On a stormy day, the elephant approached the man to let him put his trunk inside the hut so as f to prevent it from getting wet in the rain. The man, being kind and sympathetic, told the elephant that there was only room enough for himself and its trunk. He told the elephant to put its trunk in gently.
The elephant, seeing the man’s naivety, took his tolerance as ‘weakness’ and, pushing its head inside, flung the man out in the rain. Then it lay down comfortably inside his hut. The man protested and started to grumble. A heated argument ensued between the man and the elephant. In this turmoil, the lion came along roaring and warned the animals not to disturb the peace of his kingdom. The elephant told the king that he was only having a little discussion with his friend about taking possession of the f hut which he was occupying. The lion ordered his ministers to appoint a Commission of Enquiry to examine their claims and to report accordingly.
A Commission of Enquiry comprising some of the animals as members was soon constituted. On seeing the members, the man protested and demanded that a member from his side also be included. But his plea was rejected on the ground that no one on his side was educated enough to understand the intricacy of jungle law.
During the trial, Mr Elephant stated that he has always regarded it as his duty to protect the interests of his friends and that seemed to have caused the misunderstanding between himself and his friend. Then he submitted before the Commission that his friend had requested him (the elephant) to save his hut from being blown away by a hurricane.
Next, he stated that as the hurricane had entered the hut because of the unoccupied space in the hut, he considered it necessary to turn the undeveloped space to a more economic use by sitting in it himself. After hearing the elephant’s statement, the Commission listened to the statements given by the other animals of the forest. Then they called the man to state his account of the dispute. However, the Commission restrained him from narrating the whole story and asked him to only tell them whether the undeveloped space in his hut had been occupied by anyone else before Mr Elephant occupied it. But even before the man began his reply the Commission declared that they had heard sufficient evidence from both sides and retired to consider their decision.
After enjoying a delicious meal at the expense of the elephant, they declared their verdict. They stated that Mr Elephant has fulfilled his sacred duty of protecting the man’s interests. Further, they said that as it was clear that the man was not able to put the space in his hut to economic use, it was necessary to arrange a compromise to suit both parties. Therefore, they decreed that the elephant should continue its occupation of his hut and they would give him permission to look for a site where he could build another hut suited to his needs.
The members of the Commission of Enquiry were well-versed in jungle law which advocated the maxims ‘might is right’ and ‘survival of the fittest’. On the contrary, the man believed in resolving conflicts through open discussion and mutual respect and co-operation. This being the case, the Enquiry Commission members being animals of the forest, clearly understood that the man can only grumble and protest but cannot do anything physically to evict the elephant from his hut. Therefore, the members considered his tolerance as weakness and approved the elephant’s action as correct and decreed in its favour.
