Apply Now

Shouldering our Fellow Beings’ Presence: Human-Primate Coexistence in India

Based on a recent field visit, Shaurabh Anand reflects on the role of ​‘agency’ in shaping human-wildlife interactions in different contexts in India.

Temple monkey 2

The story of wildlife in India is also a story of remarkable human capacities to share and care — to share our common resources and to care for our fellow living beings. Much before the academic articulation of now commonly known terms, such as ​‘tolerance’, ​‘compassion’, and ​‘religious and cultural symbolism’, people engaged in practices that kept wild animals alive in their surroundings.

Human reactions to the presence of an animal in their vicinity have far-reaching consequences for its long-term survival. It is also known that humans’ attitudes towards nature and its elements are not static in time or space.

Last month, when I was roaming around villages in Mysuru to identify a location and a bonnet macaque group to study, I came across several interesting observations related to this dynamic nature of human-animal coexistence. 

Our search for bonnet macaques was successful when we located one group of bonnet macaques after a couple of days. A group of bonnet macaques, consisting of males, females, infants, and juveniles, made their appearance in the village where we were resting. Macaques roamed from one house to another, and as the day progressed, they settled near jackfruit trees. 

We started chatting with the villagers, starting with our usual questions about the whereabouts of the troop. When we asked if it was feasible to observe the monkeys in this village, we received interesting responses. 

“We often see this group,” said the villagers. And despite some inconvenience, people have been ​‘living’ with the monkeys; they are ​‘tolerant’ of monkeys.

Agency can be defined as an entity, organisation, or collective that has the potential to change the status quo.

When we asked if we could observe the group, we found that people were fine with the macaques’ presence. However, our daily observations led some to think that we were responsible for attracting macaques to the village and that we may do something about it (read: catch them and take them away!). 

This shows that villagers may change how they live with monkeys once they find someone who can manage the animal-human interactions. When we inquired about the monkeys in various villages, some people asked us if we were there to catch monkeys. It was as if asking about the species put us in charge of their interactions with humans! 

The hints to ​‘intervene’ in the ongoing activities of both humans and monkeys were strong. The realisation that interventions are not within the scope of our activities was a huge disappointment for them. Their interest in our presence and our conversation dropped sharply, and our questions no longer had any meaning to them.

I observed monkeys engaging in various interactions with humans. In different temple queues, I observed monkeys grabbing food items and literally sitting on people’s shoulders till they acquired a food item.

Why are these inquiries relevant for human-animal coexistence? 

Communities’ reactions to the presence of an animal in their vicinity have far-reaching consequences for its long-term survival (Kansky and Knight 2014; Knight 2000). Several factors drive the coexistence between humans and a common species such as bonnet macaques — communities’ connections and symbolisms, and societal value interactions (Knight 1999). It is also known that humans’ attitudes towards nature and its elements are not static in time or space (Sago and Gatson 2020). Therefore, it is important to keep scanning the horizons to look for signs of any such changes and what is driving those shifts. This is highly relevant for species that live in close physical proximity to humans.

My observations suggest that in addition to these well-known factors, invisibility of an agency contributes to the continuation of a state of coexistence. Here, agency can be defined as an entity, organisation, or collective that has the potential to change the status quo. 

This further brings up several questions for which I do not have a clear answer yet — were we the first ones to ask them about monkeys? Did our non-local identities create an expectation of certain actions? Were we being seen as part of state machinery? What notional responsibilities must one be aware of while doing animal observations in the ​‘field’? Or does venting out about these inconveniences act as a safety valve and prevent more drastic interventions?

I do not know for sure, as answering these questions needs in-depth, long-term, multi-species ethnographic and historical research. However, in this context, when villagers got to know that we were here to ​‘study’ monkeys and that we would not be catching them, they genuinely asked if our ​‘study’ and our ​‘observation’ would make them stay away from the village.

Credit: Shaurabh Anand

People’s search for agencies and demand for action have already started in places like villages and farmlands. It is only to be seen for how long before the same demands start arising from other places.

What happens when people fail to find such agencies? Evidence indicates that, at some point, they will assume this role themselves. Transforming from participants in human-primate interactions, they acquire the role of manager, eradicator, or problem solver and often engage in activities that may not seem desirable in normal circumstances. 

This transformation is different from guarding and protecting valuables from monkey damage. Numerous reports of people capturing and translocating monkeys, or even lethally poisoning them, point to this phenomenon.

On the last leg of our field visit, we made a quick stop at the Chamundi Hill temple. This is one of the few remaining safe abodes for bonnet macaques. This is also a place to observe people’s tolerance towards monkeys.

I observed monkeys engaging in various interactions with humans. In different temple queues, I observed monkeys grabbing food items and sitting on people’s shoulders till they acquired a food item. 

This reiterates the initial point with which this article started. It indeed proves that the survival of several wildlife species in India is ​‘shouldered’ by our tolerance for their presence. However, people’s search for agencies and demand for action have already started in places like villages and farmlands. It is only to be seen for how long before the same demands start arising from other places.

NOTE: I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Vani Kulkarni and Suraj N for all the help with the fieldwork. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to Vignesh S for engaging in discussions on these topics.

About the author

Shaurabh Anand is a faculty with the School of Development. He is currently researching human-primate interactions in agricultural landscapes in Southern India. His broader research interests include primate ecology and behaviour, human-wildlife interactions, and landscape ecology.

Image Credits: Shaurabh Anand

References

Attributions