Tag: stray dogs

They Can Only Hope

Published on by Harpreet ChhachhiaLeave a comment

They can’t explain their hunger to you.

They can’t tell you they want your care.

They can only hope you won’t tie them up,

and drag them behind your motorbike,

until they rip apart, long after they strangulate.

They can only hope you give them a kind thought,

and allow them to crawl into the shutter gap,

away from the torrential rains,

your own greed has brought into the world.

They can only hope you won’t use plastic

to wrap their helpless newborn children,

and toss them in flowing or stagnant water,

or take time to bury them alive.

They can only hope.

Because they don’t know human beings.

They don’t know the stupid wars you fight,

and the way you shoot down anyone

who doesn’t belong to the majority vote.

They don’t know your history and greed.

They don’t know you have invaded their lands

and driven them out.

Your acts of genocide are unknown to them.  

They can only hope that you may give them a scrap of unwanted food,

under a godless sky, over a parched cement block,

and maybe just maybe 

let them be.

When Two Judges Can Move Thousands of Dogs—but Five Judges Won’t Move on Marriage Equality

Published on by Harpreet ChhachhiaLeave a comment

India just witnessed something extraordinary: a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court ordered Delhi–NCR to round up every stray dog and move them into shelters within eight weeks, warning of contempt for anyone who resists. The order, passed on 11 August 2025, explicitly rubbishes the government’s own Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023—which require sterilise-vaccinate-return (SVR) and bar relocation. Meanwhile, on the fundamental question of marriage equality, a five-judge Constitution Bench in Supriyo v. Union of India (17 Oct 2023) declined to recognise same-sex marriage, saying Parliament must act. The contrast is stark—and troubling.       

The duplicity problem

• On stray dogs (2025): Multiple outlets report the Supreme Court directed MCD/NDMC/Noida/Gurugram/Ghaziabad to remove all street dogs to shelters and never release them back—contrary to ABC 2023’s core SVR principle. Reports also quote the bench calling the “sterilise and return” rule “absurd”, and warning NGOs not to obstruct. Subsequent coverage shows the CJI indicating the Court “will look into” conflicts with earlier SC positions that barred killing/relocation.     

• On marriage equality (2023): A five-judge bench held that recognising same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act is for Parliament, not the Court. The Court acknowledged discrimination against LGBTQ+ people but refused to read queer couples into the SMA, instead suggesting a government committee to consider limited benefits.    

If a two-judge bench can, in effect, override a central rule and upend the ABC policy nationwide (de facto, via a Delhi–NCR precedent), why was a five-judge bench unwilling to interpret the SMA to uphold equal citizenship? The institutional posture flips: muscular, near-legislative urgency for dogs; judicial restraint for queer families.

Why the dog order is legally and practically dangerous

• Conflicts with law & policy: The ABC Rules, 2023 (notified under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act) codify sterilisation, vaccination, and return to the same locality. They also provide for designated feeding points and humane management. The SC’s relocation directive collides with this framework.   

• Unworkable on the ground: Delhi–NCR lacks the shelter infrastructure to permanently house tens of thousands of dogs. Civic bodies and activists warn of overcrowding, disease, and cruelty if mass detention is attempted. Even cities outside NCR are saying they simply cannot emulate this model.   

• Counterproductive for public health: ABC’s SVR model is designed to reduce bites and rabies by stabilising territorial packs and maintaining vaccination coverage. Forced removals often trigger ecological gaps, influx of unvaccinated dogs, and more conflict.  

Given these risks, the Court’s willingness to make a sweeping, arguably suo motu-style intervention (as several reports characterise it) feels less like adjudication and more like policy-making.  

Meanwhile, queer couples are told to wait for Parliament

In Supriyo, the Court affirmed dignity and non-discrimination but declined to provide a workable remedy through interpretation—despite doing exactly that in many rights cases. It was content to ask the executive to study “benefits” while keeping the door shut on equal marriage and adoption. For LGBTQ+ Indians, the message is: your equality is a legislative grace, not a judicial guarantee.  

Is this about politics?

I worry this sudden, headline-grabbing “law-and-order” posture on dogs is a political distraction at a time when allegations about election integrity are flaring. Rahul Gandhi and the Congress have launched campaigns on “vote theft,” citing manipulation across dozens of constituencies and fake voters—charges that, if true, strike at the heart of democracy. These remain allegations, and must be investigated transparently; but the timing is conspicuous.   

What the record shows (for readers who want the receipts)

• Stray dog order (Aug 11, 2025): Reuters, Indian Express, DD News and others report the Court directed capture and relocation to shelters within eight weeks; follow-ups note possible review because of conflicting past orders.     

• ABC Rules, 2023 (Mar 10, 2023): Government-notified rules mandate sterilise-vaccinate-return, designated feeding areas, and humane management by local bodies/AWOs.   

• Marriage equality (Oct 17, 2023): Five-judge bench in Supriyo declines to recognise same-sex marriage; says Parliament must decide; suggests an executive committee for limited rights. Official judgment and reputable summaries available.   

• Election integrity claims (Aug 2025): Rahul Gandhi alleges “vote-chori” in 48 seats, protests announced; these are currently claims by the opposition, not findings by a court or inquiry.   

My stance

When courts flex power to reorder city life overnight—but plead restraint on core constitutional equality—the result feels like duplicity. Stray dogs are not pawns in a political game; they are sentient beings protected under our laws. Delhi–NCR should implement ABC 2023 rigorously—high-coverage sterilisation, mass anti-rabies vaccination, monitored feeding points, quick response to aggression—rather than unlawful, unscientific mass detention. And LGBTQ+ Indians deserve more than dignity in theory; they deserve equality in fact.

If we can uproot an entire animal-management regime with two signatures, surely we can find the constitutional courage to read equality into our marriage laws—or at the very least, to stop treating queer rights as someone else’s homework.

⸻

Note on sources & fairness: I’ve cited mainstream reporting, government notifications, and the Supriyo judgment. The bench composition and some characterisations (e.g., “absurd” remark on SVR) come from multiple reports; if the Court issues a formal clarification or stay, that will need to be reflected. Allegations of “vote theft” are presented as claims by Rahul Gandhi and the Congress, pending independent verification.         

In the Face of Such Hate

Published on by Harpreet ChhachhiaLeave a comment

The moment I decided to put up my article on stray dogs, I knew dissenters would follow. I was expecting it. And of course, they did come — one in particular on Instagram telling me that I speak only on “neutral” issues, that I avoid the present government, that I don’t comment on the geopolitical world.

I told him what I’ve come to understand in my 40s: I must focus on the things that matter to me most. I cannot scatter my energy across every possible cause. My agenda is clear — to fight for the rights of the gay community in India, to speak against animal abuse, and to lend my voice to those who have none. These are not “neutral” issues to me; they are deeply personal.

I have heard the inane arguments before — If animals matter so much to you, why don’t you take them into your home?

The same logic could be applied to humans: just because I offer food and clothing to a homeless man does not mean I am obligated to house him and pay for his living expenses. Life has afforded me only so much to give. If I were a man of immense wealth, I would do more — perhaps build shelters for the stray dogs, fund hospitals for them, as Ratan Tata has done. But I work with what I have: my voice, my words, my compassion.

As for politics, I have my beliefs. I have been a liberal, a leftist, a pacifist — but these are not labels I wear on my shoulder. I do not need to shout my political alignment to validate my morality. I know where I stand. But political debate rarely brings me peace. It is not that I shy away from confrontation — I have had plenty of heated political arguments — it is simply that I choose to focus on what affects me directly, where my voice can matter most. Whether that is for children in war zones, women, for queer youth, or for an abused animal, I want my words to be intentional, not scattered.

Right now, it is the Supreme Court ruling on stray dogs in Delhi that consumes me. The idea that during two months, these dogs will be rounded up from the streets they know, stripped from the people they trust, and thrown into overcrowded, cruel make-shift shelters — it shakes me to my core.

Scrolling through Instagram, I see protests, petitions, and beautiful stories of street dogs and the humans who care for them. One reel broke me: a dog runs happily to greet a man with food, tail wagging, free and trusting. Then, the voiceover reveals that someone poisoned the dog. I thought of my own fur-kid. I thought of the grief that sits like an old scar in my body, sometimes quiet, sometimes throbbing. This day, it surges. I can not breathe.

And yet — I still speak.

I speak because silence is complicity.

I speak because what is real to me matters, even if it is not “real” to someone else.

To those who say I avoid “real” issues: my reality is different from yours. I wish we lived in a world where we could respect that — where our differing realities could exist without hate. But hate is precisely what I am seeing now. People openly say they would kill dogs; some claim they already have.

Where does this hate come from? It feels pathological. Learning Psychology in College, I was fascinated by serial killers — I wanted to understand the machinery of cruelty. Now, I see similar patterns in the way people, from behind anonymous screens, unleash venom on the defenceless.

There are facts and figures that prove how non-dangerous street dogs really are. But when hate takes root in the human mind, facts become irrelevant.

And so here I stand, like King Théoden at Helm’s Deep, looking out at the darkness and wondering — what can you do in the face of such hate?

I don’t know if the courts will be swayed by protests, petitions, or the quiet persistence of Satyagraha. But I do know this: I will keep speaking. I will not let fear or hate dictate the worth of a life.

Because the moment we abandon compassion, we abandon the very thing that makes us human.