Debates can lead to confusion. Presume a debate is invited on a theme like this. `Should we allow rape as a right'? It will shock one to the marrow as to how can an act that combines violence and desecration be spoken in favour of. But then, perversions have always a role in this huge wide world.  Though the proposition of legitimizing rape does not merit to be entertained at the very outset as a debate, but for argument sake, let it be. Sure, the overwhelming majority will issue a downright dismissal, but still we will have a creative lunatic fringe to defend a human being's fundamental `right to rape'. Imagine that happens, how will the debate be like.
It will be like this.
We are facing a similar, if not exactly the same situation. A boy of ten hounded by street dogs slips into the river never to be fished out. A girl of seven sees her skull almost burst open by a pack of dogs who enjoy a right to bite. Accepted, these are just accidents and if a car crushes a man, that never means all cars are to disappear from the roads. Sorry, dogs are not cars which bite to kill, but yes dogs do have a life and they too deserve to live. The question is at whose cost? We have chimps, pandas, crocodiles, snakes and all other deadliest creatures to maintain an ecological balance, but they have a habitat of their own. Letting them live alongside humans will wipe us off.  Here dogs live where we live. They are our scavengers who clean up the dirt for us by feeding on what we throw. They are our resident animals permanently putting up in garbage dumps with free entries and exits. With no one to attend these `smaller' problems, who can listen to bigger ones. No doubt poisoning can't be a blanket solution to the problem, but imagine the enormity of the damage. Dogs are all set to outnumber humans and `activists' lose sleep that not even a single animal is to be hurt. Till some method can be worked out, no poisoning can be allowed, no matter how many kids fall. For God sake, we know animals have rights, but in an abnormal situation where humans are an endangered species, what should we go by? A common human sense which approves of any method by which lives can be saved or some `research-based technique' to discuss which will take thousands more before it's even understood. After all whose life merits to be guarded first? Make no mistake by putting this question to a debate. Activists can be seen at their craziest. They won't allow you to swat a mosquito that lands at your wrist unless you apply for a legal permission to do so.  And yes there are some who sell a cranky idea by linking eruption of militancy to the absence of dogs. To them, we must have dogs in the valley to dog the pursuit of peace. It can't go funnier than this.
All propose solutions. Here is one. Ignore humans, talk to dogs. Let's make a genuine attempt requesting them to spare us. Given the trouble we are in, these tongueless beasts can possibly understand the magnitude of the problem better than their vociferous defenders do.

Lastupdate on : Sat, 19 Mar 2011 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:00:00 IST