Introduction

Amidst the expansion and densification of urban spaces globally, there is a risk that the existential needs of voiceless and voteless—the more-than-human non-human citizens,^[a] with whom we share this planet—will get  systemically marginalised. The consequences will not only be potentially fatal for the species involved, but for humans too: continued decline in biodiversity and worsening ecological imbalance will also have a highly detrimental impact on humans in the medium and long runs. How we manage trans-species coexistence amidst growing resource and space constraints should thus matter not only to legal scholars concerned with animal rights, or philosophers and others who advocate and work for the environment and more-than-human species. Rather, this is an area where the stakes are high for all and thus demands the attention of those interested in human development and prosperity.

While this article addresses the urgent question of trans-species coexistence in urban areas, it is important to delineate the contours of the term “trans-species coexistence” in the context of this paper. Based on the ecological literature on species-coexistence^[1] and the more recent work on ecological justice and multispecies ethics,^[2] the authors define ‘trans-species coexistence’ as the conditions in which humans and more-than-human species coexist in a shared ecosystem, with mutual respect and with acknowledgement of their interdependence. Therefore, this coexistence transcends the anthropocentric view of development to recognise that all species have intrinsic value and legitimate claims to space, resources, and well-being within the biosphere. In other words, trans-species coexistence involves a symbiotic social–ecological systemic order where human systems are designed to accommodate and sustain the life processes of other species, rather than displacing or exploiting them. The idea draws from ecological ethics, environmental philosophy, and resilience economics, and implies a moral, ecological, and policy shift—from domination to coexistence, from exploitation to stewardship. This paradigm, therefore, challenges the age-old perception of a trade-off between conservation and urban development and transforms the zero-sum situation to a positive-sum game by acknowledging that human prosperity depends on the flourishing of all species within the planetary commons.

The paper is divided into six sections. In the second section, as an illustration of the issue at hand, we discuss a recent set of two rulings by the Supreme Court of India in August 2025^[b]—about street dogs in the National Capital Region—and the bitter public debate and actions that followed. In the third section, we place this discourse in the framework of Slobodkin’s “prudent predator” thesis. We point to the high costs and far-reaching implications of imprudent predation. In the fourth section, we argue that polarising narratives are responsible for the unfortunate developments involving the case of street dogs, as well as other manifestations of human-animal conflict in urban spaces. We suggest there is a better way forward: were a deep ecology perspective be adopted by politicians and policymakers, the zero-sum framing of the current debate could be transformed into concrete win-win across species. We then delve into the ethics of Deep Ecology and the imperatives of coexistence from ethical, economic, social and environmental perspectives. We argue that coexistence embodies an ethic of mutual resilience, and make the case for a new narrative that reframes development not as a contest between species but as a partnership in survival. In the sixth and concluding section, we argue that India has powerful, ancient traditions that predate, embody, and strengthen the deep ecology framework. We recommend that India—in the legal, political, economic, and social domains—draw on these living traditions to provide thought leadership and action leadership on pathways to trans-species coexistence—domestically and globally. Advancing such an approach would benefit not only global efforts at conservation and biodiversity (thereby advancing global ethics), but would also turn out to be in India’s economic and geopolitical advantage. We offer concrete steps to implement our recommendations.

A Tale of Two Rulings

On 11 August 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued an order directing the immediate relocation of all stray dogs from the streets of Delhi–NCR to designated shelters.^[3] The directive was passed suo motu by a two-judge bench, reportedly in response to a news article published in The Times of India titled “City hounded by strays, kids pay the price.”^[4] Under the terms of this order, the authorities were instructed “at the earliest (to) start picking up stray dogs from all localities.” The dogs would be “detained” in shelters/pounds, and “not released on the streets/colonies/public places. The dog shelters would be monitored by CCTV to ensure that no dogs are released or taken out.” The order warned that any attempts to resist the “forceful picking up of the stray dogs” would be met with “the strictest of actions.” The argument given for the move was “the larger public interest”: to protect humans, especially “infants, young children and aged” against the deadly disease of rabies.

Even as municipal authorities hastened to follow the instructions of the Supreme Court and some Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) celebrated,^[5] protestors across the country rose in defence of the street dogs who were now being hounded by humans. Articles countering narratives of the “menace” of the street dogs appeared in leading dailies; social media was alit with hashtags such as #NoDogsNoVotes #SaveDelhiDogs #StopTrialByMedia #NotAwaaraYehHumara; activists with the help of lawyers presented data and arguments, appealing to the Supreme Court to reconsider.^[6],[7]

Amongst the numerous arguments that were presented, an important one was that the law already provides for instruments and institutions to protect humans and dogs against rabies, which enables a peaceful coexistence of both species: vaccination and sterilisation. To penalise innocent animals for human failures to implement these measures would be uncompassionate and unfair.^[8]

The reasoning could be extended further in terms of biodiversity and urban development. The street dogs of India belong to an ancient species. Humans, having already destroyed over 70 percent of biodiversity within a short time-span of 50 years, should be wary of endangering yet another species. Besides, street dogs have served as companions and guardians of humans for centuries; as humans have developed and evolved, so have they—both in a cooperative, symbiotic relationship. The dogs gratefully consume any food leftovers that residents bring for them, and in turn, serve as reliable security guards who protect their areas from thieves and other intruders. Even if one dismisses stories of strays protecting friendly humans as anecdotal and belittles accounts of their bonds with humans as overly sentimental, street dogs form a key part of the urban ecosystem, e.g., as “rodent control animals”.^[9] If the canine guardians of Delhi are removed, the streets would fall prey to new packs of more dangerous, unvaccinated dogs (and other animals) from neighbouring regions.

It is a testimony to the workings of Indian democracy and its judiciary that a three-judge panel was swiftly constituted. The panel carefully reviewed the previous order, and concluded on 22 August 2025 that “the direction given in the order dated 11th August, 2025, prohibiting the release of the treated and vaccinated dogs seems to be too harsh, in our opinion.”^[10] Instead, in keeping with previous rulings of the Supreme Court (as well as other High Courts), the new ruling reiterated the importance of Animal Birth Control (ABC) programmes and expanded their country-wide implementation. Through the creation of dedicated feeding spaces, it offered a compromise between diverse demands from different sides. Compassion for all living creatures, as called for by the Constitution of India (Art. 51A(g)), appeared to have won a major legal battle.

However, the second ruling has not been able to stem the tide of fear and hate that has been unleashed. Newspapers report fights within RWAs between those who want to feed the street dogs and those who do not approve of these practices.^[11] The dogs are caught in the crossfire, many enduring (and dying of) unspeakable cruelties, not only at the hands of individuals who may have felt emboldened and legitimised by the earlier ruling from last month, but also well-established institutions.^{[c],[12],[13],[14],[15]}

The “Imprudent Predator”: Revisiting Slobodkin’s Ecological Thesis

It is here that we bring the thesis on the prudent predator. In his seminal paper on population ecology, Lawrence Slobodkin (1968) proposed that every species must evolve a form of prudence in exploiting its environment. Predators that overconsume their prey or degrade their habitats eventually doom themselves. This logic of ecological restraint—where survival depends on self-limitation—offers a mirror to contemporary humanity. For the first time in evolutionary history, one species has acquired the technological capacity to dominate virtually all trophic levels, yet displays the least prudence in its consumption behaviour. Humans have become, in effect, the “imprudent predator”—extracting resources beyond renewal rates, emitting carbon beyond absorptive capacities, and fragmenting ecosystems faster than they can recover.^[16],[17]

Perhaps nowhere is this imprudence more visible than in urban ecosystems, where unchecked expansion transforms multifunctional landscapes into concrete monocultures. Cities concentrate both metabolic throughput and waste: they devour energy and materials while exporting pollution and residues to hinterlands. As green belts shrink and ecological corridors collapse, species that once played stabilising roles—dogs, monkeys, snakes, birds—are pushed into human domains, generating the illusion of invasion. In reality, it is humanity that has invaded their space. The resulting friction manifests as dog bites, crop raids, or leopard incursions, which are less biological accidents than symptoms of systemic ecological overreach. The imprudent predator is now paying the cost of its own dominance through disease spillovers, urban heat stress, and loss of natural regulation.^{[18],[19],[20],[21]} Abysmal captive conditions—characterised by overcrowding, poor hygiene, and chronic animal stress—create epidemiological hotspots for zoonotic spillovers.  For example, avian influenza outbreaks have been linked to high-density live poultry markets and intensive confinement systems that facilitate rapid cross-species pathogen transmission.^[22]

Slobodkin’s thesis resonates with ecological-economic frameworks that expose the inefficiencies of unrestrained growth. By eroding ecosystem services—pollination, groundwater recharge, carbon sequestration—humans undermine the very foundations of their economies. Homer-Dixon (2000) warned that such “ingenuity gaps”, where technological progress outpaces ecological understanding, lead societies toward systemic collapse.^[23] The same holds for modern cities: unplanned growth yields diminishing returns as environmental externalities rise. The paradox of the imprudent predator is that in attempting to maximise short-term gain, it ensures long-term scarcity.

A Deep Ecology perspective, which will be discussed in further detail later in this paper, reinterprets Slobodkin’s warning as an ethical and policy imperative. Prudence becomes not merely an adaptive trait but a moral choice. Urban planning, therefore, must institutionalise ecological limits through land-use zoning, biodiversity corridors, and valuation of ecosystem services. Prudence in this sense does not signify stagnation but sustainability—a dynamic equilibrium between human aspiration and planetary capacity. The transition from imprudence to wisdom entails recognising interdependence: that the predator’s survival depends upon the prey’s persistence, and humanity’s prosperity upon nature’s continuity. Unless human societies internalise this principle, ecological imprudence will remain our defining pathology, turning the Anthropocene into a self-terminating experiment.

The Court Rulings

The two court rulings, and their repercussions for humans and dogs, do not constitute a one-off incident—they are outcomes of imprudent predation. Across the developing world, and more prominently in India’s rapidly expanding cities—the human–animal interface has transformed into a terrain of friction and cost. Urban ecosystems, once accommodating multiple species in a mosaic of green cover, wetlands, and peri-urban farmlands, are now dominated by built environments that offer little ecological refuge. As infrastructure sprawls into forest fringes and riverine corridors, wild and semi-domesticated species are forced to adapt to shrinking niches, often bringing them into direct competition with human communities.^[24],[25]

The Rising Costs of “Imprudent Predation”

The costs of this conflict are multidimensional. At the economic level, municipal administrations spend vast sums on compensation, rabies control, and pest management, while households bear medical and insurance expenses.^[d],[26] At the social level, fear and misinformation deepen divisions within communities—between feeders and complainants, or between urban elites and informal settlers who coexist most closely with animals. At the health level, unmanaged populations of street or wild animals become reservoirs of zoonoses, while the loss of ecological buffers heightens vulnerability to air pollution and vector-borne diseases. Urban biodiversity decline further erodes ecosystem services that are essential yet undervalued—temperature regulation, carbon sequestration, storm-water absorption, and pollination.^[27] Each acre of lost tree canopy or wetland thus translates into a quantifiable decline in public health and economic productivity.

The root cause for these problems lies less in animal aggression and considerably more in human expansionism. The imperatives of real-estate growth, transport corridors, and sanitation projects are rarely assessed through an ecological lens. When waste mismanagement, unplanned food waste disposal, or habitat fragmentation push species toward human settlements, the resulting conflict is framed narrowly as a “law-and-order” or “nuisance-control” issue rather than as a developmental and planning failure. This framing obscures the structural injustice that the poorest residents face: they occupy the ecological frontlines, suffering both from direct encounters with displaced animals and from the loss of the natural commons that once moderated urban climates and provided livelihood support.

A more nuanced understanding would recast human–animal conflict as an urban-development challenge requiring trans-species spatial justice, ecological literacy, and institutional empathy. Trans-species spatial justice entails integrating ecological corridors and green infrastructure into city master plans; ecological literacy implies public education that nurtures respect for more-than-human citizens; and institutional empathy demands governance mechanisms that reconcile safety with compassion—animal birth-control programmes, community feeding zones, and participatory monitoring of biodiversity. Such an approach moves the discourse from control to coexistence, recognising that urban resilience depends as much on sustaining multispecies equilibrium as on sustaining GDP growth. In this reframing, conflict mitigation becomes not “just” an act of benevolence toward animals, but also a pragmatic step toward safeguarding the long-term ecological security of human settlements.^[28]

Polarising Narratives Vs. A ‘Deep Ecology’ Perspective

The de facto refusal of several individuals, associations and institutions to comply with the second ruling of the Supreme Court has various plausible causes: genuine confusion over the two rulings, political and economic considerations (e.g., votes and the costs of implementation), and personal idiosyncrasies, experiences, and biases. Exacerbating each of these causes is a common factor: the “false polarisation” created “between Dogs, Animal lovers vs Children and Other Citizens” in narratives circulating in mainstream media, on social media platforms, and different social settings.^[29]

Negative, polarising narratives that pit the interests of human beings as being fundamentally opposed to the visibility and existence of members of another species have an alarmist and lasting appeal, in contrast to conciliatory narratives that ask for a peaceful continuation of the status quo/minor reforms in favour of voiceless actors. Online media especially shows the tendency of negative headlines and stories to attract more engagement than positive ones.^[30] The persistent “stickiness” of the first ruling, despite having its key elements revoked by the second, likely derives from both these factors. But us versus them is neither the only way, nor is it a useful way, to think about cross-species interactions in modern, urban spaces. Especially at a time when attention to planetary distress (and the corresponding need to secure planetary rights) is growing, the time has come to re-think ecosystem functions and services in less anthropocentric terms.

The Deep Ecology movement—an important concept, philosophy, and platform for action that was developed by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess—already offered us innovative ways to re-shape our relationship with the environment, over 50 years ago. The programme was far-reaching, and addressed questions of both ethics and power.^[31] Naess wrote of “biospherical egalitarianism” and argued:

“To the ecological field-worker, the equal right to live and blossom is an intuitively clear and obvious value axiom. Its restriction to humans is an anthropocentrism with detrimental effects upon the life quality of humans themselves. This quality depends in part upon the deep pleasure and satisfaction we receive from close partnership with other forms of life. The attempt to ignore our dependence and to establish a master-slave role has contributed to the alienation of man from himself.”

His definition of the “biosphere” was highly inclusive: “individuals, species, populations, habitat, as well as human and nonhuman cultures.” The theory further stressed the “Principles of Diversity and of Symbiosis”, which resonate strongly in the debate on the dogs of Delhi, but could also inform self-righteous discussions of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) in the West. For instance, Naess posited:

“Diversity enhances the potentialities of survival, the chances of new modes of life, the richness of forms. And the so-called struggle of life, and survival of the fittest, should be interpreted in the sense of ability to coexist and cooperate in complex relationships, rather than ability to kill, exploit, and suppress. 'Live and let live' is a more powerful ecological principle than 'Either you or me'.

The latter tends to reduce the multiplicity of kinds of forms of life, and also to create destruction within the communities of the same species. Ecologically inspired attitudes therefore favour diversity of human ways of life, of cultures, of occupations, of economies. They support the fight against economic and cultural, as much as military, invasion and domination, and they are opposed to the annihilation of seals and whales as much as to that of human tribes or cultures.”

Naess’s work has received criticism from different quarters.^[32] The categorical principles that he developed with George Sessions as an eight-point platform for the Deep Ecology Movement likely grated on a spectrum of alternative approaches, ideological biases, and vested interests. Despite Naess’s attempts to reduce polarisation, parts of his activist agenda ironically may have had the opposite effect, and were also liable to misuse and misinterpretation. For example, Point 4 (“The flourishing of nonhuman life requires a smaller human population”) was inherently divisive in pitting the more-than-human versus the human against each other; could be conveniently twisted by anarchists, pro-mortalists, and others to support extremist, violent causes; and could then be wrongfully held responsible for eco-terrorism. Similarly, Point 7, which demands ideological change in favour of “appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living,” is an easy target for an accusation of double standards: one might argue that only a man, living a privileged life, in one of the most developed countries of the world, would take a position questioning the merits of economic development (in contrast to the millions who still live below the poverty line).

For opposing reasons, the agenda appealed neither to the Right nor the Left, neither to the capitalists nor the socialists; its manifesto-like call to action was likely to also put off those who saw themselves as part of the political Centre and adherents of mainstream liberalism. Take away some of the crude applications and misapplications of the argument, however, and it is clear that Naess was on to something important: he was converting what standard growth and development models had framed as zero-sum games. The very reductionism of the traditional growth paradigms has also been challenged by the literature on institutional theories that have talked of development of institutional mechanisms that can lead to circumvention of the conservation-development trade-offs.^[33],[34]  Deep Ecology acquires a new relevance amidst the context of the problems we face today, and also in light of the growing repertoire of scientific evidence on the sentience of more-than-human beings.^[35]

As stated earlier, the moral stance embodied in Deep Ecology aligns with Slobodkin’s “prudent predator” hypothesis, which emerges as a metaphor for responsible anthropocentrism, recognising the necessity of use, but within the limits of regeneration and reciprocity. In urban ecosystems, where human density is highest, prudence must extend to everyday encounters with other species—dogs, birds, or even urban flora—so that coexistence replaces conflict. The initial protests about the first SC order on removal of stray dogs by the animal-rights groups and civil society reflected a Deep Ecological intuition—that the city is not solely a human habitat but an interspecies common. On the other side, the de facto reluctance to comply with the second ruling of the Supreme Court can be interpreted as an act of “imprudent predation” by a dominant species against the marginalised lives it has co-evolved with. A truly trans-species framework of coexistence would balance public safety with compassion and ecosystemic logic—integrating sterilisation, habitat design, and behavioural ecology—so that cities become living systems rather than exclusionary human fortresses. In this synthesis of Deep Ecology and Slobodkin’s prudence lies the essence of sustainability: survival through restraint, and prosperity through shared existence.

Responding to the problems of environmental degradation, climate change, and rapidly decreasing biodiversity, and factoring in new evidence on the ability of animals to experience emotions, there have emerged a variety of social movements and legal actions in support of animal rights, animal welfare, and planetary rights at large. From changing consumer choices (the rise in vegetarianism and veganism) and legislation to protect farmed animals,^[e] to recognising the legal personhood of rivers, humans are slowly beginning to recognise that other inhabitants of the planet are deserving of the rights of existence, dignity, freedom from suffering, and more.^[36] The motivations for and actions to enable this vary across cultures; in most, they are not mainstream, but they are growing steadily. As per these evolving views, both human and more-than-human life forms are deemed to have value, and “life” is conceptualised in “a more comprehensive nontechnical way also to refer to what biologists classify as 'non-living': rivers (watersheds), landscapes, ecosystems.”^[37] Beyond the grave, Naess may be enjoying a well-deserved last laugh.

The Ethics and Imperatives of Coexistence: Social, Economic, and Ecosystemic Gains

What are the gains in the context of trans-species coexistence? Are there global recognitions of such existences? This question also needs to be delved into in the framework of the ethical dilemmas vis-à-vis the long-term positives. The ethical crisis of our times stems from the narrowing of the moral circle to the boundaries of the human. Modern political, economic, and jurisprudential systems, built on Enlightenment rationality, have long viewed nature as an object—a set of resources to be extracted, owned, or traded. This anthropocentric ontology has produced remarkable material progress but at the cost of ecological alienation. The idea that rivers, forests, and animals might possess rights—intrinsic rather than instrumental—appears radical only because modernity has systematically erased older traditions that recognised the continuity between humans and nature.^[38],[39] In reality, what we term ecocentric ethics is a return to a deeper moral grammar that predates industrial civilisation.

In some parts of the world, jurisprudence is slowly reclaiming this lost ground. The Whanganui River in New Zealand (2017) was the first to be granted legal personhood, acknowledging the Maori belief that “the river is an ancestor.”^[40] Similar recognition has since extended to the Atrato River in Colombia and the Amazon ecosystem in Ecuador, embedding the idea that ecosystems have an inherent right to exist, thrive, and regenerate.

This shift carries profound implications for governance and development. Once a river or ecosystem is recognised as a rights-bearing entity, its degradation ceases to be a technical failure—it becomes an ethical and legal violation. Deforestation, sand mining, and pollution then demand redress not merely as infringements of environmental regulations but as injustices against living communities. The extension of rights beyond humans also challenges the utilitarian calculus that has dominated environmental decision-making. Instead of weighing benefits solely in terms of human welfare, it compels us to account for the well-being of more-than-human stakeholders who have no voice in markets or politics.^[41],[42]

Crucially, this ethical reorientation does not contradict development; rather, it anchors it in justice and continuity. Recognising the rights of rivers, forests, and animals ensures that human progress does not come at the expense of the life-support systems upon which it depends. When an ecosystem is granted legal standing, it acquires representation in policy and planning—a guardian or trustee to speak on its behalf. Such institutional innovations can reconcile conservation with livelihoods by creating frameworks of biocentric governance.

For much of the twentieth century, the narrative of conservation was framed as a moral or aesthetic enterprise—an act of benevolence by humans toward other species. Yet, as the discipline of ecological economics has evolved, the boundary between altruism and self-interest has increasingly dissolved. The conservation of ecosystems and species is now recognised as a foundational investment in humanity’s own well-being—material, social, and moral. As Costanza et al. (1997)^[43] demonstrated in their seminal valuation of global ecosystem services, the flows of benefits from nature—ranging from climate regulation and soil fertility to flood control and pollination—far exceed the size of the global economy itself. To degrade these systems is not just an ethical lapse; it is an act of economic irrationality.

From an inclusive wealth perspective, conservation represents the preservation of natural capital, one of the four pillars of long-term prosperity alongside produced, human, and social capital.^[44] When natural assets are depleted faster than they regenerate, total wealth declines even if GDP continues to rise. This hidden depreciation manifests in rising disaster vulnerability, declining agricultural productivity, and mounting public-health costs. The recent floods in Chennai and the urban heatwaves in Delhi and Ahmedabad illustrate how ecosystem degradation translates directly into economic losses and social distress. Seen through this lens, protecting biodiversity and natural infrastructure is not philanthropy; it is a form of risk management and macroeconomic prudence.

At a deeper ethical level, recognising conservation as enlightened self-interest reconciles human welfare with planetary welfare. As Daily (1997) argued, ecosystem services constitute “the life-support systems of the planet,” and safeguarding them is akin to maintaining the very operating system of civilisation.^[45] For urban societies, this means valuing green spaces, wetlands, and peri-urban forests not as aesthetic luxuries but as economic assets that cool cities, absorb floods, and enhance mental health. The “returns on conservation” may not always appear on financial ledgers, but they accrue as avoided costs, improved resilience, and sustained habitability.

Ultimately, conservation as enlightened self-interest invites a paradigm of co-benefits. Protecting mangroves simultaneously safeguards coastal biodiversity, buffers cyclones, and secures fisheries. Restoring river ecosystems reduces flood risk and enhances groundwater recharge. Urban biodiversity parks provide recreation, improve air quality, and nurture environmental citizenship. The self-interest in conservation, therefore, is neither cynical nor narrowly economic—it is a recognition that the continuity of human civilisation is contingent upon the continuity of the biosphere. In this sense, ecological prudence is the highest form of rationality, and conservation becomes both an ethical duty and a strategic investment in our collective future.

The discourse on development has long been dominated by anthropocentric assumptions that privilege human welfare as the sole measure of progress. Yet, as the ecological and social crises of the twenty-first century converge, it is increasingly evident that human flourishing is inseparable from the flourishing of other species. Coexistence, far from being an altruistic aspiration, constitutes a strategic and systemic necessity for sustaining the social, economic, and ecological fabric of modern life. The logic is simple yet profound: societies that destroy the ecological foundations of their existence erode their own resilience, prosperity, and moral coherence.^[46]

At the social level, coexistence nurtures what may be termed ‘cross-species social capital’—the web of relationships, empathy, and trust that extends beyond the human community. Interactions with more-than-human life forms—be it domestic animals, street dogs, or urban birds—foster compassion, emotional stability, and civic responsibility. Empirical studies have shown that contact with companion animals enhances mental health, reduces loneliness, and builds prosocial behaviour in urban residents (Serpell 1991; Herzog 2011).^[47],[48] In Indian urban contexts, community caregiving for stray animals often becomes a conduit for collective action, bridging divides of class and gender, and fostering civic participation. Coexistence, therefore, becomes not only a question of ethics but of social cohesion, where empathy toward other species strengthens empathy within the species.

Economically, coexistence represents a resilience dividend—a set of positive externalities that buffer societies against shocks. Biodiverse ecosystems reduce disaster vulnerability, stabilise microclimates, and enhance resource security. For instance, the presence of urban trees and wetlands lowers healthcare costs associated with heat stress and air pollution. In peri-urban economies, cohabitation with pollinators, seed dispersers, and scavenger species sustains agricultural productivity and sanitation functions that would otherwise require costly human substitutes. The economics of coexistence thus extends beyond conservation budgets; it translates into avoided costs and enhanced adaptive capacity. As resilience economists argue, systems that embrace diversity—biological, institutional, and cultural—recover faster from shocks and maintain continuity under stress.^[49]

Coexistence also generates new forms of green employment: eco-tourism, urban biodiversity management, and ethical pet-care industries reflect an expanding “compassion economy.” As global markets shift toward sustainability-linked finance, cities and nations demonstrating ecological stewardship will enjoy reputational and investment advantages, converting compassion into comparative advantage.

From an ecosystemic perspective, coexistence ensures the continuity of ecosystem functions that underpin all human enterprise. The intricate interdependence of species—predators regulating prey populations, pollinators sustaining crops, scavengers maintaining sanitation—represents an invisible infrastructure whose stability determines human security. When this network is disrupted, the resulting imbalances—rodent proliferation, vector-borne diseases, invasive species—impose cascading social and economic costs. Thus, the call for coexistence is a call for maintaining systemic balance: a stable, self-regulating biosphere that minimises human expenditure on control and remediation.

Ultimately, coexistence embodies an ethic of mutual resilience. It reframes development not as a contest between species but as a partnership in survival. By recognising more-than-human actors as part of our moral and institutional universe, societies cultivate humility and prudence—virtues essential for the Anthropocene. In philosophical terms, coexistence operationalises Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—the idea of one family across all life forms—into policy and practice. Economically, it redefines prosperity through the lens of systemic durability rather than short-term accumulation. Ecologically, it ensures the perpetuation of the life-support functions upon which civilisation itself depends.

The imperative of coexistence, therefore, lies at the intersection of ethics, economics, and ecology. It affirms that to care for the more-than-human is to care for ourselves. In this light, managing trans-species relationships is not peripheral to development—it is the core grammar of sustainability, the very condition of our collective continuity on a finite planet.

Deep Ecology: India’s Way

While Western paradigms have had a disproportionate importance in shaping intellectual debates since colonialism and its aftermath, Naess had stressed the necessity for humility and openness, arguing for “more sensitivity towards continuity and live traditions, and—most importantly—towards our state of ignorance.” A decentralisation of the West is a necessary condition for this approach.

As its power has risen, India—together with other players from the Global South—has begun to inject unique, civilisational perspectives in both the intellectual and policy realms. This section outlines some of the ideas that India brings to the global negotiating table. The Indian approach both pre-dates and deepens the Deep Ecology perspective, and bears much promise for application to current and future problems. Indeed, some of the ideas highlighted in the previous section resonate and reflect the India way.

The idea of the “self” as an inseparable part of the cosmos is fundamental to the philosophy of non-dualism (Advaitvaad).^[f] This is not just an esoteric Indian philosophy; it lives in the daily prayers of many Hindus to this day. Different species interact with humans, not from a master-slave/owner-owned perspective, but in their own right as individuals. Animals are revered for their association with the gods. Some are vaahans (vehicles) of the deities, such as the lion of the Goddess Durga, the bull of Lord Shiva, the dog of Lord Bhairav, and the mouse of Lord Ganesh, and the eagle of Lord Vishnu. Depictions of the deities—in statues and paintings—are typically with their animal companions. Lord Vishnu, the preserver, also takes avataars (incarnations) to save the world, some of which have animal forms (Matsya, Koorma and Varaha) or part-animal forms (Narasimha). Rivers are personified and have independent identities. In other words, the lives of the gods are deeply intertwined with not only humans, but also animals and other aspects of nature. The idea that humans and the environment are inseparable and constitute one whole dissolves the false binaries that have characterised mainstream, shallow ecology approaches.

That said, one does not need to turn to religion to illustrate India’s contributions to a far-reaching Deep Ecology approach; indeed, perhaps one should not, given the criticism that Naess already encountered for his willingness to draw on Buddhist and Christian roots. Delve into secular Indian texts, such as the two great epics, and it is clear that the living stories from the Ramayan and the Mahabharat embrace the value of trans-species symbiosis.

In the Ramayan, crucial to Lord Ram’s victory is the cooperation and support of the Vaanar Sena—the army of monkeys—and especially the God Hanuman. Lord Ram, despite being an incarnation of Vishnu himself and thus a very powerful god, does not simply impose his will on nature (even though he can do so); rather, he negotiates. The bridge-building efforts to reach Lanka are successful because he uses both non-coercive and coercive diplomacy with the sea. The Mahabharat too has multiple stories and discourses on trans-species compassion.^[50],[51] A particularly well-known and much-loved account is that of Yudhishthir—the most upright of all the brave heroes of the text—who is willing to reject heaven, rather than abandon a stray dog who has been his sole companion on his final, arduous journey.^[52] We see a remarkable exchange take place between the mortal, Yudhishthir, and the king of gods, Indra. Indra offers Yudhishthir different types of arguments to leave the dog behind (and reunite with his beloved family in heaven), all of which our hero politely but firmly refutes. Yudhishthir insists that there can be no greater sin than abandoning one who is defenceless or sought refuge. In making the case, he makes no distinction between humans and more-than-humans: all lives deserve dignity and are equally worth saving. It is then revealed that the episode with the dog is Yudhishthir’s final test. For his refusal to abandon his canine companion, not only is Yudhishthir rewarded with heaven, but he is acknowledged as one with whom even heaven has no equal. Stories like these are deeply embedded in the Indian collective imagination. In this context, the argument that in India, “human rights are not human only” (rather, they extend to more-than-humans too) is an apt one.^[53]

From the textual world to the real one, India has been translating its non-anthropocentric, non-dualistic perspective into policy on the global stage. Its G20 Presidency in 2023 serves as an example, which was based on the theme of “One Earth, One Family, One Future”. Tempting though it may seem to reduce this idea to a glib slogan by those not familiar with Indian philosophical and political thought, the underpinning idea—Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—runs deep.^[54] While most translate this phrase as referring to all the peoples of the world, it actually is much wider and inclusive towards all beings—human and more-than-human—in the notion of family.

This non-anthropocentric understanding of family has far-reaching implications for how we regard and re-think questions of planetary custodianship, ownership of resources, and the trans-species distributive costs of growth and urbanisation. Having planted the seeds of a very Deep Ecology perspective at a major forum for global governance, and India has also begun to lay the foundations of its potential implementation. The concept of “LiFE”— Lifestyle for the Environment—also advanced at the G20, provides the beginnings of an alternative model for development that is not just human-centric but planet-centric. It embodies the proposed transition from moral persuasion to pragmatic sustainability—encouraging consumption patterns and technologies that secure both livelihood and life support.^[55]

While India’s thought leadership has met with success in bringing innovative, solution-oriented, planet-friendly, and inclusive ideas to global institutions, its vision will be more persuasive if it were to lead by domestic example. To some extent, in a few sectors, India is already doing this. The Uttarakhand High Court (2017) declared the Ganga and Yamuna as living entities with legal personhood, capable of holding rights and duties, thus bringing into legal articulation what Indian civilisational philosophy had long intuited: that the river is not a commodity but a being, a conduit of life and moral reciprocity. Moreover, this reframing aligns with India’s civilisational ethos. The Upanishadic principle of Prithvi rakshati rakshitah—“the Earth protects those who protect her”—encapsulates a profound recognition of reciprocity between human prosperity and ecological balance. In the modern idiom of policy, this translates to planet-centric development: treating ecological stability as the base condition for economic growth rather than as a constraint.

India’s ecological jurisprudence, if deepened, could pioneer a distinctive model of planetary ethics grounded in civilisational humanism and legal modernity—a model where compassion, rights, and prudence coalesce. In this sense, the protection of more-than-human life transcends sentimentality: it becomes the moral foundation of sustainable democracy.

Having already taken some ground-breaking steps, Indian jurisprudence can go further. For instance, a reform of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1960) is long overdue: penalties need to be dramatically raised, not only to deter perpetrators, but also to signal that India is genuinely committed to the idea that all lives matter.  Similarly, the country can do better in the context of deforestation and land encroachment, and the highly damaging impact that this has on local wildlife. While forest diversion for developmental purposes has often been associated with compensatory afforestation and payment of a Net Present Value (NPV) of the lost ecosystem services by the developers, it has allegedly been criticised as insufficient. Further, that does not address the cause of non-protected areas like the urban commons, like wetlands and grasslands.^[56]  Domestic laws and their implementation need to breathe life back into the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.

Political, economic, and social commitment need to work hand in hand with the legal measures outlined above. Politically, one does not necessarily need to be a Gandhian to recognise the merits of having policies that promote development while respecting the rights of nature; the deep intellectual roots of the ideas outlined in this section are civilisational, and deserve cross-party support. Indigenous versions of India’s Deep Ecology can and should be mainstreamed into public narratives, which will serve as helpful reminders (at the level of the individual members of society) of not only the Indian Constitution’s commitment to compassion towards all living beings, but also the deep intellectual roots of such ideas. Economic incentives will also matter. A less anthropocentric, planet-friendly development model may, at first glance, seem utopian. We suggest that the moment is ripe for such thinking and action.

Ethical eco-consumerism will remain, and likely expand, as an important agent of change. But the difficult geopolitical setting also creates new opportunities. On the one hand, we have a new US dispensation issuing calls of “Drill baby, drill”,^[57] with scarce regard for planetary rights. On the other hand, there are many countries, including close allies of the US (including the EU), that claim to be more committed than ever to saving the planet. This is a great opportunity for the EU and India to come together, and expand their recently signed Free Trade Agreement to one that takes into account the rights of nature and the rights of other species.^[58] Similarly, as countries across the world realign their supply chains and build self-reliance, the EU and India can push for shared values that reflect a Deep Ecology approach. And amidst panic among technocrats over predictions on decreased trade flows, both the EU and India (as well as others such as New Zealand) can use the inward turn to ban the export and import of live animals (or at least have compassion standards in connectivity projects that they are exploring). As the worlds of ethics and security collide, ethical eco-centrism can help build bridges between the two and deepen partnerships among the ecologically like-minded.^[59]

The August rulings were never “just” about our canine companions, nor are the ongoing hearings. They strike at the deeper question of who we are as a civilisation and how we choose to inhabit the Earth. Deep Ecology calls for recognition that all species, both human and more-than-human, possess intrinsic worth, and that the health of ecosystems depends upon the integrity of each constituent life form. Slobodkin’s ‘prudent predator’ reminds us that survival demands restraint: those who exploit their environments without moderation ultimately precipitate their own decline. In that sense, the human species—now the planet’s apex predator—must learn to temper its dominion with prudence, compassion, and ecological foresight.

As argued, Indic traditions anticipated this wisdom long before modern ecology did. The second ruling of the Supreme Court was thus not an act of sentimentality, but an expression of the Indic civilisational ethic that sees coexistence as the highest form of prudence. In rediscovering that ethos, we reaffirm an idea both ecological and deeply Indian—that the measure of a society lies not in how it governs its own kind, but in how it coexists with the life forms that share its space, its air, and its destiny.

How does our analysis translate into a strong and actionable agenda for policy-makers? We propose the Indic philosophical contributions to Deep Ecology to be embedded in the everyday machinery of urban governance. The challenge, therefore, lies in translating the values into conceptualising and creating institutions that transform prudence and coexistence into rules, budgets, and planning routines to shape outcomes. We suggest five steps in this regard.

First, urban governance paradigms should be geared towards mainstreaming trans-species considerations statutorily in the master plans. City master plans and infrastructure approvals must mandatorily incorporate a Trans-Species Impact Assessment alongside conventional Environmental Impact Assessments, assessing whether new infrastructure developments fragment animal corridors and intensify human–animal conflicts. Embedding ecological prudence at the very early stage of planning will make coexistence a design principle rather than an afterthought.

Second, a dedicated institutional mechanism should be created in the form of Urban Animal Management Authorities at the municipal level as a statutory body. These authorities can strengthen vaccination and medical needs (as per internationally recognised Collect, Sterilise, Vaccinate, Release – CSVR – rules that have a proven record of success in the case of street dogs), provide necessary shelter that genuinely ensures the welfare and safety of the individual animals, encourage adoptions of species such as dogs with parallel moves to penalise “puppy farms”, and will also conduct a population census and spatial mapping of the species within a single accountable framework. They should be enabled by GIS-based monitoring and risk-graded intervention protocols, and will be the proactive, responsible governance and regulatory authority equipped with data and public health logic. Public health would need to be defined in an inclusive and non-anthropocentric manner, with the concept extending both human and other species.

Third, urban ecological trustees should be appointed as legal guardians, thereby expanding India’s evolving ecological jurisprudence. These trustees will represent the interests of the natural ecosystem and more-than-human populations in major planning and infrastructure decisions. This will also amplify the voices of the voiceless in the policy-making, decision-making and negotiation platforms.

Fourth, fiscal policy must be mobilised as a complementary tool in this framework. Municipal and state budgets can institutionalise coexistence and resilience budget lines that systematically track investments in these directions, against the avoided fiscal burdens of public health expenditure, litigation, disaster response, and pest control. Framed this way, investment in sterilisation infrastructure, green buffers, and others, emerges as long-run risk management resulting in macroeconomic prudence.

Fifth, governance should be inclusive. Ward-level trans-species mediation mechanisms, involving public health officials, planners, residents, and animal caregivers, can institutionalise dialogue and conflict resolution before disputes escalate into legal or political flashpoints. Legal penalties must also be significantly increased for causing harm to more-than-humans, and laws updated accordingly to recognize the right to both life and dignity for all beings.^[60]

The idea behind these measures is to articulate a shift from coexistence as a moral appeal to an institutionalised system design, embedded in the Indic civilisational ethos of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. Bottom of FormThe true test of the “prudent predator” in the Anthropocene does not only lie in ethical restraint, but in the creation of sustainable institutions driving humanity towards such “prudence”. 

---

Nilanjan Ghosh is Vice President, Development Studies, ORF and ORF Kolkata.

Amrita Narlikar is Distinguished Fellow, ORF.

---

All views expressed in this publication are solely those of the authors, and do not represent the Observer Research Foundation, either in its entirety or its officials and personnel.

Endnotes

• Urbanisation in India
• Urbanisation
• India
• stray dog management
• stray dog menace
• stray dog order
• stray dog policy in india
• stray dog problem urban area
• supreme court judgement on stray dogs

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.