Another nice little book on animal is in my hand. The beginning is promising and since the animals, here mostly elephants, have just entered the story, I expect the things to become more interesting from here. Conventional wisdom proclaims that animals and plants are inferior beings compared to us, the humans and we have right to use them for meeting our ends. And we have used them in various ways - as our food, for decorating our home, for travelling, for making clothes and even for providing entertainment, often at the cost of their lives. I often feel that this perceived superiority of human beings is not to be considered settled yet. True we are today controlling the planet and animals and plants are at our mercy today, thanks to the technological advances we have made, but does that conclusively prove our overall superiority? Hardly, for though peaceful Indians succumbed to Chengiz Khan or Nadir Shah, that does not make them any less civilised than their conquerors. A similar case can be made in favour of animals and trees also - and our much vaunted technology can be equated with our weapon against nature for mostly we have used the technology to subjugate the nature around us as Timur Lane had used his sword and horse to subjugate his adversaries. And now, we have turned this very technology against less privileged men! The way we treat other living beings on the planet is nothing to feel proud of. Why we do not think about it is a question I do not have a satisfactory answer. Even so called educated intellectuals who speak repeatedly for the interest of minorities, women and tribal people lose their steam when it comes to animal rights. The best we have is a bunch of conservationists who advocate protection of nature for our own long term survival. They are right of course but why their argument is based on selfish interest of human beings rather than moral principles which they freely use for supporting empowerment of, say, women? Some may argue that to survive we need to exploit nature and therefore turning so sentimental over something so basic for our survival has little meaning. I disagree. We consciously can decide to lead a far more moral and less destructive(to nature) life if we examine the issues involved impartially. A little sacrifice on our part can not only save numerous lives around us but also make our earth a lot more beautiful place to live. Eating vegetarian food, avoiding clothes made of animal skins and furs, making hunting in any form illegal, making torture of pets a punishable offence, etc can go a long way in promoting a life that will be lot more'humane' than it today is. A more moral life towards the plant kingdom is much more difficult to achieve. One, we do not have the habit to consider he pain we may cause to a tree by our action. Since a tree is fundamentally different from a man - we believe the convenient view that a tree cannot feel or at least their feelings are far less developed than a human and hence we need not worry much about its pain while bringing one down(though we must consider its effect on level of oxygen in our environment). We today have some evidence that this belief is not true. A tree can feel pain, fear and joy though we need to examine further to know their extent. Also, I have no idea if a small grass can feel the same amount of pain as a big banyan. Knowing these things will help us to choose a moral way of life vis-a-vis the plant kingdom too. Followers of Jainism have some principles on these points which may be studied and adopted. But who cares? All morality emanates from empathy and today we are living in a world where a dying man on street evokes no reaction from the passer byes. So if today we have no empathy with a human, it is unlikely that the same will arise for a dog or a tree.
