'Feed them at home?' That one line has dog lovers fuming and why

India Today

4 days ago

A simple question - "Why don't you feed them at home?" - posed by the Supreme Court during a recent hearing has reignited an already simmering debate: Should stray dogs be fed in public spaces, or does this practice create more chaos than compassion?For dog lovers and feeders, the remark stings. While this was just an observation and not a ruling, many fear that such statements coming from the country's highest court could further deepen the existing fault lines between the animal lovers and those who perceive the strays as a menace.Feeding isn't the problem. The system isadvertisementHarshitha Reddy, organiser of PETEX India, says the real issue is not people feeding dogs, but the systemic failure in neutering and vaccinating them. 'There's a widespread misunderstanding that feeding strays leads to their population growing. That's just not true. What's actually fuelling the increase is the lack of active spaying and neutering by civic bodies,' she says.
She points out that even in cities like Bengaluru, civic authorities have gone so far as to allocate budgets, Rs 2.88 crore in this case, for feeding strays, recognising the need for compassion alongside control.So why does feeding strays continue to be such a flashpoint?'Because for someone who's not familiar with dog behaviour, it's easy to be swayed by fear,' Reddy says. 'One attack video can override the dozens of peaceful interactions that go unnoticed.'She adds that the media and civic authorities both have a role in spreading awareness about what to do, what not to do, and why sterilisation is key. 'This isn't just an animal issue. It's a civic issue. NGOs are willing to help, but they need consistent support. The load can't be carried by animal lovers alone.'A remark, a ripple effectMeet Ashar, legal advisor and director of Cruelty Response at PETA India, stresses that the Supreme Court's recent 'feed them at home' statement wasn't part of any binding judgment. 'It was an oral remark, not a direction, not an order,' he clarifies.He worries, however, about the unintended impact. 'Even an offhand comment can embolden those who are already hostile towards animals. It gives them a sense of validation, 'See, even the Supreme Court said it.' That's dangerous.'But Ashar is also hopeful. 'The same Supreme Court has, on record, protected the rights of feeders. In 2022, it stayed a Bombay High Court order that penalised public feeding, clearly stating that adoption doesn't mean strays must be taken home. Feeding them in designated spots is the settled position.'He points to amendments made in the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, which inserted Rule 20, officially recognising the role of feeders in helping sterilise and vaccinate dogs. 'Feeding helps humanise the dogs. Only when they're friendly can they be safely caught, neutered, and vaccinated. That's how we control population and keep rabies in check.'Beyond dog vs humanAt the heart of the issue lies a deeper question: Are we framing the debate fairly?After speaking to numerous people who have a fear of dogs, their anxiety often stems from just one thing: they may bite us, harm us, or even maul us.Every time there's a video of a dog mauling a man or child, or worse, killing someone, the debate reignites: Do these strays even deserve a place in society?And to be honest, their concerns are, to some extent, valid.But what we often forget to ask is whether the behaviour was a repercussion—was it triggered by something the victim did, or perhaps rooted in past trauma? Because, believe it or not, animals have their fair share of trauma too.'Every time there's an attack, we speak about dangerous dogs. But we rarely talk about how dogs are treated, abused, run over, left to starve,' Reddy points out. 'There's a double standard there.'advertisementAshar echoes that sentiment. 'Imagine going hungry, being kicked, and then being expected to stay friendly. No living being reacts well to mistreatment.'Both of them agree that solving this issue requires collective effort. Not just dog lovers. Not just haters. But civic bodies, RWAs, NGOs, the media, and most importantly, the public.What next?On July 23, when the matter is taken up again in court, the petitioner's lawyer will have the opportunity to present the other side of the story. A chance to shift the conversation from "Who's feeding whom?" to "How can we manage this humanely and effectively?"Because at the end of the day, this isn't about dogs vs humans. It's about coexistence, and the kind of society we want to build.- EndsTrending Reel