Kerala elephant death: It’s time we moved from collective disgust to collective responsibility

We need to be more sensitive to the consequences of increased human-animal interaction, not just from the perspective of humans, but also from the perspective of wildlife

The story of the pregnant elephant, which died after eating a pineapple filled with firecrackers, raised much outrage in social media. Later reports have suggested that the elephant may have accidentally consumed the pineapple originally meant to ensnare wild boars in the region. While killing an innocent creature, whether it is an elephant or a boar, in such a gruesome manner itself is an abhorrent act, what made this particular incident even more shocking was the fact that the victim was a soon to be mother mammal and the manner in which food was used as bait. This deplorable incident raises some difficult questions for our collective conscience and public morality, one of them being that of trust.

The trust factor

As humans, there are various factors which nudge us to trust each other. Apart from evident factors like familiarity with those whom we trust and faith in the good intention of others, very often it is also instinct, circumstances, or vulnerabilities and our particular socio-political location that guides our inclination to trust others. This explains why even an apolitical citizen might feel betrayed when the state takes away his or her rights and the collective anguish citizens feel at the apathy of elected representatives. This is also the reason we feel betrayed when someone we had shared personal information with, in a moment of vulnerability, takes advantage of our information and our helplessness.

It is important to acknowledge that there are non-human beings that are capable of experiencing emotions such as trust. In his article, ‘Betraying Animals’, published in the Journal of Ethics, moral philosopher Steve Cooke says: “Since non-rational sentient beings behave as if they have beliefs about the intentions of others, and since they act as if they feel betrayed when the object of their trust lets them down, we ought to, therefore, assume that they can trust.” While Cooke is talking of deliberative trust-building between humans and animals in controlled environments such as research labs and farms, with increased human-animal interaction, it might not be so rare to see this outside such strictly controlled environments as well. In this case, what prompted the elephant to trust the pineapple placed by humans is perhaps the same sentiment that prompts animals to trust humans who try to rescue them from a pit or from drowning, instances of trust guided by need, in this case—that of hunger. Regardless of whether the trap was intended for the boar or the elephant—baiting is an act which involves trickery and betrayal.

In this instance, the question of the trust itself is further complicated, considering the fact that the need to trust humans itself is something which is generated by humans. It is, by now, an accepted fact that an increase in human population has led to shrinking forest coverage, thus adversely affecting the habitat and food resources of wildlife. There is also increasing evidence to suggest that climate change, which is resulting in a deterioration of the forest cover, could largely be a result of human activities. Thus, the dependency and trust that at least some of the animals may have on us is generated by us.

Not enough to punish the guilty

This further raises the question of collective responsibility in an event like this. Does our responsibility end at the point where we ensure that those guilty of this heinous crime are punished? Shouldn’t it prick our conscience to know that elephants and other wildlife venture out into human settlements largely due to depletion of forest resources, resultant of human activities, sometimes involving corporations and the mighty state? Don’t we have a responsibility as citizens to hold these entities accountable? In that sense, don’t we also have a share in the betrayal of trust here, even if it is an inadvertent one?

There is no doubt that the very nature of this crime—an act involving lamentable cruelty—makes it acutely reprehensible. The misuse of superior human cognitive skill to betray and torture another species should rightly horrify our conscience. Humans may be the only species which uses its intellect to devise innovative ways of inflicting pain on others for its own sake. It is not my intention to underplay the sadism involved in the act and the pain that at least some of us feel, after hearing about this ghastly crime. However, it would be a mistake to feel the pain and horror, but dismiss it as an isolated incident. It is worth paying attention to the other deeper issues which create the conditions for such crimes in the first place.

Human-animal conflict

We should remember that an incident like this is made possible, partly, by the loss of habitat leading to the straying of the elephants into human areas. Human-wildlife conflict has steadily been on the rise in India in the past few years. According to one newspaper report, more than 500 elephants have been killed due to human-animal conflict—via electrocution, train accidents, poaching and poisoning, in the last five years. The same conflict has led to the death of more than 2,000 humans in the same period. Studies have pointed out that this conflict is only going to rise owing to climate change and the pressure of human activities.

Like in the case of human-to-human relationships, the relationship between humans and animals is also a complicated one. By focusing exclusively on wildlife, I don’t intend to discount the moral ambiguities involved in other instances of violence against animals, like in the case of lab testing in the medical and cosmetic industry. I am also well aware of the complex politics of food in this country and I acknowledge and condemn the violence meted out to communities because of their culinary habits. It is rather unfortunate that this event has been given a communal colour by a few prominent individuals. However, in the case of the violent death of this elephant—it is not just another incident of violence or killing of an animal.

While the act itself deserves condemnation because of its indefensible cruelty, it also exposes the problems involved in the new and precarious equation that might be emerging between human settlements and animals who are coming out of their original habitat. Focusing exclusively on the aspect of cruelty prevents us from realising that what is at stake is not only kindness to animals but also the possibility of a new equilibrium between humans and animals. One needs to be mindful not only of the threats posed to wildlife because of human-animal conflict but also that of vulnerable communities— like small-scale farmers who face acute problems because of wildlife straying into human settlements.

At a time when there is increased overlap in the spaces of human-animal interaction, largely facilitated by human action, it is useful to acknowledge our responsibility as the species with superior cognitive skills and be more sensitive to the consequences of this forced interaction, not just from the perspective of humans, but also from the perspective of wildlife. Such an approach goes beyond collective disgust to collective responsibility. This is useful, not just because it is ethically desirable as human beings to be kind and compassionate, but also because the survival and sustenance of our species are closely linked to our environment and other beings who share it with us.

(Aparna Vincent is an independent researcher specialising in the study of rhetoric and symbolism in Indian politics. She co-edits Ala, A Kerala Studies Blog)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.