The recent Supreme Court orders regarding street dogs have sparked concerns about India's commitment to its foundational principle of non-violence, according to animal protection experts. The court's fluctuating stance - first staying dog removal orders, then directing clearance of certain public spaces - reveals a deeper societal issue that extends beyond animal welfare.
The Historical Pattern of Devaluation
Bharati Ramachandran, CEO of Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations (FIAPO), points to historical precedents that show how the categorization of living beings as "stock" or "nuisance" can have far-reaching consequences. Historical plantation records from the 18th-19th century demonstrate this pattern clearly, where oxen, horses, and human beings were all entered as "stock" in accounting books.
"Those plantation owners didn't wake up one morning and decide to brutalise people; they had already trained themselves to see sentient life in a narrow way," Ramachandran explains. The dangerous question "Does it work for me or get in my way?" becomes the lens through which all life is evaluated, making it easier to shift certain human populations into the same disposable category.
Administrative Decisions That Normalize Suffering
The expert emphasizes that cruelty rarely appears as a single dramatic act. Instead, it manifests through a series of administrative decisions that make suffering invisible and removal sound reasonable. The language of "clearing areas," "removing nuisances," and pleading lack of capacity creates a toolbox that becomes equally applicable to street vendors, informal settlements, and forest-dependent communities.
"The mindset is identical: Life that causes friction can be moved, confined, or erased," Ramachandran states. This approach contradicts India's constitutional directive to show compassion for all living creatures and the country's relatively progressive animal protection laws.
Ahimsa as Civic Discipline, Not Just Slogan
India's established approach to street dogs through Animal Birth Control rules represents a science-backed, humane method that aligns with ahimsa principles. The sterilize-vaccinate-return model stands in contrast to removal-based solutions that often lead to overcrowded, underfunded facilities with slow suffering and certain death.
Ramachandran argues that ahimsa must return as a civic discipline rather than remaining merely a slogan. This means refusing to cause harm for speed, optics, or the convenience of the powerful. Properly funding sterilization and vaccination programs would eliminate municipalities' pleas of helplessness while maintaining public health and safety.
The connection between animal protection and human rights becomes clear when examining how state machinery develops habits of mind. If everyday officials, ward officers, veterinary inspectors, panchayat staff, and transport police are trained to see animals as subjects whose suffering matters, they simultaneously develop the capacity to see all vulnerable lives as worthy of care.
This developed empathy becomes crucial for protecting pavement dwellers, migrants, and forest-dependent communities. The state doesn't grow two separate consciences - one for people and one for animals - but rather develops a unified approach to life at the margins.
As India moves forward in 2025 and beyond, maintaining the core of ahimsa requires explicit acknowledgment that a state practicing compassion in small matters is less likely to be brutal in significant ones. This isn't about sentimentality but about governance that recognizes the interconnectedness of all protection efforts.
