India’s rising tiger numbers are celebrated as a conservation success, but the author argues that this hides the fear, loss and resentment faced by rural communities living alongside wildlife.
Chandrapur in Maharashtra is cited as an example of the conflict, with rising tiger numbers accompanied by a sharp increase in fatal wildlife attacks.
The article argues that India’s wildlife laws and NTCA guidelines give near-absolute protection to big cats, even in high-conflict areas where local communities face repeated attacks and livestock losses.
The author calls for reform of the Wild Life Protection Act, faster action against dangerous animals, community benefit-sharing and regulated, science-based sustainable use of wildlife.
India proudly celebrates its “increasing” tiger numbers as a global success story. The International Big Cat Alliance (IBCA) presents India as a world leader in big cat conservation and seeks to export the Project Tiger model worldwide. However, this image sits uneasily with realities on the ground. Conservation success in India is measured almost entirely by rising counts of flagship species like tigers and leopards. For the millions of rural families who must live alongside wildlife, the daily reality is one of loss, fear and growing resentment.
Human-wildlife conflict is routinely dismissed as an unfortunate by-product of conservation. In reality, it stems from strict protection policies, unchecked growth in big cat populations, neglect of fundamental rights, and a ban on legal hunting or regulated sustainable use. (Under Article 2 of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, "sustainable use" refers to the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to its long-term decline, while maintaining their potential to meet the needs of present and future generations.)
Chandrapur district, Maharashtra, illustrates this paradox. Tiger numbers there have risen from 30-40 in 2006 to 220-300 today. Yet between 2021 and May 2025, as many as 173 people were killed in wildlife attacks, 150 of them by tigers. In 2022 alone, 51-53 died. In the first five months of 2025, another 22 tiger-related deaths occurred, including 11 within just 17 days. In areas such as Junnar, dense leopard populations have repeatedly resulted in fatal attacks on children.
At the centre of these tensions are India’s Wild Life (Protection) Act of 1972 (WLPA) and National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) guidelines. These impose near-absolute protection and ban regulated hunting, community benefit-sharing, and adaptive, context-driven management even in high-conflict zones or areas with healthy populations of big cats.
NTCA’s “capture-first, translocate-first” approach often leaves habitual "man-eaters" protected for months or even years while village residents live in fear. Cattle-killing predators enjoy near-total immunity. Section 11 of WLPA permits the killing a "man-eater" only after capture attempts have failed, with an emphasis on “minimum trauma” capture.
In 2019, NTCA replaced the term “man-eater” with “dangerous to human life”, ostensibly to reduce sensationalism. Under the revised guidelines, labelling a big cat “dangerous to human life” requires camera-trap evidence, DNA analysis, and a non-profit-inclusive committee before any lethal action is considered. Capture attempts remain mandatory, with killing as the last resort, even after multiple human deaths and even though captured problem big cats have zero conservation value.
As a result of decades of protection, big cats seem to have lost their natural fear of humans in many contexts. Tigers and leopards routinely enter villages and when the state fails to act, people retaliate. In 2025, local people poisoned a cattle-killing tigress and her cubs in Karnataka. Madhya Pradesh recorded 55 tiger deaths that year, many believed to be retaliatory killings. Unreported killings of predators and crop raider species are believed to run into the tens of thousands. To many affected communities, wildlife has come to represent either a threat or a source of meat, rather than a beneficial ecological asset.
A 2023 ruling by the Supreme Court reiterated that that animals do not enjoy fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution in the same manner as human beings, while recognising that animal welfare remains a legitimate constitutional and statutory concern. Yet WLPA still favours animals over people.
True conservation, as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which India is a party, means science-based wildlife management. It includes strict protection for endangered species and sustainable use, population control and benefits for local communities, where populations are healthy, usable or conflict-prone.
The Species Survival Commission of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and resolutions adopted under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) have, in some circumstances, recognised that carefully regulated and biologically sustainable use of wildlife can contribute to conservation goals and generate benefits for local communities.
This approach has worked in various contexts. For instance, Namibia’s conservancy programme has massively expanded wildlife habitat by devolving wildlife-use rights to communities, linking national parks into large landscapes and aiding recoveries of elephants and desert lions.
In South Africa, private game ranches now cover 17-20.5 million hectares, fuelling a wildlife economy where regulated hunting contributes $2.5 billion annually, creating rural jobs and expanding habitats. Pakistan’s markhor programme rescued a near-extinct species, with single hunting permits fetching up to $370,000 and 80 per cent of revenue going directly to communities. Hunting in the US and Europe generates $133 billion and €180 billion (approximately $209 billion) annually respectively, supporting over 2.4 million jobs and vast wildlife habitats.
India bans regulated hunting and wildlife farming. However, mounting human-wildlife conflict shows that WLPA requires meaningful reform.
Key steps should include:
• Giving local bodies and Honorary Wildlife Wardens power to act swiftly regarding man eating/cattle killing big cats and rogue elephants, with lethal control and trapping deployed simultaneously and experienced private shooters used whenever necessary for for speedy and effective resolution.
• The NTCA guidelines for tiger conservation must be framed taking into account Article 21 (the fundamental right to life, dignity and freedom of movement) of the Indian Constitution which does not grant fundamental rights to any animal. Just like the Wildlife Protection Act has been written through the lens of Article 21, which is why animals dangerous to human life and property can be removed or killed, the subordinate NTCA’s rules must take human rights seriously. This means ‘protecting’ big cats must not come at the cost of destroying the lives or livelihoods of people, especially farmers, tribal and forest-dwelling communities, and that problem animals are removed or eliminated as quickly as possible.
• Allowing licensed arms for self-defence in high-risk zones (like Chandrapur/Junnar) and not inhibiting the same via Section 34 of the WLPA, which states: No new licences under the Arms Act, 1959 shall be granted within a radius of ten kilometres of a sanctuary without the prior concurrence of the Chief Wild Life Warden.
• Introducing regulated, science-based sustainable use of wildlife resources. This includes wildlife farming (The regulated breeding of certain species for legal trade and sale ex: Rhesus monkeys, deer species, pheasants, turtles, crocodiles, frog, butterfly, snake species etc), community-based ownership of wildlife (giving local communities legal rights and stewardship over wildlife populations including on their private, traditional and community lands), and strict-quota hunting of surplus, abundant or problem animals. Importantly most revenue generated must flow directly to local and affected communities.
The 2022 amendment to WLPA, which shifted the focus towards “conservation, protection and management”, provides a valuable opportunity for reform. Amending Section 39 to enable community benefit-sharing and limited private ownership rights would bring India closer international conservation models. Similarly, allowing regulated hunting of problem or surplus animals, including crop-raiding species and cattle-killing cats, with revenues directed primarily to local communities could create stronger incentives for conservation.
For example, in India governments spend substantial sums removing nilgai (blue bull) and compensating farmers for crop losses. In Bihar, in particular, tens of thousands of nilgai are culled annually. By contrast, in Texas, US, hunters may pay between $8,000 and $9,000 to shoot a single nilgai (blue bull) on a private ranch. In Pakistan, markhor hunting permits command significant costs.
Following a similar model, if a few tiger permits were auctioned off in Chandrapur for problem or excess animals, massive revenue could be generated that could then flow directly into local communities.
By treating rural communities as genuine stakeholders, India can restore big cats' natural fear of humans, reduce retaliatory killings, lower conflict, and expand habitats. When local people benefit from wildlife, it becomes an asset rather than a threat.
Sentimentalism and animal-rights ideology must yield to practical, science-based management that puts fundamental human rights at the centre because WLPA itself is written through the lens of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection for people's life and livelihoods. Only then can both people and big cats truly thrive together. When wildlife pays, wildlife stays.
Ryan Lobo is director, Humane Foundation for People and Animals. Part of the column was originally published in the cover story Rethinking Conservation, in the June 1-15, 2026 issue of Down To Earth.