The Hypocrisy of Humanity toward Stray Animals and The Voiceless

Are we truly compassionate, or do we wear the mask of selective empathy? Why do we celebrate acts of kindness toward the poor and homeless but vilify those who extend the same compassion to stray animals? Why does society applaud feeding the hungry human while condemning feeding the hungry dog? Is compassion bound by walls, boundaries, or species?

India’s Constitution, in Article 51A(g), calls upon every citizen to show compassion to all living creatures. It does not specify where, when, or how this compassion should be shown. Compassion, by its very nature, transcends barriers of time, space, and geography. It is meant to flow freely wherever suffering exists, be it on the streets, in homes, or in forgotten corners of society. Yet, the reality is a grim contradiction.

The very law that should champion acts of compassion seems to turn its back on those who practice it. Across India, individuals who feed stray animals — a noble act rooted in empathy and kindness — find themselves harassed, intimidated, and ostracized by neighbors, the public, and, surprisingly, even the police.

This begs the question: When did compassion become a crime?

Selective Empathy: Feeding Humans vs. Feeding Strays

When an individual offers food to a homeless, disabled, or impoverished person, society applauds their kindness. They are hailed as Good Samaritans, celebrated in social media posts, and even backed by charitable organizations. The narrative of their generosity is shared widely, reinforcing the idea that helping the helpless is a hallmark of humanity.

Contrast this with the same individual feeding stray dogs or other animals. Suddenly, they are labeled a nuisance, their motives questioned, and their actions met with hostility. Complaints pile up from neighbors who see animals as “dirty” or “dangerous.” The feeders are accused of “inviting trouble” and “creating a public hazard.”

What explains this dual standard? Why is a starving stray animal considered less deserving of food and care than a starving human being?

The Law Protects, But Only in Spirit

Indian law, at least in theory, supports compassion for animals. Article 51A(g) and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act were designed to uphold the dignity and welfare of all living creatures. Yet, when individuals act on this mandate by feeding stray animals, they often find themselves at odds with the very systems meant to protect them.

Neighbors bribe local authorities to issue threats or file complaints against animal feeders. Police officials, either uninformed or complicit, harass those showing compassion, demanding they “stop feeding” or “relocate the animals.” The feeders are treated as criminals, while the actual perpetrators of cruelty — those who harm, poison, or abuse animals — walk free.

Ironically, these acts of kindness contribute to public health. Healthy stray animals are less likely to carry or spread zoonotic diseases, which can transfer from animals to humans. Feeding strays ensures their immunity and strength, indirectly safeguarding the broader community. Yet, this simple logic is lost in the noise of complaints, prejudice, and ignorance.

The Contribution of Stray Animals: Forgotten Allies

Dogs, often called “man’s best friend,” have been indispensable to humanity for centuries. Police forces, armies, and disaster relief teams worldwide rely on their keen senses to detect bombs, locate survivors, and track down criminals.

Despite their invaluable contributions, society fails to honor even their most basic needs. Stray dogs, many of whom share the same genetic traits as these service animals, are treated as pests. Their suffering is ignored, their existence deemed inconvenient.

When a dog sniffs out a bomb or rescues a human in a disaster zone, it is lauded as a hero. But when the same species roams the streets, hungry and scared, it is dismissed as a “nuisance.” This hypocrisy starkly reveals humanity’s skewed sense of gratitude and compassion. Why can’t humans reciprocate the same degree of loyalty shown by dogs towards humans? Perhaps humans are undeserving of such loyalty or don’t know how to be loyal like dogs!

Compassion Is Not Bound by Species or Place

Compassion is universal. It is not limited to humans, nor is it confined to specific locations. The Constitution does not specify that empathy must be shown only within homes or for one’s family. Feeding a starving dog on the street is no different from feeding a starving child in a shelter. Both acts stem from the same wellspring of humanity.

Yet, society’s disdain for animal feeders highlights a troubling truth: we reserve compassion for what benefits us directly. Feeding humans aligns with our social values and earns us praise. Feeding animals, on the other hand, is seen as eccentric or unnecessary because it doesn’t yield immediate, tangible rewards.

This misplaced attitude is not just hypocritical but harmful. By alienating those who care for stray animals, we discourage acts of kindness that benefit both animals and humans. Worse, we perpetuate a culture where the voiceless — whether human or animal — are neglected and marginalized.

The Role of Authorities & Society

To rectify this imbalance, education is key. Law enforcement officers must be trained to understand the value of stray animal welfare, both from a constitutional and a public health perspective. Instead of harassing feeders, they should protect and encourage them, punishing those who perpetuate cruelty.

Society, too, must shed its prejudice. Feeding animals is not a crime; it is an act of humanity. Instead of alienating those who care for strays, communities should support them, recognizing that their compassion creates a ripple effect of goodness.

The Inconvenient Truth

Feeding the homeless earns applause. Feeding strays earns contempt. Why do we, as a society, differentiate between acts of compassion based on the recipient? Why do we celebrate kindness when it aligns with our biases but condemn it when it challenges our comfort zones?

The true measure of power lies not in oppressing the weak but in protecting them. A society that cannot show compassion to its voiceless beings is a society that has lost its moral compass. Will we, as individuals, continue to enable this hypocrisy? Or will we rise to protect all who need our kindness, regardless of species or circumstance?

Image (c) istock.com