Guest guest Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 http://wildlifealmanac.blogspot.com/2007/05/stray-dog-ahimsa.html Thursday, May 17, 2007 Stray Dog Ahimsa I find it interesting that all the Animal Welfare Organizations are quoting Mahatma Gandhi to support their case that a nation is judged by the way it treats its animals. But here is what Gandhi writes particularly on the issue of stray dogs and what needs to be done and his definition of ahimsa. In Oct 1926, a public controversy arose when Gandhiji permitted a wealthy mill-owner from Ahmedabad to destroy about 60 dogs which were roaming around in his mill premises. Publicly answering protest letters from the local Humanitarian League against his verdict, Gandhiji wrote a series of as many as eight long articles on the issue in his weekly, 'Young India' (Oct-Dec 1926): " Perfect, erring mortals as we are, there is no course open to us but the destruction of rabid dogs. At times we may be faced with the unavoidable duty of killing even a man who is found in the act of killing people. [...] It is a thousand pities that the questions of stray dogs, etc. assume such a monstrous proportion in this sacred land of ahimsa. It is my firm conviction that we are propogating himsa in the name of ahimsa owing to our deep ignorance of this great principle...It is a sin, it should be a sin to feed stray dogs, and we should save numerous dogs if we had legislation making every stray dog liable to be shot.... Humanity is a noble attribute of the soul. It is not exhausted with saving a few dogs. Such saving may even be sinful. " (Young India, 21.10.26). " The multiplication of dogs is unnecessary. A roving dog without an owner is a danger to society and a swarm of them is a menace to its (society's) very existence...But can we take individual charge of these roving dogs? And if we cannot, can we have a pinjarapole for them? If both these things are impossible, there seems to be no alternative except to kill them...I am, therefore, strongly of opinion that, if we would practise the religion of humanity, we should have a law making it obligatory on those who would have dogs to keep them under guard, and not allow them to stray, and making all stray dogs liable to be destroyed after a certain date. " (Young India, 28.10.26). Two years later, he wrote: " Every unlicensed dog should be caught by the police and immediately handed over to the Mahajan if they have adequate provision for the maintenance of these dogs and would submit to municipal supervision as to the adequacy of such provision. Failing such provision, all stray dogs should be shot. This, in my opinion, is the most humanitarian method of dealing with the dog nuisance which everybody feels but nobody cares or dares to tackle. This laissez faire is quite in keeping with the atmosphere of general public indifference. But such indifference is itself himsa, and a votary of ahimsa cannot afford to neglect or shirk questions, be they ever so trifling, if these demand a solution in terms of ahimsa. " (Young India 11.4.29) Posted by Janaki Lenin at 8:16PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 I am surprised that this has come up again. While the quotes from Gandhiji made in 1926 and 1929 are correct, I have it on the authority of Mr. V. Kalayanam who was Gandhiji's personal secretary for many years till Gandhiji was assasinated that Gandhiji changed his mind a few years after theses statements were made. In any case, things have changed and we have proven, viable methods available which were not available in the 1920s. Surely, 80+ years later, we must use the latest methods available in dealing with the street dog issue. S. Chinny Krishna > http://wildlifealmanac.blogspot.com/2007/05/stray-dog-ahimsa.html > Thursday, May 17, 2007 > Stray Dog Ahimsa > > I find it interesting that all the Animal Welfare Organizations are > quoting > Mahatma Gandhi to support their case that a nation is judged by the way it > treats its animals. But here is what Gandhi writes particularly on the > issue > of stray dogs and what needs to be done and his definition of ahimsa. > > In Oct 1926, a public controversy arose when Gandhiji permitted a wealthy > mill-owner from Ahmedabad to destroy about 60 dogs which were roaming > around > in his mill premises. Publicly answering protest letters from the local > Humanitarian League against his verdict, Gandhiji wrote a series of as > many > as eight long articles on the issue in his weekly, 'Young India' (Oct-Dec > 1926): " Perfect, erring mortals as we are, there is no course open to us > but > the destruction of rabid dogs. At times we may be faced with the > unavoidable > duty of killing even a man who is found in the act of killing people. > [...] > It is a thousand pities that the questions of stray dogs, etc. assume such > a > monstrous proportion in this sacred land of ahimsa. It is my firm > conviction > that we are propogating himsa in the name of ahimsa owing to our deep > ignorance of this great principle...It is a sin, it should be a sin to > feed > stray dogs, and we should save numerous dogs if we had legislation making > every stray dog liable to be shot.... Humanity is a noble attribute of the > soul. It is not exhausted with saving a few dogs. Such saving may even be > sinful. " (Young India, 21.10.26). > > " The multiplication of dogs is unnecessary. A roving dog without an owner > is > a danger to society and a swarm of them is a menace to its (society's) > very > existence...But can we take individual charge of these roving dogs? And if > we cannot, can we have a pinjarapole for them? If both these things are > impossible, there seems to be no alternative except to kill them...I am, > therefore, strongly of opinion that, if we would practise the religion of > humanity, we should have a law making it obligatory on those who would > have > dogs to keep them under guard, and not allow them to stray, and making all > stray dogs liable to be destroyed after a certain date. " (Young India, > 28.10.26). > > Two years later, he wrote: " Every unlicensed dog should be caught by the > police and immediately handed over to the Mahajan if they have adequate > provision for the maintenance of these dogs and would submit to municipal > supervision as to the adequacy of such provision. Failing such provision, > all stray dogs should be shot. This, in my opinion, is the most > humanitarian > method of dealing with the dog nuisance which everybody feels but nobody > cares or dares to tackle. This laissez faire is quite in keeping with the > atmosphere of general public indifference. But such indifference is itself > himsa, and a votary of ahimsa cannot afford to neglect or shirk questions, > be they ever so trifling, if these demand a solution in terms of ahimsa. " > (Young India 11.4.29) > Posted by Janaki Lenin at 8:16PM > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 As I said cogently in my previous message, Gandhi could have been wrong. A position does not become correct or indisputable solely because it has been made by a famous personality. All human beings have weaknesses. There is considerable evidence that Hitler was very fond of dogs and disliked meat(although many scholars dispute his vegetarianism). But his personal assistant Traudl Junge has mentioned he wanted to stay away from meat. And a book called 'Hitler's Table Talk' says that he liked animals. I have two photos of Hitler fondling a baby deer and cuddling his pet sheepdog named Blondi. What do they prove? They only show that humans have flaws, since Hitler obviously did not have much sympathy for non Aryan peoples. The great Albert Schweitzer killed many animals including kittens and snakes. He also killed his pet pig named Josephine and ate her as smoked bacon, I have the exact extract where he says this. He was an otherwise kind man, but he had his flaws. David Shepherd, patron of Compassion In World Farming is pro hunting. Gerald Durrell was in favour of hunting and had hunted himself. George Adamson was a hunter. Billy Arjan Singh was a hunter. There is a lot of criticism on AAPN when I quote some particular people who have mistreated animals at some point in their careers. But who among us here is squeaky clean? Some animal lovers have also mistreated humans. For example, Brigitte Bardot loves animals and has been convicted for racism on several occasions and has made the most repugnant statements on mixing of human races. What does it imply? Again, that human beings tend to be flawed. Just because Gandhi said something, it *does not* mean it has to be right. On 3/15/09, drkrishna <drkrishna wrote: > > I am surprised that this has come up again. > > While the quotes from Gandhiji made in 1926 and 1929 are correct, I have > it on the authority of Mr. V. Kalayanam who was Gandhiji's personal > secretary for many years till Gandhiji was assasinated that Gandhiji > changed his mind a few years after theses statements were made. > > In any case, things have changed and we have proven, viable methods > available which were not available in the 1920s. Surely, 80+ years later, > we must use the latest methods available in dealing with the street dog > issue. > > S. Chinny Krishna > > > http://wildlifealmanac.blogspot.com/2007/05/stray-dog-ahimsa.html > > Thursday, May 17, 2007 > > Stray Dog Ahimsa > > > > I find it interesting that all the Animal Welfare Organizations are > > quoting > > Mahatma Gandhi to support their case that a nation is judged by the way > it > > treats its animals. But here is what Gandhi writes particularly on the > > issue > > of stray dogs and what needs to be done and his definition of ahimsa. > > > > In Oct 1926, a public controversy arose when Gandhiji permitted a wealthy > > mill-owner from Ahmedabad to destroy about 60 dogs which were roaming > > around > > in his mill premises. Publicly answering protest letters from the local > > Humanitarian League against his verdict, Gandhiji wrote a series of as > > many > > as eight long articles on the issue in his weekly, 'Young India' (Oct-Dec > > 1926): " Perfect, erring mortals as we are, there is no course open to us > > but > > the destruction of rabid dogs. At times we may be faced with the > > unavoidable > > duty of killing even a man who is found in the act of killing people. > > [...] > > It is a thousand pities that the questions of stray dogs, etc. assume > such > > a > > monstrous proportion in this sacred land of ahimsa. It is my firm > > conviction > > that we are propogating himsa in the name of ahimsa owing to our deep > > ignorance of this great principle...It is a sin, it should be a sin to > > feed > > stray dogs, and we should save numerous dogs if we had legislation making > > every stray dog liable to be shot.... Humanity is a noble attribute of > the > > soul. It is not exhausted with saving a few dogs. Such saving may even be > > sinful. " (Young India, 21.10.26). > > > > " The multiplication of dogs is unnecessary. A roving dog without an owner > > is > > a danger to society and a swarm of them is a menace to its (society's) > > very > > existence...But can we take individual charge of these roving dogs? And > if > > we cannot, can we have a pinjarapole for them? If both these things are > > impossible, there seems to be no alternative except to kill them...I am, > > therefore, strongly of opinion that, if we would practise the religion of > > humanity, we should have a law making it obligatory on those who would > > have > > dogs to keep them under guard, and not allow them to stray, and making > all > > stray dogs liable to be destroyed after a certain date. " (Young India, > > 28.10.26). > > > > Two years later, he wrote: " Every unlicensed dog should be caught by the > > police and immediately handed over to the Mahajan if they have adequate > > provision for the maintenance of these dogs and would submit to municipal > > supervision as to the adequacy of such provision. Failing such provision, > > all stray dogs should be shot. This, in my opinion, is the most > > humanitarian > > method of dealing with the dog nuisance which everybody feels but nobody > > cares or dares to tackle. This laissez faire is quite in keeping with the > > atmosphere of general public indifference. But such indifference is > itself > > himsa, and a votary of ahimsa cannot afford to neglect or shirk > questions, > > be they ever so trifling, if these demand a solution in terms of ahimsa. " > > (Young India 11.4.29) > > Posted by Janaki Lenin at 8:16PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.