Are animals ‘public’ enough for policymakers?
A chance conversation with a colleague, who is also a law graduate, led me to the understanding that in India, pet animals are deemed as ‘property’. Essentially, animals in India, unlike human beings, are not accorded a legal status. This implies that any non human being cannot be sued or sue another in a court of law.
This vests the responsibility to care for and to uphold the dignity of animals, as sentient beings, in the hands of the human citizens of the country. This is where the relevance of creating policies that are comprehensive and practically implementable and effective, in equal measure comes in.
Policies need to be created keeping in mind that the community impacted is in no position to speak for and defend themselves against malpractice and cruelty.
In India, there have been laws that have been passed to prevent cruelty to animals. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA) was passed in 1960, which was thereafter amended over the years, with the latest amendment made in 2018. Under the Act, Rules were passed to provide for the safety of and protect animals from cruelty in different forms.
Yet, every other day we hear a news report of stray dogs being poisoned to death, pet parents inflicting torture on their pets or animals being treated in abominable conditions in testing laboratories — all of which happens despite laws being passed and vocal protests being made by activists to uphold the rights and dignity of animals.
It clearly points to a policy paralysis, due to poor implementation on ground.
As animal rights lawyer Ambika Hiranandani, points out in this article, the issues with protecting animals rights in India are manifold. Apart from an on-ground implementation challenge, the policy tenets can also be considered anachronistic to a large extent. Whether seen from a top-down or a bottom-up approach, either ways policymaking for non-human beings in India can be considered to be made from a myopic and superficial lens.
Weak disincentives:
For any policy to be effective, the gravitas of its adherence in spirit as well as action needs to be ingrained in the policy guidelines itself. This is where one can clearly view the lacunae. While the act of a human being hurting another human being invites anything from a hefty fine to a rigorous imprisonment in jail, most acts of cruelty against animals, no matter how heinous, get away with a fine of only INR 50. This combined with the fact that most acts of cruelty against animals go unreported altogether, apart from a general apathy by the public, also indicate a lack of faith in the government machinery to mete out adequate punishments to the guilty.
Ambiguous representation:
The custodian of animal rights in the country has been defaulted to non profit organizations or groups of animal loving citizens. This can be attributed to the fact that at the state or the city or district level, there is no government machinery that holds the responsibility of providing for the welfare of animals. The Animal Welfare Board of India–constituted under the PCA, is the apex body responsible for institutionalizing any laws and guidelines for animal welfare. However, till date a ministry that is dedicated to management of animal welfare is missing at either the Central or the State level. Moreover the Board is annexed to the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying. This ministry, which is responsible for generating revenue from livestock and fisheries would unarguably find itself in a conflicting position for management of a Board that is expected to commit to animal welfare.
Challenges with Social legitimacy:
The fact that India is also a very complex demographic, characterized by socio-cultural norms and traditions, that oftentimes conflict with animal rights, makes policymaking in this sphere a vexed problem. The controversy over banning of Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, or animal sacrifice during other festivals such as Kali puja or Eid-al-Adha are examples of the fact that keeping the balance of upholding animal rights while not hurting religious sentiments, is a tight rope walk in a country like India. Any policy guideline would have to be cognisant of these aspects, for it to be effective and practical in its implementation.
Capacity constraints:
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how ill equipped the State was to provide for animals who were rendered homeless and without food or water. The responsibility for abandoned, ill and starving animals fell on the shoulders of activists and local samaritans. States that were themselves grappling with the pandemic, are constrained by the absence of adequate resources to provide for animal welfare especially in an unprecedented situation like this.
Where do we go from here:
In 2014, India became the first country in Asia to ban the testing of cosmetics and their ingredients on animals. In 2020, it banned imports of cosmetics that have been tested on animals. However testing of animals in pharmaceutical laboratories continues, amidst protests from animal welfare organizations.
In 2019, the The Punjab and Haryana High Court accorded the status of “legal person or entity” to animals in Haryana. However, this was an exceptional judgment and in many ways outlines the gap between the legislation and the judiciary.
The issues that pervade in this space are multi-level. Illegal trade of wildlife animals and animal products, poaching, factory farming of animals, cruel measures taken against stray animals and a general apathy towards the general living conditions of livestock and poultry indicate the imbalance that exists between furthering personal and economic interests of human beings and protecting the dignity of animals. It is also immature and myopic to consider human life insulated from any kind of damage being inflicted upon wildlife or animals in general.
Only the combined efforts of the government, the executive and society can work towards developing a society where the rights of non-human beings are given as much credence and dignity as that of human life. It is important for policymakers to understand the gravity of the situation and act before it gets too late.
“The greatness of a nation and its progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” — Mahatma Gandhi