+ Follow
Photo by Shardar Tarikul Islam: www.pexels.com

Imagine this: We live in Delhi, and it's evening. Kids from a colony are returning from their schools, and older men are sipping tea. Among all this, the community dogs follow the people who give them treats and wag their tails with hope while looking towards people who don't. It's a coexistence born out of necessity and shared streets.

Then, on August 11, 2025, the Supreme Court dropped a bombshell: It mandated that every stray dog in Delhi-NCR must be rounded up and relocated into shelters with no option of returning to their neighborhoods. The order demanded sterilization, vaccination, CCTV-monitored shelters, helplines, the works, and whatnot, but it also warned against any obstruction, under threat of legal consequences. It said that anyone obstructing this process will also be penalised.

Seeing community dogs suddenly labeled as "menaces" was disturbing. But while everyone is busy debating over dogs, bigger issues like weak governance, poor public health systems, women's safety, and years of neglect are being pushed aside.

We need to ask: Are we really solving the stray dog problem, or are we just brushing it aside so that other, more critical and fundamental issues can be sidelined? Are we choosing a quick, flashy legal fix over coexistence, while ignoring the deeper problems our society urgently needs to face?

The Myth of Control

India already has a clear, humane policy, but the Supreme Court has taken a wider, more expensive, and illogical route. We have the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. These rules direct civic bodies to sterilize and vaccinate street dogs, then release them back into their original areas, which ensures a scientific balance of population and welfare.

But the Supreme Court brusquely dismissed those rules as “absurd,” claiming they were ineffective in preventing rabies or dog bites, and then instructed that no dogs should ever be returned to their original locations. May we ask the question? Are those rules absurd, or is it their implementation?

Let us take an example of a place I live in. In my locality, we had one government animal hospital, but it has been closed for over a year. Cows with lumpy disease are suffering on the streets, and dogs are left without sterilization or rabies vaccines, which continuously increases their population. This not only makes humans suffer, but these animals suffer as well, not only at the hands of human cruelty but also because of their health and living circumstances. Would the situation have been the same if the rules and regulations already in place had been implemented diligently, and if officials who collect their monthly salary but never turn up at these hospitals were punished and kept under strict supervision to prevent corruption? The answer is clearly a NO.

So yes, animal welfare experts aren't convinced by what the Supreme Court has said. PETA India called the order "unscientific and inhumane," and pointed out that Delhi-NCR lacks even a single government-run dog shelter, which makes mass relocation impractical and cruel. Maneka Gandhi, the activist and former minister, warned of a future crisis: the "vacuum effect," where removed dogs will be replaced by other animals attracted to Delhi's overflowing garbage and feeding spots. She estimated that the logistical cost of building shelters large enough could reach ₹15,000 crore and ₹5 crore weekly to feed the impounded dogs. So now we have money and resources for this forced plan, but not for sterilization and monitoring?

So, the real problem isn't the lack of laws; they're not being put into action. Even the Supreme Court pointed this out, saying, "Rules are made, but never followed," and blamed civic neglect for letting things get out of control. In short, we don't lack policy; we lack political will.

Coexistence vs. Erasure

India has always lived with its street dogs. They’re part of the ecosystem of our gallis, alerting us to strangers and protecting shops at night. They are often cared for by feeders who treat them as family. They are not outsiders. They are part of the story of our cities.

But the Supreme Court's order frames them as a menace to be erased. It imagines a Delhi without dogs, as though relocating lakhs of animals to shelters is humane, practical, or even possible. This is where science and history disagree. Relocation does not end the presence of street dogs; it creates what animal experts call the "vacuum effect." Remove dogs from one area, and others from surrounding regions move in. These new entrants are unvaccinated, unsterilised, and far more aggressive, making humans less safe, not more. Acting on emotions alone leads to nothing but worsening the situation.

By contrast, the Animal Birth Control (ABC) model, which directs- sterilise, vaccinate, release, has decades of data proving its effectiveness in stabilising populations and reducing rabies. Coexistence isn't just sentimental; it’s rational public health policy. Erasure is not.

So the choice is stark: do we coexist with the dogs who already know our lanes and our people, or do we gamble on a fantasy of removal that history shows will backfire?

The Politics of Distraction

This entire debate around the relocation of street dogs reveals a deeper rot in our governance: the politics of distraction. India is facing a pile of crises: youth unemployment, agrarian distress, communal violence, an underfunded healthcare system, crumbling urban infrastructure, and increasing safety issues for women. Yet the political discourse, often amplified by court orders, has zeroed in on dogs as though they are the most significant threat haunting Delhi's citizens.

No, it's not rapists. It's not hooligans who roam at night creating a nuisance. It's not eve-teasers. It's not people who misuse power to suppress others. And it's definitely not the corrupt who pocket money meant for the welfare of our society.

It’s obviously easier to blame the presence of dogs on the streets than to ask why municipal corporations don’t manage waste, why sterilisation budgets go unused, or why rabies vaccines aren’t consistently available in government hospitals. It’s easier to mobilise anger against animals than against systems of power that fail citizens daily, fail the nation, and still get called “civil authorities.”

Framing stray dogs as the enemy provides a neat diversion. While we debate their fate, attention slips away from corruption in civic bodies, gender-based violence, poverty, and the rising tide of authoritarianism. This is not accidental. Animals become scapegoats, and citizens are invited to fear them instead of questioning their leaders. Forget about vote chori, forget about corruption, communalism, and the mass removal of Indians from voter lists because they don’t conform to what the government calls a citizen.

Who Benefits? Who Suffers?

The tragedy of such orders is that they punish humans and animals, while rewarding those who profit from chaos.

Who suffers?

  • Dogs: dragged from their colonies, locked in overcrowded, unsanitary shelters where disease spreads faster than food. Many won’t survive and will die of illness and filthy conditions.
  • Ordinary citizens: left with the vacuum effect, higher aggression, and greater rabies risks.
  • Feeders and caregivers: criminalised for compassion and accused of “obstruction.”

Who benefits?

  • Contractors and agencies handed massive sums to build or run shelters that rarely meet humane standards.
  • Politicians who can point to “strong action” and claim victory, while doing nothing to address root causes or real issues.
  • A system that thrives on visible gestures rather than meaningful reform.

This is the pattern of our governance: instead of fixing implementation gaps in the ABC Rules, demanding accountability from civic bodies, and investing in mass sterilisation and vaccination drives, the system throws money at spectacles of removal. Here, human and animal lives become collateral damage in the politics of looking decisive.

The Hypocrisy Argument: Why Only Dogs?

Some people argue that it’s hypocritical to fight for dogs when cows, goats, and chickens also live in awful conditions, often killed for food. They ask: why come out on the streets only for dogs?

But this argument misses the point. Cruelty to any animal, whether it's killing goats and chickens for food or neglecting cows, still counts as animal cruelty. The fact that one form of cruelty exists does not mean we should allow or justify another.

Yes, there are campaigns for farm animals too, but they often don't gain momentum because people defend them under the "food cycle." Still, dismissing dog welfare by pointing to other animals' suffering is not a solution. That only means we want all animals to suffer equally.

We need to ask ourselves some questions, are we moving towards a world where only humans remain because we refuse to learn coexistence? Have we taken the idea of "survival of the fittest" too literally, where we use our power only to dominate the weaker sections of society instead of protecting them?

Who Is Really at Fault?

And this brings us to the core truth: dogs are not the real threat here. Human cruelty, neglect, and civic apathy are. Every day, stray dogs are beaten, stoned, dragged on roads, or even burned with hot water. These acts of cruelty happen far more often than dog bites, yet they barely make the news. The law exists to punish such violence, but how usually is it actually enforced to protect street animals? How often do these kinds of cruelty get under supervision?

When animals are abused again and again, it’s natural that some will react in fear or self-defense to protect themselves. We blame the dogs instead of addressing the cruelty that sparks these reactions. Why aren't the people who torture animals being punished? Why aren't citizens being taught that such behavior only fuels the problem?

At the same time, we see cases where life-saving anti-rabies vaccines are missing in nearby government and private hospitals. So, who is really responsible for deaths from rabies? The dogs, or the authorities who fail to provide timely treatment and awareness to humans who are affected or likely to be affected by it?

If we genuinely want safer streets, we need to hold humans accountable. Those who abuse animals, and those in power who neglect public health. Because peace cannot come from violence, and safety cannot come from neglect.

A Call for True Coexistence

If Delhi's streets are unsafe for humans and animals, it's not because coexistence has failed; it's because governance has. We don't need new laws or grand court orders; we need the will to implement our existing rules.

The Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, were designed for precisely this purpose: to stabilise dog populations, reduce rabies, and allow communities and dogs to live together in safety. Instead of discarding these rules, the State should make sure that these rules are applied effectively. Imagine if the crores of rupees earmarked for dog "removal" were redirected toward:

  • Mass sterilisation and vaccination drives carried out ward by ward.
  • Community feeding points monitored by local authorities and NGOs would ensure hygiene and compassion.
  • Waste management systems that cut off food sources prevent the attraction of new dogs into urban colonies.
  • Public awareness campaigns to educate citizens on safe cohabitation and rabies prevention.

Coexistence is not utopian. It has already been proven in cities like Jaipur and Chennai, as well as internationally in Latin America, where community-dog models and sterilisation drives have drastically cut rabies cases. The question isn't whether it can work. The question is whether our leaders want it to.

Conclusion

This is not just about dogs, but the kind of society we want to be. Do we choose the more challenging path of coexistence, sharing our lanes, parks, and cities with beings who have lived alongside us for centuries? Or do we chase the illusion of control, where we target the vulnerable while the powerful walk free?

Here, we humans are not running from dogs; we are running from responsibility. From fair governance and from the courage to implement humane laws. We are running away from the humility to accept that coexistence is the only way forward in a crowded and diverse democracy.

And maybe that’s the bigger lesson: if we cannot learn to share our streets with dogs who guard them, how will we ever learn to share this country with each other?

References:

.    .    .

Discus