THE conservation agenda of India's wildlife establishment has
always been held suspect by genuine environmentalists. The
composition of the committee - mandated to "recommend
ways and means to preserve and protect wildlife" - established in the last week of July by the Union ministry for environment and forests (MFF), can only deepen the scepticism of environmentalists. Many of the prominent members of the
committee are known proponents of the traditional system of
wildlife conservation - a system known for perpetrating gross
injustice upon humans and also a system that has4ailed to live
up to its own mandate.
One of the tasks of the committee is to sugguest measures
that will help people living in the vicinity of national par 1, s
and sanctuaries express their aspirations. These concerps have for
some time now been mouthed by internation"ali donor
agencies, like the Global Environment Facility, which
fund wildlife management in India. In recent years,
concepts like public participation, oint protected area management and buffer zone management have become cliches in
the corridors of the NIEF. The committee may, therefore, use
its familiarity with these concepts to prove the honesty of
its intentions. Obviously, it will be lying through its teeth.
For one, the various interests and lobbies represented in
the committee are part and parcel of the problem, since they have been involved in conceptualising and executing the existing strategy of
wildlife conservation. The strategy's detractors
- environmental'activists and groups - who
base their opposition on first hand observation
of its impact, have been denied ev@u a toehold
in the committee. There are indications that
the committee will end up endorsing the
wildlife establishment's modus operandi.
This establishment has obstinately refused
to acknowledge the symbiotic relationship between people
and the surrounding flora and fauna. It denies the centuriesold intricate trellis-work of sustainable dependency and nurturing of nature. What it tends to do is hallucinate that all
wildlife is necessarily exotic and under constant siege from
humans. This blinkered view has led to the creation of vast
national parks and sanctuaries at the cost of the areas' inhabitants, who are routinely fenced out.
The arithmetic of this turf marking are telling: in 1960,
India had 60 sanctuaries and 5 national parks. By 1990,
they had increased to 421 and 75 respectively - constituting
nearly 3.5 per cent of the subcontinent's landmass, which
the wildlife establishment proposes to extend to 5 per cent.
Since India is one of the most densely populated parts of
the world, the displaced people number millions. A simple
It back-of-the-envelope calculatidt will show that 9 million people depend on percent of lnd.. land, which means that the
number nearly 30 million. The MEF itself accepts that
600,000 peoiple -1fave beA' displaced by national parks and
sanctuaries.
The 'routine displacements assume the menacing proportigns of a virtual pogrom. The key weapon of the establishriment is the Indian Wildlife Act of 19723 and its Amendment in
1990. This Draconian document was shaped by conservationist zealots within the government and by collaborative NGOS: it
carries provisions to protect the "interests of wild animals"
from the threat posed by "the interests of local people".
Taken together, the entire gamut of Indian forest and
wildlife laws form a terrible, prohibitive apparatus which
denies the stake of humans in nature. Millions of Indians
depend onthe bounties of nature for even mere sustenance.
The issue is'critical for the poorest section of the country's
population which shares the habitat with wild animals
for its entire requirement of food, fuel, fodder, building
materials and livelihood. The existing wildlife provisions
have choked off villagers' access to these sources, and tens
of thousands of them have been forcibly evacuated from
their traditional settlements. Their rehabilitation, promised
prior to ejection, has received little thought
and lesser action; so much so that villages still
inside sanctuaries have been bypassed by all
development activity, since they are to be eventually uprooted.
There are other concomitant problems:
growing animal populations have become a
serious threat to agricultural activity around
the reserves. There is no recourse to humans
defending their cattle and even themselves
from protected animals. For hundreds of
thousands of Indians parked around sanctuaries, breaking
the stupid law has become the only wa to survive. Every
national park and sanctuary in India is a simmering pool of
protest and struggle, of a human-animal symbiosis that has
gone wrong.
A stringent law-and-order approach to wildlife is typical
of the environmentalism of the rich, who rather patronisingly believe in "the preservation of the environment" -
read "developmental deep freeze". The Indian wildlife
establishment and all committees and bodies instituted by
it to date are inspired only by this view. The actions of
the wildlife establishment must be resisted, if only to
ensure the survival of the "environmentalism of the
poor", which is based on a sustainable use of all nature,
wildlife included.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.