top of page

By:

Minal Sancheti

2 May 2026 at 12:26:53 pm

Funeral for animals

Mumbai: On the occasion of National Animal Rights Day, a funeral was held for all the voiceless creatures that humans have killed for selfish reasons. The act was a campaign and was a brainchild of Animal Climate and Health in collaboration with Our Planet Theirs Too. The purpose was to spread awareness about animal cruelty. The campaign took place at Carter Road Amphitheatre and so a crowd of both young and old supported the cause. Speaking about animal cruelty, recently the internet was...

Funeral for animals

Mumbai: On the occasion of National Animal Rights Day, a funeral was held for all the voiceless creatures that humans have killed for selfish reasons. The act was a campaign and was a brainchild of Animal Climate and Health in collaboration with Our Planet Theirs Too. The purpose was to spread awareness about animal cruelty. The campaign took place at Carter Road Amphitheatre and so a crowd of both young and old supported the cause. Speaking about animal cruelty, recently the internet was flooded with a viral video of a group of men at Mira Road taking a piglet to a locality where goats were brought for religious sacrifice. Aparjita Ashish, the founder and director of Animal Climate and Health said, “It is an act of cruelty to kill animals for religious sacrifice but to protest against this they were harassing a baby pig. The poor pig was screaming for his life. So how’s that right? If you want to protest, protest peacefully.” Ashish also comments on the Apex Judiciary’s decision of euthanising terminally ill dogs, “If the dog has a serious illness like rabies and is in a lot of pain, with a doctor’s permission and in a peaceful manner, they should be euthanised. The apex court also spoke about the ABC or animal birth control which if done with correct procedures, can help bring down issues related to the stray dogs. Many times the process is wrong so the animals become subject to cruelty.” She even added that the strays should not be displaced as that will leave them confused. This is also an act of ill treatment. The occasion saw a large number of gatherers. According to the campaigners, being vegan is not just for protecting animals but also for the climate. Ashish explained, “If you see the name of our NGO, it is Animal Climate and Health. So we also talk about the impact of consuming animal products on the environment.” She gives an example of how methane gas is produced because of the dairy animals and how the food and resources to breed animals are so much that it affects the environment. The supporters who participated in the campaign said they also noticed many health benefits of going vegan. Anil Nagpal, a senior citizen and volunteer with the organisation said, “For many years I was going through ill health. I tried every treatment but nothing really helped much. But then someone convinced me to go vegan and since that time my health has improved drastically. After this many people in my circles who used to eat animal products have given up.” When asked what his protein sources are, he said, “I eat lentils and legumes. Vegetables also contain protein.” Ashish claimed that humans have an ego that makes them think they are above animals.

Principled Refusal

Multilateral summits often thrive on platitudes and polite omissions. But not so at the recent meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in China. When the SCO released a joint communiqué that omitted any mention of the Pahalgam massacre where 26 civilians were gunned down in Kashmir, but included veiled accusations about Indian involvement in Balochistan, India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh refused to sign. It was a sharp diplomatic slap and a timely reminder that India’s red lines on terror will not be erased to preserve the illusion of consensus.


For India, the Pahalgam massacre was a targeted, religiously profiled execution of civilians that was claimed by The Resistance Front - a proxy of the notorious Lashkar-e-Taiba, a UN-designated terrorist organisation. To airbrush this from the SCO document while parroting Pakistan’s long-discredited allegations of Indian meddling in Balochistan was both cynical and grotesque. That the SCO’s current chair China allowed such sleight of hand only exposes how easily the bloc’s lofty rhetoric about regional stability is undermined by its own internal contradictions.


India has long insisted that terrorism cannot be relativised. Against this backdrop, Singh’s refusal to sign the joint statement signals a new assertiveness. India is no longer content to play along in forums where the price of inclusion is the dilution of its red lines on terrorism.


His address was unsparing in tone. Without naming Pakistan, he warned that those who sponsor such violence must bear the consequences. This was no idle rhetoric. New Delhi has, in recent years, demonstrated its willingness to act pre-emptively and punitively when faced with terrorism emanating from Pakistani soil, be it through surgical strikes in 2016 or the Balakot air strikes in 2019 or the current Operation Sindoor launched in retaliation to the Pahalgam attack.


That India’s position on terrorism is not universally reflected in SCO declarations underscores a deeper malaise. As Singh rightly pointed out, peace and prosperity cannot coexist with radicalisation and the proliferation of weapons among non-state actors. Yet too often, member states, particularly China, have blocked attempts at consensus. Beijing has repeatedly shielded Pakistani-based terrorists at the United Nations, citing technicalities while ignoring mounting evidence. Its role in sidestepping Pahalgam in the SCO document is of a piece with that approach.


India’s refusal to sign reasserts the principle that multilateralism cannot become a fig leaf for moral ambiguity. If a forum is unwilling to call out terrorism, it forfeits its claim to moral authority. Singh’s decision restores a measure of clarity in a diplomatic theatre clouded by double standards.


India’s foreign policy under Narendra Modi has increasingly prioritised sovereign assertion over stale consensus. It has proved, time and again, that India will not be party to hypocrisy, especially when it comes to the blood of its own citizens. Rajnath Singh’s action at Qingdao is a continuation of that arc, drawing a firm line between cooperation and capitulation. It demonstrated that for India, silence on terror is not diplomacy. It is complicity.

Comments

bottom of page