As a member of the legal profession, I am of the firm belief that the substance of the laws enacted in a country are reflective, at least to a certain extent, of the ethos of that country. And so, it follows that amendments to laws are reflective to a change, or evolution, in that very ethos. For if the laws are incoherent with what the larger society believes, those laws will either be rendered obsolete, practically, or will be protested against, sometimes violently. Such is my view.
I was recently invited as a guest on PTV’s show Qanoon Bolta Hay, hosted by Barrister Fatima Shaheen, to speak on a legal issue that is not usually a part of our national discourse– animal rights in Pakistan. This was the first time I witnessed national television taking an active interest in this side of the law. Bravo! So, in an attempt to ensure that I don’t make a complete fool of myself on national television, I started researching on the topic. What laws are there to protect animals? Do animals have any rights? What can be done to protect animals against abuse, torture and cruelty?
During the course of my research, I happened to come across multiple provisions of the law relating to animal abuse. However, when going over the text of some of these provisions, I noticed a certain peculiarity. For reference these provisions are: Section 2(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act 1890, Section 428 & Section 429 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. What is noticeable, and rather troublesome, in these provisions is the manner in which these ‘protective’ laws view animals.
We have to take am initiative or else these voiceless beings will be damned to suffer without relief (as they are suffering now). Proactive government policy, realization of societal obligations and a general sense of responsibility are all key to ensuring that Pakistan moves itself towards a more humane approach to animal rights rather than viewing them as mere property
Section 2(1) of the 1890 Act defines animal as “any domestic or captured animal”. Section 428 and 429 of the PPC 1860 make it an offence to kill, poison, maim or render useless any animal of a value of Rs 10 or upwards (Section 428) or any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow, ox or any other animal with a value of over Rs 50 (Section 429).
All three of these provisions have the same underlying theme– the animals considered therein are those which are the property of someone. These provisions, which aimed to provide protection to animals from abuse or harm, are only applicable where either the animal is kept domestically, captured by someone, or has a value on it. This is rather troublesome, especially in Pakistan where there are ample amounts of stray animals, on the streets and in fields in the villages, with no sanctuary or safe haven available where they may be kept, fed, and trained.
The undertone of these provisions is that even in these modern times, the laws in Pakistan view animals, and their respective rights, in connection with their ownership/independence status. These laws only provide protection to animals where their well-being is directly linked to the utility these beings may serve to their masters (or owners. Rather than viewing animals as sentient beings able to feel pain, happiness, discomfort and contentment on their own, these provisions, and these laws, view animals as property and only protect them as such.
This portrays a much larger issue in society: we, as humans, have yet to realise that animals deserve protection, inherently, regardless of their ‘ownership status’. The very fact that these laws are still present, and that they are yet unamended to the extent of their perception of animals, is a vivid example of just how far we are, as a society, from according empathy to animals and from realising that they are sentient beings.
The Islamabad High Court in a recent judgment has taken a step towards a more empathetic approach towards animals and their rights. The Honourable Court has stated that animals have rights, similar to humans, and the responsibility to enforce or guarantee those rights, rests with human beings. It is a fiduciary duty upon human beings to protect animals and enforce their rights. However, it does seem doubtful that this wisdom of the Honourable Court will permeate into the larger society.
As I said at the start of this article, I believe that the substance of laws in a country reflect the ethos of that country or that society. The scheme of the laws which has been mentioned herein, shows that perhaps there is a much larger problem prevailing in Pakistan. That problem is perhaps the cause of many social issues that we face as a society. That problem is this: we are incapable, or perhaps unwilling, to show empathy towards anyone facing a problem in our society unless that problem relates to, or affects, ourselves. No wonder we have ever present issues relating to gender inequality, minority rights, or tolerance towards anyone with an opposing view on any subject.
We must focus on our problems. Yes, that is true. However, we must also look towards our surroundings and, at the very least, show some regard to those around us. Moving forward, we have to be empathetic, tolerant and ensure that those without the strength to fight for themselves are provided with adequate support from the larger society.
My focus is primarily on animals for the very simple reason that they are unable to communicate their distress or have their demands noted down before the concerned quarters. We have to take am initiative or else these voiceless beings will be damned to suffer without relief (as they are suffering now). Proactive government policy, realization of societal obligations and a general sense of responsibility are all key to ensuring that Pakistan moves itself towards a more humane approach to animal rights rather than viewing them as mere property.
Amendment of such provisions of law is the most basic first step that can be taken towards protection of animals. It is also one of the most important ones. But the real question is: who will take the initiative?
