his cab and offered to take the injured biker to any nearby hospital for wound dressing. I was very pleasantly surprised when the affected motorcyclists as well as the collected bystanders exhibited kindness to the aging driver and assured him that they would manage everything themselves, asking him to resume his journey. Clearly, Delhi at its best.

To conclude, app owner business teams can make the journey a most satisfying experience for the public should they put in a few more value-added services. The regulator should ensure that the overall average driver rating (across all drivers) is made publicly available. This will indirectly ensure a more thorough selection process. Travellers will stand to benefit.

The curse of Capitalism

 The Statesman March 25

Capitalism, the ‘saviour of the free world,’ was touted as an economic paradigm that incentivised effort, encouraged barter and most crucially, brought power back into the deserving hands of the masses of regular, hard-working people. Sadly, many of these objectives have not been achieved. Moreover, capitalism has generated some popular narratives and engendered ways of living and thinking that bear significant reexamination.

Power has once again become concentrated in fewer hands than ever before. A handful of corporate megaliths use their economic clout to stifle competition, effectively discouraging diversity. Additionally, the non level playing field thus created even blunts the pace of their own research, turning innovators into mere mass producers. For example, a well-known chip manufacturer, once ad mired for dynamically improving computer processing speeds, lazily plateaued into monotonously releasing slightly better versions of the same chip every year once they gained a sizable monopoly. Some tech mega brands that dominate the market coast comfortably every quarter more on the class consciousness of their loyal users rather than genuine upgrades of their products over time. Even revolutionary technology like the large language models of AI was deeply influenced by market forces.

A small cartel controlled the research which was as expensive as it was exclusive. It took a small start-up from China to shake things up. By providing a version that was a fraction of the cost and freely available to everyone, they totally changed the narrative. Capitalism justifies its own ideas and actions, while blaming others: The key ingredient to a fruitful business idea, as many executives will say, is ‘solving a common problem.’ Capitalism some times can create a problem, partially solve it to feign progress, and generate a new problem along the way. We notice how big firms in developed nations outsource production to third world countries, availing cheap labour rates and thus increasing their profits. They are welcomed by the officialdom in these countries on the premise that jobs are being created locally. However, these jobs are quite basic and often exploitative (underage workers, unsatisfactory working conditions etc.). Ironically, these profit hungry megaliths are not accused of taking away valuable jobs from their own country by outsourcing. Rather, the spotlight falls on foreign immigrants to their country ~ these are blamed for usurping local jobs. In fact, much of the employment taken up by these immigrants is that which local people shy away from doing. The lenses and metrics capitalism chooses to view overall economic progress ignores imp – ortant nuances.

One would think, rationally, that the indicator of a strong economy is the ability of the common man to sustain himself financially. When we look at India’s economic prosperity through the lens of GDP growth, it is easy to think that we are doing extremely well ~ due to the huge turnover of corporate powerhouses. However, this measuring tool masks the pitiable living circumstances for the myriad poor and thus is not very reliable. Capitalism has somehow normalised the discrepancy between senior managers of companies on business trips being put up at five-star hotels after journeying by business class and masons and bricklayers not getting even a decent dormitory to sleep in when they cross state boundaries to work. The narratives spawned by the big fish portray themselves in glowing terms while being a little derogatory about the smaller players. Robust small size enterprises are pejoratively termed ‘mom and pop’ shops. On the other hand, big conglomerates confer on themselves epithets like ‘unicorns,’ when they could well be labelled ‘King Kong’ enterprises (that destroy others in their path) for example. Likewise, NGOs sourcing funds (to help others) are dismissively deemed to be ‘begging’ for funds yet regular business companies pitching for funds (for their personal growth and profits) are painted as brave warriors who tamed the ‘sharks.’ Capitalism weaves itself into processes and subverts healthy trends: Capitalism is slowly seeping into various professional ecosystems and modifying them in ways that could be unsuitable. Take the world of medicine for example.

Rather than concentrating mainly on professional excellence and service with a smile, corporate hospitals are increasingly focusing on going deluxe. The outcome of hospitals simulating destination res or – ts comes at the cost of raised tariffs, out of the reach of many. The content of medical literature is also changing, with the incorporation of heavy amounts of (to my mind) unnecessary economic data. When we were young medical students, the articles written focused chiefly on the disease entity itself. Now a days, there seems to be a requirement to write about the economic implications of diseases and interventions. Is this necessary? Is the impact on the GDP an appropriate focus for students reading journals to learn the medical nuances of diseases? Similarly, nowadays, discussions in corporate hospital monthly meetings are as much about the revenues generated by various specialities such as cardiac, orthopaedic etc. as they are about hospital policies. Where once senior doctors on grand rounds held up patient charts for groups of students to scrutinize and learn from; we now have hospital administrative staff holding up excel sheets with graphs depicting departmental earnings and ‘educating’ doctors, nudging them to not ignore fiscal responsibilities to the hospital even while dealing with responsibilities to patients. Medical insurance companies in some countries have found a way to skim profit at every stage of a patient’s interaction, creating a new angle to medical care that denies access to many who severely need it simply because their life-threatening disease is not on a list of preap proved conditions. Doctors who take conservative approaches to diseases or choose gentler cures that take longer may well be blacklisted by insurance companies who prefer a quick solution or surgery. When did society agree that black suits should hold more power over healthcare decisions than white lab coats? Capitalism insists that the financial net worth of an individual overrides everything else: Well-wishers and professional psychologists alike tell us of the overriding importance of investing time and effort in no – urishing our souls, minds, bodies and becoming self-aware. Then along comes capitalism and persuades you that your bank balance overrides everything else. Many companies have a ruthless professional ethos that dictates employees must first and foremost be robust cogs in the professional wheel ~ and family, life, health, and liberty are lower on the rung of importance, firmly below corporate targets.

Clearly, capitalism has managed to trick us into believing that a rich slave is somehow freer than a poor one. Gullible executives grossly neglect their personal life and family chasing higher packages and designations in the corporate world. This often does not end well; the executives discover they are professionally dispensable when the company happens to downsize and the people who they have neglected at home for years are not exactly waiting for them with open arms. Capitalism persuades you that you must keep putting the details of your life out there on social media, to build your personal brand. The bigger the ‘influencer’ you become, the more wealth you could attract.

Slowly and surely, rather than products, it is humans who have become the advertisement. We have been persuaded to change our perspective from ‘I think, therefore I am’ (cogito ergo sum) ~ to ‘I influence therefore I am.’ Focus on money/profits contributes to severe lapses of judgement: Recent news carried stories of immigrants from third world countries deported back from the US. Amongst these were fellow Indians who sold valuable land, gave staggering sums of money to unscrupulous agents, got into debt, risked getting arrested or killed ~ all in the belief that it would improve their monetary prospects in the future in the US. Such is the illusion of success created by capitalism that it makes people leave the priceless comfort of home, family, and friends, and take a difficult gamble on making it big in a foreign land ~ likely after years of more sacrifice and struggle.

What is not clearly thought out, is that if the same vast sums of money were invested in the home country itself, the immigrant would have a likely chance of economic success here itself, in some form or another, while simultaneously being on more predictable and familiar territory along with the benefit of familial support. It is a similar desperation for profit that has often brought out the inhumane side of supervisors in charge of factory or agricultural workers. In Beed, Maharashtra, for example, you may have read of the harrowing tales of women workers forced by their contractors to undergo hysterectomies (often in unhygienic, unsafe conditions) just so that they do not have to take a day or two off from work during their periods. Rather than promote true merit as envisioned, capitalism has instead somehow spawned an environment where the act of generating profits (by hook or by crook) is itself deemed excellence. There seems to be no end goal with capitalism.

Considering the failings of capitalism, it is important to question some of its entrenched narratives. At an individual level, we can surely try and lead our lives on a much broader scale than that envisioned through the narrow pecuniary confines of Capitalism. As far as governments are concerned, they must put humans before banknotes. Much like the land ceilings which got rid of the Zamindari system, regulatory adjustments can put healthy limits on mega capitalism (e.g. no single entity can own more than 10 per cent market share) to encourage other players and strictly monitor monopolies and restrictive trade practices. Not getting unduly influenced by the profit-oriented outlook of capitalism is what will truly enrich mankind.