Problems and Purpose

Dog-mediated rabies remains a significant public health concern in India despite longstanding prevention efforts. Street dogs are also at the centre of public controversies concerning bites, chasing, feeding, population management and their presence in shared environments. These debates involve competing concerns about human safety, animal welfare and the management of public spaces [1, 2].

Remaking One Health: Decolonial Approaches to Street Dogs and Rabies Prevention in India (ROH Indies) was established to investigate why rabies persists as a public health problem and how everyday relationships between people, dogs and their environments influence health and conflict. The organisers questioned approaches that conceptualise free-living dogs primarily as disease vectors or populations requiring control, arguing that these overlook important dimensions of human–dog relationships [1].

The project sought to answer four main research questions [1]:

1. What are the continuities and discontinuities in how dogs have figured in national and international public health agendas since the nineteenth century?
2. What are the evolving and varied aspects of people-street dog relationships in urban, peri-urban and rural India?
3. What are the biosocial conditions that frame people-street dog conflict, including rabies transmission?
4. What concepts, interventions, and strategies enable healthy habitats and decolonized approaches to zoonoses?

ROH Indies also aimed to develop context-sensitive approaches to rabies prevention and human–dog coexistence, bringing research findings into discussions with communities, journalists, practitioners and policy stakeholders [1, 3].

Background History and Context

The management of street dogs in India has been shaped by colonial and postcolonial public health policies, animal welfare legislation and changing understandings of dogs' place within human settlements. Historical approaches to rabies prevention frequently involved killing or removing free-living dogs, while more recent interventions have emphasised animal birth control, vaccination and human post-exposure prophylaxis [4].

Different cultural understandings of dogs have also shaped management practices. In many Anglo-Euro-American contexts, dogs are predominantly understood as pets or working animals under human ownership, while animals living outside these arrangements are frequently categorised as stray, abandoned or requiring rescue or control. In India, free-living dogs have long occupied streets and other human settlements, developing varied relationships with people characterised by care, familiarity, avoidance, indifference and conflict [4, 5].

Earlier scholarship by members of the ROH Indies research team examined the historical and political dimensions of these relationships. Srinivasan's 2019 article, Remaking More-than-Human Society: Thought Experiments on Street Dogs as 'Nature', explored how distinctions between domestic and wild animals, and between valued and unwanted nonhuman life, shaped understandings of free-living dogs in Chennai [5].

In Reorienting Rabies Research and Practice: Lessons from India (2019), Srinivasan and colleagues drew on institutional histories and everyday human–dog relations to argue for approaches to rabies prevention more attentive to local social and ecological conditions. This earlier research provided a foundation for the development of ROH Indies [4].

India's Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Animal Birth Control Rules form part of the institutional context for street dog management, alongside municipal public health responsibilities. Disagreements concerning animal welfare, public safety and local management practices have also generated recurring legal disputes.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

ROH Indies was led by Professor Krithika Srinivasan at the University of Edinburgh, who served as principal investigator and led the human geography component. The project included three co-investigators: Professor Chris Pearson at the University of Liverpool, responsible for history; Dr Tim Kurz at the University of Western Australia, responsible for social psychology; and Dr Daniel Ramp at the University of Technology Sydney, responsible for behavioural ecology. Postdoctoral researchers, doctoral researchers and collaborators also contributed [6, 7].

The project received a Wellcome Trust Collaborative Award in Humanities and Social Science in 2020. Its stated period of operation was September 2021 to August 2026 [6].

Several external organisations supported the project's public engagement activities. Socratus, an India-based organisation specialising in participatory design and collective approaches to complex social and ecological problems, collaborated with ROH Indies on engagement concerning human–street dog relations. Together with Samayu, an Indian non-profit working across animal welfare, public health and environmental justice, it developed Reshaping Canine Coexistence Narratives in India, a programme of stakeholder deliberation and media engagement supported by Dogs Trust Worldwide [3].

Welfare of Stray Dogs, a Mumbai-based animal welfare organisation, collaborated with ROH Indies on engagement concerning street dog feeding and associated social conflicts. Other collaborators contributed expertise in canine behaviour, rabies prevention and visual communication, including the Association for Prevention and Control of Rabies in India [7].

Participant Recruitment and Selection

ROH Indies involved residents, street dog caregivers, institutional actors and animal welfare and public health practitioners in its research, alongside free-living dogs observed in their everyday environments. Public attitude surveys were conducted in Chennai, Jaipur and Malappuram, with the project reporting a combined sample of 5,100 respondents across survey components undertaken in 2019 and 2025. The Chennai survey preceded the formal ROH Indies programme and formed part of the research evidence subsequently used by the project [8].

Public engagement activities involved street animal feeders in Mumbai; specialists in behavioural ecology, canine behaviour, public health, community engagement, political ecology and animal welfare; journalists; and dog welfare and management practitioners. The 2026 practitioner workshop also included funders [3, 9, 10]. Public documentation provides limited information about participant numbers and recruitment procedures.

Free-living dogs were included through field observations in shared urban and rural environments. Public documentation provides limited information about the number of individual dogs observed and how they were selected.

Methods and Tools Used

ROH Indies adopted an analytical framework of multispecies cultures, combining human geography, history, behavioural ecology and social psychology to investigate human–dog relationships and rabies prevention. The framework directed attention to the lived experiences of human and nonhuman animals, moving beyond approaches focused primarily on managing dogs as disease vectors .

The research combined qualitative interviews with members of the public and institutional actors, surveys of public attitudes and street dog caregiving practices, and socio-ecological observations of free-living dogs and their interactions with people. These were complemented by archival, legal, policy and media analysis examining historical and contemporary approaches to dog management and public health [15, 17].

These methods brought different sources of evidence into relation. Interviews and surveys documented human experiences and practices; behavioural observations examined dogs' actions and responses in shared environments; and historical research situated these relationships within changing legal, cultural and public health arrangements. The project's publications describe triangulating longitudinal observations, interviews and documentary evidence to investigate the conditions shaping human–dog coexistence [15, 17].

The participatory approach combined community workshops, stakeholder forums and media convenings that brought research evidence into dialogue with professional and situated knowledge. In collaboration with Socratus and Samayu, ROH Indies drew on participatory design approaches to facilitate exchanges between actors with different perspectives on human–dog conflict [3].

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

ROH Indies developed through overlapping research and public engagement activities, with a substantial programme of stakeholder and media engagement in 2024 and a later practitioner exchange in 2026.

Field research examined ordinary encounters between free-living dogs and people, including interactions involving proximity, familiarity, avoidance and conflict. Researchers also investigated how feeding and caregiving practices affected these relationships, generating evidence that could be considered alongside people's experiences and perceptions [1, 11].

In 2024, the Reshaping Canine Coexistence Narratives in India collaboration with Socratus and Samayu brought researchers, specialists, policy stakeholders and journalists into discussions about the polarisation surrounding street dogs. The programme comprised two stakeholder convenings and two region-specific media meetings [3].

The first stakeholder convening, Human-Dog Conflict: Navigating a Field of Polarized Narratives, took place on 22 February 2024 and brought together expertise in behavioural ecology, community engagement, canine behaviour, public health and urban ecology. A second convening, Human-Dog Relations, was held on 18 December, involving specialists in veterinary public health, political ecology, media advocacy, community engagement and animal welfare. The organisers described these meetings as deliberative forums for considering different perspectives on human–dog coexistence[3].

The media convenings focused on how scientific and contextual information could inform reporting on street dogs and conflict. Meetings in Kolkata on 12 June and Chennai on 18 September 2024 brought journalists into discussion with experts in behavioural ecology and infectious diseases, respectively. Participants received regional information dossiers covering research findings, public health considerations and relevant legal and policy issues [12].

A related community engagement activity focused specifically on feeding practices. On 19 May 2024, ROH Indies and Welfare of Stray Dogs organised a workshop in Mumbai with people who fed street animals in different parts of the city. The session considered the social and ecological consequences of feeding, responsible caregiving and approaches to managing associated conflicts. The organisers aimed to refine feeding protocols and develop conflict-management strategies [9].

The project also convened an academic exchange on the wider implications of multispecies health. The April 2025 workshop Multispecies Health in the City: Going Beyond the Green, held at the University of Edinburgh, examined urban environments as shared spaces for humans and other species and included a related lecture on healthy more-than-human cities [13].

The June 2026 practitioner workshop brought the project's disciplinary findings into discussion with stakeholders involved in dog welfare and management, alongside funders. Held in Edinburgh on 2–4 June, it combined research presentations with curated activities through which participants provided feedback and considered implications for policy and practice. The organisers aimed to support the collaborative development of lasting, high-welfare strategies for multispecies health [10].

The public records establish how research was shared and discussed across these activities, but provide limited detail about how participants' contributions informed collective proposals.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

ROH Indies' research documented a wider range of everyday human–street dog relationships than those commonly emphasised in public controversy. Its 2024 working paper examined the connections between debates about street dogs and ordinary interactions in shared environments [11]. In an August 2025 statement, the research team reported that 82% of dogs encountered by researchers were approachable or neutral, while approximately 2% of recorded human–street dog interactions in public spaces were antagonistic. These figures refer to different observational measures and were presented by the team to illustrate the variety of everyday encounters [8].

The project translated its research into policy recommendations through the 2025 brief, Street Dogs and Public Health in India: The Urgent Need for a Paradigm Change. It proposed combining rabies prevention, responsible caregiving, environmental management and locally appropriate conflict prevention, rather than relying primarily on dog population management [2].

Feeding was one area where the recommendations explicitly considered dogs' behaviour and capacities. The brief examined how regularly providing complete meals to groups of dogs could encourage congregation, guarding and dependence on particular caregivers. It proposed smart caregiving practices intended to preserve dogs' foraging capacities and independence while reducing conflict in shared environments [2].

The findings were also developed into practical guidance and educational resources. The project's Guidelines for Conflict Prevention and Safe Cohabitation addressed everyday interactions, feeding and conflict management, while additional materials covered bite prevention, rabies post-exposure prophylaxis, collars and advice for young people. Several resources were made available in English, Hindi and Tamil [15, 16]. Visual and cultural outputs, including Tailshots, animations and Raags for Dogs, offered additional ways of communicating the experiences and relationships of free-living dogs [14, 16].

ROH Indies also disseminated its findings through academic publications, media coverage and public commentary.On 14 August 2025, the research team issued a statement responding to a Supreme Court order concerning street dogs in Delhi-NCR, drawing on its findings to propose alternative approaches to public safety and dog management [8]. Its wider publications addressed the historical development of dog-related health interventions and multispecies approaches to health [17, 18].

At the time of reporting, publicly available documentation does not establish whether authorities formally adopted the project's recommendations or whether its engagement activities led to measurable changes in human–dog coexistence.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

A distinctive feature of ROH Indies is how its more-than-human orientation shaped the framing of public health problems. By treating street dogs as autonomous, free-living animals rather than primarily as disease vectors or populations requiring management, the project examined conflict and health in relation to dogs' behaviour, human practices and the conditions of shared environments [1, 5].

This orientation also influenced what counted as relevant evidence. Human perceptions of street dogs may be shaped by fear, caregiving or conflict, but do not necessarily reflect the full range of everyday encounters. By examining dogs' behaviour alongside human accounts, ROH Indies incorporated nonhuman actions into its understanding of coexistence, rather than relying exclusively on people's interpretations of canine behaviour.

The project's feeding recommendations illustrate how this knowledge informed proposed interventions. Rather than considering feeding solely in terms of human intentions or immediate animal welfare, the research examined its implications for dogs' independence and relationships. The recommendations therefore addressed how human practices could be modified to accommodate canine capacities while reducing conflict [2].

The project's 2026 publication, Health as a Multispecies Phenomenon: Towards Anti-Anthropocentrism, offers a conceptual perspective on this approach. Rubio-Ramon and Srinivasan distinguish between recognising the multispecies dimensions of health and developing approaches that do not automatically privilege human interests. They identify three avenues for reconsidering these relationships: in-difference, allowing animals to live independently without constant human intervention; intersubjectively affirmed agency, recognising and responding to animals' actions and preferences; and re-animalisation, questioning human expectations of safety and control and how risks and vulnerabilities are distributed across species [18]. These concepts offer a way of interpreting the project's approach, although the article is not an evaluation of its activities.

The relationship between this orientation and collective decision-making is less clearly documented. ROH Indies brought research concerning dogs' lives into discussions with caregivers, journalists, experts and practitioners, including activities described as deliberative forums. However, publicly available accounts do not establish how participants interpreted canine behavioural evidence or whether it directly shaped collective proposals or decisions. This leaves an important distinction between using nonhuman behaviour to inform public discussions and incorporating it into collective decision-making.

ROH Indies consequently illustrates a form of more-than-human engagement based on learning from animals' lives rather than formally representing them. Its documented contribution lies in connecting multispecies knowledge with public discussion and practical governance proposals, while the extent of its influence on institutional decision-making remains uncertain.

See Also

Zoöp (Zoöperation) – A governance method incorporating more-than-human interests into organisational decision-making through a Speaker for the Living.

Interspecies Council – A deliberative method in which participants adopt and articulate nonhuman perspectives to inform collective discussions.

River Dôn Living Stewardship Agreement – A participatory initiative mapping human–nonhuman interdependencies and developing commitments to ecological care and stewardship.

Confluence of European Water Bodies – A recurring gathering bringing together representatives of rivers, seas and other water bodies to exchange approaches to ecological representation and governance.

References

1. ROH Indies. (n.d.). About the project. https://rohindies.org/about/
2. Srinivasan, K., & Rubio-Ramon, G. (2025). Street dogs and public health in India: The urgent need for a paradigm change. ROH Indies Policy Brief. https://rohindies.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ROH-Indies-2025-Policy-Brief.pdf
3. ROH Indies. (n.d.). Reshaping Canine Coexistence Narratives in India. https://rohindies.org/reshaping-canine-coexistence-narratives-in-india/
4. Srinivasan, K., Kurz, T., Kuttuva, P., & Pearson, C. (2019). Reorienting rabies research and practice: Lessons from India. Palgrave Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0358-y
5. Srinivasan, K. (2019). Remaking more-than-human society: Thought experiments on street dogs as 'nature'. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12291
6. Wellcome Trust. (2020). Remaking One Health: Decolonial approaches to street dogs and rabies prevention in India. https://wellcome.org/research-funding/funding-portfolio/funded-grants/remaking-one-health-decolonial-approaches-street
7. ROH Indies. (n.d.). Project team and project partners. https://rohindies.org/about/team/ and https://rohindies.org/about/partners/
8. ROH Indies. (2025, 14 August). Statement regarding the Supreme Court's Delhi-NCR order from 11 August 2025. https://rohindies.org/roh-indies-statement/
9. ROH Indies and Welfare of Stray Dogs. (2024). Awareness session for feeders, Mumbai, 19 May. [VERIFY full event source.]
10. ROH Indies. (2026, 10 June). Remaking One Health: Practitioner Workshop on Street Dogs and Public Health in India. https://rohindies.org/remaking-one-health-practitioner-workshop-on-street-dogs-and-public-health-in-india/
11. Srinivasan, K., Rubio-Ramon, G., Ramp, D., & Chapple, R. (2024). Free-living dogs and public health in India: What are the connections between public debates and everyday people-dog interactions? ROH Indies Working Paper 1. University of Edinburgh. https://doi.org/10.7488/c6569c32-fb07-4754-8dcc-30d2a88f60da
12. ROH Indies. (2024). Perspectives on Human-Dog Conflict: Media Convenings. https://rohindies.org/perspectives-on-human-dog-conflict-media-convenings/
13. ROH Indies. (2025). Multispecies Health in the City: Going Beyond the Green. University of Edinburgh, 29–30 April. https://rohindies.org/multispecies-health-in-the-city-going-beyond-the-green/
14. ROH Indies. (n.d.). Tailshots photo collection. https://rohindies.org/tailshots-photo-collection/
15. Srinivasan, K., Mehrotra, V., & Rubio Ramon, G. (2025). Street Dogs and Multispecies Health in India: Guidelines for Conflict Prevention and Safe Cohabitation. ROH Indies. https://rohindies.org/guidelines/
16. ROH Indies. (n.d.). Resources. https://rohindies.org/resources/
17. Srinivasan, K., Rubio-Ramon, G., & Pearson, C. (2026). Veterinization at the dog-human-health interface: Reconfiguring interspecies relations in India and the UK. Medical Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2026.2674744
18. Rubio-Ramon, G., & Srinivasan, K. (2026). Health as a multispecies phenomenon: Towards anti-anthropocentrism. Progress in Environmental Geography. https://doi.org/10.1177/27539687261452260
19. Srinivasan, K. (2024). Conservation beyond biopolitics: Vulnerability and abundance in Chennai's nature-cultures. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12714
20. ROH Indies. (n.d.). Outputs. https://rohindies.org/outputs/

External Links

1. Project website: https://rohindies.org/
2. Public engagement programme: https://rohindies.org/reshaping-canine-coexistence-narratives-in-india/
3. Publications: https://rohindies.org/outputs/
4. Public resources: https://rohindies.org/resources/
5. Conflict prevention and safe cohabitation guidelines: https://rohindies.org/guidelines/
6. Policy brief: https://rohindies.org/policy-brief-roh-indies-2025/
7. Raags for Dogs: https://rohindies.org/raags-for-dogs/
8. Tailshots photography: https://rohindies.org/tailshots-photo-collection/

Notes

1. Zoöp (Zoöperation) — Zoöp is a governance and learning framework that embeds more-than-human interests into organisational decision-making. Through a formal contract, a Speaker for the Living, and an annual regenerative cycle, organisations learn to act as ecological partners within their ecosystems.
2. Interspecies Council — An Interspecies Council is a deliberative method in which participants embody non-human perspectives and speak on behalf of other species or ecological systems as a means to address the limits of human-centric perspectives in decision-making.
3. River Dôn Living Stewardship Agreement — River Dôn Living Stewardship Agreement is a civil society led innovation that builds capacity for more than human stewardship by enabling individuals and organisations to map relationships of interdependence and cultivate ongoing mutual commitments of care.

Contributor Positionality Statements

This entry is part of Participedia's More-than-Human Democratic Innovations collection. It was developed through the research project Mapping Emerging Practices of Nonhuman Representation and Participation, led by Lucy J. Parry and Hans Asenbaum at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy, in collaboration with Claudia de Cordoba Fernandez Farini of Living Imaginaries and Graham Smith at the University of Westminster. The project is funded by Participedia and the Centre for Animals and Social Justice.

This case entry was researched and written by Claudia de Cordoba Fernandez Farini, with editorial feedback from Lucy J. Parry.

This case draws exclusively on publicly available documentation. Descriptive claims are grounded in documented sources, while interpretive analysis is confined to the Analysis section and informed by the contributor's broader research on emerging practices of nonhuman representation and participation.