Thank you Ms. Malik in sending Jav to make documentary of the monkey problems faced by our society. I hope this documentary hit the right chords. more  

please read the note : A note to Sh. S. N. Sahai, Pr. Secretary (Planning), Planning Department & Sh. S. C. L. Das, Secretary Health and Family Welfare. On January 7 2015 a meeting was held by the Government of NCT Delhi, Department of Forests and Wildlife at Vikas Bhavan, IP Estate, with two senior IAS officers to review the issue of the possibility of death due to starvation due to impasse in supply of fruits and vegetables to the monkeys translocated in Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary of Delhi, and the road ahead. My understanding of the issue is that: 1. There is a claim that there are about a thousand or more monkeys missing from the Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary of Delhi. The location or condition of these allegedly dead or missing monkeys is unknown. I was called in to give my opinion on the whether I thought that these monkeys had died due to starvation, which would then be the responsibility of the government who were the caretakers in charge of providing adequate nutrition to these translocated animals. 2. There is a need to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the government body to avoid such instances in the future. Thus to manage the sanctuary in a more humane and scientific manner extensive work is needed. I have been working with monkeys as a primatologist and ethologist since 1980. With this experience, I state the following points: 1.So called deaths of monkeys at Bhatti - Behavior &Population 1. 1 Behavior: Rhesus monkeys are the most hardy and adaptable non-human primates. They are very capable of surviving without food given by man. They travel long distances in search of food or just for foraging. However, a hospitable natural environment is certainly required. This environment will then enable the monkeys to carry out their natural feeding and foraging patterns. Even in areas where humans do feed them, they are capable of surviving without man given food, if otherwise surrounded by a green and thriving natural habitat. [Malik I. and Southwick C.H. 1988. Food and activity patterns of the rhesus monkeys of Tughlaqabad. Ecology and Behavior of Food - Enhanced Primate Groups. (Ed. J.E. Fa and C.H. Southwick). Alan Liss, New York (USA), 95- 111.] 1.2 Population: The alleged reduction in numbers of rhesus monkeys in Asola Bhatti wild life sanctuary could be (i) Only a perceived notion as no scientific population study has ever been undertaken (ii) Monkeys might have migrated out [Malik I. 1986. Increased home range for a self-sustaining rhesus population at Tughlaqabad. Primate: The road to self- sustaining population (K. Benirschike). Springer - Verga Press, New York (USA), 189-195.]; (iii) Monkeys might have been used for some research [CPCSEA (committee to control and supervise experiments on animals) a government body, constituted under an act of Parliament and to sanction experiments, deem that experimental animals should be procured from a registered breeder or from alternative legal sources within the country. After the government's decision that ‘contract research’ be undertaken by registered establishments, CPCSEA decided that commensal monkeys can be used for research in its 17th meeting held in Feb. 2007.] (iv) Due to any illness or death, but this can only be determined upon the rescue of the bodies or carcasses. Here it has been pointed out that animals such as dogs or wolves will not be able to eat away, down to the bone, thousands of monkeys without trace, and certainly not in such a short span of time. 2.The way forward - problem, history, reasons for failure, the right way 2.1 The problem of accumulated negligence There has been a glaring negligence in policy development and execution, the direction and aim of the monkey welfare work, and the scientific temper adopted to formulate said policy and execute the direction. For the sake of brevity, selected examples of this are stated below: Negligence in policy since 1978: In 1978, when Sri Morarji Desai stopped the export of monkeys, was the last clear direction taken by the government. Since then, the policies have been ambiguous leaving the monkeys vulnerable to exploitation and experimentation. There is no clear regulation as to what is permissible and what is not, making it easy for many parties to take advantage of this lack of clarity in policy definition. Negligence in direction: in 1998 a plan to control the monkey menace in Delhi was initiated by MoEF. ( details later in 2.2 , 3rd para ) Negligence-non scientific temper: The Department of Environment, Delhi Government has been starting greening projects without survival strategies. It implemented a project worth Rs 1316 Lakhs on rehabilitation of 2,100 acres of Bhatti Mines area since October 2000. Project period was for 5 years at the cost of Rs.823 lakhs. It was extended for a period of 3 years with an additional outlay of Rs.493 lakhs. Up to 31st March 2006, 7.00 lakhs saplings are supposedly planted. The project was further extended for another 3 years. A second Eco Task Force was created. Thus decisions and follow ups if any have been haphazard. 2.2 History of Monkey Problem in Delhi The Delhi monkeys like their counterparts from the rest of the country were getting exported till 1978. In the year 1980, there were two thousand rhesus monkeys in Delhi, of these thirty percent were living in human habitation areas, and there were hardly any instances of monkey related problems. By 1987 the number of monkeys had gone up to four thousand, about forty percent were in human habitation areas and some problems had started. By 1997 the number had gone upto five thousand, fifty five percent were present in human habitation areas, further increasing the monkey related problems. Municipal corporations are for managing the domestic animals. They aren’t equipped and qualified for the management of wild animals. Thus MCD over the years trapped monkeys in ones and twos, haphazardly and cruelly. This led to chaotic breaking of the groups and the monkeys becoming more aggressive.[Malik I. Seth P.K. and Southwick C.H. 1985. Group fission in free-ranging rhesus monkeys of Tughlaqabad northern India. International Journal of Primatology, 4, 411-421.] In 1998 a plan to control the monkey menace in Delhi was initiated by Ministry of Environment & Forests. It was supposed to be a joint venture. MoEF was to create ‘captive housing facilities’. The New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) was to operate the facility. MCD was to capture the monkeys. My capacity was of an advisor but it turned out to be of policing, as none of them ever asked me before taking any step. MCD never got the trained trappers or organized any training session for them. . MoEF got a cage built on a barren patch of land in Rajokari which was rejected outright so NDMC never came in the picture. No change came, and the old system continued. In 2001 men who could trap big fierce looking languor's were hired on daily basis. Each languor was on 5-10 feet long leash and lived with his master in some slum. Every morning they traveled to monkey inhabited buildings of Lutyens Delhi (VIP areas) on bicycles. The languor's scared the monkeys by thumping the ground, jumping high, vocalization, and chasing the monkeys. The result was that monkeys got thinly spread-out, over the city. Deihites were suffering , monkeys were pests they wanted to get rid of. The author reacted strongly to that non-scientific and stupid method followed by the government, but of no avail. The citizens followed government’s footsteps. They asked their representatives in legislative assembly to get languor's on leashes for their colonies. Some citizens approached the courts. In response haphazard trapping and housing of the trapped monkeys in a cage in Rajokari , Delhi High Court on March 14th 2007 gave instructions to place room-sized cages strategically across the city to trap the monkeys, sterilize them and make a monkey sanctuary in Bhatti Mines. However trapping continued to be haphazard and monkeys could not be contained at Bhatti without a proper sanctuary. As the boundary was hardly a hindrance monkeys made life miserable for the villagers of the area. As the Bhatti area of the Asola Bhatti Sanctuary was neither made monkey friendly before bringing the monkeys, nor greened in patches after monkeys had been brought in , but someone opted for supplying truck-loads of food to the monkeys there. Eventually the bubble burst, monkeys died of negligence. 2.3 Reasons why the government initiatives failed The government has made some attempts in the past towards the welfare of monkeys. However, these have had significant shortcomings such as those noted below: • All government attempts were unscientific and uncoordinated. Personally, I have found that the steps taken previously were incompletely understood, and therefore insufficiently executed. • The MoEF did not succeed as a central governing body in making any reforms, as monkeys were state subject. This also disallowed monkeys to be legally translocated from less habitable regions to preferable ones. • Municipal corporations were responsible for the capture of the monkeys while the forest department for their management. This multiplicity of authority and the resultant lack of coordination between them lead to a chaotic management of monkey welfare. In fact, it is faulty to expect the MCD to manage monkeys at all since they are wild animals, and the MCD is only responsible for domesticated animals. • Bringing in the languor's is a well observed error, as it had led to dispersing of the monkeys all over the city. • Never mapping the forests of the country to know which ones are the monkey friendly ones. • Handing over the monkeys for contract research without any data being kept or any system being followed to maintain a log of the influx and efflux of the population. Working without long term planning to find quick solutions is an inefficient way to manage monkeys, which inevitably creates more problems than solving them. 2.4 The Right Way The appropriate and humane care of monkeys is an easily attainable goal for our government, if the right steps are taken. Some suggestions towards this goal are noted below: • It is necessary to map the country's forests to know which ones can provide adequate shelter, food & water, and to how many monkeys. Current forest statistics can be of help to infer which would be ideal habitats for the monkeys. • Monkeys should be captured using walk-in cages, nets and tranquilizer guns/ darts with tranquilizers like Tylenol PM / Ketamine hydrochloride / Brimondine tartrate - 20 to 40 mg by monkey weight in kilograms. • Monkeys must be routinely tested for any diseases, treated appropriately (and quarantined if necessary), and subsequently sterilized before their release in to the monkey sanctuary. They should also be routinely vaccinated and medicated for common infections and worms. Quarantine and health screening, sterilization protocol for each animal must be maintained. • Based on my years of experience combined with scientific evidence, the monkey sanctuary should be a big green open space with 95% wilderness, enriched with a recommended minimum of 100 species of plants, which, for monkeys, is essential in arid climates like Delhi. • The remaining 5% should comprise urban construction in an eco-friendly and sustainable manner. These would become the quarantine and health centers, offices, etc. • To be a sanctuary in the truest sense, it is our duty to protect animals of all hierarchies in the monkey social order. While they also do this in their natural way, it is recommended that as the body responsible to provide sanctuary, we develop overhead runs and other such structures to encourage safety across the social order. • Crush cages should be placed at strategic points for humane capturing of the monkeys as and when needed. • It is recommended to entrust the Forest Department with the complete management and care of monkeys. While these are the overarching tenets for the welfare of monkeys, it must be kept in mind that management tools should be changed according to the number of monkeys, condition of the habitat, number of attempts made to trap them and the availability of forests. Additional Information The areas of research on monkeys are fundamental research, infectious diseases testing & monitoring, vaccine research and reproductive research. The prominent centers of primate research in India are: - Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow - AIIMS, Delhi - Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore - National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi - National Institute of Virology, Pune - National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad - Institute for Research on Reproduction, Mumbai. Recommended trees Common and botanical names of the trees recommended for the monkey sanctuary at Bhatti (or other arid habitats) are: ashok—polyalthia longifolia, banyan—ficus benghalensis, goolar—ficus racemosa, nandan—ficus microcarpa, pilkhan—ficus virens, peepal—ficus religiosa, dhau—-anogeissus pendula, khair—acacia catechu, phulai—acacia modesta, ronjh—acacia leucophloea, babool—acacia nilotica, seemal—bombax ceiba, kaniar—bauhinia purpurea, kachnar—bauhinia variegate, dhak—butea monosperma ,hingot—balanites roxburghii, peelu—salvadora persica, kareel—capparis decidua
kala, siris—albizia odoratissima, salai—boswellia serzata, kamani—murraya paniculata, imli—tamarindus indica, sheesham—dalbergia sissoo, junglejalebi—pithecellobium dulce,kosam—schleichera oleosa, khirni—manilkara hexandra, putranjiva— drypetes roxburghii, bistendu—diospyros cordifolia, chamrod—ehretia laevis, amaltas—cassia fistula ,
gondi— cordia gharaf, kaim—mitragyna parviflora, kankera—maytenus senegalensis, gamhar—gmelina arborea, mahua—-madhuca longifolia, wild almond—sterculia foetida, amla—phyllanthus emblica,ber,
sonjna—movinga oleifera, bakain—melia azedarach, saptaparni—alstonia scholaris, kopak—ceiba pentandra, barna—crataeva adansonii, peeli kaner—thevetia peruviana Recommended plants Common and botanical names of plants [shrubs, herbs, and ground cover] for the Monkey Sanctuary at Bhatti are: bansa—adhotoda vasica
kala , bans—rungia repens , tulsi—orthosiphon pallidus, jhojru—indigofera trita/hirusuta, jhajaru—tephrosia villosa/purpurea , ghochi—arbus precatorius, karench—mucuna prurita, jangli torae—melothria maderaspatana, murella—trichosanthes cucumerina, kheea—citrullus colocynthis
jangli, ghobi—youngia japonica, ketree—sonchus arvensis,vernonia cinerea carthamus, oxyacantha cirsium arvense,siz—euphorbia neriifolia, indrajali—lolium temulentum, piyazee—asphodelus tenuifolius, burbunda—oxystelma secamone, motha—cyperus alopercuroides/triceps, kher—capparis decidua/ sepiaria, hulhul—cleome gynandra, patwar—cleome viscosa/brachycarpa alhagi pseudalhagi, saem—rhynchosis minima/ capitata pavonia zeylanica , ronpheri—corchorus depressus, kankova—corchorus olitorius/trilocularis, pilu—salvadora persica, 
shanti ka sag—ranunculus sceleratus, phool mata—cissampelous pareira, seedha—sida rhombifolia, ghobi phul—oxalis martiana, jawasa—fagonia cretica, jayee—avena sterilius,chrysopogon fulvus, iseilema laxum
sarph, gandh—rauvolfina serpentine, gulabo—calotropis procera
ghia, bato—ipomoea sindica/arachnosperma, kathri—solanum surattense/indicum, godni—sporobolus marginatus
nagad ,bavdi—ocimum americanum ,
shanti ka sag—poa annua
teel—sesamum indicum ,
chota sama—paspalidum flavidum, ghokru—pedalium murex
jangli, sem—acrachne racemosa ,ronpheri—corchorus depressus, kankova—corchorus olitorius/trilocularis, pilu—salvadora persica
, shanti ka sag—ranunculus sceleratus, phool mata—cissampelous pareira, ghokru—pedalium murex
jangli, sem—acrachne racemosa ,
chidiya ki joothi—hibiscus i am making this document public in the interest of public fed-up of monkey menace, and not being informed the need of the time. A note to Sh. S. N. Sahai, Pr. Secretary (Planning), Planning Department & Sh. S. C. L. Das, Secretary Health and Family Welfare. On January 7 2015 a meeting was held by the Government of NCT Delhi, Department of Forests and Wildlife at Vikas Bhavan, IP Estate, with two senior IAS officers to review the issue of the possibility of death due to starvation due to impasse in supply of fruits and vegetables to the monkeys translocated in Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary of Delhi, and the road ahead. My understanding of the issue is that: 1. There is a claim that there are about a thousand or more monkeys missing from the Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary of Delhi. The location or condition of these allegedly dead or missing monkeys is unknown. I was called in to give my opinion on the whether I thought that these monkeys had died due to starvation, which would then be the responsibility of the government who were the caretakers in charge of providing adequate nutrition to these translocated animals. 2. There is a need to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the government body to avoid such instances in the future. Thus to manage the sanctuary in a more humane and scientific manner extensive work is needed. I have been working with monkeys as a primatologist and ethologist since 1980. With this experience, I state the following points: 1.So called deaths of monkeys at Bhatti - Behavior &Population 1. 1 Behavior: Rhesus monkeys are the most hardy and adaptable non-human primates. They are very capable of surviving without food given by man. They travel long distances in search of food or just for foraging. However, a hospitable natural environment is certainly required. This environment will then enable the monkeys to carry out their natural feeding and foraging patterns. Even in areas where humans do feed them, they are capable of surviving without man given food, if otherwise surrounded by a green and thriving natural habitat. [Malik I. and Southwick C.H. 1988. Food and activity patterns of the rhesus monkeys of Tughlaqabad. Ecology and Behavior of Food - Enhanced Primate Groups. (Ed. J.E. Fa and C.H. Southwick). Alan Liss, New York (USA), 95- 111.] 1.2 Population: The alleged reduction in numbers of rhesus monkeys in Asola Bhatti wild life sanctuary could be (i) Only a perceived notion as no scientific population study has ever been undertaken (ii) Monkeys might have migrated out [Malik I. 1986. Increased home range for a self-sustaining rhesus population at Tughlaqabad. Primate: The road to self- sustaining population (K. Benirschike). Springer - Verga Press, New York (USA), 189-195.]; (iii) Monkeys might have been used for some research [CPCSEA (committee to control and supervise experiments on animals) a government body, constituted under an act of Parliament and to sanction experiments, deem that experimental animals should be procured from a registered breeder or from alternative legal sources within the country. After the government's decision that ‘contract research’ be undertaken by registered establishments, CPCSEA decided that commensal monkeys can be used for research in its 17th meeting held in Feb. 2007.] (iv) Due to any illness or death, but this can only be determined upon the rescue of the bodies or carcasses. Here it has been pointed out that animals such as dogs or wolves will not be able to eat away, down to the bone, thousands of monkeys without trace, and certainly not in such a short span of time. 2.The way forward - problem, history, reasons for failure, the right way 2.1 The problem of accumulated negligence There has been a glaring negligence in policy development and execution, the direction and aim of the monkey welfare work, and the scientific temper adopted to formulate said policy and execute the direction. For the sake of brevity, selected examples of this are stated below: Negligence in policy since 1978: In 1978, when Sri Morarji Desai stopped the export of monkeys, was the last clear direction taken by the government. Since then, the policies have been ambiguous leaving the monkeys vulnerable to exploitation and experimentation. There is no clear regulation as to what is permissible and what is not, making it easy for many parties to take advantage of this lack of clarity in policy definition. Negligence in direction: in 1998 a plan to control the monkey menace in Delhi was initiated by MoEF. ( details later in 2.2 , 3rd para ) Negligence-non scientific temper: The Department of Environment, Delhi Government has been starting greening projects without survival strategies. It implemented a project worth Rs 1316 Lakhs on rehabilitation of 2,100 acres of Bhatti Mines area since October 2000. Project period was for 5 years at the cost of Rs.823 lakhs. It was extended for a period of 3 years with an additional outlay of Rs.493 lakhs. Up to 31st March 2006, 7.00 lakhs saplings are supposedly planted. The project was further extended for another 3 years. A second Eco Task Force was created. Thus decisions and follow ups if any have been haphazard. 2.2 History of Monkey Problem in Delhi The Delhi monkeys like their counterparts from the rest of the country were getting exported till 1978. In the year 1980, there were two thousand rhesus monkeys in Delhi, of these thirty percent were living in human habitation areas, and there were hardly any instances of monkey related problems. By 1987 the number of monkeys had gone up to four thousand, about forty percent were in human habitation areas and some problems had started. By 1997 the number had gone upto five thousand, fifty five percent were present in human habitation areas, further increasing the monkey related problems. Municipal corporations are for managing the domestic animals. They aren’t equipped and qualified for the management of wild animals. Thus MCD over the years trapped monkeys in ones and twos, haphazardly and cruelly. This led to chaotic breaking of the groups and the monkeys becoming more aggressive.[Malik I. Seth P.K. and Southwick C.H. 1985. Group fission in free-ranging rhesus monkeys of Tughlaqabad northern India. International Journal of Primatology, 4, 411-421.] In 1998 a plan to control the monkey menace in Delhi was initiated by Ministry of Environment & Forests. It was supposed to be a joint venture. MoEF was to create ‘captive housing facilities’. The New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) was to operate the facility. MCD was to capture the monkeys. My capacity was of an advisor but it turned out to be of policing, as none of them ever asked me before taking any step. MCD never got the trained trappers or organized any training session for them. . MoEF got a cage built on a barren patch of land in Rajokari which was rejected outright so NDMC never came in the picture. No change came, and the old system continued. In 2001 men who could trap big fierce looking languor's were hired on daily basis. Each languor was on 5-10 feet long leash and lived with his master in some slum. Every morning they traveled to monkey inhabited buildings of Lutyens Delhi (VIP areas) on bicycles. The languor's scared the monkeys by thumping the ground, jumping high, vocalization, and chasing the monkeys. The result was that monkeys got thinly spread-out, over the city. Deihites were suffering , monkeys were pests they wanted to get rid of. The author reacted strongly to that non-scientific and stupid method followed by the government, but of no avail. The citizens followed government’s footsteps. They asked their representatives in legislative assembly to get languor's on leashes for their colonies. Some citizens approached the courts. In response haphazard trapping and housing of the trapped monkeys in a cage in Rajokari , Delhi High Court on March 14th 2007 gave instructions to place room-sized cages strategically across the city to trap the monkeys, sterilize them and make a monkey sanctuary in Bhatti Mines. However trapping continued to be haphazard and monkeys could not be contained at Bhatti without a proper sanctuary. As the boundary was hardly a hindrance monkeys made life miserable for the villagers of the area. As the Bhatti area of the Asola Bhatti Sanctuary was neither made monkey friendly before bringing the monkeys, nor greened in patches after monkeys had been brought in , but someone opted for supplying truck-loads of food to the monkeys there. Eventually the bubble burst, monkeys died of negligence. 2.3 Reasons why the government initiatives failed The government has made some attempts in the past towards the welfare of monkeys. However, these have had significant shortcomings such as those noted below: • All government attempts were unscientific and uncoordinated. Personally, I have found that the steps taken previously were incompletely understood, and therefore insufficiently executed. • The MoEF did not succeed as a central governing body in making any reforms, as monkeys were state subject. This also disallowed monkeys to be legally translocated from less habitable regions to preferable ones. • Municipal corporations were responsible for the capture of the monkeys while the forest department for their management. This multiplicity of authority and the resultant lack of coordination between them lead to a chaotic management of monkey welfare. In fact, it is faulty to expect the MCD to manage monkeys at all since they are wild animals, and the MCD is only responsible for domesticated animals. • Bringing in the languor's is a well observed error, as it had led to dispersing of the monkeys all over the city. • Never mapping the forests of the country to know which ones are the monkey friendly ones. • Handing over the monkeys for contract research without any data being kept or any system being followed to maintain a log of the influx and efflux of the population. Working without long term planning to find quick solutions is an inefficient way to manage monkeys, which inevitably creates more problems than solving them. 2.4 The Right Way The appropriate and humane care of monkeys is an easily attainable goal for our government, if the right steps are taken. Some suggestions towards this goal are noted below: • It is necessary to map the country's forests to know which ones can provide adequate shelter, food & water, and to how many monkeys. Current forest statistics can be of help to infer which would be ideal habitats for the monkeys. • Monkeys should be captured using walk-in cages, nets and tranquilizer guns/ darts with tranquilizers like Tylenol PM / Ketamine hydrochloride / Brimondine tartrate - 20 to 40 mg by monkey weight in kilograms. • Monkeys must be routinely tested for any diseases, treated appropriately (and quarantined if necessary), and subsequently sterilized before their release in to the monkey sanctuary. They should also be routinely vaccinated and medicated for common infections and worms. Quarantine and health screening, sterilization protocol for each animal must be maintained. • Based on my years of experience combined with scientific evidence, the monkey sanctuary should be a big green open space with 95% wilderness, enriched with a recommended minimum of 100 species of plants, which, for monkeys, is essential in arid climates like Delhi. • The remaining 5% should comprise urban construction in an eco-friendly and sustainable manner. These would become the quarantine and health centers, offices, etc. • To be a sanctuary in the truest sense, it is our duty to protect animals of all hierarchies in the monkey social order. While they also do this in their natural way, it is recommended that as the body responsible to provide sanctuary, we develop overhead runs and other such structures to encourage safety across the social order. • Crush cages should be placed at strategic points for humane capturing of the monkeys as and when needed. • It is recommended to entrust the Forest Department with the complete management and care of monkeys. While these are the overarching tenets for the welfare of monkeys, it must be kept in mind that management tools should be changed according to the number of monkeys, condition of the habitat, number of attempts made to trap them and the availability of forests. Additional Information The areas of research on monkeys are fundamental research, infectious diseases testing & monitoring, vaccine research and reproductive research. The prominent centers of primate research in India are: - Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow - AIIMS, Delhi - Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore - National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi - National Institute of Virology, Pune - National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad - Institute for Research on Reproduction, Mumbai. Recommended trees Common and botanical names of the trees recommended for the monkey sanctuary at Bhatti (or other arid habitats) are: ashok—polyalthia longifolia, banyan—ficus benghalensis, goolar—ficus racemosa, nandan—ficus microcarpa, pilkhan—ficus virens, peepal—ficus religiosa, dhau—-anogeissus pendula, khair—acacia catechu, phulai—acacia modesta, ronjh—acacia leucophloea, babool—acacia nilotica, seemal—bombax ceiba, kaniar—bauhinia purpurea, kachnar—bauhinia variegate, dhak—butea monosperma ,hingot—balanites roxburghii, peelu—salvadora persica, kareel—capparis decidua
kala, siris—albizia odoratissima, salai—boswellia serzata, kamani—murraya paniculata, imli—tamarindus indica, sheesham—dalbergia sissoo, junglejalebi—pithecellobium dulce,kosam—schleichera oleosa, khirni—manilkara hexandra, putranjiva— drypetes roxburghii, bistendu—diospyros cordifolia, chamrod—ehretia laevis, amaltas—cassia fistula ,
gondi— cordia gharaf, kaim—mitragyna parviflora, kankera—maytenus senegalensis, gamhar—gmelina arborea, mahua—-madhuca longifolia, wild almond—sterculia foetida, amla—phyllanthus emblica,ber,
sonjna—movinga oleifera, bakain—melia azedarach, saptaparni—alstonia scholaris, kopak—ceiba pentandra, barna—crataeva adansonii, peeli kaner—thevetia peruviana Recommended plants Common and botanical names of plants [shrubs, herbs, and ground cover] for the Monkey Sanctuary at Bhatti are: bansa—adhotoda vasica
kala , bans—rungia repens , tulsi—orthosiphon pallidus, jhojru—indigofera trita/hirusuta, jhajaru—tephrosia villosa/purpurea , ghochi—arbus precatorius, karench—mucuna prurita, jangli torae—melothria maderaspatana, murella—trichosanthes cucumerina, kheea—citrullus colocynthis
jangli, ghobi—youngia japonica, ketree—sonchus arvensis,vernonia cinerea carthamus, oxyacantha cirsium arvense,siz—euphorbia neriifolia, indrajali—lolium temulentum, piyazee—asphodelus tenuifolius, burbunda—oxystelma secamone, motha—cyperus alopercuroides/triceps, kher—capparis decidua/ sepiaria, hulhul—cleome gynandra, patwar—cleome viscosa/brachycarpa alhagi pseudalhagi, saem—rhynchosis minima/ capitata pavonia zeylanica , ronpheri—corchorus depressus, kankova—corchorus olitorius/trilocularis, pilu—salvadora persica, 
shanti ka sag—ranunculus sceleratus, phool mata—cissampelous pareira, seedha—sida rhombifolia, ghobi phul—oxalis martiana, jawasa—fagonia cretica, jayee—avena sterilius,chrysopogon fulvus, iseilema laxum
sarph, gandh—rauvolfina serpentine, gulabo—calotropis procera
ghia, bato—ipomoea sindica/arachnosperma, kathri—solanum surattense/indicum, godni—sporobolus marginatus
nagad ,bavdi—ocimum americanum ,
shanti ka sag—poa annua
teel—sesamum indicum ,
chota sama—paspalidum flavidum, ghokru—pedalium murex
jangli, sem—acrachne racemosa ,ronpheri—corchorus depressus, kankova—corchorus olitorius/trilocularis, pilu—salvadora persica
, shanti ka sag—ranunculus sceleratus, phool mata—cissampelous pareira, ghokru—pedalium murex
jangli, sem—acrachne racemosa ,
chidiya ki joothi—hibiscus micranthus Dr. Ms. Iqbal Malik Ecologist , Ethologist & Primotologist Founder & Director VATAVARAN www.vatavaran.org There has been a glaring negligence in policy development and execution, the direction and aim of the monkey welfare work, and the scientific temper adopted to formulate said policy and execute the direction. For the sake of brevity, selected examples of this are stated below: Negligence in policy since 1978: In 1978, when Sri Morarji Desai stopped the export of monkeys, was the last clear direction taken by the government. Since then, the policies have been ambiguous leaving the monkeys vulnerable to exploitation and experimentation. There is no clear regulation as to what is permissible and what is not, making it easy for many parties to take advantage of this lack of clarity in policy definition. Negligence in direction: in 1998 a plan to control the monkey menace in Delhi was initiated by MoEF. ( details later in 2.2 , 3rd para ) Negligence-non scientific temper: The Department of Environment, Delhi Government has been starting greening projects without survival strategies. It implemented a project worth Rs 1316 Lakhs on rehabilitation of 2,100 acres of Bhatti Mines area since October 2000. Project period was for 5 years at the cost of Rs.823 lakhs. It was extended for a period of 3 years with an additional outlay of Rs.493 lakhs. Up to 31st March 2006, 7.00 lakhs saplings are supposedly planted. The project was further extended for another 3 years. A second Eco Task Force was created. Thus decisions and follow ups if any have been haphazard. 2.2 History of Monkey Problem in Delhi The Delhi monkeys like their counterparts from the rest of the country were getting exported till 1978. In the year 1980, there were two thousand rhesus monkeys in Delhi, of these thirty percent were living in human habitation areas, and there were hardly any instances of monkey related problems. By 1987 the number of monkeys had gone up to four thousand, about forty percent were in human habitation areas and some problems had started. By 1997 the number had gone upto five thousand, fifty five percent were present in human habitation areas, further increasing the monkey related problems. Municipal corporations are for managing the domestic animals. They aren’t equipped and qualified for the management of wild animals. Thus MCD over the years trapped monkeys in ones and twos, haphazardly and cruelly. This led to chaotic breaking of the groups and the monkeys becoming more aggressive.[Malik I. Seth P.K. and Southwick C.H. 1985. Group fission in free-ranging rhesus monkeys of Tughlaqabad northern India. International Journal of Primatology, 4, 411-421.] In 1998 a plan to control the monkey menace in Delhi was initiated by Ministry of Environment & Forests. It was supposed to be a joint venture. MoEF was to create ‘captive housing facilities’. The New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) was to operate the facility. MCD was to capture the monkeys. My capacity was of an advisor but it turned out to be of policing, as none of them ever asked me before taking any step. MCD never got the trained trappers or organized any training session for them. . MoEF got a cage built on a barren patch of land in Rajokari which was rejected outright so NDMC never came in the picture. No change came, and the old system continued. In 2001 men who could trap big fierce looking languor's were hired on daily basis. Each languor was on 5-10 feet long leash and lived with his master in some slum. Every morning they traveled to monkey inhabited buildings of Lutyens Delhi (VIP areas) on bicycles. The languor's scared the monkeys by thumping the ground, jumping high, vocalization, and chasing the monkeys. The result was that monkeys got thinly spread-out, over the city. Deihites were suffering , monkeys were pests they wanted to get rid of. The author reacted strongly to that non-scientific and stupid method followed by the government, but of no avail. The citizens followed government’s footsteps. They asked their representatives in legislative assembly to get languor's on leashes for their colonies. Some citizens approached the courts. In response haphazard trapping and housing of the trapped monkeys in a cage in Rajokari , Delhi High Court on March 14th 2007 gave instructions to place room-sized cages strategically across the city to trap the monkeys, sterilize them and make a monkey sanctuary in Bhatti Mines. However trapping continued to be haphazard and monkeys could not be contained at Bhatti without a proper sanctuary. As the boundary was hardly a hindrance monkeys made life miserable for the villagers of the area. As the Bhatti area of the Asola Bhatti Sanctuary was neither made monkey friendly before bringing the monkeys, nor greened in patches after monkeys had been brought in , but someone opted for supplying truck-loads of food to the monkeys there. Eventually the bubble burst, monkeys died of negligence. 2.3 Reasons why the government initiatives failed The government has made some attempts in the past towards the welfare of monkeys. However, these have had significant shortcomings such as those noted below: • All government attempts were unscientific and uncoordinated. Personally, I have found that the steps taken previously were incompletely understood, and therefore insufficiently executed. • The MoEF did not succeed as a central governing body in making any reforms, as monkeys were state subject. This also disallowed monkeys to be legally translocated from less habitable regions to preferable ones. • Municipal corporations were responsible for the capture of the monkeys while the forest department for their management. This multiplicity of authority and the resultant lack of coordination between them lead to a chaotic management of monkey welfare. In fact, it is faulty to expect the MCD to manage monkeys at all since they are wild animals, and the MCD is only responsible for domesticated animals. • Bringing in the languor's is a well observed error, as it had led to dispersing of the monkeys all over the city. • Never mapping the forests of the country to know which ones are the monkey friendly ones. • Handing over the monkeys for contract research without any data being kept or any system being followed to maintain a log of the influx and efflux of the population. Working without long term planning to find quick solutions is an inefficient way to manage monkeys, which inevitably creates more problems than solving them. 2.4 The Right Way The appropriate and humane care of monkeys is an easily attainable goal for our government, if the right steps are taken. Some suggestions towards this goal are noted below: • It is necessary to map the country's forests to know which ones can provide adequate shelter, food & water, and to how many monkeys. Current forest statistics can be of help to infer which would be ideal habitats for the monkeys. • Monkeys should be captured using walk-in cages, nets and tranquilizer guns/ darts with tranquilizers like Tylenol PM / Ketamine hydrochloride / Brimondine tartrate - 20 to 40 mg by monkey weight in kilograms. • Monkeys must be routinely tested for any diseases, treated appropriately (and quarantined if necessary), and subsequently sterilized before their release in to the monkey sanctuary. They should also be routinely vaccinated and medicated for common infections and worms. Quarantine and health screening, sterilization protocol for each animal must be maintained. • Based on my years of experience combined with scientific evidence, the monkey sanctuary should be a big green open space with 95% wilderness, enriched with a recommended minimum of 100 species of plants, which, for monkeys, is essential in arid climates like Delhi. • The remaining 5% should comprise urban construction in an eco-friendly and sustainable manner. These would become the quarantine and health centers, offices, etc. • To be a sanctuary in the truest sense, it is our duty to protect animals of all hierarchies in the monkey social order. While they also do this in their natural way, it is recommended that as the body responsible to provide sanctuary, we develop overhead runs and other such structures to encourage safety across the social order. • Crush cages should be placed at strategic points for humane capturing of the monkeys as and when needed. • It is recommended to entrust the Forest Department with the complete management and care of monkeys. While these are the overarching tenets for the welfare of monkeys, it must be kept in mind that management tools should be changed according to the number of monkeys, condition of the habitat, number of attempts made to trap them and the availability of forests. Additional Information The areas of research on monkeys are fundamental research, infectious diseases testing & monitoring, vaccine research and reproductive research. The prominent centers of primate research in India are: - Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow - AIIMS, Delhi - Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore - National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi - National Institute of Virology, Pune - National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad - Institute for Research on Reproduction, Mumbai. Recommended trees Common and botanical names of the trees recommended for the monkey sanctuary at Bhatti (or other arid habitats) are: ashok—polyalthia longifolia, banyan—ficus benghalensis, goolar—ficus racemosa, nandan—ficus microcarpa, pilkhan—ficus virens, peepal—ficus religiosa, dhau—-anogeissus pendula, khair—acacia catechu, phulai—acacia modesta, ronjh—acacia leucophloea, babool—acacia nilotica, seemal—bombax ceiba, kaniar—bauhinia purpurea, kachnar—bauhinia variegate, dhak—butea monosperma ,hingot—balanites roxburghii, peelu—salvadora persica, kareel—capparis decidua
kala, siris—albizia odoratissima, salai—boswellia serzata, kamani—murraya paniculata, imli—tamarindus indica, sheesham—dalbergia sissoo, junglejalebi—pithecellobium dulce,kosam—schleichera oleosa, khirni—manilkara hexandra, putranjiva— drypetes roxburghii, bistendu—diospyros cordifolia, chamrod—ehretia laevis, amaltas—cassia fistula ,
gondi— cordia gharaf, kaim—mitragyna parviflora, kankera—maytenus senegalensis, gamhar—gmelina arborea, mahua—-madhuca longifolia, wild almond—sterculia foetida, amla—phyllanthus emblica,ber,
sonjna—movinga oleifera, bakain—melia azedarach, saptaparni—alstonia scholaris, kopak—ceiba pentandra, barna—crataeva adansonii, peeli kaner—thevetia peruviana ylanica , ronpheri—corchorus depressus, kankova—corchorus olitorius/trilocularis, pilu—salvadora persica, 
shanti ka sag—ranunculus sceleratus, phool mata—cissampelous pareira, seedha—sida rhombifolia, ghobi phul—oxalis martiana, jawasa—fagonia cretica, jayee—avena sterilius,chrysopogon fulvus, iseilema laxum
sarph, gandh—rauvolfina serpentine, gulabo—calotropis procera
ghia, bato—ipomoea sindica/arachnosperma, kathri—solanum surattense/indicum, godni—sporobolus marginatus
nagad ,bavdi—ocimum americanum ,
shanti ka sag—poa annua
teel—sesamum indicum ,
chota sama—paspalidum flavidum, ghokru—pedalium murex
jangli, sem—acrachne racemosa ,ronpheri—corchorus depressus, kankova—corchorus Dr. Ms. Iqbal Malik Ecologist , Ethologist & Primotologist Founder & Director VATAVARAN www.vatavaran.org A note to Sh. S. N. Sahai, Pr. Secretary (Planning), Planning Department & Sh. S. C. L. Das, Secretary Health and Family Welfare. On January 7 2015 a meeting was held by the Government of NCT Delhi, Department of Forests and Wildlife at Vikas Bhavan, IP Estate, with two senior IAS officers to review the issue of the possibility of death due to starvation due to impasse in supply of fruits and vegetables to the monkeys translocated in Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary of Delhi, and the road ahead. My understanding of the issue is that: 1. There is a claim that there are about a thousand or more monkeys missing from the Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary of Delhi. The location or condition of these allegedly dead or missing monkeys is unknown. I was called in to give my opinion on the whether I thought that these monkeys had died due to starvation, which would then be the responsibility of the government who were the caretakers in charge of providing adequate nutrition to these translocated animals. 2. There is a need to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the government body to avoid such instances in the future. Thus to manage the sanctuary in a more humane and scientific manner extensive work is needed. I have been working with monkeys as a primatologist and ethologist since 1980. With this experience, I state the following points: 1.So called deaths of monkeys at Bhatti - Behavior &Population 1. 1 Behavior: Rhesus monkeys are the most hardy and adaptable non-human primates. They are very capable of surviving without food given by man. They travel long distances in search of food or just for foraging. However, a hospitable natural environment is certainly required. This environment will then enable the monkeys to carry out their natural feeding and foraging patterns. Even in areas where humans do feed them, they are capable of surviving without man given food, if otherwise surrounded by a green and thriving natural habitat. [Malik I. and Southwick C.H. 1988. Food and activity patterns of the rhesus monkeys of Tughlaqabad. Ecology and Behavior of Food - Enhanced Primate Groups. (Ed. J.E. Fa and C.H. Southwick). Alan Liss, New York (USA), 95- 111.] 1.2 Population: The alleged reduction in numbers of rhesus monkeys in Asola Bhatti wild life sanctuary could be (i) Only a perceived notion as no scientific population study has ever been undertaken (ii) Monkeys might have migrated out [Malik I. 1986. Increased home range for a self-sustaining rhesus population at Tughlaqabad. Primate: The road to self- sustaining population (K. Benirschike). Springer - Verga Press, New York (USA), 189-195.]; (iii) Monkeys might have been used for some research [CPCSEA (committee to control and supervise experiments on animals) a government body, constituted under an act of Parliament and to sanction experiments, deem that experimental animals should be procured from a registered breeder or from alternative legal sources within the country. After the government's decision that ‘contract research’ be undertaken by registered establishments, CPCSEA decided that commensal monkeys can be used for research in its 17th meeting held in Feb. 2007.] (iv) Due to any illness or death, but this can only be determined upon the rescue of the bodies or carcasses. Here it has been pointed out that animals such as dogs or wolves will not be able to eat away, down to the bone, thousands of monkeys without trace, and certainly not in such a short span of time. 2.The way forward - problem, history, reasons for failure, the right way 2.1 The problem of accumulated negligence There has been a glaring negligence in policy development and execution, the direction and aim of the monkey welfare work, and the scientific temper adopted to formulate said policy and execute the direction. For the sake of brevity, selected examples of this are stated below: Negligence in policy since 1978: In 1978, when Sri Morarji Desai stopped the export of monkeys, was the last clear direction taken by the government. Since then, the policies have been ambiguous leaving the monkeys vulnerable to exploitation and experimentation. There is no clear regulation as to what is permissible and what is not, making it easy for many parties to take advantage of this lack of clarity in policy definition. Negligence in direction: in 1998 a plan to control the monkey menace in Delhi was initiated by MoEF. ( details later in 2.2 , 3rd para ) Negligence-non scientific temper: The Department of Environment, Delhi Government has been starting greening projects without survival strategies. It implemented a project worth Rs 1316 Lakhs on rehabilitation of 2,100 acres of Bhatti Mines area since October 2000. Project period was for 5 years at the cost of Rs.823 lakhs. It was extended for a period of 3 years with an additional outlay of Rs.493 lakhs. Up to 31st March 2006, 7.00 lakhs saplings are supposedly planted. The project was further extended for another 3 years. A second Eco Task Force was created. Thus decisions and follow ups if any have been haphazard. 2.2 History of Monkey Problem in Delhi The Delhi monkeys like their counterparts from the rest of the country were getting exported till 1978. In the year 1980, there were two thousand rhesus monkeys in Delhi, of these thirty percent were living in human habitation areas, and there were hardly any instances of monkey related problems. By 1987 the number of monkeys had gone up to four thousand, about forty percent were in human habitation areas and some problems had started. By 1997 the number had gone upto five thousand, fifty five percent were present in human habitation areas, further increasing the monkey related problems. Municipal corporations are for managing the domestic animals. They aren’t equipped and qualified for the management of wild animals. Thus MCD over the years trapped monkeys in ones and twos, haphazardly and cruelly. This led to chaotic breaking of the groups and the monkeys becoming more aggressive.[Malik I. Seth P.K. and Southwick C.H. 1985. Group fission in free-ranging rhesus monkeys of Tughlaqabad northern India. International Journal of Primatology, 4, 411-421.] In 1998 a plan to control the monkey menace in Delhi was initiated by Ministry of Environment & Forests. It was supposed to be a joint venture. MoEF was to create ‘captive housing facilities’. The New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) was to operate the facility. MCD was to capture the monkeys. My capacity was of an advisor but it turned out to be of policing, as none of them ever asked me before taking any step. MCD never got the trained trappers or organized any training session for them. . MoEF got a cage built on a barren patch of land in Rajokari which was rejected outright so NDMC never came in the picture. No change came, and the old system continued. In 2001 men who could trap big fierce looking languor's were hired on daily basis. Each languor was on 5-10 feet long leash and lived with his master in some slum. Every morning they traveled to monkey inhabited buildings of Lutyens Delhi (VIP areas) on bicycles. The languor's scared the monkeys by thumping the ground, jumping high, vocalization, and chasing the monkeys. The result was that monkeys got thinly spread-out, over the city. Deihites were suffering , monkeys were pests they wanted to get rid of. The author reacted strongly to that non-scientific and stupid method followed by the government, but of no avail. The citizens followed government’s footsteps. They asked their representatives in legislative assembly to get languor's on leashes for their colonies. Some citizens approached the courts. In response haphazard trapping and housing of the trapped monkeys in a cage in Rajokari , Delhi High Court on March 14th 2007 gave instructions to place room-sized cages strategically across the city to trap the monkeys, sterilize them and make a monkey sanctuary in Bhatti Mines. However trapping continued to be haphazard and monkeys could not be contained at Bhatti without a proper sanctuary. As the boundary was hardly a hindrance monkeys made life miserable for the villagers of the area. As the Bhatti area of the Asola Bhatti Sanctuary was neither made monkey friendly before bringing the monkeys, nor greened in patches after monkeys had been brought in , but someone opted for supplying truck-loads of food to the monkeys there. Eventually the bubble burst, monkeys died of negligence. 2.3 Reasons why the government initiatives failed The government has made some attempts in the past towards the welfare of monkeys. However, these have had significant shortcomings such as those noted below: • All government attempts were unscientific and uncoordinated. Personally, I have found that the steps taken previously were incompletely understood, and therefore insufficiently executed. • The MoEF did not succeed as a central governing body in making any reforms, as monkeys were state subject. This also disallowed monkeys to be legally translocated from less habitable regions to preferable ones. • Municipal corporations were responsible for the capture of the monkeys while the forest department for their management. This multiplicity of authority and the resultant lack of coordination between them lead to a chaotic management of monkey welfare. In fact, it is faulty to expect the MCD to manage monkeys at all since they are wild animals, and the MCD is only responsible for domesticated animals. • Bringing in the languor's is a well observed error, as it had led to dispersing of the monkeys all over the city. • Never mapping the forests of the country to know which ones are the monkey friendly ones. • Handing over the monkeys for contract research without any data being kept or any system being followed to maintain a log of the influx and efflux of the population. Working without long term planning to find quick solutions is an inefficient way to manage monkeys, which inevitably creates more problems than solving them. 2.4 The Right Way The appropriate and humane care of monkeys is an easily attainable goal for our government, if the right steps are taken. Some suggestions towards this goal are noted below: • It is necessary to map the country's forests to know which ones can provide adequate shelter, food & water, and to how many monkeys. Current forest statistics can be of help to infer which would be ideal habitats for the monkeys. • Monkeys should be captured using walk-in cages, nets and tranquilizer guns/ darts with tranquilizers like Tylenol PM / Ketamine hydrochloride / Brimondine tartrate - 20 to 40 mg by monkey weight in kilograms. • Monkeys must be routinely tested for any diseases, treated appropriately (and quarantined if necessary), and subsequently sterilized before their release in to the monkey sanctuary. They should also be routinely vaccinated and medicated for common infections and worms. Quarantine and health screening, sterilization protocol for each animal must be maintained. • Based on my years of experience combined with scientific evidence, the monkey sanctuary should be a big green open space with 95% wilderness, enriched with a recommended minimum of 100 species of plants, which, for monkeys, is essential in arid climates like Delhi. • The remaining 5% should comprise urban construction in an eco-friendly and sustainable manner. These would become the quarantine and health centers, offices, etc. • To be a sanctuary in the truest sense, it is our duty to protect animals of all hierarchies in the monkey social order. While they also do this in their natural way, it is recommended that as the body responsible to provide sanctuary, we develop overhead runs and other such structures to encourage safety across the social order. • Crush cages should be placed at strategic points for humane capturing of the monkeys as and when needed. • It is recommended to entrust the Forest Department with the complete management and care of monkeys. While these are the overarching tenets for the welfare of monkeys, it must be kept in mind that management tools should be changed according to the number of monkeys, condition of the habitat, number of attempts made to trap them and the availability of forests. Additional Information The areas of research on monkeys are fundamental research, infectious diseases testing & monitoring, vaccine research and reproductive research. The prominent centers of primate research in India are: - Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow - AIIMS, Delhi - Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore - National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi - National Institute of Virology, Pune - National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad - Institute for Research on Reproduction, Mumbai. Recommended trees Common and botanical names of the trees recommended for the monkey sanctuary at Bhatti (or other arid habitats) are: ashok—polyalthia longifolia, banyan—ficus benghalensis, goolar—ficus racemosa, nandan—ficus microcarpa, pilkhan—ficus virens, peepal—ficus religiosa, dhau—-anogeissus pendula, khair—acacia catechu, phulai—acacia modesta, ronjh—acacia leucophloea, babool—acacia nilotica, seemal—bombax ceiba, kaniar—bauhinia purpurea, kachnar—bauhinia variegate, dhak—butea monosperma ,hingot—balanites roxburghii, peelu—salvadora persica, kareel—capparis decidua
kala, siris—albizia odoratissima, salai—boswellia serzata, kamani—murraya paniculata, imli—tamarindus indica, sheesham—dalbergia sissoo, junglejalebi—pithecellobium dulce,kosam—schleichera oleosa, khirni—manilkara hexandra, putranjiva— drypetes roxburghii, bistendu—diospyros cordifolia, chamrod—ehretia laevis, amaltas—cassia fistula ,
gondi— cordia gharaf, kaim—mitragyna parviflora, kankera—maytenus senegalensis, gamhar—gmelina arborea, mahua—-madhuca longifolia, wild almond—sterculia foetida, amla—phyllanthus emblica,ber,
sonjna—movinga oleifera, bakain—melia azedarach, saptaparni—alstonia scholaris, kopak—ceiba pentandra, barna—crataeva adansonii, peeli kaner—thevetia peruviana Recommended plants Common and botanical names of plants [shrubs, herbs, and ground cover] for the Monkey Sanctuary at Bhatti are: bansa—adhotoda vasica
kala , bans—rungia repens , tulsi—orthosiphon pallidus, jhojru—indigofera trita/hirusuta, jhajaru—tephrosia villosa/purpurea , ghochi—arbus precatorius, karench—mucuna prurita, jangli torae—melothria maderaspatana, murella—trichosanthes cucumerina, kheea—citrullus colocynthis
jangli, ghobi—youngia japonica, ketree—sonchus arvensis,vernonia cinerea carthamus, oxyacantha cirsium arvense,siz—euphorbia neriifolia, indrajali—lolium temulentum, piyazee—asphodelus tenuifolius, burbunda—oxystelma secamone, motha—cyperus alopercuroides/triceps, kher—capparis decidua/ sepiaria, hulhul—cleome gynandra, patwar—cleome viscosa/brachycarpa alhagi pseudalhagi, saem—rhynchosis minima/ capitata pavonia zeylanica , ronpheri—corchorus depressus, kankova—corchorus olitorius/trilocularis, pilu—salvadora persica, 
shanti ka sag—ranunculus sceleratus, phool mata—cissampelous pareira, seedha—sida rhombifolia, ghobi phul—oxalis martiana, jawasa—fagonia cretica, jayee—avena sterilius,chrysopogon fulvus, iseilema laxum
sarph, gandh—rauvolfina serpentine, gulabo—calotropis procera
ghia, bato—ipomoea sindica/arachnosperma, kathri—solanum surattense/indicum, godni—sporobolus marginatus
nagad ,bavdi—ocimum americanum ,
shanti ka sag—poa annua
teel—sesamum indicum ,
chota sama—paspalidum flavidum, ghokru—pedalium murex
jangli, sem—acrachne racemosa ,ronpheri—corchorus depressus, kankova—corchorus olitorius/trilocularis, pilu—salvadora persica
, shanti ka sag—ranunculus sceleratus, phool mata—cissampelous pareira, ghokru—pedalium murex
jangli, sem—acrachne racemosa ,
chidiya ki joothi—hibiscus micranthus Dr. Ms. Iqbal Malik Ecologist , Ethologist & Primotologist Founder & Director VATAVARAN www.vatavaran.org A note to Sh. S. N. Sahai, Pr. Secretary (Planning), Planning Department & Sh. S. C. L. Das, S more  

Unable to open Chhabra ji, my email: psurana@suranaca.com more  

Generally it is seen that there is no solution to this problem but lately somebody forwarded me a mail from supplier of steel fabricated fencing with long spikes , his link is indolite , just see if it suits you it may cost like proving and fixing Rs 135-150 per running ft . This supplier is Delhi based I think in Bali nagar or nearby , have a look , if you cant open then give me your mail id I will forward you mail in details. HLChhabra hlchhabra55@gmail.com Presently in Sydney more