The claim of Delhi Zoo authorities that on January 4 night two stray dogs entered the enclosure for Chinkara antelopes and killed four of them is based on a series of hypotheses. No one saw the dogs getting in and killing the animals. And the hypotheses do not bear scrutiny. A report by Shreya Roy Chowdhury in The Times of India (Delhi edition) of January 5, says, quoting zoo sources, that bitten in the head, neck and shoulder, the animals died of shock.
The report further quotes officials as saying that they did not know how the dogs got into the zoo premises and speculated that they might have come in from the side of Sunder Nagar (an exclusive New Delhi residential colony) along with trucks carrying supplies. The possibility of entry from the Purana Qila side was also mentioned.
Whatever the entry points, the question is: How did they get into the enclosure for Chinkaras? The Times of India report quotes a zoo official as saying, “The enclosure has wire meshing and a dry moat surrounding it. The dogs could have climbed into the moat and jumped over the wire mesh.” The explanation is breathtaking. Anyone with any idea of the capabilities of stray dogs, would aver that jumping over a fence as high as one around the Chinkara enclosure is beyond them.
This writer has checked with Ms Sonya Ghosh, a well-known animal welfare activist and academic, and Mr Kanishka Sharma, a passionate animal activist, who had visited the zoo and investigated the incident. Mr Sharma, who gave a precise account of the fencing and other protective structures around the enclosure, said that “the perimeter is simply impenetrable”.
That no stray dog could have jumped over the fence becomes clear from a look at the accompanying photograph by him that gives an idea of the height of the fence by showing Ms Ghosh, in a red cardigan, standing next to it.
The credibility of the zoo authorities’ claim is also dented by the fact that they handed over to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi only one dog, which, they claimed, was tranquilised and captured by them. The other, they told Ms Ghosh and Mr Sharma, jumped over the fence and ran away. Ms Ghosh asserts, “Given the nature of its (the fence’s) design, it is impossible for a dog which had allegedly gone inside, to jump out of it.”
There are other issues that raise questions. According to the official version, as conveyed to Ms Ghosh, the dog that jumped over the fence and ran away was black and tan in colour, while the one that was caught was white. Ms Ghosh and Mr Sharma, who visited Friendicoes, an animal welfare organisation to which the dog was handed over, found it to be brownish and black in colour and quite docile and frightened.
Further, Ms Ghosh points out that the bite mark on the neck of one Chinkara was more of a slit at an angle. Dog bites on animals that they hunt typically aim to tear out clumps of flesh. No such wound was visible on the Chinkaras. According to Ms Ghosh, a subsequent version gave the colour of the dog that was caught as “brownish and blackish” and that of the one that ran away as white! Besides, free-ranging animals are normally wary of obstacles like fences and do not try to cross them without compelling reason.
What could that reason be in the present instance, particularly since the dry moat and the fences and the cement wall at places constituted a formidable obstacle? If the answer is hunger, then why did the dogs not eat the carcasses, at least partially?
Doubts about the reported official accounts also arise because of the poor record of Delhi Zoo. The then Minister for Environment and Forests, Mr Jairam Ramesh, informed the Lok Sabha on November 10, 2010, that at least 43 animals had died in Delhi Zoo in September that year. He added that while 15 blackbucks died due to gastrointestinal infection, a Sambar, giraffe, leopard and wild boar had lost their lives due to causes like asphyxia, trauma and shock.
On March 8 of that year, he had told the Rajya Sabha that 12 animals had died in Delhi Zoo since October 2009, adding that of these “three animals died due to trauma and nine due to various reasons like toxaemia (blood infection), pulmonary oedema (fluid collection in lungs) and myocarditis (inflammation of heart muscles). The deaths continue. In May this year, a 15-year-old female giraffe that had earlier given birth to four cubs died of what was diagnosed as haemorrhagic viral diarrhoea.
On August 25, 2010, Ms Deepa Dasmunshi, MP from Raiganj in West Bengal, raised in the Lok Sabha the question of overcrowding in the deer enclosure in Delhi Zoo. According to her, she found that while there were no animals in a few areas, between 200 and 250 deer had been put in an enclosure where hardly 60 deer could stay, which could lead to injury. She pointed out that scarcity of drinking water had caused six deer, two lions and tigers and one elephant to fall sick in June of the previous year (2009).
Lack of funds and infrastructure have doubtless been contributory factors, but apathy and gross dereliction of duty have also been glaringly manifest. A report by Shaurya Karanbir Singh in The Tribune of August 9, 2010, described how visitors teased and even assaulted animals without any action by zoo staff.
He saw people climbing the railing surrounding the enclosure for giraffes to take photographs, and catching the attention of a giraffe by feeding it with a leaf from a tree near the railing. He cites another instance in which a security guard at the zoo did not budge even when he saw people teasing a white tiger.
In the light of his report, the death of a female giraffe in May last year would appear hardly surprising!
What is urgently needed is a thorough inquiry not only into the death of the Chinkaras but the functioning of Delhi Zoo itself. Conducted by experts who have no link with Delhi Zoo, it should include the examination of the backgrounds of all employees and details of disciplinary action taken against them.
