Since the year 2008, the Board has been trying to persuade the SMC to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with it, and put into place the participatory model of animal birth control within Srinagar. The Chairperson, AWBI has been working tirelessly for the same. However, it was not happening.
This year, after very disturbing news filtered out from Srinagar, of large scale poisoning of dogs, and an alleged permission granted to “shoot rabid dogs” – those identified by anybody and everybody to be rabid ( ! ) the Board commenced its efforts afresh.
Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Dr. R.M. Kharb, AVSM, Chairperson, AWBI, ably and amply supported by Abodh Aras, co-opted member, AWBI, FIAPO Trustee, and Chief of Welfare of Stray Dogs, Bombay, made visits, met with Government / Municipal officials, and tried their utmost to get abc in place. Arpan Sharma, Chief of FIAPO, was constantly co-ordinating, trying to manage it all. However, it still wasn’t happening.
Next came the PIL filed by Advocate, A.R. Hanjura and Others, against the Chief Secretary of the State of J & K and Others – State Government / Municipal entities / officials ; and the Animal Welfare Board of India as the respondent no. 5.
The PIL alleged grave danger on account of burgeoning dog menace ; and alleged inaction by the State Government and Municipal Authorities, & the AWBI, despite being in the know of it all. The Court took notice of the petition, and in a bid to arrive at a solution, started issuing interim directions from time to time.
Unfortunately, these interim directions have been used/misused by some of us to contend that the AWBI is supporting an endeavor to create and perpetuate diabolic dogs pounds within Srinagar.
In the face of incorrect interpretations/incomplete knowledge regarding the correct position in law, the parties before Court in a court action such as the PIL, and their lawyers, “assist the Court” to change its mind. That is what we have been endeavoring to do at Srinagar.
We have also been working constantly, to get the MOU for abc in place.
Guided by the tremendous amount of knowledge that the Chairperson, AWBI, has, of this subject, and by the material he provided, of examples drawn from across the globe of the manner of correctly, humanely, scientifically, and rationally handling dogs, my colleague, Ms. Jasjit Purewal, went to Srinagar. She has worked intensively with the SMC to get the MOU regarding abc in place. She’s handled them with tact and diplomacy, and kudos to her, she’s managed the MOU !
She realized that stumbling block was insistence on abc through the Srinagar SPCA, in partnership with SMC. SMC did not want to go with the Srinagar SPCA ; and therefore it was all stalled, and the dogs were suffering and being poisoned and killed as a consequence. With permission from Chairman, AWBI, she therefore accepted the College for Veterinary Sciences headed by Dr. Makhdoomi, as the third party in the tripartite MOU for abc, after verifying that their facilities, infrastructure, and more importantly, verifying that they were keen to be a part of a solution to a vexed problem.
In Court :- Guided by the tremendous amount of material that the Chairperson, AWBI, provided to me, and supported by the paper work that the Chairperson, Abodh Aras, Arpan Sharma, etc. have been meticulously putting in place, I drew out a strong reply to the PIL. Our Srinagar counsel, Mr. Reyaz Jan, filed the same in Court. The reply that I drew out, and which was filed, is available with me, open for viewing ; AND IT SAYS YES TO ABC, AND NO TO POUNDS. That is and always will be the AWBI position.
During the last hearing at Court which was on 9th September, 2011, the judges studied our reply, heard our counsel (duly instructed by Jasjit who was also in court). Their perceptions have begun to alter.
I am setting out below, certain excerpts from Jasjit Purewal’s mail to the AWBI in this regard, which will tell you how the perception has begun to alter :
“The Judges (2 judge Bench) actually turned out to be more receptive , open, compassionate and thoughtful than we gave them credit for. The problem was that they had no information and largely because we were neither represented on time and had no clear startegy on what was required in the Court. Now it was AWBI which made the change purely at the level of logic for them and they even congratulated us and stifled all attempts by the others to intervene and create trouble.”
The court matter is still pending. The petitioner (and other respondents) are to submit rejoinder to the AWBI’s reply. But the tide seems to have turned. We have managed to catch the attention of the Court, and they understand that the expert body, the AWBI, says no to pounds, yes to abc.
We shall keep you updated.
Rgds
Anjali Sharma
