Compassion and Stray Dogs: What do politics and policy have to do with it
Eva-Maria Nag and Amrita Narlikar argue that multispecies politics and policies relate not to some esoteric, soft issues; rather, they directly reflect and shape our values as a people, our identity as a nation, and our power in the international system.
Compassion that transcends species is arguably ingrained in Indian civilization, and stands in contrast to Western anthropocentrism, a peculiar feature of Western modernity. A much-loved story from the Mahabharat about the hero, Yudhishthir, who prefers to reject heaven rather than abandon a stray dog, is only one among several living traditions that we can point to as an illustration of this. The Indian Constitution reflects this commitment: “to have compassion for all living creatures” is listed as a Fundamental Duty of all its citizens ( Art. 51A(g) ).
A recent ruling by the Supreme Court that insisted on a swift rounding up of the street dogs of Delhi and its surrounding regions tested this civilizational compassion more than ever before. Stray dogs who have co-existed for millennia with their fellow humans were to be forcibly located within eight weeks to shelters with no possibility of returning to their own streets and human friends.
Animal rights’ activists have rightly pointed out that state capacity to house these more-than-human beings is severely lacking; even if it were a potentially good solution, it would take many years (and immense public expenditure) to build the necessary shelters. But even if the funds were available, this would make for an ethically disturbing policy. The dogs have evolved into semi-domesticated beings, closely attached to their feeders in each locality; “if hazardous health and safety conditions do not kill them, their grief will.”
The stated aim of the ruling was to address the threat posed by rabies to the public. Rabies caused by dog-bites is indeed a terrible and fatal disease to contract for humans. But, to be fair, it is also not a walk in the park for the dogs. The situation is tragic because previous rulings of the Supreme Court (2023), as well as various High Courts (e.g. Bombay High Court, 27 March 2023) have offered better, more compassionate, financially viable, and easier to implement solutions: ABC programmes to decrease the canine populations [1], vaccination, feeding stations in respective localities, protection against violence and displacement, education in schools on community animals and co-existence, and more.
These are good programmes, but require consistent and committed implementation to prevent the occurrence of rabies in the first place. Rabies deaths have also occurred because of the poor quality of post-bite vaccinations that were administered to the affected humans. But inadequate implementation of our vaccination programmes and fake medicines are not the faults of the street dog. To punish, incarcerate, and destroy an entire species due to a risk that a very small percentage of its members might contract an infectious disease in the future is neither rational nor compassionate. Imagine the furore that would rightly take place if any public authority were to advocate such a policy against humans.
Recognizing the lack of compassion in the 11 August ruling, and its inconsistency with the ruling of the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider its decision. Indeed, the Supreme Court judges Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Metha, and N V Anjaria modified the ruling with a court order on August 22 to direct that dogs not infected with rabies or displaying aggressive behaviour were to be released in the area they were collected from, once they were sterilised, dewormed, and vaccinated. For animal lovers and NGOs, this was a huge victory of compassion over cruelty towards the voiceless.
But societal reactions in the period between 11 August and 22 August are telling. Many seem to have embraced false binaries and “othering”: humans versus dogs, rationalists versus “sentimental” “animal-lovers” (derogatory usage). Media and social media reflect this polarisation, with haters feeling vindicated and emboldened to persecute defenceless animals and troll their defenders.
The world we see before us now seems to be not only post-truth, but also post-compassion. Is there any reason for us – irrespective of whether we are dog-lovers or haters, rational or sentimental – to still care about ensuring safe and good lives for the street dogs of India and of other countries around the world? In an attempt to bridge some of these gaps in mutual understanding, we offer three reasons why our concerns are also issues of hard policy, namely the formulation of rules and guidelines that translate into concrete decisions, mechanisms for implementation, and enforcement through accountable actions. These policies, moreover, relate not to some esoteric, soft issues; rather, they directly reflect and shape our values as a people, our identity as a nation, and our power in the international system.
We argue that policies that direct our actions are always rooted in reasons and values, whether explicitly or implicitly. The reasons can be rational in a calculative sense that looks at costs and benefits or at overall utility, but are also rational in an evaluative sense that looks towards the context and the appropriateness of a response to a given situation. The data driving reason-based and reasonable decisions are therefore not merely objective and quantitative, but also qualitative and interpretative. Only in conjunction with each other can these data provide the information we require to consider our aims and choose our tools.
In the Indian context, we first posit that the ruling of 11 August (and the ugly debates and actions that have surrounded it) is distinctly un-civilizational for India. India has long and influential traditions that advocate non-violence against all beings. In the global context, we see that old Indian civilizational values [2] connect almost seamlessly with insights of the current era of the Anthropocene in which it is rationally impossible to deny the artifice of human separation from nature, whether construed as ecosystems or other non-human species and individual members of these species. This is to say that the fates of humans are inextricably intertwined with those who are not us. Along the spectrum between existence and extinction we need to find ways of co-existing with each other, whether human-to-human or human-to-more/than/human. Non-violence is more than a sentiment; it is the basis for all life forms to not merely exist as bare life but to also thrive in their own right. These are not abstract imaginaries, but part and parcel of the very real challenges of developing workable urbanisation, sustainability, and biodiversity policies. Policies that recognise the importance of traditional virtues and current imperatives have the best chances of being accepted and implemented with the desired outcomes.
Second, the global geopolitical context matters too. India is no longer just an emerging power. It has emerged, and is able to consolidate its position in the wider world through wielding ever greater economic and political clout. In recent years, India has done especially well to tap into its civilizational smart power using conceptual power, and thereby increase its global influence. Conceptual power frames how a country and its citizens sees itself and how it is perceived by others. It is integral to a state’s ability to persuade other states to act on a range of issue areas. Here again, this is an era in which we cannot separate political and economic power as these are conjoined by shared ideas, values, and concepts. India’s G20 Presidency was built around the theme of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – a remarkable, ancient concept that recognizes all beings (and not just peoples) across the earth as one family. India further developed the concept of LiFE – lifestyle for the environment – and has planted the seeds of an important idea that goes beyond human-centric development and extends to planet-centric development. Its leadership of the Big Cat Alliance and the Solar Alliance are concrete examples of the priority that it attaches to other species and nature. This is a new way of thinking about development (what and who it is for), its reference points (how it is measured), and its determinants (who the actors are and what the policies needed are). Debates on how development is viewed have fast moved on from traditional narratives that were about ‘catching up’ with the West and western lifestyles – arguably predicated on extraction and exploitation-based growth. In a multipolar world, India is opening the space for more promising pathways of era-appropriate and value-appropriate ideas and methods of development.
Third, the context of changing social structures matters. On the one hand, observers of political systems around the world worry about phenomena such as democratic backsliding, authoritarianism, repression of civil society, and so on. At the same time, new information and communication technologies enable (far too quick) views and opinions to be formed and disseminated. The Supreme Court rulings and the responses to the rulings divulge the pitfalls of social networks (fake news, aggravated language and actions), but also the opportunities for the participation of multiple actors to engage in the fluid interconnections between law making, and policy making, and legal judgments. If more-than-human rights are to be recognised and embedded by law makers, safeguarded and interpreted by the judiciary, and to be implemented by policy makers, robust processes and forms of communication are needed. The case of India’s Supreme Court rulings lend rise to the hope that voices representing traditional values as well as innovative ideas, such as the rights of individual animals to lead safe and healthy lives, will not be consigned to the margins of society. Together, authoritative directives and constructive, even if combative, exchanges can provide the context for policy makers to formulate solution-oriented agendas that can cross old divides and provide a new impetus for policies that reflect the interests and aims of states, regions, cities, neighbourhoods, but also of individual humans and more-than-human beings who inhabit our shared spaces.
Eva-Maria Nag is the Executive Editor of Global Policy Journal, School of Government and International Relations, Durham University.
Amrita Narlikar is Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation and Honorary Fellow of Darwin College, University of Cambridge.
Photo by Nothing Ahead
Footnotes
1. Note that these are accepted in most debates as an uncontroversial policy option; perhaps this policy needs some moderation, if we do not want add these ancient, intelligent, beautiful, and empathetic “Indie”/ “desi” breeds to the list of endangered beings, driving them to the point of extinction.
2. Amrita Narlikar, ‚India and the World: Civilizational Narratives in Foreign Policy,’ in Steve Smith, Tim Dunne, Amelia Hadfield and Nicolas Kitchen(eds.), Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4th edition, 2025.
