Monkey business

The Chinese Embassy tweet on the toque monkey export issue that grabbed media and public attention in recent days has ended the brouhaha like a proverbial storm in a teacup. The embassy made clear that China as a country had no hand whatever in the proposal to export some 100,000 monkeys (rilaw) that have a pinkish tinge in their outer appearance in contrast to the larger grey langur, the other common monkey species widely present in this country. No doubt a proposal has been received from what appears to be a private company and Agriculture Minister Mahinda Amaraweera chose to go public on it raising an inevitable storm of protest. His ministry is now on record defending the minister saying he wanted to enable a debate on the pros and cons of the proposal. That has certainly happened. But we do not think the minister had that good intention; he wanted to address the issue of animals destroying crops.

We run in our correspondence columns today a letter to the editor by a frequent contributor who has expressed a commonsense point of view on the subject. She, like most of us at different stages of our lives, has found monkeys cute, enjoying their antics as a child. But she has pragmatically presented the other side of the coin too. Monkeys like several other species like peacocks, porcupine, wild boar and rock squirrels (dandu lena) inflict enormous crop damage in the countryside. Monkeys today are a common presence even in some suburbs of Colombo not only destroying home gardens but often displacing roof tiles. Unarguably all this is the natural result of their habitats being destroyed by man. Minister Amaraweera was obviously attracted to the export proposal because here was a way of making a dent in the monkey population placating farmers and making a quick foreign exchange buck in the process.

As our letter writer said, there would be many reasons why the potential importer from China would have wanted our monkeys. The stated explanation in the proposal that they were intended for zoos was palpably false as has been subsequently exposed. In the first instance, China, vast as she is, does not have a sufficient number of zoos to accommodate such a large number of monkeys. It was therefore speculated that these animals were intended for the pot, for laboratory experiments and suchlike. It is common knowledge that eating habits in countries like China and many others vastly differ from what prevails here. Apart from China, even in countries in Europe and North America epicurean diets include delicacies like frog’s legs and snails that we will turn up our noses at. A common, if bawdy, saying is “Taste differs said the monkey (doing something) to the dead cat.”

Widespread hypocrisy exists in many countries, notably including our own, in matters of what people eat and what they do not. Being a Buddhist country who’s very constitution has given the foremost place to Buddhism, there should be many more vegetarians among us than the number that exists. There are those who will not eat beef but have no problem with mutton or chicken. We justify not eating beef saying we should not eat the flesh of beasts giving us milk and serving as draft animals helping to plough our fields, draw our carts etc. There are those who say they eat fish and not meat because fish make no sound when they are taken out of water. All this is rank hypocrisy. While appreciating and lauding those of us who are vegetarian having the mental strength to overcome sensual desire, the reality is that we have to live in the modern world.

Compromises are possible as related by the son of a highly respected Lankan who responded thus to the suggestion that he invests in a meat processing company: “Son, neither you nor I are vegetarians,” he said. “But I’d rather not profit from a company in the business of slaughtering animals.” He would eat the products of that company but did not want a dividend cheque from it. The same gentleman told his wife’s uncle who on hearing that monkeys were being shot on a coconut estate being planted by him proposed that five acres be set apart for the monkeys. “I’d willingly do that Uncle Charlie,” he said, “but the problem is that the monkeys don’t know which five acres are theirs!” Many of those who opposed the export of rilawas clearly do not suffer personally from damage inflicted by the animals.

Many of those unhappy about the proposal have long lived with dog catchers employed with their municipal rates and have been happy with pest control measures taken by local and other authorities. The cow is sacred in India but she’s a major exporter of beef (mostly buffalo) to international markets. Crows regarded as scavengers are shot in many countries but we once had an issue when a five-star hotel in the heart of Colombo poisoned them. Current indications are that the government is slowly moving in direction of issuing shotgun licences to farmers to protect their crops. The monkey export proposal did not spell out how the animals would be captured. That, surely, would have raised another furor.

The reality is that man has to strike the right balance with nature and that is no easy task. This is a country that once traded in elephants. Although little song and dance is made about it, the probability is that dairy cattle here are slaughtered for meat when they are no longer productive. President Premadasa once stopped government involvement in inland fisheries. This resulted in the loss of infrastructure invested in before the prohibition. Today there are efforts to revive that industry. All things are impermanent, as the Buddha said.