My Kids Have Fur

The other day, I visited my cousin’s house, and once again, I was reminded of the silent wall that often stands between how people say they love animals, and how little they actually see them. I understand that in many families, dogs are appreciated—even adored—but rarely do they cross that invisible line that transforms them from ‘pets’ to ‘children’. But for me and my sister, that line was crossed long ago. Our dogs are our children.

We’ve made a conscious choice to not have human children. As a gay man, I never felt the inclination or desire for biological parenthood. Biologically, I cannot reproduce with another man, and philosophically, I am what many would call an antinatalist. I look at the state of the world, the cruelty, the suffering, the apathy—and I know I couldn’t bring another life into this chaos in good conscience.

Instead, I chose a different path: to love, nurture, and raise animals. Not just the ones at home, but also the stray ‘kiddos’ I meet on the streets. I feed them, care for them, look after their health, and do what I can within my capacity. My home, however, belongs to my three kids—my dogs. They sleep on the beds, lie on the sofas, and follow house rules. They listen, they understand, and they love. They are gentle, warm, kind, and patient—qualities we often hope to cultivate in human children. But with these little ones, it comes naturally.

That’s why it hurts when people fail to see the depth of that bond. In my residential colony, I am often pulled up for the smallest things—a drool mark in the lift, a strand of fur on a step, a missed spot I forgot to clean after a late night. People look at us with disgust, as though we are encroaching on their pristine human world with something unclean. It’s funny how tolerant we pretend to be of differences—until that difference is actually different.

Children from our building often play with our dogs. They’ve never been harmed. In fact, it’s the toddlers who embrace our dogs most naturally, without prejudice or fear. But the adults? They carry biases so deeply embedded, they don’t even realise how cruel they sound. “Every dog bites,” they say. Just like they say, “Every man is a predator,” or “Every gay man will try to convert you.” It’s this knee-jerk vilification—of communities, identities, or species—that reflects something broken in the human condition. J.K. Rowling’s comments about trans people trying to erase women’s rights is just one such example of this prejudiced, uninformed thinking.

During my cousin’s gathering, there was a small incident. My sister poured some used water—water that our dogs had drunk from—into a sink where used utensils were kept. The vessels were already dirty, but the reaction was instantaneous. My cousin objected. She didn’t want the ‘dogs’ water’ to fall upon the humans’ dirty vessels. My sister took offence. To me, it was understandably so. For her, our dogs are family. They share our space, our lives, our routines. They’re not ‘less than’. But I tried to mediate—I told her we were in someone else’s home, and we had to respect their discomfort, even if it came from a place of “othering”.

But it’s these little moments that sting. Like when my cousin, on hearing that my partner and I were also celebrating 25 years together, said, “Oh, but ours is official.” As though two and a half decades of shared life, struggle, and love somehow means less because we don’t have a marriage certificate. As though our relationship is a placeholder, not a permanent bond.

For many people, I suppose it will always be: Your dogs aren’t children. Your love isn’t real. Your life isn’t equal. But for me, none of that changes what is true in my world. My children have paws. My relationship, though unofficial in the eyes of the law, is rooted in commitment and resilience.

We must learn to see with eyes wider than our biases, to feel with hearts larger than our traditions. Because love—be it between humans or between humans and animals—is never less valid just because it doesn’t fit a template.

If you’ve ever loved a dog, or any animal, bird, fish, like a child, you’ll understand. And if you haven’t, I hope one day you will.

Peace

 From the time I first understood the consequences of wars — the devastations of the First and Second World Wars — I have been a pacifist at heart. As I grew older, this conviction only deepened. Today, as we witness renewed conflicts — Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Palestine — I stand firmer than ever in my belief: all war is wrong.

War is a menace to human society. It is a tool not of the people, but of the powerful; a weapon wielded by those who profit from death and destruction. The arms industries, the merchants of ammunition, the political elites — they gain wealth, power, and dominion, while ordinary people pay with their lives, their homes, their dignity. War is capitalism in its ugliest, bloodiest form.

In my youth, like many, I once thought that wars were fought for ideals — for justice, liberty, validation, or the right to be seen. But life and literature taught me better. I read deeply — I read Aldous Huxley, Ernest Hemingway, J R R Tolkien, and, the war poets like Robert Graves, Rupert Brooke, Wilfred Owen, whose haunting lines exposed the shattered illusions of the battlefield. 

Owen’s famous lines from Dulce et Decorum Est come back to me:

“My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.”

There is no glory in war. There is only suffering. Soldiers often march to battle filled with ideals, but they return, if they return, carrying only trauma and grief.

I come from the land of Mahatma Gandhi — a land whose greatest hero showed that violence is not strength; that true power lies in non-violent resistance, in the refusal to harm another even in the face of cruelty. Gandhi, inspired by the teachings of many religions, and writers like Thoreau and Tolstoy, taught us that:

“An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.”

He proved that justice could be fought for — and won — without shedding another’s blood. Nelson Mandela, too, chose reconciliation over vengeance. Martin Luther King Jr., standing tall against the racism of America, knew that hatred could not drive out hatred. Only love could.

Even John F. Kennedy once said:

“Mankind must put an end to war — or war will put an end to mankind.”

It is a simple truth, yet it is ignored by those who stand to profit from chaos.

As a gay man, I have witnessed oppression firsthand. I have fought battles for dignity, for visibility, for the right to simply be. But I have never even contemplated lifting a hand, nor needed to. True change is not born from violence. The greatest revolutions — the ones that endure — are those of the spirit, not of the sword.

Even in revolutions that began with noble intent — the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution — violence bred new oppressors in the place of the old. It is a vicious cycle: violence begets violence, cruelty begets cruelty. What is won through blood is often ruled through fear.

Today, the spectre of nuclear catastrophe looms over us once again. Thinking about it fills me with dread. War no longer only kills soldiers — it threatens everyone, indiscriminately. It will rob the world of food, water, life itself. It will annihilate the innocent: children, animals, future generations yet unborn. And for what? For pride? For power? For profit?

The leaders who fan the flames of war today are as dangerous as Hitler, Mussolini, or any dictator of the past. They have not learnt. Or perhaps they have learnt — and simply do not care, because it does not cost them anything personally. It costs us. What do they accomplish? Nothing but ruin.

Yet despite all this sorrow, despite the darkness that so easily threatens to overwhelm the heart, I end this article in hope. Because hope — like love — is stronger than war.

As Aldous Huxley wrote:

“After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”

And if music, if poetry, if love, if gentleness survive, so does humanity.

Gandhi’s dream has not died. Martin Luther King Jr’s dream has not died. The dream of a world governed by love rather than fear, by understanding rather than force, is still alive in every heart that refuses to hate.

So what can one do?

One can live the revolution quietly.

One can refuse to hate. One can choose peace — again, and again, and again. One can nurture kindness, listen to the pain of others, speak for the voiceless, stand for what is right without lifting a weapon.

And in doing so, one builds the only kind of world worth living in.

As Rumi reminds us:

“Try not to resist the changes that come your way. Instead, let life live through you.”

Let love live through you.

Let peace live through you.

After all, Gandhi did say, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” 

The Blame Game

On 22 April 2025, a devastating terrorist attack occurred in Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, resulting in the deaths of at least 26 tourists and injuries to over 20 others. This incident, the deadliest of its kind in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks, specifically targeted male Hindu tourists and was reportedly aimed at resisting alleged demographic changes in the Kashmir Valley.

The attack was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of the Pakistan-based, UN-designated terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba. The assailants, dressed in military-style uniforms, opened fire on the tourists, leading to a tragic loss of life.

In response to the attack, Indian authorities launched extensive security operations, including combing homes and forests for suspects. The Indian government accused Pakistan of supporting terrorism in the region, a claim that Pakistan denies. The incident has led to heightened tensions between the two countries, with measures such as the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and increased military readiness.

But also in the aftermath, the expected chorus of blame began: apart from the terrorists’ religion, on the government and even the victimised tourists. News channels erupted with opinions; social media buzzed with anger, shock, and polarising narratives. Everyone had something to say — yet the deeper rot continues to go unnoticed.

I kept silent until today because, by default, I see the sides that many do not. I see how swiftly the blame game spirals out of control, and with it, the rise of hate crimes — doctors turning away Muslim patients, Muslims losing their jobs, and some even losing their lives to vigilantism! An entire community being vilified for the crimes of a few. The old, tired claim resurfaces: “All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” It is a statement so easily flung about, but one that is fundamentally untrue.

History tells a different story. Terrorism is not the property of any one faith. Violence has found vessels in every ideology and in every people. Yet, when fear rises, generalisations flourish, and nuance dies. I’d like to cite as examples, the Oklahoma City Bombings (1995), the Norway Attacks by Anders Behring Breivik (2011), Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church Shooting (2008, USA), London Nail Bombings by David Copeland (1999, UK), Tokyo Subway Sarin Attack (1995, Japan), Eric Rudolph’s Bombings (1996–1998, USA), Ku Klux Klan (KKK) Activities (USA)… need I go on?

Today, a friend — a doctor — shared that while terror has no religion, “most terrorists are from one.” I had to speak, because this blindness is dangerous. It dehumanises millions who have never lifted a weapon nor harboured hate in their hearts. Extremism is not confined to any one religion or ideology. In India alone, we’ve witnessed violence perpetrated by various groups across the religious and political spectrum. To highlight one form while ignoring others is not only intellectually dishonest but also fuels the very divisiveness we seek to overcome.

Since a while now, we have been told that Kashmir is safe, that normalcy has returned. But Pahalgam tells us otherwise. The attack exposes glaring lapses in security and intelligence, yet few dare to directly question the government. The primary issue is not the religion of the attacker, but rather the systemic failures that allowed the attack to occur. Security lapses, intelligence failures, and policy shortcomings are complex issues that require nuanced analysis, not simplistic metaphors. Conveniently, the national gaze remains fixed on Pakistan — the familiar enemy — but we ignore China’s growing occupation into Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh. We never look east; we have been taught only to look west. And it is costing us.

A few days ago, I remembered Mahmoud Darwish’s words:
“After the war, the leaders will shake hands. The old woman will wait for her martyred son. And the girl will wait for her beloved husband. And those children will wait for their hero father. I do not know who sold our homeland. But I saw who paid the price.”

I thought of the COVID-19 Delta wave in India in 2021 — a biological terror that ravaged thousands of homes while the government remained helpless, silent, or worse, indifferent. The COVID-19 Delta wave that struck India between April and June 2021 resulted in approximately 240,000 deaths, as reported by the United Nations. This period was marked by severe shortages of medical supplies, including oxygen, and overwhelmed healthcare facilities, leading to a significant loss of life.

My own family mourned the loss of an aunt, just as countless others buried their loved ones, gasping for oxygen in a country they had trusted. There was no blame game then, no 24-hour news cycle wailing about government failure. But when a terror attack strikes — when religion is involved — blame erupts instantly, and hatred finds easy targets.

Governments everywhere — in India, America, Europe — have always profited from division. Hindu vs Muslim. White vs Black. Men vs Women. Rich vs Poor. Straight vs LGBT+. Divisions keep them powerful; divisions keep the people distracted and weakened. It has been thus throughout history. In our history, the classic example of Imperialism using it against us is not even a century old!

When people are silent, dictators rise. When hatred is fed to children in schools, an entire generation grows up poisoned. The world once watched Hitler demonise Jews, and today we watch Israel commit atrocities in Gaza — and the cycle of hypocrisy continues.

Yes, the Pahalgam attack was horrific. Twenty-six lives lost in a targeted assault against Hindu tourists in Kashmir . It is natural to grieve, to rage, to demand accountability. But when that grief morphs into a sweeping indictment of an entire faith community, we must pause. We must ask: are we seeking justice, or simply a scapegoat?

Muslim scholars, activists, and everyday citizens have long been engaged in efforts to promote peace and counter extremism. Their work is often overlooked or dismissed, yet it is crucial to building a more inclusive and understanding society. No one talks of Syed Adil Hussain Shah, a 28-year-old Muslim pony ride operator, who laid down his life to protect a group of Hindu tourists during this brutal terror attack or of Sajjad Ahmed Bhatt who carried an injured boy.

We write. We speak. We bear witness. And we hope that one day, people will realise they have been made fools of — divided, manipulated, and made to suffer for agendas that are never their own. Until then, innocent lives will continue to be lost. The poor will continue to be brainwashed. And those who pay taxes and trust in their governments will continue to find themselves unprotected — even from those who claim to serve them.