Dr. Muthukumarasamy B., IAS,
@MKSamyias
You occupy a position on the Animal Welfare Board of India, an institution that is supposed to protect animals from cruelty and advance their welfare. Yet policies and SOPs emerging under the banner of "animal welfare" increasingly appear to move in the opposite direction.
How can it be called welfare if healthy community dogs are proposed to be confined for years potentially for life- in small enclosures with severely restricted freedom of movement, limited environmental stimulation, and a life that resembles imprisonment rather than welfare? 𝗞𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. It is prolonged confinement.
The fundamental question is simple: 𝗶𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝘁 "𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗮𝗿𝗲"❓ If lifelong confinement in a tiny enclosure with limited freedom, minimal social interaction, and restricted quality of life would not qualify as welfare for humans, 𝗯𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹𝘀❓
𝗘𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟮𝟴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗿𝘂𝗲𝗹𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗔𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁, which grants legal protection to certain forms of animal killing in the name of religion. 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗖𝗔 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗗𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻. At a time when India claims to be moving toward scientific temper, compassion, and modern animal welfare standards, retaining legal exemptions for animal suffering raises serious moral and policy concerns.
The contradiction becomes even more striking 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 "𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗻." If the objective is animal welfare, then reducing pain during killing cannot be treated as a substitute for addressing the ethical problem itself. 𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 "𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗮𝗿𝗲" 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘂𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.
𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹 𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗕𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁-𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲, 𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴.
The country deserves officials who are willing to defend animals, strengthen protections, and 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝘂𝗲𝗹𝘁𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗮𝗿𝗲.
If an officer entrusted with animal welfare supports or enables measures that result in lifelong confinement, continued suffering, and diluted protections for animals, then 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱.
We do not want animal welfare to be reduced to paperwork while animals continue to suffer.
𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹 𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗕𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮 and make way for leadership that is genuinely committed to animal welfare, animal rights, and compassion.
#resign_Muthukumarasamy