I do not know how Galgamuwe Chandi earned his nickname. Maybe he was aggressive by nature or due to circumstances; a creature inclined to be playful but who was sometimes or even frequently over enthusiastic, perhaps. Who renamed him ‘Chandi,’ for he was first known as ‘Eka Danthaya’ or ‘Single Tusked One’? Is he a rogue elephant? Was he always a rogue 
elephant? Did he become a rogue elephant? Was belligerence foisted on him and if so by whom?
Rogue elephants. Academics don’t use that term these days. They talk instead of ‘problem-elephants,’ those who are ill-tempered, who destroy crops and houses almost willy-nilly, and attack and kill humans.
I don’t know Galgamuwe Chandi’s track record, but this is what Supun Lahiru Prakash had to say of him.
‘This is Galgamuwe Chandi’s final journey! The Eka Danthaya of Galgamuwa is about to undertake another fateful journey. On each of the three occasions he was captured in the Ehetuwewa area of Galgamuwa and relocated elsewhere, Chandi returned to his home. This time, slated to be relocated in the Maduru Oya National Park, the chances of Chandi not returning are extremely high.
‘In 2009 Chandi was taken to the Somawathi National Park but within 28 days he returned to his home territory having walked 243 kilometres. Twice thereafter, i.e. in 2015 and 2018, he was taken to the elephant holding ground in 
Horowpathana. He returned on both occasions.
‘He is old now. His sight is weak. Therefore his is a fateful journey undertaken not because he destroyed crops or property; he had consumed the illicit liquor of rogue brewers. This is elephant protection in Sri Lanka. It is clearly unscientific and outdated.
‘Can you and I, knowing all this, look askance and remain silent?
‘His repeated returns clearly show that there is no territory more suitable for Chandi. So let him spend his last years in the land of his birth. I appeal to those responsible that if this is not possible then place a GSP collar and keep track of his movements.’
Chandi is not an exception when it comes to the behaviour of relocated elephants. A study conducted on this issue a little over 10 years ago by Prithiviraj Fernando, Peter Leimgruber, Tharaka Prasad and Jennifer Pastoring (‘Problem-elephant translocation: translocating the problem and the elephant?’) published in the PLOS ONE journal revealed that of 12 translocated elephants monitored, two were shot dead within the parks to which they had been released while the rest had left the area, almost all of them moving towards the captured sites.
The research team, while observing that over 70% of the approximately 6,000 elephants in Sri Lanka live outside protected areas and that the human-elephant conflict (HEC) claims the lives of over 70 humans and 200 elephants annually, advocate, ‘advocate phasing out problem-elephant translocation, for which public awareness is key,’ based on findings. They recommend, in the interim, that ‘translocations should only be undertaken with monitoring through GPS-telemetry, and contingency plans to address unintended outcomes, [pointing out that] problem-elephant translocation without either amounts to reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of people and elephants.
In the long term, they say, ‘attention needs to be shifted towards preventing the genesis of ‘problem-elephants’. Such a strategy requires eliminating elephant management and crop protection methods that promote elephant aggression and increase HEC, and implementing land-use plans that minimize crop raiding.’
It is a complex problem, clearly. Translocating the problem is not a sustainable solution. Whether or not relevant decisions in this regard are informed by science is something we need to know. I shall leave all that, as any lay person should, to authorities and scientists.
My worry is that we, as humans, while being quick to pin the ‘problem’ label on elephants, are loath to turn the mirror on ourselves, our species and the problem-creatures and rogues among us. Of course we are human-centric. We don’t know the language of elephants and can’t really sit down, discuss and come to a mutually agreeable solution with them. That said, there’s nothing to stop us from acknowledging that we are an invasive and destructive species. When an elephant damages crops or a house, we use the term ‘rogue.’ However, when we invade and annex the habitats of elephants we don’t admit ‘we are bloody rogues.’ Instead we say ‘this is for development.’
There are problem elephants. There are ‘problem human beings.’ That’s a problem we need to acknowledge in the first instance. Then we can and should talk about co-existence.
Galgamuwe Chandi. Where will he be tomorrow? And the day after, will he turn back if he could? Would he be shot? He is weak, visually impaired and old. The next time we hear of him it could be about Eka Danthaya having been shot. He would most likely be moving in the direction of ‘home.’
If I find myself in a strange land, it would be in the direction of home that I would want to be walking or looking when death arrives. That much I can say. How about you?
www.malindawords.blogspot.com.
