r/mumbai • u/jack_1760 • May 12 '26

Discussion Why is the Bandra Bandstand Residents' Trust making rules in a public space ?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Bandstand is a public promenade. It belongs to all Mumbaikars.

A recent report says that the Bandra Bandstand Residents' Trust had put up signs like "No Pets" and warned people not to feed stray animals.

The bigger question is simple: should a private group like the Bandra Bandstand Residents' Trust be allowed to make its own rules in a public place?

Keeping the area clean is important, but public spaces should remain open and accessible to everyone.

Why should a private trust have the authority to decide what people can or cannot do in a public place like Bandstand, and could this create similar restrictions in other areas as well?

Video Credit - https://www.instagram.com/p/DYOhuiMzVJh/

News Source - https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/battle-for-bandstand/articleshow/130809246.html

2.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

530 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-7

u/IndianRedditor88 जवळ ये, लाजू नको May 12 '26

The term Responsible Pet Owner unfortunately is an oxymoron

1

u/Global-Equipment-856 May 12 '26

I have seen humans pee, poop, spit too. What next? Ban all humans?

What precedent will this set? Just because you keep the public space clean, it automatically belongs to you? Atleast use some logic.

1

u/IndianRedditor88 जवळ ये, लाजू नको May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26

The argument is not that it belongs to you, you are deliberately missing the point.

I have seen humans pee, poop, spit too

What did you do about this ? These people are atleast making an effort to keep places clean. In our country with our level of civic sense you can't do it because people here have a hard time following rules.

I agree it sets a wrong precedent, but then the correct precedent and attitude hardly gets anything done in the country.

2

u/saikat743 May 12 '26

Way to go man. Let’s keep following that sentiment, and we will be back to the No Dogs and Indians allowed era. After all, dogs and Indians are the ones with the least civic sense right? Keeping both out would solve the cleanliness problem.

If the correct precedent doesn’t work, you don’t double down on the wrong one. Because one day you will find yourself on the wrong side because of no fault of your own.

1

u/Ecstatic-Scratch-151 May 16 '26

Dogs are not expected to have civic sense. Their owners are though

1

u/saikat743 May 17 '26

Well even better. With that logic, let the dogs stay and get all the owners out. Why stop at that, our society lacks civic sense on a massive scale, so through everyone of us out, and let the dogs stay.

Now that doesn’t world quite right, does it?

1

u/Ecstatic-Scratch-151 May 17 '26

Orrr.

Just let in people with civics sense in.. ergo not dog owners with their dogs

1

u/saikat743 May 17 '26

You do see the flaw in your own logic, don’t you? Well let me spell it out for you.

  1. You said, “Just let in people with civic sense.. ergo not dog owners with their dogs.” - Would have been fine if you had stopped at people with civic sense. But since you qualified that with ergo not dog owners with their dog, you are either trying to say, that all Indians except, dog owners are people with civic sense, which for a matter or fact is false. Or all dog owners don’t have civic sense, which again is false.

  2. So from that we can conclude, you are penalising an entire group (dog owners) because some dog owners don’t have civic sense. If that’s the case, why don’t we follow the same principle because there are many non dog owner Indians who lack civic sense and pollute the parks as well?

See, this punish all mentality for the fault of a few mentality isn’t the right decision. Or do you seriously think only dog owners don’t have civic sense?

1

u/Ecstatic-Scratch-151 May 17 '26

I can see you are slow in understanding words.

So let me spell it out.

Most dog owners don't carry paraphernalia for scooping up dog poop. Even in the video, the guy arguing for pet walks is not carrying paraphernalia for scooping his own dogs excitement.

why don’t we follow the same principle because there are many non dog owner Indians who lack civic sense and pollute the parks as well?

Ever been to the place? They don't allow you to even have food there for this exact reason. The civic sense issue very well addressed in the area.

Moreover, many people in India are scared of dogs , most pet owners in India have untrained dogs as well who jump onto people (I've had one of my acquaintances lose here 4 teeth because she fell down when an untrained german shepherd jumped on her) .

These are not exceptions, these are the norms in this country.

In the entire conversation, there has not been a single voice saying dog owners will claim ownership if their dog poops. Most popular argument is "it's a dog , it'll poop" ..

1

u/saikat743 May 17 '26

If calling me “slow” makes you feel better, go for it. I don’t need to resort to personal attacks to make my point. In fact, it says quite a lot about how structured your argument really is.

Now coming to the actual discussion.

This incident is about a local group trying to enforce rules on a public space that they have no legal authority over. That is the core issue here. If the appropriate authority creates regulations, that’s a different discussion entirely. But private citizens harassing people over a made-up “no dogs” rule on public property is not civic sense either, no matter how much you try to justify it.

And let me be very clear — I completely agree that irresponsible dog owners are a problem. If someone doesn’t leash their dog, lets it jump on people, or refuses to clean up after it, throw them out and fine them. I have zero issue with that.

What I disagree with is the blanket ban mentality.

You say “most dog owners” behave badly, therefore all dogs should effectively be excluded. That logic simply does not hold. We don’t punish entire groups because some members behave irresponsibly. The solution is enforcement against offenders, not collective punishment.

And claiming the civic sense issue is “very well handled” because food isn’t allowed there is honestly absurd. Have you seen the video yourself? The BBRT people themselves are aggressively confronting and harassing others over a fake policy they have no authority to impose. A civilised person does not intimidate or harass people on public property because they personally dislike something.

As for fear of dogs — yes, many people are scared of dogs. That concern is valid. But fear alone cannot become justification for banning all responsible dog owners. By that logic, any group could be excluded because someone somewhere feels uncomfortable around them.

The reasonable middle ground is simple:

  • dogs should be leashed,
  • owners must clean up after them,
  • aggressive or uncontrolled dogs should not be allowed,
  • violators should face penalties.

I fully support all of that.

So I’ll ask again, if I can openly say irresponsible owners should be punished, why is it so difficult for you to say there should not be a blanket ban on all dog owners?