Government Crackdown on Dogs Sparks Widespread Criticism and Concerns Over Pet Welfare
The notification was issued in response to the rising number of dog bites and attacks in the country.
The Controversy Surrounding the Notification
The notification, which was issued by the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, UOI, declared 23 dog breeds as “dangerous and ferocious”. The move was met with widespread criticism and protests from animal lovers and dog owners across the country. Many argued that the notification was an overreach of the government’s authority and that it would lead to the persecution of innocent dogs. The government claimed that the notification was necessary to protect public safety and prevent further attacks. However, many experts argued that the notification was based on flawed assumptions and that it would not address the root causes of dog bites and attacks.*
The Impact on Dog Owners and the Community
The notification has had a significant impact on dog owners and the community. Many dog owners have been left feeling anxious and uncertain about the future of their pets. Some have even reported receiving threatening letters and messages from unknown individuals. The notification has also led to a rise in dog abandonment and neglect. Many dog owners have been forced to surrender their pets to shelters or abandon them in the streets. The notification has also led to a rise in dog fighting and cruelty cases.
The Controversy Surrounds the Criteria Used to Classify Breeds
The notification has also sparked controversy surrounding the criteria used to classify breeds as “dangerous and ferocious”. Many experts have questioned the methodology used by the government to determine which breeds are at risk of biting or attacking humans.
The UOI’s circular was also challenged in the Bombay High Court, which stayed its operation in the State of Maharashtra.
The UOI’s Circular and the Controversy Surrounding it
The UOI’s circular, which was issued in 2023, aimed to regulate the use of the term “Hindu” in various contexts. The circular stated that the term “Hindu” should only be used to refer to individuals who practice Hinduism, and not to refer to individuals who identify as Hindu but do not practice the religion. This move was met with widespread criticism and controversy, with many arguing that it was an attempt to impose a narrow definition of Hinduism on the community.
The Controversy Over the Definition of Hinduism
The controversy surrounding the UOI’s circular centered on the definition of Hinduism. Many argued that the circular’s definition was too narrow and did not accurately reflect the diversity of Hinduism. Others argued that the circular’s definition was too broad and would lead to confusion and misidentification. The circular’s definition of Hinduism was seen as too narrow because it did not account for the many different forms and traditions of Hinduism that exist in India. The circular’s definition of Hinduism was seen as too broad because it would lead to the inclusion of individuals who do not practice Hinduism but identify as Hindu.*
The Impact on the Hindu Community
The UOI’s circular had a significant impact on the Hindu community, particularly in terms of its potential to lead to misidentification and confusion. Many Hindus felt that the circular’s definition was an attempt to impose a narrow and exclusive definition of Hinduism on the community.
This is an opportunity for the Union Government to revisit its decision and reconsider its stance on the UOI’s notification. The Division Bench highlighted that the UOI’s notification was not in accordance with the SC’s judgment delivered on January 21, 2022, which held that the UOI’s notification was “unreasonable and unjust” and that the UOI’s “attempt to regulate and control the movement of individuals” was “in conflict with the fundamental rights of citizens”. The Division Bench emphasized that the UOI’s notification would have a far-reaching impact on the lives of millions of people, particularly those who have been economically marginalized and socially excluded.