This article delves into the complex bureaucratic processes involved in the administration of street dogs in New Delhi during the 2023 G20 summit in India. It applies Giorgio Agamben’s concept of ‘bare life’ to examine the tensions between the legal rights of street dogs and their administrative management, as observed during a temporary dog-removal drive undertaken by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for the summit. This discussion is contextualised within the broader impact of hosting major international events on free-roaming city animals, contributing to the existing literature on human–animal relationships. The argument is premised on the view that in this situation the MCD produces a condition of ‘too much law’ or law in excess, leading to a paradoxical violation of the law itself. Street dogs are rendered as bare life, captured and sustained only by food and water during the event—not by the suspension of animal rights but by its excessive and abrupt implementation. Additionally, the article addresses the broader impact of this bureaucratic intervention on city life.
AgambenGiorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
2.
AhmedSara. 2017. Living a Feminist Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
3.
BaruaMaan. 2023. Lively Cities: Reconfiguring Urban Ecology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
4.
BaruaMaan, JadhavSushrut, KumarGunjesh, GuptaUrvi, JustaPriyanka, and SinhaAnindya. 2021. ‘Mental Health Ecologies and Urban Wellbeing.’Health and Place, 69: 102577.
5.
BasuPratyusha. 2022. ‘Situating Animals in the Aesthetics of a Global City: Stray Cattle and Dairy Farmers in Delhi, India.’ In Practising Cultural Geographies: Essays in Honour of Rana P. B. Singh, edited by SinghRavi Shankar, DahiyaBharat, SinghArun Kumar, and PoudelPadma Chandra, 511–35. Singapore: Springer Nature.
6.
BaviskarAmita. 2016. ‘Spectacular Events, City Spaces and Citizenship: The Commonwealth Games in Delhi.’ In Urban Navigations: Politics, Space and the City in South Asia, edited by AnjariaJonathan Shapiro and McFarlaneColin, 138–61. New Delhi: Routledge India.
7.
BrennanTeresa. 2004. The Transmission of Affect. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
8.
ChowdhuryAnmol, GutgutiaSneha, RagavanShruti, and SrivastavaShubhangi. 2024. ‘A “South within the South”: Writing from More-than-human Entanglements in Guwahati, India.’Scottish Geographical Journal, 140 (3–4): 1–14.
9.
ChrulewMatthew. 2012. ‘Animals in Biopolitical Theory: Between Agamben and Negri.’New Formations, 76: 53–67.
10.
DevRishi. 2014. The Ekistics of Animal and Human Conflict. India: Copal Publishing Group.
11.
EdkinsJenny. 2000. ‘Sovereign Power, Zones of Indistinction, and the Camp.’Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 25(1): 3–25.
12.
GhertnerD. Asher. 2010. ‘Calculating Without Numbers: Aesthetic Governmentality in Delhi’s Slums.’Economy and Society, 39(2): 185–217.
13.
GillespieKathryn. 2019. ‘The Loneliness and Madness of Witnessing: Reflections from a Vegan Feminist Killjoy.’ In Animaladies, edited by GruenLori and Probyn-RapseyFiona, 77–88. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
14.
GillespieKathryn, and LawsonVictoria. 2017. ‘“My Dog is My Home”: Multispecies Care and Poverty Politics in Los Angeles, California and Austin, Texas.’Gender, Place and Culture, 24(6): 774–93.
15.
HarawayDonna Jeanne. 2003. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press.
16.
KarlekarHiranmay. 2008. Savage Humans and Stray Dogs: A Study in Aggression. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
17.
KaushalTanushree. 2022. ‘The Aestheticisation of Governance in India: The Appeal of Urban Aesthetics in Microfinance’. International Development Policy | Revue internationale de politique de développement, 14(1). https://journals.openedition.org/poldev/5069
18.
KoivunenAnu. 2010. ‘An Affective Turn? Reimagining the Subject of Feminist Theory.’ In Disturbing Differences: Working with Affect in Feminist Readings, edited by LiljeströmMarianne and PaasonenSusanna, 8–28. London: Routledge.
19.
LukesSteven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: MacMillan.
20.
NarayananYamini. 2017. ‘Street Dogs at the Intersection of Colonialism and Informality: “Subaltern Animism” as a Posthuman Critique of Indian Cities.’Environment and Planning: Society and Space, 35(3): 475–94.
21.
OliveiraNelma Gusmão de. 2021. Power Games and Mega-event Cities: Mega-events, City and Power. London: Routledge.
22.
SarkarSreela. 2014. ‘Remaking the “World-Class City”: The Commonwealth Games as a Media Event in “Emerging India”.’Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, 5(2): 215–30.
23.
ShukinNicole. 2009. Animal Capital: Rendering Life in Biopolitical Times. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
24.
SimoneAbdouMaliq. 2004. ‘People as Infrastructure: Intersecting Fragments in Johannesburg.’Public Culture, 16(3): 407–29.
25.
SrinivasanKrithika. 2013. ‘The Biopolitics of Animal Being and Welfare: Dog Control and Care in the UK and India.’Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(1): 106–19.
26.
SrinivasanKrithika. 2015. ‘The Welfare Episteme: Street Dog Biopolitics in the Anthropocene.’ In Animals in the Anthropocene: Critical Perspectives on Nonhuman Futures, edited by Human Animal Research Network Editorial Collective, 201–21. Sydney: Sydney University Press.
27.
SrinivasanKrithika, and NagarajVijay K.. 2007. ‘Deconstructing the Human Gaze: Street Dogs, Indifferent Governance and Prejudiced Reactions.’Economic & Political Weekly, 42(13): 1085–86.
28.
ThienDeborah. 2005. ‘After or Beyond Feeling? A Consideration of Affect and Emotion in Geography.’Area, 37(4): 450–54.
WoodMurakami D., and AbeKoji. 2011. ‘The Aesthetics of Control: Mega Events and Transformations in Japanese Urban Order.’Urban Studies, 48(15): 3241–57.
