Kiara is irresistibly adorable, but as pictures of the tiny Liliger cub went viral, conservationists across the globe started questioning her very existence. Bred in captivity, Kiara is the offspring of a Liger (itself born of a lion-tigress mating) crossed with a lion. In short she is a mutant, a genetic mish-mash of felines bred in captivity that would never exist in the wild. The Novosibirsk zoo in Russia can expect a roar from the public when little Kiara is put on display but, really, the cub is little more than an extravagant experiment with zero conservation values. Closer home, a more gruesome zoo-related incident made headlines recently. A young tigress at the Itanagar zoo in Arunachal Pradesh was shot at from close range and then hacked to pieces by unidentified assailants. Zoo guards returned from their dinner break in time to witness the fleeing poachers—and an enclosure strewn with body parts of the big cat.
So how did zoos become akin to death row for these wild animals when the whole idea of setting them up was exactly the opposite? As of 2006, India had 159 recognised zoological parks but many believe the actual number to be between 350-500, if unregistered facilities are included. The ethical dilemma of keeping wild animals in captivity has for years been justified by touting the educational and conservation value of zoos. Yet a close examination of zoos not just in India but across the globe invalidate this argument. On the grounds of animal welfare alone, the majority of zoos in India could face closure. Most, if not all, violate most standards for the housing and management of animals in zoos, as laid out in the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 1992.
The Indian Zoo Enquiry, a report published by the Compassionate Crusaders Trust and Zoocheck, Canada, as far back as in 2004, paints a bleak picture. An entry for one of the Aurangabad zoo’s inmates reads: “Assamese Macaque: 15 ft x 15 ft x 10 ft cage. Cement substrate. Few logs. Cement water reservoir, 1.5 ft x 1.5 ft. Two attached dens. One animal observed pacing and bar biting. Visitors teasing the animal by throwing dust and spitting. No signboard, but barrier present.” Two pages later, we reach the Bondola zoo in Goa. On the Asiatic elephant there it says, “Asiatic Elephant: 100 ft x 45 ft yard. Soil substrate. Stones and trees present. 5 ft wide moat at rear of enclosure. One shed for mahout. No food observed. No pool or water facility. Two individuals observed, both chained. Animals used for rides and made to kneel on the concrete road. Signboard and barrier present.” Housing conditions for animals at the Delhi zoo are just as deplorable: “White Tiger: 15 ft x 15 ft x 7 ft cage. Thatched roof. Back of the cage cemented. White sand substrate. One log. One wooden platform on the ground. No food or water. Four animals observed. No signboard but barrier present.” And all this is not for any paucity of funds. This year, the Central Zoological Authority’s (CZA) annual budget is Rs 18.5 crore with a major chunk, Rs 5.65 crore, reserved for the Delhi zoo. Surely, this is enough to ensure that the animals get more room to roam and cleaner surroundings.
The Indian Zoo Enquiry, a 168-page- long document, is a blood-chilling account of the plight of thousands of animals in Indian zoos, punctuated by numerous images of emaciated, dull-eyed animals lying forlornly in cement cells. Erratic news items have highlighted the abuse from time to time but no case made waves like the Nandankanan tragedy. In June 2000, 11 tigers at this Orissa zoo died of Trypanosomiasis, a disease transmitted by flies, within four days of each other.
Conservationists and enthusiasts blamed the deaths on the negligence of the zoo staff. But it’s the idea of the zoo itself—as a scientific institution—which needs to be challenged. As it is, animals in captivity exhibit some dysfunctional behaviour but it becomes even more apparent in the absence of enrichment, habitat management and proper nutrition, areas in which Indian zoos are clearly deficient. So is it perhaps time to do away with zoos altogether? Yes, says Bittu Sahgal, editor of Sanctuary Asia. “Teaching children about wildlife by exposing them to zoos is the equivalent of teaching them about crime by trotting them off to gawk at prisoners behind bars. The concept is inherently flawed.” With scientific advancements allowing us to study wildlife through non-invasive means and in their natural habitats, there is no reason to keep animals captive for educational purposes, adds Sahgal.
But zoo advocates argue that these institutions hold a safety net for endangered populations and that captive breeding is essential for the survival of numerous species. Leading herpetologist and erstwhile curator of the Madras Crocodile Bank, Gerry Martin, says, “The current state of zoos in India and much of the world is deplorable! Having said that, there are examples of zoos that truly bring value to education and conservation—both in situ and ex situ. In India, zoos are primarily menageries that possess only exhibit value. Hence the well-being of individual animals is often overlooked and even ignored. Having wild animals in captivity could contribute to conservation but is by no means synonymous with it. However, we need to realise that it is bad zoos that need to be shut down and not the concept of zoos that needs to be shunned.”
An Assam zoo worker cuts up the body of dead Bengal tiger Joy before cremation
The critics counter saying if the massive resources spent on breeding animals were instead channelled towards habitat management and law enforcement we may not have to fight extinction at all. In addition, the reintroduction of captive bred animals into the wild is an infinitely complicated process, many a time dangerous and fraught. Also, in the odd case where captive breeding is necessary, zoos need not be the answer. Says Vivek Menon of Wildlife Trust of India: “Rescue and rehabilitation has moved on from being a zoo task in the 19th century to one done by specialist centres.”
Adding to the woes, now there is gathering evidence that a number of Indian zoos are either involved in the country’s booming illegal wildlife trade or are unknowingly supplying to it. A Delhi-based conservationist shared a particularly alarming story of “missing animals” from the capital’s zoo. “A bear simply disappeared into thin air. No one was held accountable,” he says. Zoo horror stories are many. There was the tragic death of a tigress named Sakhi at the Nehru zoo in Hyderabad in 2000. Officials woke one morning to discover the skinned carcass of the young tigress floating in a water tank. A number of zoo staff were suspended but the case itself was only cracked some four years later, and that too by accident. Though the accused was not from the zoo, the involvement of zoo officials in the murder is still suspected.
Lax security at zoos across the country makes them an easy target for poachers. In 2009, a gang of criminals stole eight rare marmosets from the Alipur zoo. The same group is believed to have kidnapped a pair of macaws from Kankaria earlier that year. In 2010, senior officials from Chhatbir zoo in Chandigarh landed in trouble for illegally procuring four Shaheen falcons from the black market. More recently, in September, an Indian Great Horned Owl was stolen from the same zoo. International news reports make no bones of the fact that zoos in countries like China act as cover for contraband smuggling. And then there are the tiger farms and bear bile factories. Prerna Bindra, senior consultant with WCS-India, gives us further details, “By now it’s established that tiger farms illegally trade in tiger derivatives. Farming tigers for trade fuels the market, in turn leading to poaching of more wild tigers.”
Further afield in the West, even world- renowned zoos such as Twycross and Jersey, rightfully lauded for their in-situ conservation work, would be hard- pressed to defend the huge surplus of animals in their care that serve no conservation purpose. Perhaps, the greatest condemnation of keeping wild animals in captivity comes from within the community itself. Conservationist Shubhobroto Ghosh in his thesis lays bare the sentiments of those who run the Cornwall Monkey Sanctuary. An employee is quoted saying: “As an organisation that has housed monkeys for almost forty years, the sanctuary is well placed to show, from first-hand experience, how monkeys in even the best captive conditions suffer from their captivity.”
The data available on the wretched conditions of zoo animals highlight the urgent need to recognise Indian zoos as ‘profit-making institutions’ and not ‘conservation centres’. Paltry entry fees and the disinterest of authorities allow visitors to use zoos as picnic grounds and to harass animals at will. Perhaps better technology and understanding of wildlife coupled with a refined sense of ethics will invalidate the need for zoos one day. Till then, unfortunately, tigers will roam cement platforms and birds will perch on iron hands.
Apropos The Life Sentence (Dec 10), India’s outlook towards animals is just getting worse by the day. Instead of lamenting their treatment, how about a movement to better our zoos, if not the extreme of closing them down.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
India does have some very good zoos where highly dedicated staff take excellent care of the animals. Examples are the Nehru Zoological Park in Hyderabad and the Baneerghata National Park in Bangalore. Even Chennai's Snake and Crocodile Park are excellent examples of proper conservation activity. The problem seems to be with zoos in states with lesser resources, like Orissa and Arnachal Pradesh, and with those in places known for their ineptitude and inefficiency, like Delhi.
Ganesh Natarajan .... I thought the Mysore Zoo was the best amongst the ones I have seen.
Though the state of affairs with humans in desh, and quality of life most desis get to live/experience, nothing in this article ought to come as a surprise that the animals in Zoos are essentially in what one would call - deep do-do.
A zoo is not supposed to be a conservation project. We are not doing the right thing, by making zoo's the excuse for conservating flora and fauna. We are supposed to appreciate flora and fauna, in surroundings, which everyone appreciate, at zoo's. I don't know how ethical it is to have zoo's, when nations have good zoo's, and they do not make other nations appreciate their biological heritage.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT