Commentary 25/09/12 Street dogs expose India’s class divide

[성기화 요셉]

The issue reflects broader patterns in Indian society about whose problems get attention and whose solutions get resources

A file picture of street dogs taking a nap in front of commuters waiting for their bus at a bus stop in India's national capital New Delhi. (Photo by Money SHARMA / AFP)

By John Singarayar

Published: September 12, 2025 11:51 AM GMT

Updated: September 12, 2025 11:52 AM GMT

Walk through any Indian city, and you will see them — lean dogs with watchful eyes, picking through garbage, sleeping in shadows, occasionally barking at strangers.

India has roughly 60 million street dogs, and while their presence might seem like a simple animal issue, it reveals something deeper about who bears the cost of our urban problems.

The reality is uncomfortable but clear: the street dog crisis hits India’s poor and middle class hardest, while the wealthy remain largely untouched. This is not just about animal welfare — it is about inequality, safety, and whose voices matter when solutions are decided.

For families living in cramped neighborhoods, street dogs are not an abstract concern. They are a daily reality that can turn dangerous without warning. Children playing outside face the risk of bites, which happen millions of times each year across India.

The aftermath is often devastating for lower-income families: expensive rabies shots, lost wages from hospital visits, and sometimes worse outcomes when treatment comes too late or not at all.

Consider a street vendor setting up his cart at dawn, or a delivery worker navigating narrow lanes, or children walking to school through areas where packs of dogs roam freely. These are not isolated encounters — they are routine experiences for people who cannot afford to live behind gates and walls.

The psychological stress alone is significant: constantly watching for aggressive animals, losing sleep to midnight barking, and feeling unsafe in your own neighborhood.

Meanwhile, India’s affluent live in a different world entirely. Gated communities have security guards and controlled access. High-rise apartments keep residents elevated above street-level problems. For these families, street dogs are something glimpsed through car windows during drives through “other” parts of town, if they are seen at all.

This physical separation creates a troubling dynamic when it comes to solutions. Many animal welfare organizations, often funded by wealthy donors or international groups, advocate passionately for street dog protection.

Their approach emphasizes compassion and coexistence, pushing for programs like “Trap-Neuter-Release” that aim to humanely control dog populations. These efforts come from genuine concern for animal suffering, but they often miss a crucial perspective: what it is actually like to live alongside these animals without any escape route.

The disconnect becomes more pronounced when you look at where resources go. Wealthy neighborhoods naturally have better waste management, which means fewer food sources attracting strays.

When sterilization drives do happen, they often target areas with more visibility or political influence. Poor communities, despite facing the worst of the problem, frequently get overlooked.

This creates a bitter irony. The families most affected by street dogs — those who live in areas with overflowing garbage, inadequate housing, and limited healthcare access — have contributed least to creating the problem in the first place.

Yet they face the consequences daily while watching well-meaning activists and organizations advocate for policies that sometimes feel disconnected from ground reality.

The animal welfare narrative, while important, sometimes treats human concerns as secondary or even selfish. When families worry about their children’s safety or small business owners fear aggressive dogs will drive away customers, these worries get dismissed as lacking compassion.

This framing ignores basic economics: a family spending their savings on rabies treatment cannot prioritize abstract animal rights over immediate survival needs.

Municipal authorities find themselves caught between vocal animal rights groups and frustrated communities. The result is often paralysis — fear of backlash from organized activists prevents decisive action, leaving actual solutions in limbo while the problem persists.

Moving forward requires acknowledging these uncomfortable truths while finding balance. Waste management must improve dramatically, especially in underserved areas where open garbage creates perfect conditions for stray populations to flourish.

Sterilization programs need consistent implementation and proper follow-through, with priority given to areas where human-dog conflict is most severe.

Most importantly, the voices of people actually living with this problem need to be heard in policy discussions. Too often, decisions get made by those with access to media and political influence while the daily experiences of affected communities get ignored or dismissed.

Practical solutions might include community-based monitoring of stray populations, subsidized rabies treatment for low-income families, and urban planning that creates designated areas for animal feeding away from residential zones.

Public awareness campaigns should address both animal welfare and human safety rather than treating them as opposing concerns.

The street dog issue reflects broader patterns in Indian society about whose problems get attention and whose solutions get resources. Compassion for animals matters, but it cannot come at the expense of families who wake up each day navigating a reality that wealthier Indians never have to face.

Until India addresses these fundamental inequalities — in resources, representation, and basic urban planning — the street dog crisis will remain what it is today: another burden carried primarily by those least equipped to bear it, while those with the power to create real change remain comfortably removed from its consequences.

*The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of UCA News.