Anandapur Confrontation Over Stray Dog: In the bustling neighborhood of Anandapur, Kolkata, a simple act of kindness recently spiraled into an ugly episode of prejudice. On September 5, 2025, a private-sector professional, Arup Dasgupta, who had been feeding stray dogs in his locality for several years, suddenly found himself targeted with a hateful slur. What should have remained an everyday occurrence—feeding animals on the roadside—took an unexpected turn when a youth, annoyed by the presence of barking dogs, hurled an offensive remark branding Arup as “Bangladeshi filth.”
For Arup, it wasn’t merely an insult. It was a sharp reminder of how deeply prejudice has seeped into daily social interactions, even in a city long celebrated as the cultural capital of Bengal. Shocked and humiliated, Arup reported the matter at Anandapur police station, where officers recorded a general diary entry to acknowledge the confrontation.
Anandapur Confrontation Over Stray Dog: How the Incident Unfolded
That night, Arup followed his usual routine. Around 11 PM, he stepped out with packets of food for the stray dogs that often gathered around his neighborhood. He had been doing this since the pandemic, when lockdowns left stray animals starving due to empty streets and closed eateries.
On this occasion, six strays were present—three from his lane and three from the main road. As he began feeding them, a Spitz, being walked by its owner, passed by. One of the strays ran towards the pet, barking loudly. The sudden reaction startled both the owner and a nearby youth, who seemed to be walking with a domestic worker.
Arup quickly stepped in, calling the stray back and calming it. Instead of diffusing the situation, however, he was met with unexpected aggression. The youth accused him of dirtying the environment and then, without provocation, spat out the slur:
“You’re Bangladeshi filth. People like you spoil this city.”
The remark struck Arup deeply—not only because it was abusive, but because it questioned his very identity in his homeland.
The Weight of a Slur
This wasn’t just a stray incident of neighborhood hostility. The word “Bangladeshi,” hurled as an insult, carried layers of social and political undertones. For decades, the term has been weaponized across India in divisive rhetoric—often equating Bengali speakers with illegal migrants.
In West Bengal itself, however, such slurs were historically rare. Kolkata, a city shaped by waves of migration during Partition and later during the Bangladesh Liberation War, has long prided itself on being a melting pot of Bengali identity. Yet, as this confrontation shows, even here the poison of linguistic xenophobia has begun to seep into everyday encounters.
Stray Dogs: A Symbol of Urban Compassion
At the heart of the incident lies another social issue: the treatment of stray animals. Kolkata, like many Indian cities, has a large stray dog population. Residents are divided—some advocate for sterilization and welfare, others complain about nuisance and safety.
Arup belongs to the growing number of citizens who believe in compassionate coexistence. His act of feeding strays was not random kindness; it was a responsibility he embraced, especially during the pandemic when many animals were left without food.
The Supreme Court of India has previously recognized the rights of citizens to feed community dogs, provided it is done responsibly. Guidelines issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) emphasize designated feeding spots to avoid conflict. (AWBI Guidelines)
Yet, as this incident shows, the act of feeding strays can sometimes spark confrontation with neighbors who view dogs as a threat rather than fellow inhabitants of the city.
Police and Legal Response
After the slur was directed at him, Arup approached the Anandapur police station. While no FIR was lodged, the police accepted a general diary entry, treating it as a case of verbal harassment. According to officers, they plan to mediate to prevent further escalation.
Incidents like these raise an important legal question: Should racial or linguistic slurs be treated as hate speech under Indian law?
- The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 153A penalizes promoting enmity between groups based on religion, race, language, or place of birth.
- Section 504 addresses intentional insult with the intent to provoke breach of peace.
- Section 506 covers criminal intimidation.
Arup’s experience arguably falls within this framework, but much depends on how strictly authorities interpret and apply these provisions.
The Broader Pattern
This is not an isolated incident. Reports across India show a rising trend of Bengalis being branded as “Bangladeshi” in everyday life:
- Migrant workers in other states facing harassment.
- Students in hostels subjected to taunts.
- Artisans and small traders insulted in marketplaces.
West Bengal’s Home Department has expressed concern over such narratives, calling them “linguistic terror.” (West Bengal Home Department Notifications)
The Anandapur case, therefore, is more than a neighborhood quarrel—it is a reflection of how national-level rhetoric can infiltrate local mindsets.
Community Voices
The incident has sparked debates among Anandapur residents. Some sympathize with Arup, arguing that kindness towards animals should never invite abuse. Others, however, complain that strays create hygiene and safety concerns.
Animal welfare groups in Kolkata have condemned the slur, urging citizens to distinguish between differences of opinion over stray dogs and derogatory remarks questioning someone’s identity.
Social Faultlines in Urban Bengal
What makes the Anandapur confrontation significant is not just the insult itself, but the normalization of such language. Once fringe, the slur is becoming part of everyday vocabulary. This poses a danger not only to social harmony but also to the cultural pride of Bengal.
Kolkata’s streets have long echoed with inclusivity—be it the legacy of Partition refugees, or the shared struggles of Bangladesh’s independence in 1971. But today, those very legacies are being weaponized against its own residents.
The Way Forward
To prevent such incidents from recurring, multiple measures are necessary:
- Awareness Campaigns: Local civic bodies and NGOs should run sensitization drives on both animal welfare and communal harmony.
- Legal Protection: Stronger enforcement of hate speech laws when linguistic or racial slurs are used.
- Designated Feeding Zones: Implementation of AWBI guidelines so feeding strays does not inconvenience others.
- Community Mediation: Resident welfare associations could facilitate dialogue between pet owners, stray feeders, and neighbors.
- Educational Outreach: Schools and colleges should include modules on inclusivity and humane treatment of animals.
Conclusion
The Anandapur confrontation was not merely about dogs or neighborhood disagreements. It was a window into how fragile civic life can become when prejudice creeps into ordinary interactions.
Arup’s act of feeding stray dogs should have symbolized compassion in an urban setting. Instead, it exposed how identity politics, casual xenophobia, and urban frustrations are colliding in modern Kolkata.
For a city that has historically stood as a beacon of Bengali culture and inclusivity, the challenge now is to resist the erosion of its ethos. Kolkata must decide whether to let prejudice dictate its streets—or to reaffirm compassion and unity as the true markers of its identity.
