Initial debriefing by the chief of the Wildlife Division of UP did provide me with sufficient background on which to built future course of action to fathom the depth of this ever-increasing problem. It is said that ‘Charity begins at home’, and truly saved me from the hassles of deciding where to start my work from because file records on monkey menace practically left no locality in the city bereft of this problem. The Forest Head Quarter Complex, with a group of target species (rhesus macaque Macaca mulatta), was all that I needed to begin my investigations. The presence of a rhesus group was no secret for any of the forest staff at the headquarter complex as the monkeys keep reminding daily of their presence – not in an affable manner, though.

My job for the next few days was cut out. Simultaneously, I also began my search for monkeys and affected people in the meandering narrow lanes of the city – sometimes on foot, sometimes using cycle rickshaw and at times hiring a auto-taxi. This search took me to schools, university areas, government and private residential colonies, various government and non-government institution/ organization buildings, tourist places, market lanes, open grounds etc. I was looking both for monkey groups, signs of damages caused by them, and afflicted people. People gathered around me, some as curious onlookers but others for sharing (with me) their predicament. In no time did I realize that I have run out of my questionnaire sheets – an avowal on the severity of this problem. The public repugnance and antipathy towards monkeys across the city could further corroborate this.

One does not require much of the investigation skills in spotting the reasons for this abhorrence. The outcry and bitterness by the people against the monkeys could be either due to loss and damage to properties, injuries caused on the person or loss of life, and indirect health hazards through spread of contagious diseases in the localities. These three main sufferings could occur either in isolation or in several combinations.

Blame is squarely on the monkeys for having invaded the human territory for meeting their livelihood means. Correct it is, but little do we realize that it is only after human populations have made forays into the territories of wild animals (including rhesus monkeys) that the animals are forced to invade new areas – after all, to survive is their right too.

People have habituated them of the provisioned food, which being more nutritious and easily accessible is highly cost effective vis-à-vis the cost likely to be incurred by a group in search for food in the wild – that too without ensuring the matching nutritious quality of provisioned food. A girls’ school, which was just a stopover in the migratory route of a rhesus group earlier has now become a permanent feeding ground – a fitting example of how a casual food offering to monkeys may lead to a menace. Now, if the monkeys do not get the food they resort to snatching and when the school is closed for holidays, the neighboring residents bear the brunt. Cases of this nature are plenty – be it a tourist place, religious place, residential colonies, offices, and even zoo – visitors feeding caged animals do attract these free ranging groups and one can see them hanging around the cages of their brethren for offerings from the visitors. Who is responsible for their paranormal behaviour (is it paranormal. Is it the normal behaviour under the changed circumstances)?

The food trees in the wild habitat are gone. Just few yards away we have crops raised by local human inhabitants. Monkeys raid those fields and are christened as ‘pests’ – why? Do they know that these rich food crop-fields are outside their legal habitats and thus, out of bound for them? I don’t think they are able to distinguish between PA and non-PA areas. All they know is that their usual food stock has disappeared and got replaced with these fields and they are there to feed, what’s wrong in this. They might be wondering as to why are they hounded by people when they are feeding inside the crop fields but not so when feeding in the wild habitat only few distance away from these fields – let someone explain them the logic.

Who shall explain them the logic? Those responsible for talking logic have themselves behaved illogically by destroying the natural habitats, then topping this fatuity up with provisioning the monkeys with the artificial feeds, and finally forcing them to remain dependent on the man-made food supply. Failing which, the non-human components (it is now found more in humans than in non-humans) in the monkeys reign supreme – lo the conflict has begin - from which even a city of ‘pahle aap, pahle aap’ fame could not escape - such is the fervour of imbalance in the resource crunch versus stakeholders.

Two ways to address this impasse – either to remove ‘resource crunch’ situation by new creation of resources, aiding to grow the existing resources, etc., and by removing the stakeholders - a la capturing and translocation of monkey groups from human habitations. But where do we take them? Their original place might have already destroyed or got occupied by some other group(s) and at a new place, they may not be able to compete with the already existing populations. Zoos are already overcrowded and also may run the risk of contracting some diseases from these commensal stocks. Culling and trade is prohibited by extant legislation and by religious sentiments. Create a Monkey Sanctuary? Spread education against provisioning the monkeys? THINK.