Urban maturity and limits of compassion

India's stray dog debate resurfaces with clockwork regularity - usually after a bite, a death, or a court intervention.

- PRAVIN KAUSHAL

Each time, the conversation collapses into binaries: animal lovers versus heartless residents, compassion versus cruelty, feeders versus "anti-dog" citizens. What is missing is a serious discussion on responsibility, governance, and the psychological undercurrents shaping this conflict.

Recent observations by the Supreme Court suggesting that dog feeders may be held accountable for bite incidents have triggered outrage among animal welfare advocates. Lawyers have argued, citing scientific studies, that feeding facilitates sterilisation, reduces aggression, and helps vaccination. Courts have clarified that feeding is not banned. Yet the anxiety on the ground remains real and unresolved.

The problem is not feeding per se. The problem is unregulated compassion in a governance vacuum. When the state abdicates, society fractures. Urban local bodies across India have failed at basic animal management. Sterilisation drives are inconsistent, data is poor, enforcement is absent, and public grievances are routinely ignored. Municipal authorities often act only when courts intervene, citing fear of confrontation with activist groups or legal ambiguity.

As a result, responsibility is pushed downward onto RWAs, residents, security guards, and finally the judiciary. This is not sustainable governance.

In many neighbourhoods, "feeding" has degenerated into informal garbage disposal. Leftovers are dumped in plastic bags on streets or outside other people's homes. Dogs tear through plastic; cows ingest it; streets remain filthy. Residents complain, but are told feeding is a "right." Safety concerns are dismissed as cruelty.