Portside

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 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 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 a 25 percent tariff on India. Then, on August 6, 2025, this was increased to 50 percent. The two sets of tariffs were ostensibly about different issues: 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, are a response to a deeper grievance over New Delhi denying Donald Trump’s peacemaking role during the conflict with Pakistan earlier this year.

India’s response has been measured but firm. The minister of external affairs condemned 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 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 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 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 of increasing stray dog attacks on children.

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

By August 22, the Court capitulated: 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. The Court’s intervention was triggered by a single media report—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 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 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 the measures in diplomatic language. Modi avoided Donald Trump and rebooted India’s relationship with China. Business leaders quietly lobbied for alternative arrangements. This was quiet resistance 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” (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 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 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.