Subscribe
On May 18th, at the Dubare Elephant Camp in Karnataka, a 26-year-old captive elephant, Kanjan, attacked a fellow captive elephant, 53-year-old Marthanda, during a state-promoted tourism activity. This incident resulted in the deaths of a tourist and Marthanda. This tragic incident could have been completely avoided.
The incident highlights three interconnected issues requiring the attention of the state and forest department responsible for such mishaps: the need to stop certain wildlife tourism activities, the condition of elephant camps, and the histories of these captive elephants, along with their link to human-wildlife interaction solutions practised in the state.
People from across India visit the Dubare Elephant Camp in Karnataka to experience what is sold as a “Three-hour Elephant Interaction.” This interaction (children as young as 6 allowed) can be booked for Rs 1400/- per adult on the Dubare elephant camp website, managed by Jungle Lodges (the State’s undertaking).
The website promotes the activity as: “The three-hour elephant interaction is destined to be the most unforgettable experience at Dubare camp. It kicks off with a 45-minute bath in the Cauvery, where you scrub an elephant and groom with oil from close proximity. You can also participate in feeding the elephants with ragi, jaggery, sugarcane, banana and coconuts.”
When the May 18th incident occurred, tourists were interacting closely with the elephants in the presence of mahouts. It is normal to expect that most tourists might not know about musth in elephants (a time of heightened aggression in males), the chronic stress faced by captive elephants, or that most captives were once wild. When a trusted state authority offers such experiences, many tourists believe they are safe and sometimes assume this is ethically acceptable.
Following the incident, the state forest minister announced new rules: no bathing, no feeding and no close contact with elephants. But it is important to ask why such basic safety measures were absent until tragedy struck. It should have been the norm, given the expected unpredictable responses of captive animals.
What needs to be considered is also that most captive elephants in Dubare have complex histories that add additional dimensions and challenges to their captive lives and, hence, their interactions with humans.
Most elephants at Dubare are wild individuals brought in on suspicion of involvement in human-wildlife interactions and then tamed for captivity. I say ‘suspicion’ because most captures are frequent and ad hoc. In most cases, there is no proof the elephant caused the incident before capture.
For example, elephant Kanjan was captured in Hassan in 2014 and Marthanda more recently, in 2023. To understand the transition these elephants undergo, imagine placing a wild elephant who lived 50 years in the wild and endured 3 years of rigorous taming into captivity, surrounded by hundreds of tourists and other captive elephants.
Following recent events, after Kanjan attacked Marthanda, the forest minister has directed the forest department not to use Kanjan for future Mysuru Dasara celebrations. Kanjan, like most captured elephants in Dubare, has participated in Dasara. He has been part of the festivals for the past 3 years, replacing Parthasarathy, who was also captured from Hassan in 2014.
However, Kanjan has had other confrontations with his fellow captives in the past. In 2024, he was involved in a confrontation with another Dasara elephant, Dhananjaya, in the middle of Mysuru city. Dhananjaya was one among the 22 elephants captured in the mass capture operation in Hassan in 2014-15.
These wild elephants were captured and tamed against their will to live in permanent captivity. Assuming they are not stressed or will not show unpredictable responses excuses the continuation of these practices. It is also important to note that these captures in Hassan have not reduced the intensity of human-elephant interactions in the area. Yet, the captures continue.
Even elephants born in captivity are unpredictable, as all animals are. Elephant Karthik, born in captivity to Vijaya (also captured from the wild), caused the death of two mahouts in 2017; both trainers were reportedly drunk. Instead of investigating why mahouts were often drunk while handling elephants, the forest department sought veteran mahouts to “discipline” Karthik after these incidents. He was involved in a similar interaction in 2019.
Besides these challenges, the captured elephants in Dubare also face stress from wild peers, especially those in musth, who have attacked several captive elephants over the years.
In 2023, Gopi was injured in such a confrontation. He was captured from Karekoppa in 1993. In 2010, elephants Vijaya and Lakshmana succumbed to injuries sustained in similar assaults.
In other instances, interactions between once wild and captive elephants with their wild peers have led to notable incidents. For example, Kusha, captured in 2016, escaped from the camp, apparently after interacting with a wild female elephant. He was recaptured after his second escape and, after pressure from activists, was radio-collared and translocated to Bandipur. However, Kusha travelled for a year and returned to his home area. In an article for News 18, Dubare DRFO Ranjan remarked, “He must have been searching for his caretakers all this while.” Contrary to this, Kusha returned with his own family of four.
Elephants returning to their home ground is why translocation fails. Kusha’s escape from camp twice also speaks volumes about his time there. Ironically, humans often reinterpret these tragic events to reinforce their own narratives, portraying themselves as saviours. The story of Kusha’s capture, recapture, and repeated taming is now retold as a love story in a book.
It is necessary to critically assess whether this approach provides a scientifically sound, ethical, and sustainable framework for human-elephant interactions, responsible wildlife tourism and elephant well-being. Conservation solutions aim to balance the needs of humans and wildlife, enabling them to coexist in shared landscapes and resources. But are these practices truly even-handed?
A pattern of unscientific responses to human-elephant interactions, tourism and elephant welfare is evident:
First, wild elephant capture is prioritised as one of the primary solutions to human-elephant interactions.
These elephants are then employed as foot soldiers (kumkis) in the same reactive, short-term interventions (to capture other wild elephants).
Finally, captured elephants are commodified through tourism and profit-generating activities. Some of these projects, as observed, place human lives at risk.
Such measures disregard elephants’ lived realities and experiences. This approach is exploitative and detrimental to both humans and elephants.
Critically, we also need to answer for ourselves first if tourism involving captive animals is morally acceptable.
Gana Kedlaya is an independent journalist based in Bengaluru
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth
