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.

Tech Barrier

Maharashtra’s decision to introduce a Facial Recognition System (FRS) at the Mantralaya is being sold as a step towards enhanced security, transparency and efficiency. The Devendra Fadnavis-led Mahayuti government insists that the new technology will regulate entry, ensuring that only authorised personnel gain access while expediting bureaucratic processes. On the surface, it appears to be a commendable move. Yet, beyond the rhetoric of efficiency and security lies a more troubling question: Will this system serve as an enabler of governance or a barrier that alienates the very citizens it is meant to serve?


The Mantralaya, as Maharashtra’s seat of power, has historically been a space where common citizens, especially those from rural or marginalised backgrounds, could physically access the corridors of decision-making. It is here that ordinary petitioners have sought direct redressal of their grievances, often bypassing bureaucratic hurdles to reach ministers and senior officials. This access, however imperfect, has been a crucial safeguard in a democracy where digital literacy and technological access remain unevenly distributed. By introducing a high-tech gatekeeping mechanism, the state risks reinforcing an already widening digital divide, privileging those who can navigate the new system over those who cannot.


The official justification for facial recognition technology is predicated on security. The argument is that by restricting entry to registered personnel, the government can weed out brokers and unauthorised middlemen who often exploit petitioners. It is a worthy goal. But technology alone cannot root out corruption or inefficiency, nor can it replace the accountability and trust that personal interactions with officials engender. A petitioner from rural Maharashtra, unfamiliar with digital systems, may now find themselves locked out of the very institution meant to address their grievances, while well-connected power brokers, builders and business magnates will still find their way in, as they always have.


The risks of such technological barriers are not theoretical. Across India, digitisation drives have often left the most vulnerable behind. The introduction of Aadhaar-based authentication for welfare schemes, for instance, was intended to streamline access and prevent fraud. Yet, in many cases, it became an obstacle for those lacking proper documentation or facing technical errors. The same risk looms over the new security measures at the Mantralaya. What happens when a daily wage worker, seeking justice for unpaid wages, is denied entry because their facial recognition data is not properly registered? Or when an elderly farmer from Vidarbha, unversed in the intricacies of online registration, finds himself shut out from reaching officials?


Too often, the allure of digital governance is seen as a substitute for systemic reform. But AI-powered surveillance will not fix a culture of bureaucratic opacity. To be sure, the government is within its rights to upgrade security at such a critical establishment. Recent years have seen instances where lax oversight has led to security breaches. But striking a balance between security and accessibility is imperative. Technology must facilitate governance, not fortify barriers between the government and its citizens.

Comments

bottom of page