DEATH OF A CAT

A stock reaction from a section of people reading about the tragedy befalling a non-human animal is to say: “why are you grieving over this cat/dog/donkey when there are people dying of hunger and are getting killed in war zones?” But comparing individual or mass human tragedies and those affecting non-humans is odious to anyone with a modicum of genuine compassion.

The term speciesism is still rarely used, especially in India. But the need to eschew hierarchies when it comes to dealing with misery will be recognized by the sensitive and the sensible.

An evidently sweet and charming cat, who had apparently been a long-term companion to at least one human being and precious friend of many others, died an unnatural death late in March. From an evocative and highly reliable account of the death and life of that dear feline being (http://wildatheartdelhi.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/obituary-for-james-and-open-letter-to-jet-airways-and-the-delhi-we-love/), it seems clear that the tragedy was avoidable. A company into whose care that precious little living bundle was given is alleged to have blundered, with its allegedly ill-trained staff adding to the misery of the grieving human companion of the deceased through shocking and callous insensitivity.

If that company thinks we’ll all have forgotten after a few days or weeks, it can think again. Some of us refuse to forget.

Cats. Most humans who use languages in which the neuter gender exists prefer it when referring to non-human living beings in the singular: “It”. Although substantial sections of humans around the globe have institutional or cultural practices of respect for nature – for all fauna and flora – unfortunately the average human today cares little for the welfare of other species. Far be it from their conception to respect non-human living beings (assuming they respect even human ones).

The late James Dean, the feline, is now known to many tens of thousands of people around the world, because of Tara Chowdhry’s account flagged above, which has deservedly been read and shared by countless numbers. A petition has done the rounds: http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/jet-airways-make-your-airline-safe-for-animals-in-your-care.

The company concerned first issued a brief, 200-word statement via Facebook in effect denying responsibility for the tragic death at its hands, which it dismissed as “accidental demise” and “unfortunate incident” (https://www.facebook.com/notes/jet-airways/jet-airways-sincerely-regrets-the-accidental-demise-of-a-pet-cat/518862838151912).

Such was the furious reaction it sparked that the company came back two days later with a 1,000-word note, obviously another PR-cum-company-lawyer job, full of passive sentences signifying little (https://www.facebook.com/notes/jet-airways/jet-airways-statement-on-james-dean-the-pet-cat/519587208079475).

The overwhelming number of responses to these two statements – perhaps upwards of the 95% range – is by people expressing dismay and disgust and not buying the company’s version. A tiny percentage – in fact, tinier than might have been expected – voice cynical objection to the indignation and condemnation of the way little James Dean was handled. Their objections are mainly three-fold – why are you agitated about this cat when humans are dying, don’t you eat meat (in other words don’t you cause the death of other non-human animals, so why object to this cat’s death) and an underlying assumption that cats shouldn’t be allowed the luxury of international flight (dump this one and get another at your destination, was one breathtakingly insensitive suggestion).

Picture: Courtesy http://wildatheartdelhi.wordpress.com/

It would be interesting to know how many of those who ask “why don’t you talk about human misery” do so themselves except while objecting to the discussion of a non-human’s fate. These are akin to the people who object to reports about human rights abuses in Kashmir by saying why don’t you talk about Kashmiri Pandits. And the ones who say why don’t you talk about the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom by Congress Party goons when one raises the issue of the anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat in 2002. Or when the harassment of Muslims in India is discussed, pat comes their question: why don’t you talk about Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh? As if one instance of cruelty either cancels the other out or justifies the other.

The existence and persistence of human misery does not preclude the need to reduce cruelty towards animals. Most of the passionate advocates of human rights are also wedded to the idea of humane treatment of non-human animals. Because, the bottomline is compassion, which brooks no exceptions. A compassionate attitude on the part of a human has necessarily to extend to non-humans.

As for meat consumption, of course, from a vegan/vegetarian viewpoint as well as an ecological one, the ideal world would be one in which human beings reduced or eliminated dependence on animal protein. But that is not going to happen overnight. There are movements of people working for such an eventuality. But they have decades of work cut out. However, the persistence of animal-protein consumption should not in any way mean that human beings should be cruel to living non-humans. Or that they should be inconsiderate towards animals in their care.

Why fly a cat (even if only in the hold)? This is classic speciesism. It’s pretty rich for humans to be robbing milk from cows, eggs from chickens and putting millions of animals to death to extract meat (which is transported by air too in massive quantities) and then object to efforts at easing the pain non-human animals endure or efforts at ensuring that a given human and non-human team can stay together after one of them moves to another place.

Why fly cats, why make prosthetics for dogs and other disabled non-humans? Why not let them die? Such queries need really not be dignified with an answer. Fortunately, there are enough sensitive and level headed humans who ignore such inanities and carry on with their humane care for the non-humans.

Moreover, those who raise such objections fail to read the responses. Such was the experience with two articles I wrote recently on the issue of non-human animals and their right to exist: “An Indian Would Be Vegan’s Defence of Beef-eating” (http://www.countercurrents.org/jayaram011012.htm) and “Let Independent Dogs Be” (http://www.countercurrents.org/jayaram201212.htm. The latter was reproduced in a Bangalore-based website and drew some bizarre comments: http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/articles/view/4753-the-issue-of-stray-dogs).

 
But let us talk business. Airlines are paid to carry the remains of humans, for burial in their home countries or climes. The flesh of non-humans – all sorts of mammals, birds, fish and others – is transported in refrigerated containers. So why this level of apathy for a paying – living – non-human passenger, companion of a human? Moreover there are dogs in the service of security forces, customs, drug enforcement authorities and so forth present in many airports. Should there not be properly trained veterinary carers in the airports to cater to them and others?

Had the company which was paid a tidy sum to transport James Dean been compassionate and its employees been trained to be too, the tiny cat would have lived. It is this compassion deficit that led to the tragedy and that continues to prevent the company from issuing a sincere public apology. It is not too late to make amends while ensuring that such a tragedy is repeated never again.

WHOSE DAY IS IT TODAY?

International Labour Day 2013 has been and gone and today is another day. Vast numbers of workers are back to wallowing in disunity, uninvited to lose their chains. And on this the 2^nd of May, I have three disjointed thoughts:

Solidarity with the people of Hong Kong, a city where I spent a total of 16 years and where the labour movement is quite vibrant albeit under the thumb of an undemocratic government beholden to business lobbies and to Beijing, which listens more to tycoons rather than to workers and ordinary people, never mind that the ruling party in China continues to use the word “communist” in its name for perhaps nostalgic reasons (if one might be charitable).

Hong Kong’s dockworkers have been on strike for a month now.[1] All they are asking is for wages to be returned to levels before they were reduced on the pretext of economic downturn.[2] The man who is denying them the small consideration is Hong Kong’s richest tycoon, Li Ka-shing, who reputedly enjoys a direct line to the Beijing leadership.[3]

For several years until 2011, I marched on May Day with Hong Kong’s tens of thousands of workers from Victoria Park to Government House in scorching afternoon heat. The drumbeats of Indonesian domestic workers in colourful clothes and similar antics of others provided a bit of entertainment along the route, making up for the machinations of the police force mindlessly trying to restrict the space available for the rally.

Since moving back to Bangalore, India, in February 2012, I march, shout slogans and raise fist vicariously. To be sure, there were May Day rallies here too but mostly by individual political parties or groups linked to them.

Yesterday (May 1), Garga Chatterjee, rightly said in his Facebook update: “… Almost all of my Facebook friends from the subcontinent belong to the middle/upper-middle class. Since yesterday (April 30), many of them have been talking about May Day and workers’ rights, posting pictures and what not. Most of their homes have at least one domestic help working for them. I am sure, that person did not get a day off on May Day…”

Touché.

And too late.

By the time I’d read it, a part-time worker had been and gone after her roughly one-hour stint helping clean dishes from overnight and beating up a few clothes on a stone, in addition to cleaning the floor around my parents’ house and the front-yard. She has a mobile phone but I doubt she’s on Facebook. How many domestic workers, full-time or part-time, in India are even aware of IWD?

In Hong Kong, foreign domestic workers – mostly from Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand and Nepal – have formed a number of unions and organisations to deal with not only their employers and the local authorities but the unreasonable fees and rules their own countries’ governments gouge out of them.

Garga Chatterjee might have had Facebook friends from among them had he lived in Hong Kong, as a large section of the foreign domestic workers in Hong Kong are on Facebook and use it partly to organise.

Eni Lestari is one such. She’s bright and dynamic but however long she lives in Hong Kong, she’ll not be granted permanent resident status. I got it after seven years, because my visa conditions were different. I once asked Eni if she couldn’t try and squeeze a scholarship to study in a university in Hong Kong. She said the foreign domestic worker visa precluded conversion to a student visa. Apartheid.

 

I too am a worker. I used to be a full-time journalist for decades. For 11 years I worked at a French organisation whose branch had no union but which nevertheless allowed a five-day working week (with compensatory offs for night shifts), 13th month salary and medical coverage until 2006 when I opted out, taking sabbatical leave to enrol in Hong Kong University. I subsequently worked for several months full-time but mostly part-time as a journalist for both commercial entities and human rights NGOs, something I still do since returning to my hometown, Bangalore.

The payment per day for freelance editing has stagnated at the 1990s level in Hong Kong. And that per word of translation for another Hong Kong-based entity has remained the same since, I am told, 2006. An agency in Taipei that used to be under the thumb of the ruling Kuomintang party – a once rabidly anti-communist group that presided over “White Terror” on the island until democratisation began in the late 1980s – pays a more decent rate and I might do a spot of work for them.
I am a freelance/independent journalist and translator. We hacks sell our wares and services to those who’ll have them at a price they quote. No union. Nada.

[1] http://hkstrikes.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/hong-kong-strike-expands-after-36-days-more-than-100-on-shore-and-on-board-checkers-join/

[2] http://hkstrikes.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/interview/

[3] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323550604578410233885297880.html

A PAEAN TO ALL THE GOOD PEOPLE OF HONG KONG

(Hong Kongers have been celebrating the Lunar New Year, also known as Spring Festival, the biggest holiday of the year and my thoughts turn to the city from where I moved a year ago after a total 16 years’ stay and to the wonderful people I’d got to know.)

Many people, including some Hong Kongers, have at times dismissed its residents as merely money-minded. Such generalisations of people anywhere are likely to be off the mark: In Hong Kong’s case, spectacularly so.

I confess there was a time when I joined in sniggering in assent when this alleged money-mindedness of Hong Kongers was mentioned, but over time got to know vast numbers of people whose interests were far removed from money-making. Rather, they were passionate about humanitarian action, human rights and the rights and welfare of non-human animals.

Those who see Hong Kongers as focused entirely on earning and spending need to consider:

June 4 Candlelight Vigil: Some hours after the Chinese armed forces crushed the “Beijing Spring” and cleared Tiananmen Square of student demonstrators in 1989, more than one million Hong Kongers held a candlelight vigil. (Hong Kong’s population was then a little more than 5.7 million.)

June 4 Candlelight Vigil, Victoria Park, Hong Kong. (Picture: Astor Shek)

Since then every June 4 evening, Victoria Park, the size of 40 football fields, gets packed with people, entire families often wearing black, holding candles listening to messages of support from Chinese activists around the world and singing songs.

In recent years, some mainland Chinese visitors too are said to be taking part in the only such commemoration in a Chinese city.

So concerned at putting up a decent show are the participants that dozens of people scrape the candle wax off the grounds following the vigil, to leave the park as clean as they found it.

The July 1 Rally: When Hong Kong’s undemocratic government was preparing to adopt in 2003 a sedition bill that would have meant curtains for many of the freedoms the city still enjoys, about 650,000 people rallied. Meaning, nearly one in ten Hong Kongers then marched three and a half kilometres (more than two miles) in scorching heat from Victoria Park to Government House.

July 1 Rally from Victoria Park to Government House.

That rattled a pro-Beijing group whose main constituency is the business elite, and which has a stake in preserving a semblance of the rule of law in Hong Kong. The Liberal Party pulled its support and the bill fell through. Since then, every July 1, many groups join together to restage the rally as a pro-democracy exercise. In 2012, an estimated 400,000 people took part.

Human Rights and Humanitarian NGOs: Hong Kong is one of only two cities with a predominant ethnic Chinese majority (the other being Taipei) able to host a range of human rights organisations. Most are underfunded, with overworked staff. Many do a superb job of championing rights, especially the right to freedom of association and to form trade unions in a continent where such rights are routinely trampled on.

The Asian Human Rights Commission is based in Hong Kong as is the Asia-Pacific office of Amnesty International. Among the best-run NGOs is China Labour Bulletin, which has reasonable working hours for its staff and produces regular and informative reports. (Disclosure: I have edited a number of CLB research reports.) Asia Monitor Resource Centre is another which takes a continent-wide approach to labour issues.

A large number of people fleeing dictatorial regimes land in the city. Organisations such as Hong Kong Refugee Advice Centre and Christian Action help them cope while they await processing of their cases.

Rain Lily is a crisis centre for women who have suffered sexual violence and has rendered quiet but yeoman service.

Though not an NGO, the law firm Barnes & Daly deserves praise for having courageously taken up cases of refugees in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong also hosts several telephone hotlines for people in crisis to vent their feelings.

 

One Person Pro-Democracy Army – “Long Hair”, or formally, The Honourable Leung Kwok Hung (梁國雄), Member of the Legislative Council, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: He is one of Hong Kong’s perennial protestors. Few days go by when he’s not confronting the authorities on some issue or other to do with people’s livelihood, collusion between tycoons and the governments in Hong Kong and Beijing and the lack of democratic rights.

With “Long Hair”, The Honourable Leung Kwok Hung, Member, Legislative Council, HKSAR! (Photo taken by Sarah Carmichael)

“Long Hair” is the enfant terrible of Hong Kong. Frequently at odds with the police, often hauled before the courts, he is defended by eminent senior counsels such as Martin Lee, Gladys Li, Paul Harris and Philip Dykes, because the issues he raises touch everyone’s fundamental rights – freedom of assembly, right to stage peaceful protests and freedom of opinion, as well as daily bread issues that affect the poor and middle classes.

Some months ago “Long Hair” posted on Facebook a picture of himself in a suit. Most people would hope he’ll never join the suits but remain a thorn in the authorities’ side and a doughty rabble-rouser for democracy and human rights.

One Person Anti-Racism Army – Fermi Wong Wai-fun  (王惠芬): The way Fermi tells it, affluent members from among the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong are so apathetic about the racism prevalent in the city that they neither participate in nor contribute materially to the campaigns and efforts to help the indigent among them or campaign for fair treatment.

Fermi and a few associates, coming together under the UNISON banner, have waged indefatigable struggles to get racial discrimination outlawed. A Race Discrimination Ordinance has at long last been passed.

Fermi Wong

Behind the scenes people such as Professors Kelley Loper, Vandana Rajwani and Puja Kapai of the University of Hong Kong’s Law Faculty, Devi Novianti, formerly of Christian Action and James Joseph Keezhangatte, formerly of the University of Hong Kong, have contributed to the promotion of equal opportunity standards in the city.

Fermi’s ever-smiling and effervescent presence at meetings and her usually cheerful posts on social networking Internet sites belie the fact that she tires herself out combating the negativism her chosen mission entails. She remains a beacon of inspiration.

One Person Labour Rights Army – Debby Chan Sze-wan (陳詩韻): Also associated with other larger human rights issues: Tian An Men Mothers and the human rights of the people of Tibet and Burma, to name but two.

Debby’s self-effacing nature and apparently hesitant smile when she speaks at meetings might mislead inattentive members of the audience as regards the seriousness of the issues she raises. But most seminarians and conference delegates tend to see beyond her diffidence and weigh the strength of her words which pack a punch.

Debby Chan

Debby and the group she has represented – Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour – have drawn the attention of media the world over to the exploitation of workers in China by both local and foreign investors.

She is among those who have questioned Han Dongfang (韓東方), who heads China Labour Bulletin, over his call for a degree of cooperation with China’s official “trade union”. But these are honest differences over strategy, respectfully aired and discussed.

One Person Domestic Workers’ Rights Army: Doris Lee (李恩珠)): Doris has previously featured in this space (http://walkerjay.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/a-hero-in-our-midst/) for her work as an employer of a foreign domestic worker and who likes to treat people with dignity.

Doris Lee

There are a number of associations and unions of domestic workers from the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Nepal plus Helpers for Domestic Helpers, all doing good work in combating the multiple problems of poor pay, long hours, exploitation, abuse – including physical abuse – and official discrimination contrary to international human rights norms.

But where Doris stands out is in trying to impress upon employers to treat domestic workers with dignity and in fairness. She has her work cut out: Not only are most employers of domestic workers yet to hear her, there are lobbies opposed to fair treatment and for the continuation of the current hugely unjust status quo which have grave consequences for the workers and their families back home.

The association she established, Open Door (http://opendoor.hk/), is gradually helping Hong Kong’s good employers come together and speak out as a group.

Cat Ladies (and Gentlemen too): Almost all of Hong Kong island and vast parts of the Kowloon peninsula are devoid of independent dogs. But as most localities are old – or even if they have given place to high-rises – the residential areas at least have lanes and tiny parks or sitting out areas hosting small numbers of independent felines.

Most evenings, cat ladies go about placing some food for them. Sometimes it is a couple, a husband-and-wife team perhaps – and I’ve certainly seen men too – leaving wet and dry food in places frequented by cats.

This elderly lady is a constant every evening at Peel Street, Hong Kong. Bent over, leaning on a stick and carrying bags of food for cats, she goes from alley to alley, calling out to her tiny friends and offering them food.

Curiously, few cat ladies and gentlemen in Hong Kong touch the felines or play with them. One couple explained to me that it was deliberate: they do not want the cats to get familiar around humans, many of whom are hostile to felines.

A good friend, Si-si Liu Pui-shan (廖珮珊), is both a human rights activist and cat lady, as are many members of hkalleycatwatch.

People Who Clear Up After Their Dogs: I disapprove of confining cats and dogs in tiny flats (apartments), but can see that many humans are so attached to them and so caring that it would be cruel to forbid such intra-species relationships in cities. In Hong Kong, the government has gone after independent canines so ruthlessly that in places including the whole of Hong Kong island, and much of southern Kowloon, there are no independent dogs.

On the streets one meets only the dogs cared for by humans. As Hong Kongers in general do not encourage conversations with strangers, one is rarely able to commune with a canine in Hong Kong but the few occasions one is able to are times of great mutual pleasure: the dog finding that some strange human is willing to give much time and manifest affection in the form of pats on the forehead, strokes on the back, scratches around ears and so forth.

Special receptacles for canine offerings in Hong Kong. (Picture: Astor Shek)

One praiseworthy chore Hong Kongers walking dogs carry out is to clean up after the dogs. Most people walking dogs can be seen with neatly cut pieces of newspapers in one hand, perhaps also a bottle of water, and the leash in the other.

The moment dog lifts leg at lamppost, fire hydrant or tree trunk, water is splashed to reduce the acidity and stains. And when canine stops for, er…, grand besoin, pieces of newspaper are thrust underneath, the deposits collected and consigned to one of the ubiquitous bins in the city or to special receptacles for dog offerings.

As I’m from a country where hundreds of millions of humans lack proper toilet facilities, I beg indulgence for this focus on the toilet arrangements of Hong Kong’s canines.

A word about the alleged money-mindedness of Hong Kongers: In a city whose government is controlled by property tycoons (with direct lines to Beijing) who’ve corralled the middle class into developing a vested interest in the property market through mortgage payments, where a grocery chain duopoly keeps prices high and limits choice, and where the indigent too have to spend the same as the very rich on some daily essentials such as food, shelter (some of the poorest pay more per square foot as rent than the rich) and transport, it is a wonder that there actually are a large number of people who care about the society around them and about such things as democracy, human rights and about non-humans.

KUNG HEI FAT CHOY! / GONG XI FA CAI !! / 恭喜發財 !!!

WHY NOT BOYCOTT ALL REPUBLIC DAYS?

Many Indians have declared via social networking sites that they intend boycotting this year’s Republic Day (January 26), in the wake of last month’s gang-rape (now also -murder) incident in New Delhi.

It is possible that some of them boycott all Republic Days. But are others targeting just this year’s alone? Will you attend or watch them in the future?

Have you been comfortable with not just the flag-anthem-presidential-speech-on-the-eve-of routine but the display of tanks and missiles (those phallic symbols of  a nation’s manhood) during the New Delhi parade and the marches by uniformed ranks of men and some women? All that macho-ness of a wannabe superpower?

How comfortable have we all been in the knowledge that the armed forces, the paramilitaries and the police have carried out large-scale rapes and have brutalised vast numbers of people including women in Kashmir, the North-eastern states, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa?

That the politicians and the state security machinery have been complicit, and worse, in the rapes carried out as part of pogroms against Sikhs in New Delhi in 1984 and Muslims in Gujarat to mention only two of the most horrific episodes in post-Independence India?

Dalits are raped by upper caste people in villages on a daily basis. Why does Jantar Matar not ring with denunciations of such daily horrors?

Will they be and remain safe?

And no, please, I’m not getting into a this-is-a-middle-class-protest argument. One young woman had a horrific experience and she succumbed to her injuries after a brave fight. This happened in the national capital. Her case got reported as opposed to many thousands of others that did not. This deeply tragic episode has sent shockwaves through Indian society. Her memory needs to be respected. And if what befell her can be a catalyst for badly needed progress in Indian society, so be it.

Many people have been saying, rightly, that what happened to her in the capital happens to shockingly large numbers of women in other part of the Indian republic. The rape of a tribal woman, Soni Sori, was supervised by police superintendent Ankit Garg, who received a presidential medal on Republic Day 2012 for his pains.

This in a country that conferred the Bharata Ratna (literally “India diamond”), on A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who has been a darling of the Hindutva types because he endorses what they cherish — their nuclear manhood.

To be honest I too had had once thought this “missile man” deserved the highest honour the Indian nation could confer. I had imbibed deeply the nationalism taught in schools, fed by All India Radio and reinforced by a jingoist media as well as “patriotic” filmmakers.

When I lived in East Asia for a total of 23 years, I was exposed to the intensity of nationalism displayed by many – though not all – Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and Vietnamese. After a more than six-year stay in Beijing, I was influenced by Chinese style nationalism.

In 1998, India tested a nuclear bomb, detonating massive confusion in me (and many other Indians, besides): On the one hand I deeply resented the fact that four white boys and one yellow boy could have their nuclear toys and all the rest of the boys had to make do with “conventional” weapons. On the other, I was aware that the tests and counter-tests were a deeply troubling development in the subcontinent.

Added to this nuclear toy fixation is the Indian establishment’s desire to join the veto-wielding five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – incidentally the same five that have their nuclear manhoods officially endorsed in that international atomic Apartheid document, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – instead of working for true international democracy and universal nuclear disarmament. But then those wedded to phallocracy within their borders would naturally be comfortable with it on the international plane too, wouldn’t they?

A couple of Indian documentary filmmakers such as Anand Patwardhan (in his Ram ke Naam — In the Name of God) and Rakesh Sharma (in his Final Solution) have shown the link between this nuclear fixation and genocidal Hindutva ideology.

When it comes to matters nuclear, Hindutva chauvinists and many secular nationalists’ viewpoints converge.

Unsurprisingly, many of the most vocal voices raised against the Koodankulam nuclear plant are those of women, the Dalits, fisherfolk and others. The Indian republic has so far sought to suppress the opinions of these “ordinary” people against patriarchal decision-making.

Will one woman’s horrific gang-rape and death as well as consequent protests nationwide be soon overtaken by other crises, other issues to keep the country’s parliament in a state of paralysis? Or will people at large realise the full horrors of the breakdown of law and order and will civil society be able to mount a sustained campaign for positive change, eschewing blood-lust and demands for medieval punishments?

Can what occurred in New Delhi in mid-December lead to positive change? Perhaps to an induction of more women in the next post-election parliament? To a less macho, less male-chauvinistic, less patriarchal republic, a republic whose passport one need not be ashamed of carrying and whose anniversaries one need not boycott?

LET INDEPENDENT DOGS BE

Having ousted sparrows, albeit inadvertently, from Bangalore and some other cities, the Karnataka state authorities have set their sights on deliberately banishing another species which too is a source of great delight to vast numbers of humans – independent canines, usually referred to as stray dogs.

Earlier in December the Karnataka High Court issued a judgment saying dogs deemed a menace or seen to cause nuisance can be exterminated by Bangalore authorities whether or not there is evidence of their having mauled or bitten children or adults.[1]

Chief Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice B.V. Nagarathna failed to define the terms “menace” and “nuisance”.

The lives of the independent dogs in Karnataka’s capital would thus depend on arbitrary definitions that may be arrived at by the notoriously inefficient city authorities, who are indifferent to the real woes of Bangaloreans. They ignore hundreds of thousands of pot-holes and dug-up footpaths but want to go after defenceless dogs?

Disturbingly, the judgment precludes any role for Animal Welfare Officers in the matter of “culling”. Moreover, it is stupefying that the judgment covers sterilized and vaccinated dogs too.

In other words even safe independent dogs may be killed off if some municipal factotum deems them a “menace” and a “nuisance”. This has implications far beyond Karnataka. In many parts of India, there are periodic calls from some caninophobes to “get rid of stray dogs”.

What perhaps never occurs to these urbanites is that their space belongs also to other non-human species of fauna, not to mention flora. Birds of various kinds, bees, geckoes, lizards, cats and, of course, dogs have been around since millennia and have coexisted peaceably, making no demands on human beings. In the name of development, cities such as Bangalore have gone about shedding trees and filling up lakes (never mind the lives of species of fauna dependent on these gifts of nature).

Species such as cows, pigs, goats, horses, donkeys, chickens, ducks and others have been enslaved, tortured and exploited by humans for millennia. Others such as dogs and cats have given great joy to hundreds of generations of humans. The affection shown to dogs is returned manifold. The gratitude and loyalty shown by dogs towards humans is unparalleled.

But in a country where casteism, sectarianism (communalism is the word used in India) and racism (as exhibited towards Northeast Indians and African students, for instance) and sexism (witness the female-to-male ratio which has fallen to just above 700-to-1,000 in some districts of India) are rife, could speciesism be far behind?

In India speciesism – the assignment of different values, rights and consideration on the basis of membership of different species – takes the form of privileging the human vis-à-vis non-human and favouring cows over every other non-human species.

Indigent and homeless people, who are members of the lowest class and mostly of the lowest castes, tend to display a more humane attitude towards dogs. Many of them feed independent dogs, sharing what little they have with their canine companions.

An independent dog with collar: companion to indigent humans

The rich, who favour pedigrees – high caste dogs and equivalents of Aryaputras, so to speak – are unable to see the intelligence of indigenous independent dogs who also, incidentally, have greater immunity compared to “pure” breeds.

People who express hatred for other humans in their support for a ban on the slaughter of cows are far less concerned about the demand for “culling” dogs. Curiously, they fail to raise their voice over diclofenac being administered to cattle – including cows – in order to ease the pain they endure in the process of their daily torture at human hands.

This diclofenac enters the entrails of vultures, which begin dying out, directly threatening the Zoroastrian practice of placing cadavers in Towers of Silence. Moreover, fewer vultures means fewer carrion birds to clean up garbage dumps and more waste available for independent dogs.[2] And the Bangalore authorities have so far failed miserably to address the garbage crisis.

All this is not to deny that there has been a problem with dog bites in Bangalore. But the number of “wards” under the Bangalore metropolitan authorities has expanded greatly and many of them are uncovered by the Animal Birth Control programme. Moreover, people seem not to ask whether there may also be an immediate provocation for the dogs to attack: were stones hurled at them or were they taunted?

Getting rid of independent community dogs might actually hurt the people of certain areas who depend on them to warn of the entry of strangers at night. At a time when attacks on the elderly and single women are increasing, should the city authorities be going after independent dogs?

In the above paragraphs the term independent canines or dogs has been used in preference to “stray dogs”. Dogs do not stray. Humans do: so many stray from the path of ethics and legality. Humans kill each other mindlessly and have periodically carried out genocides and pogroms merely because of slight differences in beliefs or skin colour, tribal lineage, language or regional origin.

If dogs sometimes attack humans or other dogs, they do so in line with what is dictated through their DNA – either in self-defence fearing an attack, to defend their “territory” or establish a place in a pecking order. Although there have been instances of dogs killing apparently needlessly, there is a certain logic behind it. Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, the author of The Hidden Life of Dogs, The Social Lives of Dogs: The Grace of Canine Company and The Tribe of Tiger: Cats and Their Culture and other fascinating books has described the case of a dog killing her female companion’s litter because that female – in an inferior position to herself – was needed to nurse her own eventual offspring and was not expected to get pregnant. Lions too systematically kill off the cubs of a lioness they seek to mate with in order to ensure that their own genes get passed down and not a rival’s. Barring such displays of Darwinian logic, if it might be called that, there are few displays of non-human species practising needless violence.

There is one curious practice among Indian dogs that might raise questions as to whether they discriminate against collectors of recyclable materials, often referred to as “ragpickers”. These men and women tend to look unkempt. Have independent dogs imbibed human attitudes towards  recyclers? Or could it be that the recyclers’ sacks are a smorgasbord of scents and smells and the dogs – endowed with the keenest of noses – are displaying not hostility but excitement at the approach of this medly of aromas?

That the Chief Justice of a High Court has gone so far as to approve of pogroms against this marvellous fellow species is deeply saddening and disturbing. Has the judge taken a walk along Bangalore’s roads and made eye contact with independent dogs that loll about peacefully, minding their own business? If he does so, he might see the spark in their eyes, a questioning look with occasionally an endearing tilt of the head, pricking-up of the ears, wagging of the tail and a body language conveying curiosity and an eagerness to communicate, to receive and return affection.

But instead, he has chosen to align with those destroying the soul of the city, those who have already removed a lot of its trees and lakes, added millions of cars and thousands of tonnes of rubbish and dust, choking humans and non-humans alike.

As the judgment goes against Article 51 A, clause (g), of the Indian constitution, which enjoins citizens “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures”, the Supreme Court is most likely to set it aside as it has done previous misguided moves by authorities in other cities. (Animal rights activists ought to rope in the support of biscuit manufacturers – makers of Parle-G, Sunfeast and others – whose products are offered by millions of people on the streets of Bangalore and other cities to independent dogs. Should a “culling” take place, biscuit-makers will suffer a dent in revenues.)

Changing the pernicious mindset behind the BBMP’s move as endorsed by the Karnataka High Court will need much greater effort and longer campaigning.

This commentary benefited from a brief conversation with Santosh Rajashekar of Compassion Unlimited Plus Action (CUPA), Bangalore, http://cupabangalore.org/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=74 but neither he nor CUPA are responsible nor answerable for any of the above, which are solely the opinions of the author.

---

[1] The Bangalore-based voluntary organisation, Voice of Stray Dogs, has made a detailed assessment of the judgment: http://www.strays.in/index.php/2012/12/karnataka-high-court-verdict-on-stray-dogs-part-ii-the-first-analysis-of-the-unofficial-order-that-the-defendants-will-not-stay-a-stay-against/

[2] “The Great Indian Vulture Crisis” http://antranik.org/the-great-indian-vulture-crisis/

ON SEEING THE FILM GARM HAVA FOR THE THIRD TIME

Garm Hava (Scorching Winds) is one of the best Indian films made yet and is likely to remain so into the foreseeable future. It takes a most sensitive, gentle and dignified look at the travails of a Muslim family which sought to stay on in post-Partition India when many others around them were leaving for Pakistan one by one.

The nearly 150-minute film directed by M.S. Sathyu is exquisitely well acted by the entire cast led by the late Balraj Sahni, one of the greatest actors and film personalities of India. He perfectly fills the role of Salim Mirza, a small time shoe manufacturer. 

Gita Siddharth, A.K. Hangal, Shaukat Azmi and others with their subdued, understated performances lend credence to the tale, which despite some tragic turns, ends on a note that inspires hope and exhileration, hope that alas has been betrayed.

Garm Hava (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073034/) contains a deeply humanistic message. The leading characters in the film based on a story by Ismat Chughtai and adapted by Kaifi Azmi and Shama Zaidi, come across as most realistic and embody exemplary decency.

A Qawwali (Sufi devotional song) used in the film – Maula Salim Chishti – is one of the best of this genre of music, the words of Kaifi Azmi beautifully rendered by Aziz Ahmed Khan Warsi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F7Lzs2Df_Y)

I had seen Garm Hava a short while after it was released, in the mid-1970s. It remained etched in the memory as a breath of fresh air amidst the run-of-the mill Bombay film industry fare. There were, of course, many other realistic Indian films too on offer those days from great directors such as Satyajit Ray, Mrinal Sen and to a large extent Shyam Benegal.

Eventually Garm Hava receded from my mind. Although the 1980s were to prove to be a tragic decade in India, as indeed the two others to follow, it started reasonably peacefully. In the late 1970s India had seen off prime minister Indira Gandhi’s emergency, her party was trounced in general elections and democracy reaffirmed. But something had snapped: Cynicism had taken firm roots.

After her assassination on 31 October 1984 by two Sikh bodyguards following the assault on the Golden Temple in Amritsar, leaders of her party organised a pogrom in which more than 3,000 men, women and children died horrific deaths.

The destruction of the Babri Mosque on 6 December 1992 and the ensuing riots cost another 2,000 lives. The anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat of 2002 again led to more than 2,000 killings of men, women and children. The word “genocidal” has been used by several scholars in referring to the Gujarat event. Given the language that was heard from Hindu chauvinists then, it is entirely appropriate, despite the numbers actually killed. The intention was clearly genocidal.

The second time I saw the film was on India’s Republic Day last year, 26 January 2011, at Suchitra Film Society in Bangalore, during one of my last visits before moving back to India. My eyes were tearing up towards the end of the film, as indeed were those of many others in the audience.

During the discussion following the screening, Sanskrit scholar and translator of Valmiki’s Ramayana, Arshia Sattar, (http://www.penguinbooksindia.com/en/content/ramayana-1, http://www.penguinbooksindia.com/en/content/lost-loves) spoke of how she realised she was a Muslim on seeing the film.

I saw Garm Hava for the third time in early September 2012, the only grey-haired among about three dozen young people at a small venue in Bangalore and found myself more tearful this time, thinking of the anti-minority pogroms that have taken place since the film was first released. I was choking up and it took a long while to regain composure. (It seems I am not the only grown man to feel such emotion. Satyen K. Bordoloi has experienced it too: http://indikino.com/garm_hava.pdf)

So much that is depicted in the film ought to have been history but is part of current reality and if anything, discrimination against Muslims has only become heightened. If in the film’s late 1940s setting a house-hunting Muslim is frequently turned down, in the India of 2012, such rejection is so routine that ghettoisation is the trend of the times.

The Rajinder Sachar Committee constituted by the prime minister in 2005 to look into the economic, social and education condition of Muslims came out with a damning indictment of the neglect of the community (http://www.minorityaffairs.gov.in/sachar).

There was another reason for my anguish. I moved back to India in early 2012 after having been abroad for 23 years and was reading about the things happening around me in my city and nearby cities on the front pages of Indian newspapers, as opposed to reading about events in India on mostly the inside pages of international ones. Hindu fanatic outfits including the Sri Rama Sene had gone about attacking young men and women seen together in parts of Karnataka state a short while after I moved back. Incidents of violence against women were reported from several parts of India.

When Garm Hava was screened in early September at ITEC, which brings together young people working in the Internet Technology industry, their motivation was to try and make a change following an exodus from Bangalore of people from northeastern India. That had happened because of rumours that Muslims were attacking Northeast Indians. Mosques and lay members of the Muslim community held a series of Iftar parties and get-togethers to reassure those Northeasterners staying back that the two sides have no resentment of each other whatsoever and that they are both victims of rumour-mongering. ITEC members were among those who sought to assure the fleeing of their support.

In post-screening discussion, these young people spoke of their desire to make a difference and this somewhat diminished my discomfort and I was able to identify with a couplet in Urdu by Kaifi Azmi used in the film:

Jo door se toofan ka karte hain nazarah

Un ke liye toofan wahan bhi hai yahan bhi

Dharay main jo mil jao, ban jaoge dhara

yeh waqt ka elan wahan bhi hai yahan bhi

For those who watch the storm from afar

For them the storm rages equally whether here or there

If you join the mainstream you will merge with it

That is the call of the moment whether here or there.

AN INDIAN WOULD-BE VEGAN’S DEFENCE OF BEEF-EATING

A tin of non-dairy coffee whitener sits unused. And my attempts at replacing yogurt (curd) with a soya-based substitute for my consumption have thus far been rebuffed by my mother who keeps me fed since my return to India earlier this year.

She refuses to see my point that captive cows, from whom milk is stolen, are victims of daily torture. That in the land of cow-worshippers where Hindu fanatics make frequent demands for banning cow slaughter and attack beef consumers and butchers, it is unacceptable that so much cruelty is being meted out to so many tens of millions of bovines.

Those who eat beef partake in the infliction of momentary albeit lethal pain, lasting at the most a few minutes. Death might well be a relief for the cow, who otherwise might be left to fend for herself once she is past her prime. She might have to walk the streets, scrounge around in rubbish, eat paper and plastic (even in rural India), which ravages her entrails.

Consumers of dairy products partake in and enjoy the results of torture on a mass scale. Perennially ropes are pushed up the typical Indian cow’s nose and round her neck and she is tied up in a confined space, left to wallow in her dung and urine: not for minutes or hours, but for days, weeks, months and many years.

Gary L. Francione, Professor of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers School of Law-Newark says: “…there is no moral difference between meat and dairy. There is as much suffering in a glass of milk (as) in a pound of steak.” (http://law.newark.rutgers.edu/our-faculty/faculty-profiles/gary-l-francione)

An American feminist has pointed out further that: ”(1) mammals produce milk only after giving birth; (2) … cows produce milk only if they have recently calved; (3) people cannot take the milk if the calf drinks it; (4) dairy farmers therefore remove calves from their mothers within days of birth; (5) both mother and child resist and protest this separation; (6) mothers often bellow and moan for days thereafter; (7) mothers sometimes go to extreme lengths to locate and re-unite with their calves; (8) dairy farmers utilize restraints to prevent them from doing so.

“Dairy is the product of the exploitation for profit of the reproductive capacities of female bodies.”  From the blog by Carol J Adams, author of The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory and The Pornography of Meat. See her blog http://caroljadams.blogspot.in/2012/09/dairy-is-feminist-issue.html.

In her books Adams links meat marketing, and the imagery used in the process, to the denial of the rights of women. Considering that fanatical Hindus include lacto-vegetarians as well as non-vegetarians who consume other kinds of non-human flesh – pork, chicken, fish and seafood – it is clear that their calculated practice of double standards is aimed at denial of the rights of Muslims, Christians and the oppressed castes, the Dalits.

After all, several scholars including D.N. Jha (a review of his book is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jul/13/historybooks.highereducation) have pointed out that Brahmins and other upper castes ate beef in Vedic times. In fact, even today the ranks of Hindu fanatics and fellow-travellers include quite a few beef-eaters too, for their stance is inspired not by compassion for the cow but hatred for those who consume beef.

To say that it is a manifestation of fascistic and genocidal intent may sound exaggerated but those who examined the language that emerged during Gujarat’s anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002 know it is an accurate reading of their intent. The slogans and the pamphlets that circulated in 2002 were shocking to say the least. Organisations such as Citizen’s Initiative and the International Initiative for Justice have documented the utterances of those dark days (http://www.onlinevolunteers.org/gujarat/reports/iijg/) as has Martha Nussbaum, Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, who is a vegetarian. (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/nussbaum/).

A majority of Indian vegetarians, in practice if not always in speech, are comfortable in the knowledge that there are others who consume non-human flesh. Quite a number of Indian vegetarians may express disapproval of or even disgust at other people’s food habits – born of ignorance or thoughtlessness – but do not seek to interfere in them.

‘They will come to clean it up’ said the upper caste man in the village of Tilaipani, Mandla District, Madhya Pradesh. The calf had died in the cold of winter. Photo courtesy JAVED IQBAL.

But a minority consisting of Hindu fundamentalists and other fellow-travellers, including a few Gandhians, wants to impose its dietary preferences on the religious minorities and Dalits. This is of a piece with the criticism by some Westerners and others of dog meat consumption in some parts of Asia. If eating the flesh of pigs and goats – seen as cute creatures by so many humans – is considered normal, why single out the dog or cow for special protection? What is the link between demands for banning cow-slaughter and electoral calculations of Hindutva forces? That would make for a fascinating study.

If eating chicken and duck eggs and meat is acceptable – and turkey in some parts of the world – what moral or ethical objection can there be to emu and ostrich? At least in the case of whales, there is an international accord born of concern for their dwindling numbers. Similarly tigers and other endangered species rightly inspire calls for conservation.

Another eloquent indication that the anti-slaughter demands of Saffron groups in India is born of hostility towards fellow humans and not concern for non-humans is that they are almost entirely silent on the beef slaughter industries operating in the United States, Australia and elsewhere.

Early this year when Dalit students at Osmania University in Hyderabad tried to stage a “beef festival”, members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, which is part of what is referred to as the Sangh Parivar or likeminded Hindu rightwing forces, tried to disrupt the event. Noted Chennai-based Dalit poet and feminist, Meena Kandasamy (http://www.meenakandasamy.com/mk/Profile.html), took part in it and faced intense abuse from Hindu fanatic men.

She later wrote: “…in a racist nation which advertises vaginal skin-lightening creams, the large, naive eyes and flawless complexion make the cow an attractive mother. Men take pride in being mummy’s boys, but it is high time Hindutva organisations and secular, state-run universities stop being swayed by bovine sex appeal, step out of their Oedipus complex and remind themselves that cows, at least the fertile ones, are only mothers of calves.” http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280608.

After another Chennai-based poet and filmmaker Leena Manimekalai (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3972347/) returned from a stint in London, she posted a rhetorical query on facebook about her chances of finding accommodation, describing herself as a “strict non-vegetarian”. In India it is deemed acceptable to deny renting houses and flats to non-vegetarians, even though that is a thinly veiled excuse for shunning the minorities and the lower-castes. Human rights activist Shabnam Hashmi (http://www.anhadin.net/auteur2.html), sister of theatre activist Safdar Hashmi, who was murdered by Congress party hoodlums in 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safdar_Hashmi), similarly faced trouble finding accommodation in Gujarat outside of Muslim ghettos.

And this in an India which produces an estimated 1.5 million tonnes of buffalo meat annually, of which 24% is exported (http://mofpi.nic.in/ContentPage.aspx?CategoryId=173). How much difference is there between cow and buffalo, other than that the latter is black? Does the privileged position accorded to the cow as opposed to the buffalo stem from sheer racism on the part of Indians?

To state all this is not to argue for free for all non-vegetarianism. Human beings’ eventual move towards a vegetarian or vegan diet and for reducing meat consumption would be eminently desirable. Apart from compassion for and recognition of the rights of non-human animals, there are ecological and environmental arguments too. The planet can ill afford to see hundreds of millions of Indians, Chinese, Africans and Latin Americans – experiencing income rises – taking to the levels of meat consumption seen elsewhere. Water scarcity will play havoc with the practice of feeding vast quantities of plants to animals and then consuming small amounts of the latter.

But the movement towards a deceleration of meat consumption and adoption of plant based diets has to arise from an awareness of ecological needs as well as greater compassion for both humans and non-humans. The current, especially Indian, attitude to beef is devoid of compassion whether towards humans or non-humans.

And as Priyamvada Gopal, who teaches at Cambridge University says: “A serious discussion about food security and natural resource usage must emphasise redistributive social justice and not just lifestyle choices in the abstract. The excessive consumption of animal products clearly poses an imminent danger to both planet and human existence. But addressing this cannot take the form of a coercive herbivorous moralism. We need a comprehensive reordering of the global economy and our priorities as human beings to end the limitless scandal that is widespread hunger.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/28/vegetarian-food-security-hunger)

A year ago during one of my last visits to Bangalore before moving back, I heard the eminent writer Girish Karnad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girish_Karnad ) and other speakers at a Dalit forum defend beef-eating. I was planning to write critically of their stand, to say, “leave animals out of this, your quarrel is with upper caste humans, not with non-humans.”  But after spending a continuous period of a few months and seeing the extent of the Hindutva menace, I realise that current consumption of non-human flesh is less of a menace to society than is the genocidal antipathy of some humans for others.

The Buddha attained enlightenment in India, but did not preach vegetarianism, as Ajahn Brahm, originally from Britain and now a monk in Australia, who was ordained in the Thai Buddhist tradition, says (http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books6/Ajahn_Brahm_What_the_Buddha_say_about_eating_meat.htm). Curiously, many Chinese vegetarian restaurants offer mock meat dishes, partly in order to make non-vegetarians feel welcome.

Tomorrow, October 2, is Gandhi Jayanthi (the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, revered as Father of the Indian nation). And it is a no-meat day across the country. Butchers’ shops have perforce to shut. What might the Mahatma have made of the current Hindutva attitude towards beef and towards the minorities and Dalits?

The question “what might have been” is invalid in discussing history and can be equally invalid in assessing the positions humans might have taken. But one possible answer lies in the actions of Gandhian atheist Goparaju Ramachandra Rao (Gora) who hosted “beef and pork dinners” at the Atheist Centre in Vijayawada (http://atheistcentre.in/) in 1972, in order to break through religious taboos and discrimination based on dietary preferences. I have Gandhian friends today who share Gora’s abhorrence of discrimination and who, while being vegetarians, prefer to let non-vegetarians be.

A reading of the theses of Adams and Gopal would point to a prescription for humanity to reduce dependence on fauna for protein and to obtain it directly from flora. But such a movement has to be voluntary. Prohibitions and proscriptions amount to violence against fellow humans, hardly the path to take in preventing cruelty towards non-human fellow-beings. Least logical is it on the part of Indian dairy consumers to rail against those who eat meat, including that of cows.

BEEF

…

When its udders were squeezed and milked

You didn’t feel any pain at all

When it was stitched into a chappal you stamped underfoot and walked

You didn’t feel hurt at all

When it rang as a drum at your marriage and your funeral

You didn’t suffer any blows

When it sated my hunger, beef became your goddess?

(Excerpted from a translation by Naren Bedide of the Telugu poem ‘goDDu mAmsam’ by Digumarthi Suresh Kumar from the collection of Madiga poetry ‘kaitunakala danDem’ http://roundtableindia.co.in/lit-blogs/?tag=digumarthi-suresh-kumar.)