We must Talk to Elephant

During these two years, Makuna, a bull elephant who has been roaming around Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve since last ten years, have killed 24 locals at surroundings. While he killed his 23^rd victim in this December, a group of elephant specialists including wildlife veterinarians and security forces was applied to pacify him through medical treatment. But, during the treatment he killed another woman and made numbers of his dead victim 24.

Few years ago, Dhrube, another elephant bull had killed 23 people around Chitwan National Park. He endured dozens of bullets hit by security force and then vanished from the locality. Now, after five years, he has returned to Chitwan, completely changed as a gentleman.

Terror of elephants is no less in Tarai (Nepal). According to little old data of 2017, 10-12 people lost their lives due to the elephant and 2-3 elephant killed every year.  in Nepal. Likewise, people have lost a large number of properties, agriculture crops and stored grains.

Currently, due to the Makuna’s aggressive behavious, human-elephant conflict in eastern Nepal is in limelight. Basically, all the eastern Terai districts from Chitwan somehow have been going through human-elephant conflict. Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari; three districts eastern from Koshi river as well Saptari, Siraha, Udayapur, Dhanusha, Mahottari, Sarlahi and Parsa (western districts from Koshi) all are not untouched with elephant’s horror. At the center of this periphery there is single reservation area: Koshi Tappu Wildlife reserve and the number of free-roaming elephants around Koshi Tappu is just around 15 to 18.

According to R. M. Laws, ‘In the distant past, when human population was small and the extent of wilderness large . . . The, there were human islands in a sea of elephants . . . the situation reversed to a sea of people with elephant islands’ (Santapillam and Wijeyamohan, 230). Regarding this past, to have just 15-20 free roaming elephants in eastern Nepal is very limited population. However, the problem created by this small number is shocking.

Now, eastern Nepal is turned to be a sea of people, there is very limited (single) reserve area, the biological corridors which connect one elephant habitants to another are dismantled. That is why this ‘mega-herbivores’ have been encountering humans frequently and elephants-human conflicts is raising day by day.

Right now, Makuna must be controlled. He might be killed or like Dhrube he too will change his habit in future. However, the death or change on attitude of few Dhrube and Makuna could not be the long term solution of human-elephant conflict. For the permanent solution, multidimensional aspects of human and elephant relationship should be properly studied through the ethnoelephantological perspective and similar policies must be applied according to the study. Only ethnoelephantological perspective can minimize the conflict between humans and elephants. According to Pears Locke, ‘ethnoelephantology’ suggests for ‘methodological perspectives from the humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences to investigate the social, historical, and ecological intersections of human and elephants’ (2013: 79).

According to Locke, now, both humans and elephants are obliged to use the same paths or corridors (In Assam, it is also called Dadi) in various places in South Asia. If possible both these mammals try to avoid each-other. However, both these most ‘important ecosystem engineers’ are obliged to face each-other though if possible they do not like to face each-other. This critical situation of encounter is created by humans themselves, not by elephants. Humans are the main cause of conflict.

Elephant specialists Raman Sukumar and M Rangarajan (et. all)’s research has revealed that ‘only 22 percent of the Asian elephant’s home range comes under legally protected areas’ and ‘the vast majority of its range lies outside the formal conservation zones.’ Thus, in 78% of elephants’ roaming range they have to share the space with humans and these areas includes the farmlands and corridors between various habitants. Likewise, in South Asia, elephants have been sharing the space with 20% global human population. (Thekaerara and Thornton, 301).

Elephants have very large roaming territory. For example, the elephants from Parsa and Chitwan some day, used to roam across Assam and Bengal and Assamese and Bengali elephants too used to come frequently across Nepal in seasonal basis. Furthermore, the matured elephant bull, leaving his heard and family, has to go through a very long route in order to met other clans of elephants for mating. Dhrube was assumed to be in Assam when he was displaced from Chitawan. Inter-clans contact is very important for genetic variation. Biologists have argued, ‘genetic variability of species is a key factor for its continuing survival’ (Sukumar, 2003:356). That is why ‘elephant corridors are considered vitally important’ for their long term survival ‘in the densely populated’ south Asia (Munster, 277). In South Asian scenario, for their long term survival, corridors are necessary to connect Nepalese elephants to the elephants from Assam, Bengal and Kerala. In past, there were clear corridors, but not today. Elephants try to use the traditional routes even today since they had been using the paths through the thousands of years and they learn the trail from their traditional family schooling.

Talking about the eastern Nepal, all Chaarkose Jhadi, above the Mahendra highway and south-east parts of Jhapa district are traditional elephant roaming territory. Chaarkose Jhadi is one of the most important and probably longest biological corridors in South Asia which had been playing vital roles for the seasonal movements and inter-genetic connections between the elephants from Nepal, Bengal, Assam and Burma. Mechi itself is one of the important international elephant corridors, elephants cross the Mechi and across the Charkose they penetrate the Terai in Nepal.

In past, there was not Mahendra Highway, traditional human habitants of Dhimal, Santhal and Rajbanshi were located in southern Terai. But the Mahendra Highway not only deforested the Charkose, it also converted the northern Terai into the densely populated human habitants due to the massive migration from hill area. The new cities like Birtamod, Surunga, Damak and Itahari raised. Birtamod, Surunga and Damak all three cities are expanded to Chure on the north and these northern territories from the cities and its surrounding are latest critical conflict-zones between elephants and humans. Elephant’s traditional routs are dismantled due to the anthropogenic influence. Half century ago, there were few conflict zones like Khujunabari but now whole areas above the Mahendra Highway are converted into vital conflict zones.

In entire northern Terai, human and elephant both are sharing the same space and in various parts of South Asia these two intelligent creatures have been sharing the same land by negotiating with each-other. In most of the contact zones, humans are active at day and elephant at night. They shape each-other’s movement. In this issues, Paul G. Keil mentions Assam’s experience, ‘The presence of elephants inhibits human movement . . . elephants do not walk closest to village during day . . . At dusk they draw closer, appearing outside of forest cover only at night’ (255) and people rarely walk at night. He also gives example of Congo, ‘Baka (people) gather during the day and elephants gather at night’ (255). Due to the past hunting experience elephant too tries to avoid humans. In such a contact zone there is a kind of reciprocal relationship between humans and elephants. It has lead them to negotiation and co-existence.  In the case of Terai, is it possible to live with free-roaming elephants by sharing the same space?

Basically there are two types of free-roaming elephants: one the family heard with grandmother, mothers, aunts, juveniles and calf with same clan. They have certain family and numbers depends on the access to foods and water. They can be separate in small group for certain time and even can mix up with another family. Another are the the grownup males like Dhrube and Makuna who have not certain family and they can mix up with any family and clan as per need and wish. Sometimes in crop-raiding, there might be collaboration among grown up bulls. Ursula Munster mentions, ‘89 per cent of all crop-raiding conflicts are with bulls. Only 2 per cent conflicts happen with elephant heard’ (288). It means elephant’s matriarchal herd is intelligent and tolerable. They try to keep distance with humans.

Most of the series conflicts with humans occur due to the newly grown up youths like Dhrube and Makuna. According to Raman Sukumar, adult elephant bulls, particularly ‘tuskless makuna require high energy food for physical development’ (Monster, 288). So, they take risks, enter in farmlands and eat paddy, wheat, vegetables and fruits. Thus, they come in tussle with human and gradually  become rough. On the other hand, these grown up bulls are chased away from herd due to the dominating males and somehow they have gone through trauma, stress, depression, anti-social behavior and heightened aggression due to the social and ecological stress. According to Fred Kurt, these factors ‘change the behavioural characteristics of an elephant’ (68).

Behind the increase of rough bulls, Fred Kurt has another logic with the experience of Sri Lanka. He argues that ‘young generation of male elephants are no longer controlled and educated’ by senior males in traditional way (68). It is due to the selective British’s hunt in past that they captured and killed the tuskers and changed the natural sex-ratio of elephants. Herds become tuskers-less and socialization inside herds is disturbed. According to Kurt, lack of socialization or lack control leads to more aggressive behavior.

But, by observing the Kerala’s cases, Dr. Arun Jachariya has different view. Juveniles basically learn crop-raiding habit from the adult bull. He has mentioned it as ‘male adult schooling’ and in many cases, 4-6 bulls are organized and rides crops in group. In some cases, youngsters even learn crop-raiding habit from their mothers.

There might be various reasons, why a young bull turns to be aggressive in Nepal? In the case of Dhrube and Makuna, the reason must be different than the cases of Sri Lanka and Kerala. Calves within a clan have very special schooling. Generally, mother, grandmother and aunts teach youths various behaviors like how to behave within family and with other animals, how to help juniors, where are the proper places for food and water in seasonal basis, which is the routs etc. Likewise, they even learn how to avoid human’s encounter by properly using traditional biological corridors between habitants.  Main problem is that there is a vast changes in their traditional habitants, corridors and roaming territories outside the park area. The newly grown up male who are chased away from their herd, face unexpected scenarios like confrontation with human habitants, just reverse than their traditional learning. They lost their faith on grand/mother’s schooling. It also leads them to be irrational. Thus, Dhrube and Makuna are the result of the failure of traditional schooling, anthropogenic disturbance by humans and dismantle of traditional biological corridors.

In eastern Nepal, most of the traditional elephant corridors are dismantled. That is why to kill few problem elephants or their unexpected behavioral changes can not be long-term solution of human-elephant conflict. Rather, we most minimize the anthropogenic disturbance and only we can stop elephant to be like Dhrube and Makuna. In doing so, we cannot undermine the elephants’ existence. Both elephant and human’s existence is co-related with each-other. According to Clive G. Jones and john H. Lawton et all., ‘Humans and elephants are both remarkable ecosystem engineers’ (130). Paul G. Keil mentions, both of them during the dwelling, cover large area, leave deep traces and shape the entire landscape.

Both humans and elephants have equal roles to shape the South Asian landscape and current environment. In South Asia, humans had followed the tracks of elephants and penetrated the dense forest. They used the same elephant as a labour to drag the large timbers out of the forest. Sharing the same paths between elephants and humans across forest was rooted in pre-historic period.

Even today, in various landscapes of South Asia, both elephants and humans have been sharing the same paths. According to Paul G. Keil’s study, in various parts of Assam humans and elephants uses the same paths across forest and corridors, ‘The Assamese refer to the most commonly travelled of this paths as dandi’ (243). Likewise, Dona Haraway, in When Species Meet, has mentioned that a path of an animal is used by other and species meet each other. Tim Ingold connects the paths and nature of ‘wayfaring’ as thread that wave our world: worlds both of human and non-humans. The process of ‘dwelling’ makes multi-species entangled with each-other (Keil, 245). As told by these writers, the landscape of eastern Nepal including traditional elephant corridors have become multi-species entangled area between human and elephant.

We cannot undermine the ecological roles of this mega-herbivorous. It needs a lots to eat. That is how its controls the over-growth of many kinds of plants. Likewise, it transports seeds of  various plants in long distance through its dung. Numerous small animals like beetles, ants and other’s entire life-cycles complete within the world of elephant’s dung. Thus, both human and elephant have great contribution for the ecological balance of South Asia. They are complement to each-other. And, in this moment of extreme anthropogenic disturbance, elephant and human both do not have any option to accept and admit each-other’s co-existence.

However, it’s the marginal people and community of conflict zones who are obliged to accept co-existence with rough elephants in extreme fear and terror. Basically, people depended on land, water and forest for livelihood, are in the conflict zones. They cannot migrate to secure places. These people have facing the loss of life and property due to the conflict with elephants. However, these people do not have any roles for this kinds of scenario. They were the rulers and elites who deforested Chaarkose and used timbers for personal benefit. So, its rulers who are major responsible for the human-elephant conflict.

But, right now, the community depended on agriculture is facing the problem elephants. And, if the ecological crisis occurs due to the extinction of the animal like elephant, first of all climate change and other crisis hit to the local community who are depended on land, water and jungle. In this sense, the co-existence with elephant or to live harmony with ecology is far more important for local community than the elites.

For the harmonious relationship between local people and free roaming elephants, numerous methods haven been applied in South Asia. To construct wall on elephant’s way to village, to set electric fences, to chase elephants by placing  tiger’s roaring machines, to keep bees on the way as well to produce large sound are some of the way applied here to stop elephant. However, none of these methods became effective. Elephant is too intelligent and it finds another option to overcome the obstacles. Ursula Munster mentions, ‘Some wild elephants watch us humans for hours from a safe distance in the forest. They then learn to imitate us . . . We keep on coming up with new systems to scare elephants away . . . However, after a month, they already know how to circumvent the barriers and hindrances’ (272-3).

Even elephants pick up dried branches and break the electric fences, otherwise they make fall nearest tree to dismantle the fences without direct touch. That is why Ursula Munster assumes that if we have address the conflict between human and elephant we should regard elephant as equally rational animal as human and should be treated in similar way. For this, elephant must be understood in terms of their social, historical and emotional dimensions. It only can control the behavior of free-roaming elephants.

Killing Dhrube and Makuna is not the solution of conflict. For the ultimate solution, first of all, all the vanished elephant corridors must be revived and paths must be secured from one habitant to other. Likewise, inside the park areas and even in the corridors, elephant friendly plants should be grown up. It somehow make elephants engaged within their territories and will not be lured to agricultural products. This, somehow, leads them to their traditional paths and habitants. They are far intelligent to learn and to be adjust in new scenario.

Thula-Thula reserve’s experience is somehow helpful in the management of free-roaming elephants. At the another reserve near Thula-Thula, a problematic herd of elephants appeared aggressive and notorious. Then, the reserve aimed to kill the matured elephants and became ready to sell the remaining elephants to one of the Chinese circuses. Some patriarchs were already killed. Thus, the herd was more aggressive toward humans. Then, Thula-Thula’s manager Anthony Laurence decided to bring this problematic herd of six elephants at his park. He build electric fence covering a large area, darted the elephants and brought. At beginning, the elephants tried to run to previous area, even time and again try to attack Anthony Laurence. Laurence continuously tries to contact the problematic herd and finally the herd understood that he is doing for their own favour. Later, the herd and Laurence turned to be lifelong best friend. Thus, one of the brutal and rough herds of elephant accepts the co-existence with human.

Till now, we human regard us intelligent and assumed elephant as stupid. In all the new systems and actions to minimize human-elephant conflict in South Asia, we just tried to cheat elephants. For, the long-termed management, we must rebuilt the corridors and manages the food-chains for elephants in parks and corridors. We should try to make them habitual in parks and corridors.

Elephants are very intelligent and adaptive as Thom van Dooren notes, ‘adaptic, emerging and evolving’ (13) as elephant’s characteristics. That is why Munster says, ‘elephants would be easily re-disciplined and would learn that humans were to be treated with respect’ (192).  Yes this mega-herbivorous have been understanding we (humans) through out history, but we never tried to understand them. Thus, for the long-termed solution for human-elephant conflict and to secure the co-existence, we have to talk to free-roaming elephants as how Anthony Laurence had done. Through the talk we can control them to their traditional habitants and corridors, we can change their crop-raiding habit and defunct the mechanism that produce Dhrube and Makuna.

Works Cited

Anthony, Laurence. Elephant Whispers. London: Pan Macmillan, 2009.

Haraway, Donna. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 2008.

Jones, Clive G. John H. Lawton, and Moshe Shachak. ‘Organisms as Ecosystem Engineers.’ Ecosystem Management. Ed. Fred B. Sampson and Fritz L. Knopf. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1996. 130-47.

Keil, Paul G. ‘Elephant- Human Dandi: How Humans and Elephants Moves through the Fringes of Forest and Village.’ Conflict, Negotiation and Coexistance: rethinking Human-Elephant Relations in South Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. 242-271.

Kurt, Fred, Gunther Hartl, and Ralph Tiedeman. ‘Tuskless Bulls in Asian Elephant Elephas Maximus: History and Population Genetics of a Man-Made Phenomenon.’ Acta Theriologia Supplement 3 (1995): 125-43.

Laws, R. M. ‘Experiences in the Study of Large Mammals.’ Dynamics of Large Mammel Population. Ed. Charles W Fowler and Tim D. Smith. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1981. 19-45.

Locke, Piers. ‘Explorations in Ethnoelephantology: Social Historical, and Ecological Intersections between Asian Elephant and Human.’ Environment and Society: Advances in Research 4.1 (2013): 79-97

Munster, Ursula. ‘Challenges of Coexistence: Human-Elephant Conflicts in Wayand, Kerala, South India.’ Conflict, Negotiation and Coexistance: rethinking Human-Elephant Relations in South Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. 272-99.

Rangarajan, Mahesh, Ajaya Desai and Raman Sukumar at el. Gaja: Securing the Future for Elephants in India. The Report of the Elephant Task Force. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, 2010.

Sukumar, Raman. The Living Elephant: Evolutionary Ecology, Behaviour, and Conservation. New York:  Oxford University Press, 2003.

_ _ _. The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Thekaerara, Tarsh and Thomas F. Thornton. ‘Ethnic Diversity and Human-Elephant Conflict in the Nilgiris, South India.’ Conflict, Negotiation and Coexistance: rethinking Human-Elephant Relations in South Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. 300-29.

(Yuwaraj Bhattarai has been researching on wildlife corridors. His documentary ‘Kalo Dohoro: Remapping the Vanishing Elephant Trails in Eastern Nepal’ is in process.)