Pigeon

The courts ruled that a female elephant, Mahadevi, which was kept by Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, a Jain math in Kolhapur which had kept her since 1992 should be taken away to a protected environment as she was ill. In another case, the Bombay High Court did not want the pigeons at the several feeding centres, known as kabutarkhanas, to be indulged because they are a health hazard. Then came the order in Delhi that in eight weeks, all stray dogs be taken off the streets and sheltered. The last two have a connection to public safety. The pigeons’ feathers – they flutter a lot and they shed strands and powder – and droppings lead to respiratory disorders in humans. But a community that sees feeding pigeons as an act of piety has refused to accept that they were obliged to follow the court orders and defied all steps by Mumbai's civic body to curb the practice. It became an issue of faith versus the law, faith versus science, and faith versus the courts. Pigeon feeders devised methods of defiance. Canines should go off-road The court judgment ordering the stray canines off the streets has led to protests and detentions with video footage being played on the television channels. The difficulties of restraining the dogs in shelters, their upkeep, feeding, and expenses by the city government surface with strong objections being aired. It became an issue of kindness to animals versus human rights to safety. Street dogs can be ferocious and spread rabies. Packs of dogs do attack individuals and terrorise them. Of the several questions that surface, one is the consequence of disobeying the courts. In the instance of the she-elephant, several thousands, variously estimated between 30,000 and 50,000, marched over 40 km led by a politician to petition the district collector seeking the return of the animal because the people in the region are attached to it. The campaign to retain the elephant revolved around sentiment, which was amplified by social media and news channels. Would, and more importantly, should the court succumb to public sentiments? Eroding public trust in system Defying the courts willfully has consequences. For one, it can make contemners of the defiant, liable for fines and jail terms. It can erode the public trust in the judicial system, compromise authority, and dilute the effectiveness of the judiciary. It does not seem to occur to those who defy the courts that their orders after hearings are binding. Challenges in complying can be only in seeking further legal options, right up to seeking a review by the Supreme Court, even of its orders. Even if the judgments are obnoxious – a dog lover would say they were, as much as those who consider feeding pigeons an act of piety, as per their faith would think so – the remedy lies only in courts. This argument, however, would not pass muster with them because the other side feels strongly about their case, for which they sought legal intervention. In between, one does see the darker side of the system: the diminishing faith in the courts. There are multiple reasons to suspect it because even in human rights issues, the judiciary has fallen short. What the High Court said and did about the pigeons in Mumbai was something the civic body itself ought to have done on its own; it is a matter that was allowed to flourish despite the public health hazard caused. One significant component of civic government’s duty involves managing public health. It is not as if it must be content only when leptospirosis or cholera breaks out. Likewise, with the dogs. When did any of us in any city or town see a dogcatcher who took away the strays for sterilisation? Or seen the number of stray dogs declining? Making public spaces safer Authorities who ought to make public spaces safer for the citizens have failed in city after city, town after town. That merits only strong disapproval. The civic bodies are content with simple motions showing signs of life, but do not solve the problems that, in the first place, should never have even arisen if they had done their job well. Outrage at the general civic failure, which includes managing stray dogs, is never in their charter of action. Nobody wants to cry foul when the failures stare us in our faces when city governments fail and we take it in stride. Unless courts step in, nothing moves towards a resolution. When the courts respond, there is outrage because we believe that, more than public order, what interests people is that their personal preferences and practices are respected. If this were to continue, if city governments refuse to perform their duties, and the philosophy that “my interests matter, not the larger community interests” prevails, we are heading towards a worse societal order, one of chaos.

Pigeon

Pigeons, stray dogs, and an elephant; is defiance correct?

Video: Pigeon fails to fly during I-Day, SP seeks disciplinary action

Karnataka: Haveri man turns his bakery into haven for birds

Telangana pushes overseas jobs, holds talks in Germany

Netflix April 2026: List of new shows, films to watch this weekend

Iran demands Lebanon ceasefire, assets release before US talks

NCW seeks report from Telangana police over newlywed’s gang rape

Mohammed Azharuddin takes action against salary cuts for minority staff