Animal-rights advocates must reimagine their relationship with human communities for a better future for the nonhuman rights movement

THERE IS TODAY a fresh approach to the issue of food, farm animal welfare, and policy change through this initiative.

I see these new strategies of dialogue, collaboration, and partnership as game changers and a desire on the part of activists - be they environmentalists or animal rights activists - to forge a new direction aimed at cooperation to achieve our goals rather than confrontation, antagonism and hostility, which, in my view, does not help to improve the situation in any way. I wish to engage with three major themes of discussion: a) why we need to shift our habitual tendency to view humans as offending parties and towards viewing them as partners, b) the politics of food in the country, particularly cultural wars over diversity and purity, and c) what does this reshaping of how nonhuman rights activism engages with human communities look like?

From “Humans as Offending Party” to “Humans as Partners”

My journey in animal welfare began in the mid-1990s, addressing two issues: the protection of street dogs from being killed by municipalities and the unimaginable cruelty inflicted on animals used for entertainment. Those were days when street dogs in Goa were shot dead by dog shooters - a profession in itself - just because they were found in public spaces - streets, parks, beaches etc. Those were also the days when bull fights were a legitimate form of entertainment with chief ministers and high profile dignitaries attending as chief guests on feast days.

The fate of street dogs and performing animals has been the central focus of animal activists in India since the 1990s—the decade in which the modern animal rights movement truly took shape in this country. At that time, our primary tool was the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and our efforts were directed toward criminal law. Dealing with the gross abuse and exploitation of animals—whether street dogs or those used for entertainment—meant that activism often revolved around filing police complaints, registering FIRs, pursuing charge sheets, and demanding arrests.

While these actions were and still are necessary in combating animal cruelty and abuse, they also have limitations. The lack of serious consequences for harming animals fostered a culture of impunity, because the penalties for animal abuse are miniscule to say the least. Rates fixed in the 1960s still held good in law in the 21st century. Moreover, animal activists were always responding reactively—always in crisis mode, trying to mitigate cruelty and suffering. For many animal welfare workers even today, their daily work involves navigating the complexities of criminal law to address violence against animals.

However, there was a downside to this approach: animal activists began to be perceived as anti-people, or even anti-poor. We were often accused of prioritising animal rights over human needs. The differences in the primary belief systems  between animal rights activists and those in the public who viewed animals as having little to no intrinsic value, became irreconcilable. As a result, the work of animal welfare activists was often perceived as divisive rather than constructive.

This is where we face a significant challenge in expanding our activism to farm animals or animals in the food industry. Given that 70 percent of Indians are non-vegetarians and nearly 99 percent of the population is non-vegan, an anti-cruelty approach would position the majority of the population as the “offending party,” simply by virtue of consuming animal products. This is not a feasible or sustainable approach.

Let me reframe this: a significant portion of animal activism today focuses on protecting animals from immediate harm. But some issues—particularly those tied to the use and exploitation of animals—are deeply entrenched and systemic. These challenges require not only an immediate response but also a long-term, strategic, and, dare I say, compassionate approach that shifts away from assigning individual culpability and instead proposes more progressive, alternative ways of thinking about food.

Let me illustrate this with a scenario:

Three college friends meet for lunch. One orders a vegan sandwich, the second orders a fish tikka roll, and the third orders a chicken vindaloo. The first friend is a proud vegan, the second is an ethical pescatarian, and the third simply loves chicken. I want to pose three questions:

1. Is the friend eating chicken an “offending party” or a victim of a supply chain system that only offers industrially farmed broiler chickens as the default option? What should animal activism advocate for in this situation: an alternative free-range chicken sandwich, a plant-based mock-chicken sandwich, or a lab-grown chicken sandwich? What is the true goal here: for the chicken-loving friend to give up chicken entirely, or to ensure that she has a variety of humane options to choose from?

2. What about the second friend, the ethical pescatarian? She has decided no meat but eats fish, eggs and dairy products. Is she a hypocrite for choosing fish over other animal products? Should we, as animal activists, respect an individual’s right to make personal, limited choices about their consumption of animal foods? Can the farm animal welfare movement aim for a reduction in animal product consumption—without demanding “perfect purity”? Is it reasonable to advocate for a reduction in harm rather than an all-or-nothing approach?

3. Finally, what role does the vegan friend play in this scenario? Does she have a moral duty to initiate change, and if so, how can she do so in a respectful, non-judgmental manner? Is it enough for her to live by example, or should she actively engage in dialogue with her friends to encourage a shift in thinking? Can the discussion begin with human health before it moves on to animal welfare?

This example is meant to encourage us to think about activism and policy interventions without placing blame or taking a moral high ground. It’s an invitation to consider the broader context and engage in conversations that focus on changing systems, not just individual behaviour.

The nutritional and cultural significance of food in India

India is a country of tremendous cultural diversity, and this diversity is profoundly reflected in our food—through preparation methods, ingredients, cooking styles, and the variety of dietary practices. From vegetarian to pescatarian, non-vegetarian, non-vegan, and vegan cooking, there is no single, unified Indian cuisine. Rather, there are several distinct regional cuisines, each tied to specific cultural, religious, and linguistic identities.

Alongside this rich cultural tapestry, India also faces a deepening crisis of inequality. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population controls 40 percent of the country’s wealth, and this economic disparity is mirrored in the unequal access to basic food. According to a 2024 World Health Organisation report, half of India’s child mortality is attributed to malnutrition. Additionally, India ranks 111th out of 125 countries in the 2023 Global Hunger Index. These statistics paint a stark picture of the food insecurity that many people in this country face.

The challenge for food policy in India, then, is not just to alleviate starvation and malnutrition, but also to ensure that food access meets both the nutritional and cultural needs of people. Food, for many, is deeply tied to their identity, traditions, and values. Therefore, ensuring access to culturally and nutritionally appropriate food must be a core part of their right to life, dignity, and food security.

None of the above, however, negates the urgent need to include farm animal welfare in conversations about food policy. At the same time, we cannot formulate alternative food futures without first engaging honestly with the ground realities of food in our country. I am not asking that your work on policy necessarily engages with the politicisation or weaponisation of food choices, which are often the subject of heated cultural debates.

What I am proposing is this: just as we moved away from seeing humans merely as offenders in the context of farm animal welfare, we must also, as animal activists, work to create a compassionate and empathic understanding of cultural and nutritional food choices. We must separate our objections to the killing of animals for food from the reality that food—whether derived from animal products or not—is an integral part of people’s lives. It sustains them, it nurtures their cultures, and it shapes their sense of belonging.

This empathy and mutual understanding—this respect for others—can strengthen and inform our efforts to create alternative food futures. Food is not merely about individual choice or excess, nor about gluttony, misinformation, or cruelty to animals. Food traditions are woven into the fabric of people's histories, childhood memories, familial bonds, and cultural practices. The challenge is not to ask people to abandon these traditions, but to understand the deep-rooted significance of their food choices. We can, for example, build on traditions such as fasting and abstinence from non-vegetarian food by different communities on certain days of the week as per religious dictates. Why? For health reasons obviously.

I recall the difficulties of getting people in Goa to sign up as members of People for Animals (‘PFA’) simply because the last line of the application stated ‘I will strive to be a vegetarian’. My friends, sympathetic to animal welfare, were not willing to become members of PFA for this one reason, even though they were in full sympathy against bull fights, stray dog killing, the use of animals in circuses, the use of animals for testing cosmetics or in experimentation and so on. 

In our work, we must strive for solutions that don’t simply push an agenda of dietary or ideological purity, but that foster understanding and provide practical, humane alternatives. This is not about compromising our values or abandoning our politics—it is about expanding our empathy and creating room for change that respects both our beliefs and the lived realities of others.

Reshaping activism and reimagining relationships

In reshaping activism, we must not only rethink our approach toward farm animals but also challenge how we relate to people—our allies, our critics, and those whose practices we hope to change. Activism, when approached with empathy and understanding, has the potential to inspire transformative shifts. But to do so, we must evolve beyond rigid ideologies and instead build frameworks of collaboration and opportunity.

The politics of compromise

The idea of compromise is often viewed as a betrayal in the world of activism—sacrificing ideals for practical solutions. However, in the context of farm animal welfare, compromise does not mean abandoning our values. Rather, it means finding ways to create meaningful change within the constraints of existing cultural and economic realities.

By adopting a flexible approach that focuses on reducing harm incrementally, we open doors for real, sustained change. For example, instead of insisting that everyone adopt a completely plant-based diet overnight, we can focus on shifting people toward more sustainable, humane choices—whether through plant-based alternatives, ethical farming methods, or lab-grown products. For example: Battery chicken eggs (cheap and easily available) can be thumbed down in favour of free range chicken eggs - the latter no doubt expensive, but involving much less cruelty on the egg laying chicken. 

Compromise is not about lowering our standards. It is about adapting our approach to fit the complex, diverse reality in which we live. Through this strategy, we can build alliances and move people, step by step, toward a more compassionate world.

Working towards a future of opportunities

The future we envision should be one of opportunities, not restrictions. To truly reshape animal welfare, we need to offer people a better future—one where they don’t feel forced to abandon their cultural practices or comfort for the sake of animal rights. Rather than focusing solely on what people should give up, we should emphasise what they can gain: cleaner, more ethical food systems, better health, and a more sustainable world for future generations.

This future must be one where alternatives to animal products are widely available, affordable, and culturally acceptable. It is not just about asking people to change; it is about presenting them with opportunities to embrace better, more ethical options. By investing in research, education, and innovation, we can make plant-based, lab-grown, or ethically sourced animal products commonplace.

This vision involves creating new markets, fostering sustainable food production methods, and opening up opportunities for consumers to choose compassion without feeling as though they are sacrificing their way of life. 

Protein alternatives

One of the most immediate challenges in shifting food systems is finding practical protein alternatives that are both nutritious and culturally palatable. Protein is a fundamental part of the diet, and for many, it is synonymous with animal-based foods. For farm animal welfare to gain real traction, we must make it easy for people to access alternative sources of protein that are equally satisfying and nutritionally complete.

The good news is that the plant-based and lab-grown protein industries are rapidly advancing. From lentils and chickpeas to innovative products like plant-based meats and cultured meat, we now have alternatives that replicate the taste and texture of traditional meat while offering a cruelty-free and more sustainable option.

As we continue to push for these alternatives, we must be mindful of regional food preferences and cultural considerations. A tofu-based burger might appeal to some, but it may not be the solution for all communities. We must prioritize creating diverse, accessible alternatives that resonate with different segments of the population, ensuring that people of all cultural backgrounds have easy access to these new, better options.

Lobbying with the government to de-emphasise CAFO Methods

Finally, one of the most impactful changes we can make in the fight for farm animal welfare is advocating for a shift in government policies that support factory farming (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs). CAFOs are at the heart of much of the cruelty farm animals face today, with animals raised in conditions that prioritise profit over their well-being.

Lobbying governments to de-emphasize CAFO methods is crucial for long-term change. This involves pushing for policies that support regenerative agriculture, local farming, and ethical animal husbandry. It also means advocating for subsidies and incentives that make small-scale, sustainable farming more economically viable than industrialized meat production.

Additionally, we must encourage governments to support research into sustainable farming practices and alternative protein production. This includes lobbying for funding and policy frameworks that make lab-grown meat and plant-based proteins more accessible to the general public, particularly in developing economies like India.

The role of the government in shaping food policy is undeniable. As animal welfare advocates, we must hold governments accountable for the systems they fund and regulate. Pushing for a shift from factory farming to more humane, sustainable models is not just an ethical imperative—it is a political necessity.