Marilyn Monroe loved dogs
because they never bit her unlike the human beings. Mark Twain was of a similar opinion. “If you pick up a starving dog,” declared the
witty writer, “and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a
dog and man.” Milan Kundera found his
Eden by sitting “with a dog on a hillside on a glorious afternoon.”
Our leaders of the most
powerful political party today seem to hold dogs in a slightly different regard. A few months back our Prime Minister declared
his love for puppies when he made a subtle equation between them and the
victims of communal riots belonging to a particular community. Now General V K Singh, union minister and
former army chief, thinks that the Dalits share some genes with the
canines.
The dogs are very friendly
creatures which are unpolitically selfless.
They earned a bad name in India, however, because their general (not to be confused with the General) lot in this
country was no better than that of the oppressed and marginalised people. Like the people in the country, the dogs too
belong to two classes: the privileged and the underprivileged. The former get rides in luxury cars,
treatment in well-equipped vet clinics, and food imported from countries where dog
is not an abusive word. The latter roam
the streets, scavenge for their food, and – in their leisure – enter the mouths
of our Prime Minister and other VIPs when they want to declare their love for
certain sections of people.
The great writer of crime
fiction, Arthur Conan Doyle, saw in the dog a reflection of the family
life. The dog is as its owner is, he
said. Whoever saw a frisky dog in a
gloomy family, or a sad dog in a happy one?
Snarling people have snarling dogs, said Doyle, and dangerous people
have dangerous ones.
What kind of people are
our Prime Minister and the General, given the kind of dogs their rhetoric
owns?
An interesting take!
ReplyDeleteThank you. At least one reader seems to have found it interesting. :)
Delete