[[link removed]]

FROM DELHI TO DC: A SUMMER STUDY IN POWER AND RESISTANCE  
[[link removed]]


 

Shareen Joshi
September 12, 2025
Foreign Policy in Focus
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Power without legitimacy eventually meets its match. _

, Shutterstock

 

August 2025 will be remembered as the month India said
“no”—twice. First it was “no” to Donald Trump’s economic
blackmail over Russian oil purchases. Then “no” to its own Supreme
Court’s order to sweep capital city Delhi’s streets clean of stray
dogs. Although these cases may seem unrelated, they reveal something
profound about the limits of authority in contemporary democracies. In
both instances, seemingly definitive exercises of power failed,
exposing how even the most powerful institutions fail when they go
against deeply held public sentiment.

The timing was theatrical. On August 6, 2025, Trump imposed
[[link removed]]
50 percent tariffs on Indian goods, citing the country’s continued
oil purchases from Russia. Along with Brazil, India was hit with the
highest rate levied in the world. Just five days later, India’s
Supreme Court issued
[[link removed]]
its own sweeping decree: all stray dogs in Delhi and the National
Capital Region must be rounded up and permanently relocated to
shelters within eight weeks.

By month’s end, both decisions were in shambles.

THE TRADE WAR TALE

The economic warfare escalated quickly. On July 31, Donald Trump
imposed
[[link removed]]
a 25 percent tariff on India. Then, on August 6, 2025, this was
increased
[[link removed]]
to 50 percent. The two sets of tariffs were ostensibly about different
issues
[[link removed]]:
the July 31 tariff was imposed after the countries were unable to
secure a trade deal ahead of an August 1 deadline, while the more
recent one is a secondary tariff related to U.S. pressure on Russia.
The latest tariff was implemented on August 27 without any
breakthrough in either objective.

Both, some argue
[[link removed]],
are a response to a deeper grievance over New Delhi denying Donald
Trump’s peacemaking role during the conflict
[[link removed]]
with Pakistan earlier this year.

India’s response has been measured but firm. The minister of
external affairs condemned
[[link removed]]
the tariffs as “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable.” Prime
Minister Modi promised to protect India’s farmers, fisherman, and
dairy farmers, even declaring himself ready “to pay a heavy
price.” India has quickly deepened diplomatic ties
[[link removed]]with
China and Russia, taking a public stance on bullying by the United
States. Notably absent, however, are the mass street protests in major
cities, as was seen after the deportation
[[link removed]]
of Indian migrants in February. This has been an entirely elite
pushback.

THE DOG DAYS REBELLION

On August 11, 2025, India’s Supreme Court ordered
[[link removed]]
all stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region to be
captured, sterilized, vaccinated, and permanently sheltered within
eight weeks. The ruling followed the Court’s July 28 intervention
prompted by media reports
[[link removed]]
of increasing stray dog attacks on children.

The backlash was immediate and overwhelming. A petition
[[link removed]]
to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision on change.org gathered
nearly half a million signatures within days. On August 17, citizens
gathered
[[link removed]]
in large numbers in central Delhi. These protests then spread
nationwide
[[link removed]].
Critics demanded process and compassion based on a thorough
understanding of the issues involved.

By August 22, the Court capitulated
[[link removed]]:
India’s Supreme Court directed local authorities to sterilize,
immunize, and return the dogs who had been rounded up so far to the
neighborhoods from which they were collected. It even passed new rules
for community care.

A PATTERN EMERGES

Both of these stories illuminate how power actually operates in
contemporary democracies. First, both decisions were knee-jerk
reactions to media reports rather than systematic policy analysis.
Trump’s escalation followed Indian officials publicly pushing back
against his ceasefire claims
[[link removed]].
The Court’s intervention was triggered by a single media report
[[link removed]]—dramatic
headlines rather than careful deliberation.

Second, both revealed a profound disconnect from reality. Trump’s
trade advisor alleged that India uses dollars from U.S. trade to pay
for Russian oil, but most of India-Russia oil trade is actually
settled in
[[link removed]]
dirhams or rubles. The Court’s disconnect was more glaring: it
ordered the removal of 5,000 dogs when estimates from government
records and animal rights organizations suggested
[[link removed]]
that there are nearly a million.

Most tellingly, both institutions underestimated the resistance they
would face. Trump’s 21-day implementation window suggested room for
negotiation. The Court’s reversal was more dramatic but equally
complete. Both definitive authority exercises underestimated the
opposition that followed.

TWO ROADS TO RESISTANCE

The more fascinating question is how resistance actually worked—and
why two completely different forms succeeded. Against Trump’s
tariffs, resistance flowed through established channels of power.
Leading ministers condemned
[[link removed]]
the measures in diplomatic language. Modi avoided
[[link removed]]
Donald Trump and rebooted
[[link removed]]
India’s relationship with China. Business leaders quietly lobbied
[[link removed]] for alternative
arrangements. This was quiet resistance
[[link removed]]
by the suit-and-tie crowd—measured, institutional, and conducted
largely behind closed doors.

The dog decree triggered something entirely different: raw, emotional,
grassroots fury. Protesters marched through Delhi’s streets with
slogans like “Awaara nahi hamara hai
[[link removed]]”
(they are not strays, they are ours) and pleas to vaccinate and
sterilize the stray population as a long-term humane solution to their
sizeable population. Social media echoed quotes
[[link removed]] from Gandhi about the
“greatness of a nation” being related to the “way its animals
are treated.” Dog lovers and dog haters fought spirited debates
online. The change.org petition [[link removed]] described
Delhi’s stray dogs as community members who “live in our
neighborhoods, provide companionship to those who may otherwise feel
lonely, and often become our cherished friends.” This wasn’t
policy analysis—it was love letters to street animals.

DEMOCRACY’S IMMUNE SYSTEM

These contrasting forms of resistance ultimately illuminate how
democratic societies can protect themselves from arbitrary power.
India’s resistance may draw from deeper political DNA—a
civilization preserving pluralistic thinking through millennia of
varied rulers and transformations. It developed “multi-spectrum
resistance infrastructure”—the ability to push back through
whatever channel proves most effective.

This system operates simultaneously at multiple levels. Elite networks
apply diplomatic pressure through formal channels. Civil society
mobilizes popular sentiment through protests, petitions, and
campaigns. What makes this resilient is not depending on single
resistance forms—if one fails, others remain available.

The lesson is clear: top-down policies that bypass consultation carry
the seeds of their own failure. These resistance lessons transcend
trade wars, stray dogs, or national borders. Democratic societies
everywhere need multiple immune systems against arbitrary authority.
Resistance can wear business suits or side with voiceless citizens.
Even small resistance adds up.

Delhi’s streets now hum with the usual chaos. The dogs are back.
Here in DC, the streets remain relatively quiet—perhaps because, for
now at least, institutions and individuals are still figuring out the
best way to resist top-down federal authority. Those answers have yet
to be worked out, but India’s summer of power and resistance
suggests that power without legitimacy—whether wielded in Delhi or
DC—eventually meets its match.

_Shareen Joshi is a professor at Georgetown University specializing in
South Asian politics and development economics. Her research focuses
on development challenges in South Asia. _

_Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) is a “Think Tank Without Walls”
connecting the research and action of scholars, advocates, and
activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global
partner. It is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies.  FPIF
provides timely analysis of U.S. foreign policy and international
affairs and recommends policy alternatives on a broad range of global
issues — from war and peace to trade and from climate to public
health. From its launch as a print journal in 1996 to its digital
presence today, FPIF has served as a unique resource for progressive
foreign policy perspectives for decades._

* India
[[link removed]]
* Narandra Modi
[[link removed]]
* Dehli
[[link removed]]
* Washington DC
[[link removed]]
* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]
* resistance
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]