A Bear Tale

A 20-minute reunion after a 10-day hiatus said it all. Human or animal, when it comes to emotions the spontaneous overflow is difficult to control.Ramsingh Munda, his daughter Gulki and sloth bear Rani did not want to keep their emotions under check as they repeatedly hugged, caressed and cosseted each other at the Nandankanan Zoo here on Friday. The meeting between the father-daughter with their former “pet” touched many a heart, but the exchange of love and affection was short-lived, thanks to wildlife protection laws. “I felt thrilled on meeting Rani, but after meeting her, feel depressed that I cannot take care of her and can meet her only occasionally,” said a weeping Ramsingh (45).
“How can I accept that Rani, whom I treated like my daughter, is now no longer with me? I did not know the wildlife laws when I found Rani as an abandoned cub inside the jungle 18 months ago. But now I appeal one and all not to help raise a wildlife animal. Else, they would end up behind the bars like me and their families would suffer unbearable pain,” added the illiterate tribal, even as six-year-old Gulki appeared too choked with emotions to put words to her feelings.
Rani, on her part, jumped with joy on seeing her “family members”. But, after being fed with milk and biscuits when Ramsingh and Gulki came out of her enclosure, the sloth bear seemed sobbing and looking at the twin walking away in sheer desperation. Ramsingh, who hails from Rutisila village in Ghatgaon area of Keonjhar district, invited problems for himself simply because he had raised Rani in his household. Recently, he was arrested for “illegal possession” of a sloth bear and the animal was shifted to the zoo here.
Widespread criticism subsequently led to Ramsingh getting bail and the state government announcing that it would rehabilitate him. But the case against him has upset Ramsingh. “I only fed the bear and never used it for commercial gains. Yet, I am being punished,” he said, adding, “I would be happy if I am given a job to look after Rani in Nandankanan.”

The plight of Ram Singh Munda, an Orissa villager, who was jailed for his love for an orphaned bear has moved even some wildlife activists who feel the law should be applied judiciously. However, a majority of such activists — much against public opinion — feel that the law can’t make an exception. According to Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, no one is allowed to keep a wild animal without having the permission of the chief wildlife warden. Munda had no such approval and was jailed. The bear was sent to a zoo where it refused to eat and Munda’s six-year-old daughter was sent off to a state-run boarding school. Sonya Ghosh of NGO Citizens for the Welfare and Protection of Animals feels ‘‘there is no point in applying the law in a way that’s only technically correct. There are so many dancing bears in the city who have not been rescued and deer that are kept by farmhouse owners. Poaching is rampant and nothing is being done about it. In this case, the authorites have no plans to rehabilitate the bear. All you are doing is ruining the relationship between the man and bear. Since Munda lived in a remote corner and is illiterate, he might not have known about the law and is paying a price for it.’’ Samir Sinha, head of Traffic India, WWF, says that ‘‘in a situation like this, it is up to the judiciary to interpret the law. The law should be applied consistently. While this case might be different from others, the fact remains that in such cases, close human contact with the bear can lead to problems later. Abiding by the law is, therefore, necessary.’’