top of page

By:

Minal Sancheti

2 May 2026 at 12:26:53 pm

Dog lovers differ on SC order

Mumbai: The Supreme Court’s Tuesday order on the euthanasia for the dogs that are rabid or are aggressive and dangerous has evoked a mixed reactions from animal lovers in Mumbai. Pooja Sathe Gawande, a dog trainer, sees the order as a positive rule not just for the humans but also for the animal, who would otherwise go through a lot of pain. “The order is in the public interest for their health and safety. So the dogs that have rabies or are incurably ill, which means they cannot be cured at...

Dog lovers differ on SC order

Mumbai: The Supreme Court’s Tuesday order on the euthanasia for the dogs that are rabid or are aggressive and dangerous has evoked a mixed reactions from animal lovers in Mumbai. Pooja Sathe Gawande, a dog trainer, sees the order as a positive rule not just for the humans but also for the animal, who would otherwise go through a lot of pain. “The order is in the public interest for their health and safety. So the dogs that have rabies or are incurably ill, which means they cannot be cured at any private hospital or government hospital, should be euthanized,” she told ‘The Perfect Voice’. “They have also mentioned that each state and union territory needs to have at least one working animal birth control centre. First of all, they need to set that up and get the animal birth control going on,” she said. Shirin Dhabhar, a canine behaviourist and trainer, agrees to euthanasia in the case of terminally ill or injured dogs who are in a lot of pain. She said, “For rabies, there is no cure, and it’s a very painful disease, so it is much kinder to let the animal go. Dogs who meet terrible accidents that break their spines, and if the dog cannot be repaired or has a poor quality of life, then we should put them down peacefully. But it has to be done humanely with the veterinarian.” Sarika Nerurkar, a photographer who has taken pictures of animal rescuers and activists across the country, differs. She said, “To be very honest, this entire situation just leaves me with a lot of questions. Who decides which dogs are to be euthanised? How does someone decide if a dog is actually rabid? What are the checks and controls in place to make sure this power isn’t misused? Because these are still living beings we’re talking about. And then I keep wondering, where does their right to life go in all of this? What about the lives of animals that literally cannot speak, advocate, or fight for themselves?” Nerurkar said, “I understand that public safety is important, of course it is, but it feels deeply unfair and heartbreaking when the solution starts becoming the elimination of the weakest and most defenseless beings in society. Especially in a country where so many strays survive only because ordinary people choose to feed them, care for them, vaccinate them, and protect them. For me, this feels less like a solution and more like fear being imposed on beings that have no voice in the matter. And that’s what makes this so sad.” Silent Death The Supreme Court order also talks about killing dogs that cause harm to humans due to severe aggression and behaviour issues. The animal lovers differ on this point too. Gawande said, “Enforcing and blankly saying that removing all the dogs from the premises of railway stations, hospitals, and other places is not practically possible. The government cannot take all the dogs and dump them somewhere. They are living things and not dead objects.” Dhabhar believes there is a lot of grey area in the matter. “When it comes to aggressive dogs, there is a lot of ambiguity because behaviour is not necessarily black and white. The key question is who is determining that the dog is dangerous here. The dog can bite for reasons like fear, the animal can be in pain, or maybe it's the mother dog protecting the baby. This could be one of the reasons, but it doesn’t mean that the dog will bite repeatedly. So who decides whether they are aggressive or not?” Another animal lover Sandhya Wagle said, “As far as aggression is concerned, it can be cured by medicines. Also, they are not aggressive on their own; they are made aggressive. Animals can be made aggressive by human influence. So if you make an animal chase or bite, or try to catch, they can do it. If there are breeds that are aggressive, they can be calmed down by medicines.” An animal lover Erum Ali Qureshi said, “The idea for removing stray dogs from their places is wrong as they can relocate healthy, sterilised dogs from their territory, which they have been protecting for years. When you do that, you create a vacuum and invite unvaccinated dogs into the ecosystem. If you say you will kill every dog that will come in place, after a few generations, the dog will become aggressive and so feral that you will not be able to catch them, as they will become defensive. Then they will bite people.”

A Fantastic Illusion

Trump’s Beijing summit revealed less a thaw in Sino-American rivalry than a quiet acknowledgement that the balance of power is shifting eastward.

When Donald Trump recently left Beijing calling his summit with Xi Jinping “fantastic,” the pageantry suggested a diplomatic breakthrough. Yet, the summit produced few major agreements, while exposing how sharply the balance between the world’s two largest powers has changed.


For decades America approached China as the stronger power - confident that Beijing’s rise would eventually bend towards American preferences. This summit suggested the reverse. China no longer negotiated as a cautious challenger seeking legitimacy from Washington. It behaved as a superpower certain of its leverage and increasingly willing to dictate the boundaries of engagement.


Shift in Tone

The most significant outcome was an unmistakable shift in tone and balance. Beijing entered the talks from a position of relative confidence, strengthened by its grip over supply chains, rare-earth minerals and industrial manufacturing. Washington, meanwhile, arrived seeking stability rather than confrontation. The result was a one-year pause in tariff escalation and a modest easing of Chinese restrictions on rare-earth exports.


Trump framed even these limited gains as evidence of successful deal-making. In keeping with his transactional worldview, the summit revolved heavily around commerce. The prospect of China purchasing 200 Boeing aircraft was heralded as proof that American business still commanded Chinese demand. Yet beyond such announcements, concrete trade progress remained elusive. Agricultural issues lingered unresolved; semiconductor restrictions remained firmly in place; and the deeper technological war between the two countries continued unabated.


Indeed, the summit exposed the paradox at the heart of Sino-American relations. The two powers remain economically interdependent while strategically distrustful. America continues to restrict advanced artificial-intelligence and semiconductor exports to China, fearing that technological supremacy will determine the future military balance. China, meanwhile, uses its dominance in critical minerals and manufacturing as strategic counterweight. Both economies require one another, yet both increasingly prepare for a future in which coexistence may become more difficult.


Taiwan Tensions

Nowhere was this tension more apparent than over Taiwan. For Beijing, Taiwan remains the unfinished business of the Chinese civil war and an inseparable part of national territory. For Washington, the island is simultaneously a democratic partner, a strategic buffer and a test of American credibility in Asia. Xi Jinping reportedly warned against any American “double policy” on Taiwan, signalling Beijing’s impatience with Washington’s strategic ambiguity.


Trump, characteristically, avoided definitive commitments. China views continued American military support for Taiwan as direct interference; America sees Chinese military pressure as destabilising coercion. The summit reduced neither suspicion nor tension. It merely suspended open escalation.


Even the discussions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz and Iran revealed the emerging asymmetry between the two powers. Washington increasingly hopes Beijing might restrain Tehran because China possesses economic and diplomatic influence that America often lacks. Beijing benefits from stability in the Gulf because its economy depends heavily upon Middle Eastern energy supplies. Yet China remains careful not to bind itself too closely to American strategic objectives. It prefers flexibility over alliance, influence over entanglement.


Chinese commentators quickly interpreted the summit as a diplomatic victory. They were not entirely wrong. Beijing succeeded in projecting calm authority while conceding little of strategic significance. It reinforced its red lines on Taiwan, preserved access to global markets and extracted a temporary trade truce without surrendering its technological ambitions. China demonstrated discipline; America appeared eager merely to avoid deterioration.


That does not mean America is in irreversible decline. The United States still possesses formidable structural advantages. Its nominal GDP remains substantially larger than China’s. American universities, technology firms and military alliances continue to shape the international system. Predictions of imminent Chinese supremacy remain premature.


Yet power in geopolitics is measured not only by economic aggregates, but by confidence, momentum and perception. In Beijing, China appeared increasingly convinced that time favours its rise. America, by contrast, seemed preoccupied with managing decline relative to its once-unquestioned primacy.


The summit therefore symbolised the uneasy arrival of a genuinely multipolar world in which Washington can no longer assume automatic dominance and Beijing no longer conceals its ambitions behind caution. The era when China waited patiently for acceptance into an American-led order is ending. China now seeks to reshape that order itself.


The smiles and ceremonies obscured a harsher reality: the rivalry between the Eagle and the Dragon has merely entered a more sophisticated phase.


Diplomacy can postpone confrontation. It cannot erase the forces driving it. The Beijing summit was therefore “fantastic” only in the theatrical sense of the word.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page