Sunday Times 2
Monkeys weep not!
View(s):- Human-monkey conflict has a win-win solution, writes wildlife anthropologist Dr Niroshan Gamage
The desperate cries of suffocating monkeys trapped in overcrowded cages have become an unbearable symbol of our failure, a failure not just in wildlife management but in our collective humanity. As Sri Lanka grapples with the escalating human-monkey conflict, we stand at a crossroads: will we respond with wisdom and compassion, or will we allow political expediency and brutal methods to define our relationship with these intelligent beings who have shared this island with us for millennia?
Monkeys belong to the order Primates, sharing a common ancestor with humans that lived approximately 25-30 million years ago. This evolutionary kinship is not merely academic, it manifests in striking similarities in our social behaviours, cognitive abilities, and emotional lives. Primates, including humans, monkeys, and apes, form one of the most complex branches of the mammalian family tree.
The toque macaque (Macaca sinica), endemic to Sri Lanka, represents millions of years of evolutionary adaptation to our island’s unique ecosystems. These creatures possess sophisticated social structures, problem-solving abilities, and even cultural transmission of learned behaviours—traits once thought exclusive to humans. When we look into the eyes of a toque macaque, we are looking at a distant cousin, separated by evolutionary time but connected by a shared heritage that demands our respect.
Our relationship with toque macaques transcends simple cohabitation. These primates share approximately 93% of their DNA with humans, making them among our closest living relatives. This genetic proximity translates into behavioural similarities that are both fascinating and humbling: they demonstrate empathy, grief, joy, and complex social hierarchies. Mother macaques show tender care for their young, juveniles engage in playful learning, and troops maintain intricate social bonds that rival human communities in their sophistication.
Co-existence with monkeys is the ecologically correct way forward
This biological kinship carries profound implications. The capacity of macaques to feel pain, fear, and distress is not hypothetical—it is scientifically documented and morally significant. When we subject these animals to suffering through cruel capture and confinement methods, we are inflicting harm on beings whose neurological capacity for suffering closely mirrors our own.
Monkeys, particularly toque macaques, serve as vital ecological engineers in Sri Lanka’s ecosystems. They function as seed dispersers, carrying fruits across considerable distances and depositing seeds in their droppings, thereby facilitating forest regeneration. Many plant species depend on primates for their reproductive success, creating an interdependent relationship refined over millennia.
Beyond seed dispersal, macaques control insect populations, contribute to nutrient cycling through their feeding activities, and serve as prey for larger predators, maintaining the delicate balance of food webs. Their presence indicates ecosystem health; their absence signals ecological degradation. Removing or drastically reducing macaque populations would trigger cascading effects throughout Sri Lankan forests, potentially destabilising plant communities and affecting countless other species.
Sri Lanka is recognised as one of the world’s 36 biodiversity hotspots, and the toque macaque stands as one of our endemic treasures. The island hosts three subspecies of toque macaques—the highland, lowland, and dry zone variants—each adapted to specific ecological niches. This diversity within a single species reflects the extraordinary evolutionary laboratory that Sri Lanka represents.
The presence of thriving macaque populations indicates the integrity of our forest corridors, water sources, and food webs. These primates coexist with purple-faced langurs, slender loris, and a spectacular array of endemic birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Protecting macaque habitats means protecting entire ecosystems, benefiting species from leopards to endemic frogs. When we discuss the “monkey problem,” we must recognise that we are really discussing habitat fragmentation, agricultural expansion, and the compression of wildlife into ever-shrinking spaces.
Our ancestors understood something we seem to have forgotten: coexistence is possible and, indeed, enriching. Ancient Sinhalese civilization flourished alongside abundant wildlife, including large primate populations. Historical chronicles and archaeological evidence reveal sophisticated water management systems, agricultural practices, and settlement patterns that accommodated wildlife rather than seeking to eliminate it.
Traditional villages maintained buffer zones of forest, sacred groves that served both spiritual and practical purposes by providing wildlife habitat away from cultivation. Farmers employed non-lethal deterrent methods, used seasonal planting strategies that minimised conflict, and accepted a certain level of crop loss as part of the natural order. This was not naive romanticism but practical wisdom accumulated over centuries of living in balance with nature.
In Sri Lankan Buddhist culture, compassion toward all sentient beings forms a cornerstone of ethical life. Monkeys appear in Jataka tales as clever, sometimes mischievous, but ultimately deserving of kindness and respect. The Buddha himself is said to have been born as a monkey king in previous lives, demonstrating wisdom and self-sacrifice.
Hindu traditions honour Hanuman, the monkey deity symbolising devotion, courage, and selfless service. Across Sri Lanka, temples and sacred sites coexist with monkey populations, with devotees often feeding them as acts of merit. This cultural heritage, spanning thousands of years, reflects a worldview in which humans and animals occupy a shared moral universe. The current brutal treatment of caged, suffocating monkeys represents not just an ecological crisis but a cultural betrayal—a rupture with values that once defined us.
The transformation of macaques from revered cohabitants to “pests” is not their doing. It is ours. Rapid deforestation has eliminated approximately 80% of Sri Lanka’s original forest cover, destroying macaque habitat and traditional food sources. As forests vanish, macaques have no choice but to seek sustenance in human-modified landscapes, particularly agricultural areas offering abundant, easily accessible food.
Agricultural expansion has brought cultivation closer to remaining forest fragments, creating unavoidable overlap. Modern monoculture farming, unlike traditional diverse cropping systems, offers concentrated food resources that attract wildlife. The loss of natural predators such as leopards, reduced through habitat loss and human persecution, has removed a natural check on macaque populations in some areas.
Simultaneously, well-meaning but misguided feeding by tourists and urban residents has habituated some troops to human presence, reducing their natural wariness and encouraging bold foraging behavior. This habituation, combined with habitat loss, has created a perfect storm of human-wildlife conflict.
In urban and semi-urban areas, macaque troops have adapted to human environments with remarkable success—too remarkable for many residents’ comfort. They raid kitchens, damage property, intimidate residents, and occasionally bite when threatened or food-conditioned. In tourist areas, habituated monkeys snatch bags, cameras, and food, creating negative experiences for visitors and residents alike.
These behaviours, while frustrating and sometimes frightening, are rational responses to circumstances we have created. Macaques are intelligent opportunists; when natural foods become scarce and human settlements offer abundant resources with minimal effort, their behaviour shifts accordingly. Punishing them for adapting to the environment we’ve imposed upon them reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both ecology and responsibility.
For many rural farmers, particularly smallholders operating on marginal economic terms, crop raiding by macaque troops represents a devastating threat to livelihoods. A single troop can destroy a significant portion of a fruit crop overnight or systematically damage vegetables over weeks, rendering entire harvests unmarketable. Farmers describe the psychological toll of watching helplessly as months of labour disappear to raiding primates.
The conflict has intensified as agricultural pressure increases, driven by population growth and economic necessity. Farmers employ various deterrent methods from scarecrows and noise-makers to guard dogs and electric fencing with varying degrees of success and considerable expense. The most vulnerable are small-scale farmers who lack resources for elaborate protection measures and for whom even modest crop losses translate into genuine hardship.
This genuine suffering demands our attention and action. However, the solution cannot be the wholesale elimination or cruel treatment of macaques, which would be both ecologically catastrophic and morally indefensible. We must find approaches that address human needs while respecting wildlife welfare.
The capture-neuter-release solution: Is it a good solution?
The capture-neuter-release (CNR) approach has been proposed and implemented in various locations as a humane population control method. In theory, sterilising individuals and returning them to their troops can gradually reduce population size while maintaining social structures and avoiding the cruelty of lethal control or permanent captivity.
However, CNR faces significant challenges in practice. The capture process itself causes severe stress to these intelligent, social animals. Post-surgical care is often inadequate, leading to infections and suffering. Importantly, CNR doesn’t address the immediate crop raiding problem, as sterilised animals continue their behaviours and it’s a long-term strategy that offers little relief to farmers facing losses today.
Research from various primate populations suggests CNR works best when combined with habitat restoration and community education and when implemented at a sufficient scale to actually affect population growth rates. Isolated, small-scale sterilisation efforts often have negligible demographic impact. Moreover, without addressing habitat loss and human-wildlife interface management, reducing one troop’s population may simply allow another to expand into the territory.
CNR has a role in comprehensive management strategies, but it is not a silver bullet. It must be executed humanely by trained veterinarians with proper anesthesia, surgical technique, and post-operative monitoring standards apparently absent in current Sri Lankan operations.
Successful global case studies in managing human-primate conflict
Examining international examples reveals that successful human-primate conflict resolution requires integrated, multi-faceted approaches rather than single interventions.
In Japan, where macaque-human conflicts parallel Sri Lanka’s situation, authorities have implemented community-based management programmes combining selective culling of problem individuals, habitat management, electric fencing support for farmers, and buffer zone creation. Critically, these programmes involve extensive community participation and compensation schemes for affected farmers, reducing economic hardship while managing populations.
In Gibraltar, the famous Barbary macaques are managed through strict feeding bans, population monitoring, selective contraception, and tourism regulation. By controlling habituation and maintaining population at carrying capacity through careful management, authorities have reduced conflicts while preserving the troops as tourist attractions.
Indian initiatives around temple towns like Vrindavan have created designated feeding stations away from residential areas, combined with rescue and rehabilitation centers for injured animals and sterilisation programmes for habituated individuals. Community engagement, emphasising cultural values of coexistence, has proven essential to success.
The common threads in successful programmes include: comprehensive strategies addressing both immediate conflict and underlying causes, significant investment in non-lethal deterrents and habitat management, community participation and farmer support, science-based decision-making involving primatologists and ecologists, and long-term commitment rather than reactive crisis management.
The suffocating monkeys and toque macaques in the current situation
The images and reports emerging from Sri Lanka’s current handling of captured macaques are nothing short of horrific. Animals crammed into inadequate cages, lacking sufficient food, water, or space, succumbing to heat stress, dehydration, and suffocation. The scenes evoke comparisons to the worst animal welfare disasters globally, except this one is happening by government sanction.
This approach is not just cruel but it is spectacularly ineffective. Capturing and confining animals does not address habitat loss, does not reduce populations in problem areas (which are quickly recolonised), and does not help farmers. It merely transforms a human-wildlife conflict into an animal welfare catastrophe, attracting international condemnation and damaging Sri Lanka’s reputation as a conservation-conscious nation.
The suffering inflicted is immense and unnecessary. Macaques are highly social animals; separation from troops causes severe psychological distress. Confinement in overcrowded conditions leads to stress-related behaviours, aggression, injury, and disease. Inadequate care by untrained personnel compounds the suffering. Animals die slowly and miserably from conditions entirely preventable with basic knowledge and resources.
The philosophical and legal frameworks of animal welfare recognise that sentient beings have intrinsic value and rights deserving protection. Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance and Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance establish legal obligations toward wildlife welfare, obligations being flagrantly violated by current practices.
Beyond legal requirements, basic ethical principles demand that when we must manage wildlife populations, we minimise suffering and employ the most humane methods available. Veterinary science has established clear standards for animal capture, handling, housing, and euthanasia where necessary. Current practices violate virtually every established welfare standard.
International conventions, including CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which Sri Lanka is a party, emphasise humane treatment and sustainable management of wildlife. The world is watching, and our current approach shames us before the international community while failing to solve the underlying problems.
Equilibrium between human needs and wildlife conservation is not merely possible, but it is essential for our own long-term survival. The harmony we seek requires fundamental shifts in how we conceptualise the problem and our relationship with the natural world.
True equilibrium demands recognising that we share this island with other species and that their welfare is inextricably linked to our own. It requires moving beyond simplistic “pest elimination” thinking toward sophisticated, science-based management that addresses root causes. It means investing in solutions—habitat corridors, agricultural zoning, deterrent technologies, farmer compensation schemes—rather than quick fixes that create more problems than they solve.
Harmony emerges when we reframe the question from “How do we eliminate monkeys?” to “How do we create landscapes where both human livelihoods and wildlife populations can thrive?” This shift in perspective opens possibilities for innovative solutions that current approaches foreclose.
Disregarding experts in the primatology field who possess knowledge excellence
Perhaps most frustrating in this debacle is the systematic sidelining of Sri Lankan and international primatologists who have spent careers studying macaque ecology, behaviour, and management. Sri Lanka has respected scientists with expertise directly relevant to this crisis, yet their voices are ignored in favour of politically expedient but scientifically bankrupt approaches.
Primatologists understand macaque social structures, population dynamics, habitat requirements, and behavioural ecology knowledge essential for effective management. They can predict consequences of interventions, identify evidence-based solutions, and design monitoring programmes to assess effectiveness. Dismissing this expertise in favour of uninformed decision-making is not just foolish; it virtually guarantees failure.
Science-based wildlife management, incorporating ecological research and animal behaviour expertise, has proven successful globally. Decisions about wildlife management should be made by wildlife managers, veterinarians, and ecologists, not by politicians responding to short-term pressures without understanding the biological and ecological complexities involved.
Political opinions are not always correct: Let politicians rule the country, not overrule science
Politicians have essential roles in governance, resource allocation, and balancing competing societal interests. However, technical decisions about wildlife management require scientific expertise that most politicians do not possess. Political pressure to “do something” about the monkey problem has led to hasty, poorly conceived interventions that worsen the situation.
Effective governance recognises the appropriate domains of political decision-making versus technical expertise. Politicians should establish policy goals, allocate resources, and ensure accountability but implementation should be delegated to qualified professionals. When politicians override scientific advice for political expediency, the results are typically disastrous, as current circumstances dramatically illustrate.
We must demand that our political leaders consult genuinely with experts, implement evidence-based solutions, and resist the temptation to substitute political judgement for scientific knowledge. The complexity of human-wildlife conflict demands humility from policymakers and deference to those whose life’s work has prepared them to address exactly these challenges.
Sri Lanka’s tourism industry, a critical economic sector, markets our island’s extraordinary biodiversity as a primary attraction. Wildlife tourism generates substantial revenue, and primates are among the most sought-after species for visitors. The toque macaque, endemic to Sri Lanka, represents a unique draw that cannot be replicated elsewhere.
Responsible wildlife tourism creates economic incentives for conservation, transforming wildlife from economic liabilities into assets. Communities that benefit from wildlife tourism become conservation stakeholders, protecting habitats and species that generate income. This model has proven successful in African wildlife conservation and in Asian primate tourism destinations.
However, wildlife tourism must be managed carefully to avoid habituation problems that exacerbate human-wildlife conflict. Feeding bans, maintained distances, and visitor education are essential. When properly regulated, primate tourism can generate significant revenue while funding conservation programmes and community development, creating win-win scenarios for humans and wildlife.
The irony of brutally killing tourism assets while simultaneously marketing wildlife experiences should not be lost on policymakers. Every macaque suffocating in a cage represents not just an ethical failure but an economic loss of future tourism revenue.
Ultimately, we must recognise that macaques are wild animals deserving space to live according to their nature. Conservation requires preserving sufficient habitat where wildlife populations can exist without constant human interference. This doesn’t mean zero management, but it does mean respecting their ecological roles and intrinsic value.
Sri Lanka has established protected areas—national parks, nature reserves, and forest reserves specifically for conservation. These areas must be adequately resourced, protected from encroachment, and connected through habitat corridors allowing wildlife movement. Buffer zones around protected areas, employing land-use planning that minimises conflict, can create graduated transitions between wilderness and intensive agriculture.
Within human-dominated landscapes, we must find accommodation for wildlife through techniques like agroforestry, retaining forest patches, and wildlife-friendly agricultural practices. Complete separation is impossible on our densely populated island, but intelligent landscape planning can reduce conflict while maintaining ecological connectivity.
Conservation requires genuine protection—legal frameworks, habitat preservation, and enforcement against poaching and habitat destruction. However, “protectionism” that ignores legitimate human needs and concerns generates backlash undermining conservation goals.
Effective conservation must address human welfare alongside wildlife protection. Farmers suffering crop losses deserve support: compensation schemes, technical assistance with deterrents, diversified livelihood options, and access to agricultural insurance. Conservation that impoverishes rural communities will fail; rural communities must be conservation partners, not victims.
This balanced approach is politically challenging but practically essential. It requires adequate funding, institutional capacity, and political will—all currently lacking in Sri Lankan wildlife management. But without it, we face a false choice between human welfare and wildlife conservation, when in reality, both are achievable with appropriate resources and commitment.
The Buddhist principle of loving-kindness (metta) extends to all sentient beings. The Hindu concept of ahimsa—non-violence—recognises the interconnection of all life. These aren’t merely religious abstractions but practical ethical guides for how we relate to the world.
Respecting life means recognising that every being experiences the world subjectively, feels pleasure and pain, and has interests deserving consideration. A mother macaque nursing her infant experiences maternal love as real and profound as a human mother’s love. Young macaques at play experience joy. Animals trapped in cages experience terror and suffering.
Extending respect to other species doesn’t diminish human welfare, and it enhances our humanity. Societies judged by how they treat the most vulnerable include non-human animals among those deserving compassion and protection. The brutality we inflict on other species degrades our collective moral character and normalises cruelty in ways that extend beyond wildlife.
Finding a long-lasting solution
Long-lasting solutions require addressing root causes rather than symptoms. This means:
Habitat conservation and restoration: Protecting existing forests and reforesting degraded lands creates space for wildlife while providing ecosystem services beneficial to humans.
Agricultural zoning and buffer zones: Separating intensive agriculture from wildlife habitat through land-use planning and creating buffer zones with alternative land uses reduces conflict.
Farmer support programmes: Providing resources for effective deterrents, compensation for losses, and alternative livelihood development addresses human welfare while reducing pressure for lethal control.
Population management: Where necessary, humane, science-based population management by trained professionals following international welfare standards.
Community engagement and education: Working with affected communities, incorporating traditional knowledge, and building support for coexistence through participatory programs.
Tourism development: Creating economic incentives for conservation through responsible wildlife tourism benefiting local communities.
Research and monitoring: Ongoing scientific research informing adaptive management and assessing intervention effectiveness.
Legal enforcement: Protecting wildlife habitat from encroachment and enforcing animal welfare laws.
These solutions require political will, adequate funding, institutional capacity, and sustained commitment. The current crisis demonstrates the consequences of neglecting these requirements; addressing it properly offers opportunities to build systems serving both human communities and wildlife populations for generations.
Mahatma Gandhi profoundly observed, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” These words resonate with particular force as Sri Lanka confronts the moral test posed by the current crisis.
Our response to the human-macaque conflict reveals much about our values, priorities, and capacity for compassionate problem-solving. A nation that resorts to brutal, ineffective methods despite available alternatives demonstrates not strength but moral poverty. A nation that silences scientific expertise in favour of politically expedient cruelty reveals deficits not in its wildlife but in its leadership.
Conversely, a nation that addresses this challenge with intelligence, compassion, and commitment to both human welfare and animal protection demonstrates genuine greatness. Such an approach requires courage—courage to resist simplistic solutions, to invest resources in comprehensive strategies, to admit past failures, and to commit to doing better.
The choice before us is clear: We can continue down the path of cruelty and failure, suffocating animals while solving nothing, earning international condemnation and betraying our cultural heritage. Or we can embrace the difficult, complex work of genuine solutions, science-based, humane, addressing root causes, protecting both human livelihoods and wildlife populations.
The monkeys weep not because they lack voices but because we refuse to hear. Their suffering is our creation; their salvation must be our responsibility. Let us rise to this moment, not with cages and cruelty, but with wisdom, compassion, and commitment to the shared future we must build together on this precious island we call home.
The time for action is now. Not the false action of brutal round-ups and overcrowded cages, but the real action of comprehensive reform: empowering experts, supporting farmers, protecting habitat, and embracing coexistence. Our grandchildren will judge us by what we do today and let us ensure their judgment finds us worthy.
Monkey weep not—if we, at last, find the courage to act with the wisdom and compassion this crisis demands.