e. animal kingdom is well protected and respected. It the humans can expect their rights to be fulfilled and respected, it is their responsibility to ensure that they are equally proactive and vigilant in performing their obligations and responsibilities towards other terrestrials creatures. If the humans have the moral understanding and perspective, it encourages them to respond in more active manner for the development and the progress of the society in particular and the world at large, and when we frame the entire world and environment into the domain, the humans are responsible for reflecting their concern, care and responsibility towards the animal kingdom (Andrew, 2002). The development and industrial progress achieve by the human society has created enormous impact on the environment of the world, and every single element within this planet has been directly or indirectly affected by the ongoing progress of the world. If the technological development has offered luxury and comfort to the human society, it has also created immense impact on the environmental aspect, and beside humans, the animals have been largely affected by the ongoing revolutions and reforms. Such silent influence which has immensely affected the growth, migration and activities of the animal kingdom ought to be condemned, and such reckless attitude and lacking on the part of human society has led to the evolution of the animal rights, which has transpired the concept of supporting the animal kingdom through different possible means, and one of which can be to allow them to move freely without any barriers and disruptions. The animal rights have been mainly highlighted by the social and environmental organizations to create mass aware ness among the local population about the responsibilities towards the animal kingdom, and also to highlight that the defiance of such rights have been responsible for the abrupt casualties within the animal kingdom. The human beings have been blessed with capacities, and the variance of the capacities is based on the individual level and effort, 'capacities will succeed in distinguishing humans from the other animals' (John, 2000), therefore the capacities inherited by the humans have given them an extra edge over the animals, and such an edge itself is the justification of the provisions incorporated into the Animal Rights, which mainly stress over the need for the safeguard and protection of the animal kingdom. The critics are however of the opinion that the provisions in the animal rights should be refuted because the animals and their lifestyle is analogous to the human lifestyle. Such a criticism and opposition towards Animal Rights is flawed and baseless, because the Animal Rights mainly seek provision for the right of freedom to the animals, and the rights of freedom have been depicted in the human rights as well, therefore whether the animals rights are taken as independent clause, or whether it is linked with the provisions listed in the human rights, the essence of the statement is to respect and safeguard the right of animals, and to ensure that these creatures are independent in their exercise and movements. It has been wrongly interpreted that the Animal Rights condemn as attack on the creature, especially when the creature has adopted offensive approach, the Animal Right has maintained that humans are encourage to exercise their defense but have to ensure that maximum possible efforts are utilized to protect themselves from the creature, and the last resort should be the elimination of the creature, if all other methods are inconclusive. The critics have tried to develop homogeneity between the practices of the animal kingdom and human beings, and have stressed over the need for the dealing the animals in reckless manner, the critics have highlighted that even the animals share a communication network among themselves, and because the animals have staged a comprehensive system for themselves, the humans are legitimate to adopt irresponsible and inhumane approach towards the animal kingdom, 'animals also communicate with one another; animals also care passionately for their young; animals also exhibit desires and preferences, thus the features of moral relevance i.e. rationality, interdependence, and love are not exhibited uniquely by human beings, therefore there can be no solid moral distinction between humans and other animals' (David, 2003)....

The criticism is invalid because the parameters listed by the critics including 'the ability to communicate or to reason, or dependence on one another, or care for the young, or the exhibition of preference' are critically insubstantial. The system and adaptation of the animal kingdom can never be correlated with the lifestyle of the human beings; there exist great discrepancies between both the parties. The Animal Rights were mainly aimed at proving enough safeguard to the animals, and to ensure that these animals live in protected environment, with improved food resources, and better survival. The humans on their part are responsible for the fulfillment of required responsibilities towards the animal kingdom, these restrictions and responsibilities have been imposed on the human beings because the human community in this entire universe is considered to be blessed with intellectualism, and the intellect of the human being has give rise to the responsibility, conscious and morality, and on the virtue of these characteristics, the humans are liable to abide by the principles and injunctions of the animal rights (Andrew, 2002).
Conclusion

The principle of the Animal Right movement is based on the freedom values, as per which, 'nonhuman animals deserve to live according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and exploitation', thus no violence shall be accorded on the animals under any circumstances, and however exceptions do occur. According to the Animal Rights, the animals should be provided sanctuary from the cruelty of the human society. The purpose of the charter of the Animal Right has been to ensure the extension of the human domain of respect and compassion, which has trespassed the human society, and have penetrated into the community which is equally 'capable of feeling pain, fear, hunger, thirst, loneliness, and kinship' (David, 2003). The purpose of the Animal Right is to condemn the support towards 'factory farming, vivisection, and the exploitation of animals for entertainment' (John, 2000). However, there exists differences as to what extent the animal rights are applicable, the modern science is involved in different research experiment in which the animals are particularly targeted for the sake of experimentation and verification, thus it is difficult to ascertain that whether the research activity which is purportedly performed for the welfare and progress of the human society should not condemned only because a minor animal is being consumed or killed for that purpose. There has to be a clear demarcation between the significance of the human and animal life, and the animal rights have failed in this account to develop harmony between what ought to be performed on the animals for the experimentation, which is purely conducted for the welfare of the human society. The purpose of the Animal Rights is to 'acknowledge the suffering of nonhumans and attempt to reduce that suffering through humane treatment' (Hilda, 2000), and also has the objective to eliminate the exploitation of the animals. The Animal Rights is aimed at offering respect to the animals which is justifiable. It does not condemn to kill the animal, all it seeks is to perform all killing and testing activities on the animals in humane manner. The Animal Rights is therefore a positive step in right direction which is purely aimed at the safeguard of the animal interests, and does not put the interests of the human society into animals at stake; rather it also encourages their activities with partial concerns and reservation towards inhumane treatment, and request as a humane treatment towards the animals, much because the animals have the similar humanely behavior and characteristics, which should be respected (Hilda, 2000).

References

John M. Kistler. Animal Rights. Greenwood Press. 2000.

Cass R. Sunstein, Martha Craven Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford University Press. 2004.

Hilda Kean. Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain Since 1800. Reaktion Books. 2000.

David Perkins. Romanticism and Animal Rights. Cambridge University. 2003.

Andrew Harnack, Juvenile Nonfiction. Animal Rights: Opposing Viewpoints. Reaktion Books. 2002.

Roger Scruton. Animal Rights and Wrongs. Demos Publication. 2003.

Barbara James.…