Since 2004 leopards have been hunting people in Mumbai, killing several people a week in India's most populous city.
It’s a classic case of survival of the fittest and the fight for space between man and beast. All the more difficult in a city like Mumbai, whose burgeoning population is increasingly pushing deep into the forest.The forest, which is Mumbai's green lung is also a wildlife sanctuary and the leopards' natural habitat. But, in the last few months, the big cats have increasingly emerged from the forest and into the urban jungle, killing twenty-two people including children.
Residents are up in arms about what they call “official apathy”, but forest officials say it’s up to residents to take great care in the face of an unexpected threat.
"Take great care", but it's apparently illegal to actually kill one of the cats. Despite this formal preference for animals over people, some Indians apparently think the government isn't doing enough to protect the man-eaters.
It might be strange if i say that i was the happiest person when I heard Leopards had killed some 14-15 people in Mumbai. I’ll also support with my reasons why i’m happy. ...3) There is nothing wrong with the Leapord in killing people (which is also a part of Population control ) who had encroached within its land. People deserve such capital punishment who for their selfish reasons occupy its terrain. One day it might happen that even domestic animals might seek revenge for the abuses made on them in India.
Though I don't want to make overly broad generalizations, one of the commonalities I've noticed among the Indians that I've met is that they don't tend to put a high value on the lives of people they don't know. Several of the Indians I know best, when asked, have said that of course this is true -- India has far too many people as it is, so why should anyone be overly concerned about the deaths of strangers? This reaction was particularly strong in response to the recent freezing winter in New Delhi and the resulting deaths of countless homeless.
The attitudes of native Indians can hardly be understood outside the context of their caste system. Not everyone there believes in castes, but the quoted author probably does, based on his/her arguments and the last name, Subramanian, which sounds like it comes from the highest caste.
I am not an expert on Hinduism, but I think Hindus believe in the continuum of life between animals and humans. The cows are very high up, maybe higher than humans. And, the lowest human caste, the untouchables, might be lower than the leopards. I don't really know the order, but it really sucks to be an untouchable in India.
I don't think it has anything to do with caste. Nobody really knows which caste these people were from.
I think that Indians take a more pragmatic view of unnatural (for lack of a better word) deaths. There are a billion people in India and every day some number of them die. The one-in-a-million type of deaths occur with regularity in India simply due to shear numbers. Few are as cold hearted as the person you linked to though.
In America, things like some of the coal mine accidents get wall-to-wall coverage, while in India its put into perspective with all the other deaths that occur.
For whatever reason, people aren't as safety conscious in India either. Drivers don't wear seatbelts, scooter drivers and cyclists don't wear helmets, etc.
In America, our moral thinking relies heavily on Christian reverence for life and belief in humans as morally above animals. This is true even for most of our committed atheists. Few other religions have similar views. You've neatly caputured the moral view that most people have held in most times and places: "they don't tend to put a high value on the lives of people they don't know." I have a post on the same subject here.