The bare lives of New Delhi: Street dogs at bureaucratic crossroads

I Introduction

This article examines the bureaucratic processes involved in the administration of street dogs during the hosting of the 2023 G20 summit on 9 and 10 September in New Delhi, India. The study is contextualised within a discussion that addresses the latent impact of hosting major international events on free-roaming city animals and on those who are intimately involved in their care and wellbeing. Specifically, it investigates how a beautification and cleanliness drive, undertaken in preparation for the summit, led to the violent removal of street dogs of the city, revealing the processes of administrative decision-making, structured by what Ghertner (2010) refers to as ‘aesthetic governmentality’. ¹ The removal of the street dogs, it is argued, reflects how urban beautification and sanitation efforts are intertwined with power, control and the exclusion of marginalised beings, especially when they are not seen to befit a desired aesthetic order (Basu 2022; Baviskar 2016; Kaushal 2022; Oliveira 2021; Sarkar 2014; Wood and Abe 2011).

Drawing on Ghertner’s assertion that aesthetics serves as a tool of power, this article maintains that its influence extends beyond spatial arrangements, moving on to the governance of marginalised bodies, framing the removal of street dogs from the city during the summit as a biopolitical act. It is further argued that the prioritisation of aesthetics, as seen in the attempt to hide the dogs, not only reveals an ethical crisis within the state but also underscores how the motivations behind urban governance continue to echo colonial sensibilities of control and exclusion in the management of street dogs in Indian cities (Dev 2014; Srinivasan 2013). Accordingly, the imposition of biopolitical violence—through capture and invisibilisation—on the Delhi street dogs underscores the urgency of recognising how global events can heighten the vulnerability of city animals, even in places where protective laws exist. As detailed in the subsequent sections, India has a comprehensive set of laws designed to protect ownerless street dogs, ensuring their right to food and safety while they reside on the roads. The primary concern is how, during the summit, street dogs came to be subjected to bureaucratic processes that animal rights activists criticised as both unnecessary and unlawful, by an agency, ironically, responsible for the legal protection of the dogs.

Accordingly, the article structures itself around four distinct phases of the management of Delhi street dogs during the summit, with each phase underscoring the city authority’s engagement with non-human life, positioning it within a complex of biopolitical control, spatial production and aspirations of modern capitalism. The first phase in this account involves the release of a notification by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) regarding the removal of street dogs from designated areas of the city in view of the G20 summit. In the second phase, this notification is withdrawn following significant pushback from animal welfare activists. Despite the official retraction, the third phase sees MCD-marked vehicles continuing to pick up and remove street dogs from locations as decided earlier. The final phase involves the eventual release of the dogs. The examination of these phases is theorised around Maan Barua’s (2023) view that traditional urban theories focus on human-centric development and design, emphasising capital, planning and infrastructure while neglecting the agency of non-human life. Such approaches fail to capture the full complexity of urban environments, treating non-human entities as passive, symbolic or disruptive forces rather than integral components of urban life. Barua thus calls for an expanded urban ontology that recognises the significance of non-human behaviour, practices and presence in shaping cities. Accordingly, the examination of the four phases is contextualised not only within the classification of street dogs and laws governing them but also the different types of human–dog interactions prevalent in the Indian urban context. This understanding, it is hoped, will provide important insight into the everyday lives of the dogs and how the MCD drive impacted it, beyond the view that these laws are not always effectively enforced.

II Methodology and data sources

The article is part of an ongoing sociological investigation into the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules in Delhi’s National Capital Region, with attention drawn to the G20 event following the MCD’s announcement to remove street dogs from certain locations in view of the summit. Consequently, the data presented span a period both before and after the culmination of the summit, providing a broader context. It draws from (a) legislation pertaining to dogs in India, particularly the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA) and ABC Rules 2020, 2023 (b) media reports (c) official circulars (d) court petitions (e) pamphlets from animal welfare activists and organisations (f) in-depth interviews and (g) field observations. The publicly accessible documents are meant to not only capture official statements and expert opinions but also present a wide spectrum of perspectives. Additionally, these documents help in constructing a chronological sequence of events, enabling a systematic examination of the bureaucratic decision-making process.

The article is further informed by field data collected from two ABC shelters in South Delhi, focusing on the conditions in which the dogs were kept, their logs, pick-up locations and the procedures followed during their intake and release. Because of media attention on the issue, both shelters eventually requested anonymity, a condition that was not made at the start of data collection. Additionally, it is premised on discussions with residents of Masoodpur, ² a South Delhi locality, from where dogs were picked up during the ABC drive. The analysis also incorporates interviews with officials from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), which oversees some of the city’s most affluent areas, including central New Delhi, where the summit delegates were to be accommodated. The NDMC’s input is significant as it opted for alternative measures to manage street dog movement during the summit without actually removing them from these prime locations. While primary interviews with MCD officials could not be secured, the article brings in the perspectives of MCD officials as detailed in news reports covering incidents of the dog pick-ups and release in view of the summit. Finally, interviews with animal rights activists and rescuers who were directly involved in responding to these events have been incorporated in the article, along with data acquired from connecting with WhatsApp groups created to track lost and found dogs. These data played a crucial role in gathering information about the latest dog pick-ups, the manner in which they were done, as well as understanding the coordination of those involved in rescue efforts.

Methodologically, the study is grounded in Barua’s (2023) conceptualisation of ‘observant participation’, which argues that non-human entities are not just passive participants but also observant beings that sense, comprehend and respond to urban environments. Barua’s critique of multispecies ethnography is also central to this study, where he advocates for an approach that moves beyond a ‘catalogue of biodiversity’ (Barua 2023: 19) to emphasise the evolving and transversal relations among human and non-human entities. Additionally, the article draws from Gillespie’s (2019) work, which highlights the emotional and psychological toll of witnessing and documenting animal suffering, and how the role of witnessing animal violence may lead to overwhelming feelings of grief, sadness, loneliness and even a sense of madness. However, by framing the researcher within Sara Ahmed’s (2017) framework of a ‘feminist killjoy’, Gillespie stresses the importance of making visible the violence on animals, that others may overlook or normalise (2019: 226).

The killjoy framework becomes particularly relevant when used in the context of the G20 summit, given that it was an important event for India. In her analysis of a similar important, mega-event, the 2010 Commonwealth Games held in Delhi, Baviskar (2016) introduces the concept of a ‘special time’ (139) where usual planning processes are suspended to allow for rapid, large-scale changes, often justified by appeals to national prestige and global competition. These rapid infrastructural transformations, she argues, generate collective excitement, reshaping urban solidarities and altering how citizens engage with their city. The Commonwealth Games, like the G20 summit, were leveraged to project India as an emerging global power and elevate Delhi to the status of a world-class city. Baviskar highlights how image-building becomes a political exercise by authorities attempting to project a certain narrative of modernity, progress and order to both domestic and international audiences.

During international summits, marginalised groups, be they humans, animals or even landscapes deemed unsightly, often bear the brunt of efforts to sanitise and curate the state’s image. In the state-led efforts to manage the undesirable aspects of the city, street dogs, slums and informal settlements are subjected to practices of removal, confinement and erasure. Narayanan (2017) critiques these measures as anthropocentric urban development, akin to modern colonialism, where privileged human interests dominate over both impoverished humans and non-human lives. The killjoy framework thus allows for an examination of tensions between the city’s global ambitions and the rights of those excluded in the process of pursuing these ambitions. It leads us to analyse the laws governing street dogs in India, demonstrating how this legal framework not only regulates the presence and treatment of the dogs but also integrates them into a broader socio-political context. We see that the laws position street dogs as political actors whose existence intersects with state policies and societal norms, allowing us to understand the broader impact of the MCD dog pick-ups not only on the dogs themselves but also on the community life of the city.

III Street dogs, law and the urban everyday

Indian street dogs are governed by what are known as the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules 2001 ³ and 2023, ⁴ established under the ‘Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960’. These rules were originally formulated to ensure the humane management of the street dog population as against the colonial practices of mass culling through poisoning and electrocution. The ABC Rules specify neutering and vaccination as the permitted strategy for managing the street dog population and mandate the local municipalities to create, maintain and work with ABC-prescribed animal shelters, which would serve as temporary holding areas for carrying out these procedures. Therefore, the dog shelters in India are not facilities that can permanently house street dogs, since after a procedure is complete, the dogs must be returned to their original locations. At no point can the dogs be relocated, killed or culled for population control. Srinivasan (2015) notes that though the interventions of neutering and vaccination indicate a biopolitical approach since they target dogs as populations, the welfare episteme prioritises compassionate practices over others. It is also important to emphasise that the legal protections offered to street dogs are not contingent upon ownership by humans. Srinivasan (2013) states that the term ‘street dog’ in the ABC rules is significant, since it legitimises the existence of the dogs in public spaces rather than labelling them as ‘stray’, which often implies illegitimacy. Thus, unlike in countries such as the UK, Indian law allows dogs to exist without being owned by humans, acknowledging their right to public space.

Despite being without human owners, Indian street dogs regularly receive welfare interventions via private individuals and voluntary organisations. Although the dogs are expected to survive on the assumption that they will generally be able to forage for their food, the 2023 amendment to the ABC rules includes provisions for the systematic feeding of dogs coordinated by resident welfare associations (RWAs) to better manage aggression and reduce dog–human conflict. The feeding measure is further intended to aid in the domestication of dogs, helping them to keep new, unneutered dogs out of designated territories, thereby incorporating the territorial nature of dogs within the framework of the ABC rules. These legal safeguards have also been extended to individuals who feed the street dogs, due to the rising incidents of harassment and attacks on dog feeders by people who prefer street dogs to be removed from residential areas. The legal framework, therefore, underscores the importance of understanding dog behaviour in street dog management strategies, by further mandating RWAs to conduct regular awareness programs aimed at improving dog–human relationships in their localities.

Accordingly, the law lays the groundwork for managing human–dog interactions by granting street dogs a form of political agency, not in the sense of capacities or action but in recognising that their presence actively influences the nature of public spaces. The interactive practices of feeding, playing and sharing spaces between humans and street dogs form a complex network of care and exchange that makes the dogs active participants in the social, legal and political dynamics of urban life. Simone’s (2004) conceptualisation of infrastructure as extending beyond physical structures like highways, pipes and wires to encompass the spontaneous, flexible interactions and networks created by urban residents becomes useful here. This framework allows us to view the everyday life of street dogs within the city as a dynamic network, forming unexpected alliances with people and other animals. Their presence and movements are not confined to rigid urban planning definitions. Rather, through their daily activities of foraging, establishing territories and interacting with residents and other animals, they operate as part of a fluid and adaptive urban system.

To understand this further, we turn to the work of urban planner Rishi Dev (2014), who states that the behaviour of the street dogs and their population patterns are deeply intertwined with mechanisms of spatial geographies. In Delhi’s urban landscape, street dogs inhabit a variety of locations, including residential colonies, desolate streets, narrow side lanes, main roads, bus stops, government buildings, vacant lands, commercial marketplaces and garbage dumps. These areas create distinct zones characterised by varying levels and kinds of dog–human interaction. To understand these interactions better, it is essential to first discuss the types of dogs that inhabit urban areas and the nature of relationships they form with humans. Dev categorises urban dogs into four types: pet dogs, semi-adopted dogs, stray dogs and feral dogs. Each type is defined by its degree of interaction and dependency on humans. For example, pet dogs are fully integrated into human living spaces, whereas semi-adopted or community dogs share spaces with humans without fully entering human homes. Stray dogs, on the other hand, have no permanent or temporary owner and minimal human interaction, while feral dogs live entirely outside urban areas without any dependence on humans (Dev 2014: 14).

This classification of dogs becomes more nuanced when examined in the context of the dog-human interactions prevalent amongst a diverse spectrum of human groups such as residents of apartment complexes, economically weaker sections (EWS) (such as hawkers, guards and rickshaw pullers), individuals in commercial areas, morning and evening walkers and, schoolchildren among others. Dev argues that, broadly, these interactions are shaped by the type of niche or microhabitat that a location provides for a dog. Niches for dogs are defined by various physical, social and ecological parameters and are often marked by invisible boundaries created by a complex set of factors. The ‘ecological niche’, for instance, depends on factors such as food, shelter and water, such that semi-adopted dogs tend to remain within smaller ranges where these resources are readily available, whereas stray dogs occupy larger niches, often scavenging in less frequented areas.

Similarly, the ‘psychological niche’ of a dog goes beyond basic survival needs like food, water and shelter and includes elements such as sound, smell, social markers and physical cues, which are crucial for a dog to establish a sense of territory, belonging and social structure, all essential aspects of its survival. Studies have shown how the heightened senses of dogs are central to their psychological bond with humans, making their interactions highly nuanced and responsive. Equally significant is the ‘social niche’ in understanding how dogs respond to human stimuli and form relationships. As inherently social and pack animals, dogs thrive on interactions with both humans and other dogs, enabling them to build complex social structures and even coexist with adversaries, showcasing their advanced social and communication systems. This pack mentality extends to their interactions with humans, with street dogs bonding closely with those who take care of them. For instance, due to the availability of a strong social niche, street dogs often form close bonds with humans from EWS localities, a point we shall return to subsequently.

Within the framework of the social niche, the study further finds that the involvement of animal volunteers also affects the everyday experiences and behaviour of street dogs, impacting the larger social interaction that dogs have with humans. In the National Capital Region of Delhi (as in several other places across India), individuals called ‘dog feeders’ or ‘dog lovers’ take it upon themselves to feed, care for and often provide basic medical attention to street dogs in their local areas. These volunteers may work independently, in informal networks or be associated with non-profit animal organisations. In the South and Central Delhi regions, from where the G20 dog pick-ups occurred, Adharika Kapoor, a dog rescuer and founder of Pooch Tales Charitable Trust, explained that the volunteer network was robust, ensuring prompt rescue and treatment efforts. Volunteers were constantly connected through WhatsApp groups, allowing them to quickly share information about dogs in need of attention. In fact, specific volunteers focused on specific neighbourhoods, such that if someone passing through an area noticed an injured dog, they could immediately find out which volunteer was available and ensure that the dog received necessary care. She noted that the same could not be said for other localities in Delhi, where the volunteer network was still in its early stages. While they did receive reports of dogs in need from those areas, providing quick assistance was sometimes challenging.

Because the dogs discussed in this article were primarily from South and Central Delhi, they had a strong social niche, with many having proper identification and known histories due to the active volunteer network involved in their daily care. Indeed, several dogs picked up during the G20 preparations were either pets of EWS residents or semi-adopted dogs or community dogs which had already been neutered, a fact that was overlooked when authorities took them under the pretext of further ‘neutering’. This indicates that many of these dogs were already in compliance with the legal requirements from city animals, such as being neutered, vaccinated and domesticated. Dev (2014) argues that the misguided efforts to relocate or remove street dogs disrupt ecological balances and are a result of not understanding the niche, everyday role and social structure of dogs ⁵ —their social relationships, hierarchies, territorial arrangements and multispecies interactions—in urban areas. Such attempts cause more aggression, migration of feral dogs and harm to wildlife and human health. Culling, removal or relocation of dogs by dumping them outside urban areas leads to species invasion because the ecological value of street dogs is reflected in their role in controlling the migration of other dogs and species like snakes and rodents into their defined territories. Moreover, dogs, as territorial but adaptable scavengers and predators, if allowed to migrate into other colonies, can spread bites, rabies and nuisance very easily, creating an ecological imbalance. Therefore, such practices lack a scientific basis and often result in cruelty and ineffective outcomes (Dev 2014: 20). Understanding the synergy between dogs and their environment is, therefore, essential for sustainable urban planning and management. With these considerations in mind, we can now examine the unfolding of the MCD dog removal drive and its broader implications.

IV The MCD drive

In preparation for the G20 summit, on 3 August 2023, the MCD’s Department of Veterinary Services put out a notification announcing its action plan to remove street dogs from 43 locations across Delhi. The notification carried the title, ‘Action Plan for the picking of the street dogs from the vicinity of prominent locations of Delhi in view of the G-20 summit’. ⁶ The document indicated that from 4 to 30 August, a large-scale drive would be conducted to pick up street dogs for sterilisation, with the dogs being housed in ABC shelters where they would receive food and care. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and private veterinarians would assist in this exercise, providing necessary equipment and personnel. ⁷ The notice emphasised that dogs should not be harmed during removal, recommending the use of the ‘butterfly net method’ and were to be released back to their original locations after the summit. A subsequent MCD circular on 4 August instructed Deputy Directors of Veterinary Services to additionally report the number of dogs in 43 locations across Delhi. ⁸

The notifications issued on 3 and 4 August 2023 were met with immediate backlash from animal welfare activists, who argued that the decision to displace dogs ahead of the summit was both impractical and unlawful. ⁹ They pointed out that this action by the MCD contravened the ABC rules, which prohibit the forced relocation of dogs. Further, concerns were raised about potential risks to the dogs, such as disorientation, injury or even death. Activists, including Ambika Shukla from People for Animals (PFA), criticised the MCD’s initiative as unlawful and poorly planned. In an interview, Shukla noted that the exercise went against animal welfare principles in India, highlighting a lack of consultation with experts, absence of necessary equipment like butterfly nets and untrained staff. She emphasised that ABC shelters were meant for quick release and were not equipped with the resources, space or personnel to accommodate large numbers of dogs for extended periods, warning that prolonged confinement could lead to a rise in infections among the dogs. Following public resistance, the MCD withdrew its circular to remove dogs ahead of the summit on 5 August. An MCD official, in a report by the Indian Express, clarified:

Picking up dogs and sterilising them is a routine task for the MCD but after careful thought, we realised that there is no special need for picking up all the dogs from the areas mentioned in the previous action plan due to the G20 Summit, due to which we decided to withdraw our action plan. ¹⁰

Despite the retraction of the notification, by 3 September (a mere five days before the summit), street dogs from the city started being picked up in MCD-marked vehicles. Social media and news outlets soon flooded with images and videos highlighting the unlawful eviction of the dogs and the inhumane methods used during the operation. A report by The Times of India described the removal, noting how seemingly untrained workers using metal wires and nooses captured dogs, and hurriedly crammed them into vehicles. They shared footage depicting the dogs yelping in fear, confusion and pain due to the mishandling. ¹¹ By 9 September, the start of the summit, street dogs had been removed not only from the designated areas but also from locations that were not on the initial MCD list or connected to the G20 routes. ¹² This unanticipated action provoked strong reactions from animal welfare organisations and individuals, who held the MCD responsible and warned of potential chaos when these dogs would eventually be released back into the city. Speaking to The Print, Gaurav Dar, a consultant to an animal welfare NGO, noted that the MCD had indiscriminately picked up all dogs, including those that were blind, elderly, as well as lactating mothers, who were separated from their puppies, and confined them to substandard ABC centres. Dar further highlighted the poor conditions of the centres, such as insufficient numbers of watering bowls and ventilation, and criticised the failure to tag or collar the dogs, which would complicate returning them to their original locations. ¹³ Similarly, in an interview, Dev highlighted the consequences of the MCD’s actions, stating that decades of the ABC programme’s efforts were undone as all the dogs were mixed, without any identification, left to fend for themselves and fight for survival. He stated:

Some will disappear. Some will die. Some will mix-up and fight for their survival, disoriented, harassed, scared, and disillusioned. There is a chaos right now which will continue later for months to come. Conflict. Confusion. Chaos. Pain. Suffering. Mayhem. And this not only the dogs will go through, but also humans… humans that love dogs and care for them.

Upon visiting two ABC shelters in South Delhi, it was observed that dogs were kept in cramped and dirty enclosures, leading to fights between them. Although one shelter was cleaner, both were trying to manage conflicts by grouping dogs from the same area together. While expressing disagreement with the overall drive, caretakers shared with us the records maintained for future releases and insisted that the dogs were being well-cared for. Meanwhile, reports began to emerge of distressed pet owners searching for their dogs, mistakenly picked up as strays. Newslaundry released the story of a woman who visited multiple shelters in a desperate attempt to find her missing dog. She shared her anguish, saying:

He was just a puppy when he came to me. We have never been apart. I can’t imagine what he must be feeling right now. Where do I look for him? They are saying he is not here. How will he stay without me? He is like my child. ¹⁴

During discussions with residents of Masoodpur colony, it was revealed that one ABC shelter personnel had advised locals to hide their dogs or drive them away from visible areas to prevent them from being picked up, suggesting an attempt to circumvent the official notification. The residents shared that although they were trying to shoo the dogs away from the main roads, their efforts were limited, as the dogs could not be entirely confined inside the non-gated colonies. Interestingly, another approach came from the NDMC, the municipal body managing the high-profile G20 areas, that chose not to follow the MCD’s footsteps and refused to pick up dogs under their jurisdiction. In an interview, an NDMC official mentioned that, rather than picking up the dogs, they contacted local dog feeders and caretakers, seeking their assistance in managing the dogs during the summit. They reasoned with the caretakers that fast-moving VIP vehicles could potentially harm the dogs, so it was important to keep them away from the VIP roads, an effort that was ultimately successful, as per the official. Thus, in all this, we also see efforts to sidestep the MCD’s orders and method, suggesting a negotiation with alternative measures attempted by local bodies, NGOs and residents, on the dog pick-up issue.

After the culmination of the summit, as the dogs began to be released, ABC shelters started to send urgent WhatsApp messages urging people to identify their dogs before they were moved to drop-off locations. Shelter attendants we had met initially stated that the dog release would occur two days after the summit and welcomed observers and animal volunteers to help with the exercise. However, the release of the dogs started earlier than planned, catching many off guard and leaving people expecting to reunite with their dogs scrambling to identify and locate them. Ambika Shukla argued that while animal welfare volunteers had made offers to coordinate the release and ensure proper identification of the dogs, the MCD acted unilaterally, disregarding these efforts. She criticised their handling of the situation, pointing to failures at multiple stages—from illegal and cruel methods of capturing the dogs, inadequate shelter provisions to the disorganised release process. Arguing that the conflict was unnecessarily escalated by the MCD, she emphasised:

As Indians, we should take pride in our harmonious coexistence with animals. Visitors often find our streets, bustling with cows, dogs, and other animals, as a uniquely Indian experience. This harmony is what makes India special, and we should embrace and showcase it. We shouldn’t feel embarrassed about our intertwined existence with animals. The type of modernity where we distance ourselves from animals isn’t what we desire, rather, we seek a richer, multi-dimensional way of life.

In reaction to the overall dog pick up drive and the manner in which it was conducted, a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in court, challenging the MCD’s approach towards street dogs during major events like Independence Day, Republic Day and the recent G20 summit. ¹⁵ Following this, the MCD issued a statement asserting that all the dogs picked up for sterilisation, immunisation or observation during the summit were returned to their original locations in strict compliance with the ABC Rules, 2023. The MCD maintained that their claim was also upheld by the court, thereby dismissing any accusations of misconduct against the agency. ¹⁶

V Urban biopolitics and its exclusions

It is significant to note the MCD’s assertion that their actions prior to and during the summit were conducted in compliance with law, even when reports of dogs being indiscriminately and brutally picked up from locations prominent in view of the summit, crammed in overcrowded shelters, started to flood the media. This apparent contradiction forms the basis for two key arguments in this article. First, by extending Giorgio Agamben’s (1998) concept of ‘bare life’, it posits that during the summit, street dogs were reduced to a mere biological existence, confined in overcrowded shelters, sustained only by basic provisions of food and water, while being stripped of the political protections typically afforded to them by law. It is acknowledged that Agamben’s work on biopower has been critiqued for being anthropocentric; this article, however, borrows from Chrulew’s (2012) understanding of how it can be extended to the study of animals. Chrulew argues that, borrowing from Foucault, Agamben describes the shift from traditional sovereign power (the authority to take life) to modern biopower (which seeks to sustain life and let die), showing how modern governance increasingly produces bare life, impacting various groups such as comatose patients, neomorts, refugees and Holocaust victims. Chrulew extends this reasoning to animal studies by highlighting the work of scholars like Dinesh Joseph Wadiwel (2002), Matthew Calarco (2008) and Nicole Shukin (2009), who advocate for the inclusion of animals in biopolitical studies. In this context, Narayanan’s (2017) essay is also relevant as it examines the biopolitical governance of Indian street dogs, focusing on the everyday violence they are subjected to. Narayanan examines the systemic culling of street dogs as a matter of routine in some Indian states, outside of iconic events, and argues that this can happen because informality in governance, tied to colonial biopolitics, creates Agamben’s state of exception, enabling the suspension of universal rights for animals. She contends that informality, like colonialism, can dismantle democratic structures of governance to privilege violence and oppression.

While Narayanan’s thesis on the use of informality to manage street dogs is insightful, the argument that it leads to a permanent state of exception that keeps animal rights in suspension is contested here. This article argues that informality cannot be a permanent approach in the management of Delhi’s street dogs, especially in areas that are under the careful scrutiny of welfare activists. The situation becomes more complex when ‘dog lovers’ belong to dominant political and economic classes, sometimes holding significant positions of power. It is crucial to understand that if the relationship between the marginalised humans and their street dogs is marked by helplessness and vulnerability, for those with power, it is structured by the language of awareness and politico-legal dominance. ¹⁷ Accordingly, it may be argued that the MCD’s everyday routine strategy of engaging with the street dogs of the city is one of engaging in a balancing act—on the one hand, pushing back against the relentless demands from dog-aversive residents trying to dislocate and remove the dogs from their areas, while, on the other hand, being reminded by welfare activists, that any such step could be in contravention to the law. Therefore, complaints of dog overpopulation, nuisance and even aggression are often systematically ignored by MCD, similar to ignoring the concerns related to dog welfare. This ‘non-event’ approach aligns with Lukes’s (1974) concept of non-decision-making, where power is exercised by preventing certain issues from being acted upon, being acknowledged or addressed in the political process. The MCD employs this strategy by avoiding definitive actions on dog-related complaints, resulting in delays, non-responsiveness or superficial checks. For example, when dog-catching teams are dispatched for sterilisation checks, their half-hearted efforts are evident as the dogs manage to alert each other and escape, leading to very few actually being caught. The strategy of non-decision-making, therefore, becomes an everyday tool for the MCD to navigate the politically charged terrain of street dog management by indulging in deliberate inaction.

During the summit, however, the non-event strategy proved unsustainable, highlighting the relevance of the concept of ‘bare life’ in assessing the mechanisms of governance that emerged instead. Edkins (2000) states that, for Agamben (1998), the foundational paradox of sovereignty is that the sovereign is at the same time inside and outside the sovereign order: The sovereign can suspend the law. This suspension of law creates a state of exception, a space where the sovereign can exercise control in ways that blur the boundaries of legality, directly influencing the conditions of life itself. It is within this suspended space that the distinction between political life (bios) and natural life (zoē) collapses leading to the creation of bare life, exemplified by the figure of the homo sacer—a life that is biologically alive but politically abandoned. The homo sacer can be killed without the act being considered a murder (exclusion from human law) or a sacrifice (exclusion from divine law). The homo sacer is excluded from the political realm but is still under sovereign control. In the context of the present study, this duality is significant as it exposes the street dogs to a unique form of control, operating in a political space where the lines between political inclusion and exclusion become increasingly complex. For Agamben, this dual violence is exemplified through the analysis of the camp, which operates under the state of exception. The space of the camp represents more than a distinction between inside and outside, rather, it is where the two realms merge into a zone of indistinction. In the camp, ‘the distinction between the rule of law and chaos disappears: decisions about life and death are entirely arbitrary, and everything is possible’ (Edkins 2000: 6).

Drawing from this, the present article argues that the summit establishes the shelter as a zone of indistinction, where the usual boundaries between care and violence become blurred, revealing how spaces meant for welfare can simultaneously become sites of control and harm. However, the structure of sovereignty during the summit is still more intricate, bringing us to the second key argument in the article. In its creation of the state of exception, the sovereign does not generate bare life through the suspension of law but rather by excessively enforcing it in a way that creates a paradoxical violation of the law itself. During the summit, sovereignty was not defined by the abandonment of law but by the power to enforce it in ways that blur the boundaries between legality and illegality. The summit thus creates a condition of ‘too much law’, translating into excessive sheltering, excessive dog pick-ups and excessive use of force, transforming the legal framework into a tool of violence—in the name of routine and lawful sterilisation. This aggressive, abrupt and excessive enforcement during the summit places street dogs in a zone of indistinction where their rights are neither fully acknowledged nor completely dismissed. The MCD, while claiming to operate within the bounds of the law, creates a space where law and its suspension coexist—leading to a situation where rules are implemented in ways that undermine the rights they are designed to protect. In essence, therefore, we find that while the everyday life of Delhi street dogs is structured by MCD non-events, the summit’s abrupt enforcement of longstanding, neglected policies becomes a violation severe enough to turn the dogs into Agamben’s bare life, kept alive in the shelter only by food and water. This set of circumstances compels us to reflect on the broader implications of the MCD’s actions on urban life in the city, revealing the deeper consequences of the combination of bureaucratic indifference with sudden acts of control.

VI Concluding remarks

The relationship between humans and street dogs in Indian cities offers a compelling lens through which to examine broader themes of urban governance, social equity and the politics of space. This article has attempted to highlight the participation of street dogs in Indian urban life, as more than nuisances, and rather, as active agents shaping and being shaped by the socio-political dynamics of the city. Their presence disrupts conventional notions of urban planning, challenging the clean, sanitised vision of a ‘world-class’ city that seeks to exclude non-human lives. Rather than relying on binaries of affection and threat, this article highlights the need for a context-sensitive and law-informed framework that addresses both human and non-human vulnerabilities. It underscores how urban animal governance, as illustrated through the handling of street dogs by agencies like the MCD, reveals an urgent need to move beyond reactive approaches and instead engage with the complex affective, spatial, and legal entanglements through which multispecies urban life is structured in Indian cities. It is argued that the ABC rules and constitutional provisions that collectively promote care for animals are not only driven by sentiments but by a broader normative and legal framework informed by India’s historical, religious and cultural imaginaries. Accordingly, reframing street dogs as essential urban entities invites a rethinking of how cities are inhabited and organised, drawing attention to the role of multispecies entanglements in shaping everyday governance. This reframing is crucial for dismantling the ‘bare life’ status regularly imposed on urban animals, positioning them instead as socially embedded actors whose presence actively shapes and contests the production of urban space in Indian cities.