A simple question – “Why don’t you feed them at home?” – A recently ruled over a boiled debate presented by the Supreme Court during a recent hearing: should stray dogs be fed in public places, or does this practice create more chaos than compassion?

For dog lovers and feeders, comment stings. Although this was just an observation and not a ruling, many are afraid that such statements coming from the country’s highest court can deepen the existing mistake lines between animal lovers and those who see Stress as a threat.

Feeding is not a problem. The system is

Patex India organizer Harshita Reddy says that the real issue people are not going to feed dogs, but they have systemic failure to neutrings and vaccinate them. She says, “There is a widespread misunderstanding that their population increases. This is not just true. Actually the growth that is promoting the growth is, there is a lack of spiating and neutrings active by civil bodies,” she says.

She states that even in cities like Bengaluru, civil officials have gone to allocate a budget of Rs 2.88 crore in this case, to allocate Rs 2.88 crore in this case, which recognize the need for compassion along with control.

So why is feeding continues as a flashpoint?

“Because for someone who is not familiar with a dog’s behavior, it is easy to flow,” says Reddy. “An attack video can override dozens of peaceful conversations that do not pay attention to anyone.”

She says that there is a role in spreading the awareness of both the media and the citizen, what to do, what not to do, and why sterilization is important. “This is not just an animal issue. It is a civil issue. NGOs are ready to help, but they need consistent support. The load alone cannot be carried by animal lovers.”

A comment, a wave effect

The Supreme Court’s recent “feed them at home” was not part of any binding decision. “It was an oral comment, not a direction, not an order,” he clarifies.

He worries, however, about the unexpected effect. “Even an derogatory remark can embrace those who are already hostile towards animals. It gives them a sense of recognition,” See, even the Supreme Court said. ” that’s dangerous.”

But Ashra is also hopeful. “The same Supreme Court has protected the rights of feeders on records. In 2022, it stopped at the order of a Bombay High Court, in which public food was punished, clearly saying that adoption does not mean that Stress should be taken home. They are inhabited.”

He indicates the amendments made in the animal birth control rules, 2023, which inserted the Rule 20, officially recognizes the role of feeders in sterilizing and vaccinating dogs. “Feeding helps to make dogs human. Only when they are favorable, they can be safely caught, nuts, and can be vaccinated. Similarly we control the population and keep rabies in check.”

Dog versus beyond humans

There is a deep question in the heart of this issue: Are we preparing the debate impartially?

After talking to many people, those who are afraid of dogs, their anxiety often stems from just one thing: they can bite us, harm us, or even us.

Every time there is a video of a dog, who kills a man or child, or worse, kills someone, ruled in debate: Is these stars also worth a place in society?

And to be honest, their concerns are somewhat valid.

But we often forget to ask whether behavior was a result – was it done by some victim, or perhaps in the previous trauma? Because, believe it or not, animals also have their own proper part of trauma.

“Every time there is an attack, we speak of dangerous dogs. But we rarely talk about how dogs are treated, abused, is left to run, left to stay hungry,” Reddy says. “There is a double standard.”

Ashar resonates that feeling. “It is imagined that hungry, kicking, and then expected to be favorable. No living person reacts well to abuse.”

Both agree that collective efforts are required to resolve the issue. Not just dog lovers. Not just hate. But civic bodies, RWAS, NGOs, media and most importantly, public.

What next?

On July 23, when the case is again taken to court, the petitioner’s lawyer will get an opportunity to present the other side of the story. “Who is feeding the conversation?” The chance to move the interaction from “How can we manage this human and effective manner?”

Because at the end of the day, it is not about dogs versus humans. It is about co -existence, and the kind of society we want to create.