|
NGOs turn to history to save dogs .........Shibu Thomas I TNN
Mumbai: Drawing a leaf out of history, animal rights NGOs cited Manu, Kautilya’s Arthashastra, and the city’s colonial history to support their case before the Bombay High Court to continue the ban on killing of stray dogs. The arguments were on Tuesday and came after the BMC had told a full bench of the HC that the civic law allowed the civic chief discretionary powers to kill stray dogs who cause nuisance.
Advocate Rahul Thakur, representing the NGO In Defence of Animals went back to the Vedic times to prove that the killing of animals, except for food, was an anathema to Indian culture. “Prevention of cruelty to animals is a philosophy that has been ingrained in the our society historically,’’ said Thakur. The advocate referred to the laws laid down by Manu in the Rigveda, where the punishment prescribed for cruelty to animals was chopping off of the hands.
In 300 BC, Chanakya in his Arthashastra had emphasised on the need for compassion to animals, where a person maiming a dog or any other animals could have his thumb chopped off and those found killing animals, except for food, could be awarded the death punishment, said the advocate.
Advocate Thakur also pointed out to the court of the first riot over animals in the city had occurred over the feeding of stray dogs by Parsis, in which three Englishmen were injured. This led to the setting up of an infirmary for animals in Parel by the Petit family.
The NGOs further focussed on the statistics furnished by the BMC to drive home the point that killing strays has not worked. Between 1984 and 1994, the BMC killed around 4.49 lakh stray dogs at a cost of Rs 2.01 crore. The deaths occurring due to rabies during this period was 50 per year. Since the 1998 ban on the killing of stray dogs, NGOs with little help of the corporation have sterilised around 62,702 strays. The advocate pointed out that average deaths due to rabies have fallen by more than half to 24 per year.
“It is a scientific fact that the more you try to annihilate a species, it will resort to survival tactics,’’ said Thakur. “For over 150 years, the BMC has followed the policy of killing strays but met with failure. This itself is a good reason to adopt a new strategy since the last five years of sterilisation have given effective results,’’ urged the lawyer.
The advocate also contended that the BMC Act authorising the the discretionary power to kill stray dogs went against the fundamental duty enshrined in the Constitution to show “compassion to all living beings’’.
At this Justice Radhakrishnan asked whether it was compassion to kill a mortally wounded/rabid dog or to let it live and suffer.
Advocate Norma Alvares, counsel for a Goa-based NGO, told the court that even with a violent dog it was necessary to isolate it and hold it in a shelter to verify whether it actually had rabies, so that all the people who had come in contact with the animal could be administered antirabies shots.
A full bench of the high court comprising Justices S Radhakrishnan, Vijaya Kapse-Tahilramani and Dilip Bhosale is hearing petitions seeking a lifting of the court’s ban on the killing of stray dogs. Senior advocate K K Singhvi, counsel for the corporation had earlier argued that the the BMC Act gave discretionary powers to the municipal commissioner to order the killing of stray dogs.
LICENCE TO KILL: Chanakya in his Arthashastra had emphasised on the need for compassion to animals
|
