Maneka Gandhi is right, government's 'lust for killing' animals is wrong

Maneka Gandhi, known animal lover, has spoken out against environment minister Prakash Javadekar on a decision to kill wild animals. This is significant because apart from being an animal lover, Gandhi is a BJP Union minister (women and child development), and her stand assumes importance from a political perspective.

Secondly, her stand assumes significance because in this instance, she is right.

Javadekar's ministry has decided to give permission to states to shoot the animals they consider "vermin" or pests.

Gandhi has questioned this approach, asking how the environment ministry can take such an anti-wildlife stand, and said that this shows a "lust for killing".

While there are provisions to move or kill animals that are a danger to human lives or property, there has never been such a push from the Centre to be trigger-happy.

Different states have different ideas for what is vermin, and many states appear eager to kill wild animals. These animals may not be widespread everywhere, and are certainly not vermin everywhere.

For instance, Goa was under pressure to declare porcupine and peacocks as vermin. Himachal Pradesh has declared monkeys (rhesus macaque) as vermin, and many other states have put wild boar and nilgai on their hit-list.

Meanwhile, 200 Nilgais have already been shot in Bihar. More than 200 wild boars have been shot in Maharashtra.

There are two immediate reasons why this really is a lust for killing. Firstly, many herd animals have pack sociologies. With the sudden loss of pack members, chances of human-wildlife conflict go up. For instance, in the case of monkeys, killing one or two troop members randomly will increase their aggression towards people.

In the case of trophy hunting of elephants in Africa, field observations have established that herds which lose members to shooting behave in erratic and uncharacteristic ways.

They can attack people, they don't follow traditional mores of behaviour, and they are disoriented and confused. In essence, animals can behave like humans do when a family member is lost.

Secondly, and perhaps more significantly for human society, we need to reflect on whether we want a trigger-happy culture. Many of these new rules mean that pretty much anyone can shoot a target animal. They also impute you can trap, beat and torture animals. Globally, we have been descrying shootings.

Campus shootings, or shooting in the name of religion, IIT grad Mainak Sarkar shooting his professor over a professional disagreement - they are all examples of violence and intolerance, compounded by artillery.

Shooting an animal because it damages crops or snatches mangoes from us is also some sort of a professional disagreement.

But, these are valid concerns. Wild animals that cause damage need to be dealt with. But we are not addressing the concerns in the right way. By opening the floodgates to kill, shoot and poison, we are opening the floodgates to the worst in us.

From a society that has been largely tolerant - tolerance comes even from many marginalised communities which suffer damage due to traditional values - we may be becoming the one of gun cowboys.

It's also important to note that much of the shooting is being organised by powerful local political groups or rowdy elements. It has been pointed out that the social results of such an exercise would be further taxing on the poorest; and these exercises may empower the rowdy or rich, and not the most marginalised.

Instead of advocating this "shoot (any number) first, and think later" approach, we need scientific approaches to reducing numbers of animals that can harm us.

This is why the Himachal Pradesh High Court has called for a stay on shooting monkeys in Shimla. We need a sound and systematic approaches to controlling wild animal populations, and none give instant results (probably why they are not popular).

For instance, we need to control artificial feeding and garbage. We can't feed monkeys with one hand, and shoot them with the other. For crop damage, the emphasis still needs to be on crop-protection, fencing and providing compensation.

My final concern on what kind of society we want to be is also one linked to the shooting and punishment of animals, which has divided the world.

Harambe, a cool male gorilla was shot in the Cincinnati zoo to save a four-year-old boy who went into his enclosure. Two lions were shot in a zoo in Chile to save the life of a man who stripped his clothes off and entered their pen on purpose.

Cecil, a celebrity lion in Zimbabwe, was gunned down by an American dentist for trophy hunting, even though the benefits of trophy hunting are little understood.

In Ranthambhore, a wild tiger named Ustad was moved into a zoo on charges of man-eating. All these incidents have sparked grief, outrage and heated arguments from both sides of the "human" and "animal" lobby.

But the most throbbing question they throw up is: what do these kinds of shootings do to our human consciousness? How do we deal with the regret, after killing something on just a hunch?

These instances also show non-humans as things we consume, either as a spectacle being chased across our consciousness or as a target. Unlike meat-eating which has a purpose of supporting human life, this "go ahead and shoot" maxim supports revenge, power and bloodlust. How soon before this new "culture" blows up in our face?