DC Edit | Spare A Thought For The Pigeons

The act of feeding pigeons — regarded by many as a spiritual virtue and an expression of kindness toward all living beings — has become a major political flashpoint in Mumbai over the past month. The closure of 51 kabutarkhanas (pigeon feeding spots) across the city, including the nearly century-old Dadar Kabutarkhana, has sparked public outrage, particularly among members of the Jain community.

For those protesting the ban, pigeon feeding is more than a ritual — it is a matter of deep faith, embodying compassion rooted in the principle of ahimsa (non-violence). However, for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), the decision is driven by pressing concerns over public health. Feeding pigeons in open urban spaces is widely recognised as unsanitary and potentially hazardous, contributing to the spread of diseases and environmental degradation.

The BMC’s decision to ban the feeding of pigeons at public places and shut down kabutarkhanas follows a Bombay high court directive on July 30, which authorised the civic authority to file FIRs against individuals defying municipal rules on pigeon feeding. However, it is crucial to note that the high court did not order a complete ban on feeding. It merely declined to grant interim relief to petitioners who sought official permission to feed pigeons twice a day.

The civic body’s stringent actions, including deploying police and levying fines, have drawn intense and defiant reactions from the public. After the growing backlash, Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis has directed the BMC to permit pigeon feeding in a “controlled manner” so that people can follow their faith, while public health concerns are not ignored.

The high court is also considering the formation of an expert committee to evaluate the situation from a scientific and policy-driven perspective. The committee — expected to be constituted this week — will assess whether shutting down all kabutarkhanas is the only viable solution, or if safer alternatives and regulated practices can be implemented.

The court’s move to seek expert input is a welcome and sensible step forward. While public health concerns must remain paramount in any urban policy, a progressive and inclusive approach should also respect the cultural, religious, and historical identity of a city. Ultimately, a meaningful solution lies in balancing empathy with efficiency ensuring that traditions are not erased, but adapted responsibly to the needs of a modern, health-conscious city.