Yesterday, 11th August Supreme Court directed authorities in Delhi and the surrounding areas to capture all stray dogs within six to eight weeks. The order requires the animals to be sterilized, vaccinated and permanently moved to shelters with a strict ban on returning them to the streets. The aim is to protect citizens, especially children, from the growing threat of dog bites and rabies. Penalties have been warned for anyone obstructing the process.
The decision triggered strong protests in the capital. Animal rights activists, local caregivers and several organisations called the move unscientific and cruel. They argued that existing rules already demand sterilisation and vaccination but also state that the dogs should be returned to their original locations to prevent territorial conflicts. Many questioned whether this change would truly make people safer without creating new problems for the dogs.
Concerns over what will happen to the dogs after capture remain serious. Most shelters in Delhi are already overcrowded and poorly maintained. Many are run by NGOs with limited funds and space. Shifting thousands of dogs at once could lead to unhygienic conditions resulting in spread of disease and high death rates. There is also the ecological aspect. Stray dogs have been part of the urban environment for decades. They play a role in keeping certain pests under control and removing them suddenly could disturb that balance.
The safety concerns behind the order are supported by troubling numbers. Across India there are an estimated 17.4 million dog bite cases every year and around 20,000 deaths from rabies. Delhi and its surrounding areas recorded over 35,000 animal bite incidents and 49 rabies cases in the first half of this year alone. On average about 2,000 dog bite cases are reported every day in the capital. Nationally the count rose to more than 3.7 million cases last year, a sharp increase compared to the years during the pandemic.
Yes it is true that these animals are lives in themselves but the numbers tell a different side of the story. Those who are comfortable sharing their streets with them are free to feel that way, but there is also a group of people who suffer the consequences of attacks and bites. If the love for these dogs runs as deep as many claim, there is always the option of bringing them into homes and offering proper care. Yet most are unwilling to take that step. This only leaves the burden on those who never chose to live alongside them in the first place.
It is clear that the rule addresses a real public safety problem. For families that have lost loved ones or seen lives permanently changed by dog attacks immediate action feels necessary. Yet without enough shelter capacity and a proper long term plan this move could create suffering for the dogs and new risks for people.
Perhaps the decision is right in intention because human safety cannot be ignored. But what will follow remains unknown. If shelters are built well, care is humane and population control is done responsibly this could bring relief. If not the crisis might simply move from the streets into cramped enclosures. The outcome is uncertain and that uncertainty may decide whether this becomes a solution or a new problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment