Sri Lanka yesterday (2) said farewell and sorry, to the majestic Muthu Raja, or Sak Surin as it was known in its birthplace, the tusker that was gifted to Sri Lanka by the Thai Royal family over two decades ago. The tusker was repatriated to Thailand for treatment on Saturday night. With the repatriation of the elephant, Sri Lanka also eroded the trust that the international community had placed on the island nation, under the assumption that we knew how to take care of wildlife.
The circumstances in which Sri Lanka had to return Muthu Raja to Thailand are controversial, and have attracted severe opposition from both Sri Lankan and Thai nationals including animal welfare activists. The available information suggests that the elephant has for a long time been mistreated and that the elephant’s welfare had been neglected by those who were in charge of it. In fact, Sri Lanka did not return the elephant voluntarily, but was forced to in the face of massive opposition from animal welfare activists and pressure from Thai officials, who seemed to have taken the elephant’s welfare more seriously than the Sri Lankan government did. In fact, even now, the administration of the temple at which Muthu Raja survived at, and some conservative, and hardline nationalist figures claim that the elephant should not have been returned, or worse, that it should be sent back to Sri Lanka after treatment.
Sri Lanka’s conduct concerning Muthu Raja’s welfare is disgraceful in every sense of the word. On the one hand, the elephant, who was a diplomatic gift and is a protected animal in the country, had been abused and neglected, and on the other hand, many in Sri Lanka continue to reject the fact that the elephant had endured abuse and had related injuries. While the impact on Muthu Raja is saddening and should not be allowed to be repeated, the incident is a good lesson for Sri Lanka about extending care and compassion to animals. Sri Lanka has often been muted about animal abuse, especially that of elephants, due to historical and cultural practices.
In the name of culture, religion and heritage, the many Sri Lankans, including many policy makers have turned a blind eye to the abuses faced by not just Muthu Raja but many captive elephants for decades, if not centuries. Such practices continue, which many choose to ignore, but remain hidden in plain sight. It has obviously divided opinions. The bitter reality is that most captive elephants are removed from their natural habitats as calves and that the process of taming them involves a great deal of physical and psychological abuse.
How Sri Lanka can continue to defend such practices while portraying the Island as an eco-friendly destination is baffling. How can a country protect its cultural and religious values through abused, shackled and physically unfit animals? Are the principles of Metha, Mudhitha, Karuna and Upekka not applicable to all beings? What did elephants do to deserve this injustice and cruelty? Sri Lankans should understand that with time all cultures evolve, and so do how religions and traditions are practised. Do we live in the era in which elephants are essential or needed in processions to carry religious objects or artefacts? Three hundred years ago, because there were no motor vehicles, because there were no electric or mechanical devices to transport heavy objects, elephants were used to help in construction and for warfare, not any more. If Sri Lanka truly is a country nurtured by Buddhism, staying true to Buddhist teachings of loving-kindness and compassion for all living beings, the country’s political and religious leaders need to take the initiative to free elephants from cultural and religious shackles.
Elephants are legally protected wild animals, who, in their natural habitats, live in groups and walk tens of kilometres a day. It is not justifiable to keep them confined for humans’ needs, and it is not justifiable to assign a cultural or religious value only to legally abuse them. First of all, there needs to be stern scrutiny on private ownership of elephants. No one should be allowed to keep an elephant in their possession unless the elephant’s welfare is regularly monitored by government-appointed veterinarians as well as wildlife officials, and even such ownership should not be for commercial purposes. In the long run, private or State ownership of elephants should eventually be limited only to instances where an elephant requires humans’ assistance due to injury, disease or abandonment. Secondly, and it goes without saying, the enactment of the long overdue Animal Welfare Bill should be expedited, so that not only elephants but all animals could live free of abuse. In addition, changing the widespread norms that accept and tolerate animal abuse in the name of culture, religion or heritage should be a priority.
It will take a very long time for Sri Lanka to deal with the label it is likely to earn as an animal abuser due to Muthu Raja’s incident. The sooner we realise it and take the necessary measures, the sooner the world will trust us with the wildlife that we are gifted with.