Subscribe
With elections in several Indian states this year, the crisis of human-wildlife interactions has become one of the key political agendas. One primary cause driving these interactions remains unscientific development projects.
Currently, we are also witnessing tribals across India protesting against mining and deforestation projects. These tribals inhabit regions that experience some of the most intense human-wildlife interactions. Yet, conservation policies continue to threaten these very communities while claiming to uphold coexistence.
Clear accountability from policymakers and industries responsible for habitat degradation is essential to address growing human-wildlife interactions. Effective policy changes must protect both tribal communities and wildlife habitats. Long-term solutions require recognising tribal communities not just as affected parties but as proactive stakeholders. They often lead protests against unscientific development and bear the burden of coexistence, highlighting their central role in solutions.
Currently, India is witnessing intense protests against unscientific development. Tribals, often treated as collateral in conservation land expansions, are defending forests from such projects, including mining. Yet, tribals, not urban dwellers, are being displaced and threatened under the pretence of protecting wildlife.
Linking these protests to the human-wildlife interactions crisis and conservation management is essential. Tribals have endured unjust and environmentally harmful policies and yet continue to lead the fight against them while experiencing the long-term impacts of escalating human-wildlife interactions. They are, in fact, playing a key role in conservation as conservationists themselves.
The examples below offer more evidence:
This month, tribals in south Odisha and the police faced off as protests against the construction of an access road for Vedanta’s bauxite mining peaked. Odisha is also one of the top four states facing intense human-wildlife interactions: 631 deaths in four years, with 75 people losing their lives in 10 months in 2025.
In Maharashtra, tribals’ protests against mining projects have persisted for decades. This month, five farmers in Chandrapur district consumed poison to protest inadequate compensation for land acquired by a cement company. Chandrapur has witnessed 111 human deaths from tiger attacks in 2022-2023, with 59 deaths in 2023-2024. The state government’s recent push for iron ore mining in the same thriving tiger corridor has been temporarily halted by protests, including hunger strikes, involving a majority of locals.
This year, thousands of tribals in Chhattisgarh have protested against coal, bauxite, graphite, and lithium mining and deforestation projects in their villages. Chhattisgarh reported 303 human deaths from elephant-related incidents between 2019 and 2024.
Last year, thousands of tribals protested against Adani’s coal project in Jharkhand, a fight that’s been ongoing for several years now. In Jharkhand, human-elephant interactions have led to 1,400 human deaths and over 600 serious injuries between 2000 and 2025. In 2026, 22 people died from human-elephant interactions in just 9 days.
In Assam, protests against limestone mining and a proposal for a mega hydropower project are ongoing. Over 1,400 humans and elephants have lost their lives to interactions between 2000 and 2023 in Assam.
The year began with celebrations of India’s growing tiger population. On the other hand, the same period has been deadly for locals in these shared landscapes, with many losing their lives and livelihoods to human-tiger interactions. Evidence shows many tiger reserves exceed their carrying capacity. Yet, mainstream media’s one-sided headlines read: Where will the tigers go? Tigers are running out of space.
Meanwhile, parliament committees have requested additional funds to address the crisis.
A common solution among environmentalists, conservationists, and activists has been expanding forests. This again leads to the demand and justification for elite land grabs and unjust territorial claims in the name of saving wildlife, despite negative impacts and evidence against the Protected Area model of conservation.
Similarly, more policies being introduced further remain exclusive. The Union government recently amended guidelines to allow private entities to lease forest land for plantations. Unsurprisingly, Adivasi communities are excluded from this framework.
Would we apply the same restrictive policies or demand equally strong action in other demographics facing human-wildlife interactions? For example, this year, human-leopard interactions have increased in urban areas like Mumbai and Bengaluru. Yet, in these cities, the common approach is to capture wildlife rather than demand coexistence.
A few years ago, while talking to a Conservator of Forests (CCF) in Karnataka about growing human-elephant conflicts, the issue of wildlife corridors came up. The CCF mentioned evidence supporting the expansion of two small corridors. This required removing fences from small sections within large corporate coffee estates to allow elephants to move more freely. These patches were inside private corporate companies that owned thousands of acres. Did the owners agree? Of course not.
Do tribals and poor farmers receive similar consideration? Are they often consulted when policies affecting their ancestral land and livelihoods are implemented given that they also face challenges coexisting with wildlife?
It is urgent to recognise that Adivasi communities have long led powerful protests against the relentless commercialisation of forest land. They have stood at the frontlines, bravely opposing destructive corporate development projects and linear infrastructure, protecting trees and rivers even as their own homes are threatened with removal.
Current conservation responses to rapidly worsening environmental crises are failing. They remain socially unequal, scientifically dubious relying heavily on quick fixes and shaped by corporate-driven assessments. However, large developmental projects continue to be one of the bigger threats. For example, between January and June 2021, the National Board for Wildlife approved denotification, deletion, and diversion of over 14,000 hectares of protected areas, many of which violated legal provisions.
While increase in wildlife populations is often celebrated, the protectors of forests who also bear the brunt of this number obsession receive little support. Without equitable and credible conservation strategies that uphold the struggles of those supporting long-term solutions to this very crisis, conservation goals will continue to remain out of reach.
Gana Kedlaya is an independent journalist based in Bengaluru
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth