Harambe killing: Who would be shot dead if a baby gorilla enters a house?

Two incidents of animals being shot dead in zoos to save human lives were reported just a week apart from each other.

In the first incident, two lions in Santiago Metropolitan Zoo in Chile were shot dead after a naked man jumped into their enclosure in a suicide attempt.

The second incident, which caused a bigger outrage, perhaps because it happened in the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden in the United States, involved a 17-year-old gorilla named Harambe which was shot dead after a four-year-old boy accidentally fell in its enclosure.

Let's first look at the Santiago Zoo incident. Animal lovers and activists were naturally fuming because; not one but two adult lions were killed to save a man who willingly jumped in the enclosure.

Also read - Why does nobody talk about intolerance towards wild animals?

The zoo chose to save the suicidal 22-year-old and kill the innocent lions, who are bound by their natural make-up to attack an unknown creature entering their space, if not for food then in self defence.

The zoo officials justified their act saying the man was being mauled and they didn't have the slightest clue that he entered the enclosure to commit suicide. But would they have let the man die had they known he voluntarily jumped in the enclosure?

I doubt it.

And this is not even considering the glaring fact that the man was naked and could not have "accidentally fallen" into the enclosure. They chose one species over another, which was clear.

The Cincinnati Zoo incident, in comparison, falls in a grey area.

Also read - Into the wild, a map every Indian must see

Some sided with the gorilla, Harambe, because it was absolutely no fault of his that a child fell in his enclosure, some lauded the zoo authorities for saving the child, and some slammed the child's parents for leaving him unattended.

But the most obvious question that arose was: why didn't they tranquilise the gorilla instead of killing it?

Some experts suggest that tranquiliser darts would take at least a few minutes to come into effect and could've agitated the wild animal, leaving them with no choice but to kill the beast.

However, other experts say Harambe was "investigating and not attacking", so they could've controlled him with sedatives, or scared him off to buy time to rescue the child.

Irrespective, the support for Harambe has been vociferous and fast growing. Animal rights activists held a vigil at the Cincinnati Zoo and the petition opposing the shooting on Change.org touched 3.25 lakh and has been increasingly rapidly.

Also read - Blame not the leopard if he enters the school

What angered petitioners most was that Harambe was a Western lowland silverback gorilla, a threatened species of which fewer than 175,000 remain in Africa.

But what if Harambe wasn't part of an endangered species? Would he have garnered similar support? Perhaps not as much.

Discrimination between species, called speciesism, is highly ingrained in our attitudes. And human species come right at the top of the pyramid.

But does the human species have greater moral rights than non-human species?

Consider this scenario: A baby gorilla accidentally enters a human household. Who would be shot dead? Would people applaud if the police shoots the man inside the house to save the baby gorilla?

Also read - You will not believe what this tiger in Ranthambore was up to. Or would you?

And let's not assume here that the man wouldn't hurt a baby gorilla. There was no proof before the incident in Cincinnati Zoo that Harambe would touch a human baby either.

We all argue, criticise, and take sides in racism, sexism and casteism debates. We often side by those not belonging to our caste, race, sex or sexuality, because we see injustice, because we feel empathetic.

But valuing other species on par with human beings is often met with ridicule, scorn or outright dismissal. Fundamental rights of non-human animals are flexible and can be suspended as and when human lives take precedence.

Both Santiago and Cincinnati zoo incidents share the fact that the animals were shot for absolutely no fault of theirs.

Also read - India is not a Republic for all species

Did they break out of their boundaries?

No.

Were they being violent with visitors?

No.

Did they attack a zoo authority?

No.

They just reacted to a situation they were partly curious about, partly scared, partly defensive, and partly confused because of all the screaming.

Also read - Murder! This is what happens when you run over a snake on the road

The two lions at Santiago Zoo and the Harambe at Cincinnati Zoo were kept captivated in an enclosure outside their free and natural habitat, like millions of wild animals across thousands of zoos around the world.

Lions run for miles each day and gorillas like Harambe have small family groups if left in the wild, but in zoos they are kept in an enclosed space, making them go crazy over the years, a phenomenon termed "zoochosis".

Conditions in several, if not most, zoos aren't the most conducive for animals; many are hotbeds for infection and disease with inadequate healthcare and nutrition.

Also read - How a golf course in Assam’s forests is the elephant in the room

And let's not even begin with the "first world problems" of boredom, stress, anxiety and fear.

How often have we gone to a zoo and made a sympathetic face looking at an animal curled up in a corner unwilling to move despite the loud jeering of onlookers?

Perhaps these two incidents come as yet another - and there have been numerous - reminders of why one must not visit zoos. They aren't educational spaces because you barely learn about animals in its natural habitat, nor does it send the right message to children who grow up accepting caging of animals as an acceptable human behaviour.

Zoos make speciesist behaviour acceptable and, in several ways, glorifies it.