The Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying of the government of India has sent out a circular, recommending the ban on import and breeding of 23 dog breeds in India. The ministry describes them as “ferocious dogs which are dangerous for human life” in its circular. An analysis, even as a court stays its implementation
By Sujit Bhar
Dogs are a man’s best friend, mostly. Sometimes though, dogs can become ferocious and attack humans. These have happened in India in two ways. The first has been the extreme menace that exists in many cities of stray dogs attacking people, sometimes maiming and even killing. The second is the fascination of some Indian families of keeping as pets certain dog breeds that are known to be ferocious. They are also bred for the illegal sport of dog-fighting.
While the first issue is being dealt with by law enforcement agencies and even by courts on a case-by-case basis, there has been a recent move by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India, to ban the import and breeding of 23 dog breeds in India. The ministry describes them as “ferocious dogs which are dangerous for human life” in its circular. The circular from the ministry is still far from becoming a law—the Karnataka High Court on March 20 even stayed the implementation of that circular (Shri King Solomon David & Anr vs Joint Secretary and Others) within Karnataka—but it is necessary to understand its implications.
The government circular comes following expert recommendations and PETA’s involvement. While no new dogs in those 23 categories can be imported or bought or exchanged/registered (if the circular becomes law), the existing owners of such dogs will also have to comply with new licensing, sterilisation and vaccination requirements to be able to keep their dogs.
The circular was apparently issued in response to appeals to the Department from NGOs and activists. The ministry, however, seems to have not taken into account or even consulted with stakeholders, including the Kennel Club of India, dog owners, trainers and breeders.
This knee-jerk reaction of the ministry was the final outcome of a petition filed by The Legal Attorneys & Barristers Law Firm before the High Court of Delhi. The reasons were attacks on humans and animal abuse. While the petition has a lot of merit, a circular issued sans parleys with invested parties was not fair. This was one of the reasons for the Karnataka High Court granting a stay on the circular. The Delhi High Court has also recommended that stakeholders should be consulted.
The Debate
The circular, which is in the form of a recommendation in the absence of a law, has come in for praise and criticism. The debate about what dogs to buy and breed as pets has cropped up again. This is more so for what are called exotic breeds, or breeds that do not originate in India. Even the common German Shepherd and the Dobermann Pinschers are barely Indian.
There is some sense in the circular being treated as a positive move. Some activists say this could stop illegal dog fighting and also prevent foreign breeds from suffering in Indian climatic conditions. The latter can be seen in every Indian city. Firstly, most exotic dogs need plenty of exercise that is not possible to be provided in city environments and by people busy with their work. The dog remains tied up at home, mostly as a status symbol, progressively growing more aggressive to strangers.
Then there are dogs such as the Husky and the St Bernard, which are dogs of extreme cold climes. Such dogs are bred in the hot climes of India and the torture they suffer because of that can make them extremely aggressive or weak and short-lived. These dogs are not Chihuahuas that can survive in constrained environments.
The circular should not have been issued without proper thought and exhaustive debates. The circular, though well intended, could end up causing more harm than good for the pet world of India.
Case For Indian Breeds
Though not too popular, there are Indian dogs that are more suited to Indian homes, being able to completely adapt to extreme climatic conditions of the country, as well as proving all the companionship that other dog breeds give. Some activists say this trend could also minimise the stray dog menace. These dogs have also been known to be very intelligent, if trained well.
Delano Henriques, a Mumbai-based dog trainer and behaviourist, has been quoted in the media as saying: “Every dog, even a Retriever or a Labrador, which are known to be extremely human-friendly, can become aggressive if not exercised or kept in good living conditions.” Delano insists that labelling these 23 breeds as aggressive and banning them is discretionary.
Originally aggressive dogs, such as the Kangal, were used to protect sheep from wolves in farms in cold climates. In Punjab, for example, there have been several incidents of illegal dog-fights, using such exotic dogs. It has also been reported that breeders sometimes cross-breed them and constantly stimulate them so that they can win the fights. These are rare cases and can be dealt with case-by-case like the street dog menace.
Accountability
There is also talk about fixing accountability. There is talk of registering every dog breeder with local authorities, so illegal cross-breeding is not carried out and that parents should be made accountable for the training and good upkeep of their dogs by law.
There already exist potent laws in India for the protection of animals. Section 428 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, for example, states the punishment for killing, poisoning, maiming, or rendering useless any animal or animals. Section 429 of the same spells out the punishment.
Those apart, there is the existence of the Wildlife Protection Act (1972) and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. In this, “cruelty” includes [under Section 11 (a) to (o)] cruelty against the person’s own pet, inhumane transportation, inhumane living conditions (even for animals destined for slaughter), tail docking, ear docking.
It is possible to properly implement these laws, beef them up with amendments that make them more stringent.
Ultimately, it all depends on the authorities’ ability to implement them and bring offenders to court.