Battling For Survival

BATTLING
FOR SURVIVAL
India's Wilderness Over Two Centuries
edi ted by
VALMIK THAPAR
OXFORD
A snarling tigerunder pressure and fighting for survival.
India in the nineteenth century. A natural world like no other
rich, diverse, and dense with wildlife.
BATTLING FOR SURVIVAL
India's Wilderness Over Two Centuries
Edited by
Valmik Thapar
O X F O R D
UNIVERSITY PRESS
OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
YMCA Library Building, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110 001
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the
University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai
Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi
Sao Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in India
By Oxford University Press, New Delhi
Oxford University Press, 2003
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2003
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
The publisher acknowledges the support of Hutchison Max Telecom Ltd.
in the production of this book.
ISBN 0 19 566293 8
Typeset by Le Studio Graphique, New Delhi 110 017
Printed at Pauls Press, New Delhi-110 020
Published by Manzar Khan, Oxford University Press
YMCA Library Building, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110 001
This book is dedicated
to the people
who battled through
the last 200years
in order to
save India's precious and
unique wildlife.
It is also a dedication to
the spirit of conservation
that has been part
of organizations like
the Bombay Natural History Society
for over a century.
And especially dedicated
to those who remain invisible
and unrecorded and
who strive to protect
the natural treasures
of this nation.
1
Preface ix
Acknowledgements xii
The Ni net eent h Cent ur y 1
The Beginning
The Earl y Twent i et h Cent ur y 31
A Critical Peri od 72
1927-1947
The Ne hr u Years 149
Independent India: 1947-1964
The Gandhi Era 241
1966-1989
The End of a Cent ur y 317
1990-2002
viii CONTENTS
Appendix I 371
Appendix II 389
Appendix III 403
Appendix IV 413
Appendix V 419
Bibliography
Name Index
426
443
Preface
T
his book is a glance through two centuries from 1802 to 2002.
It looks at the pages of the history of the wilderness written
by people at different times and moments. It is about governance
and the endless battles fought to keep our wilderness alive. I have
used excerpt s and edi t ed this amazi ng basket of wr i t i ng
interspersing it with my comments. It is a collection of bits and
pieces and I have loved every minute of putting it all together.
For me it has been like a journey into an ever-changing wilderness.
There are dozens of doctoral theses waiting to be done on different
facets of these two hundred years. Nearly 150 years were under
the British and they really plundered the forests of India. Who
would not? Feudal or colonial or post-independenceIndia' s
politicians wanted a bit of the spoils. What if the British did not
rule India? What if the first laws of the nineteenth century had
not been legislated? What if tribal and other customary rights over
forests had not been effected? Would anything have changed?
Who knows? All I know is that in all societies a ' mafia' develops
and that mafia wants its share of the spoils. There is no exception
to thisand throughout these 200 years a tiny minority, who loved
India' s forests and fought for their very survival, tried desperately
to minimize the plunder of the mafias. Did they succeed? Maybe
to some extent.
Till independence it was the white man battling most of the
time. I have found very few records of Indians at the forefront of
x PREFACE
conservation. Then in post-independent India a mixture of Indians
and the British who stayed on battled the system, and then by the
1960s emerged the bunch that felt they could make a difference.
They courted Indira Gandhi because she was the most powerful
ally they had seen. I shudder to think what would have happened
to Forest India or our conservationists without her or the laws
she made. Could local tribals and forest communi t i es have
managed the wilderness against the ruthless vested interests?
Would we have been better off with an Indira Gandhi rather than
a Nehru in those first decades after independence? Who knows?
All I know is that a tiny wild bunch battled it out over two
centuries and that is why some of our natural treasures are left in
2003, and this wild bunch fought because they were in love with
the wilderness of India. Most believed that little would survive
the turn of the twenty-first century. But somewhere the grit and
determination of a bunch of individuals did impact on all these
years. This is the story of their battles and it is because of them
that we still have fragments of wilderness alive. It is nowhere like
what it must have been in 1802. But even today a place like Kanha
or Kaziranga can take your breath away. So some of the battles
had their impact and there are superb success stories to see as a
result of them.
Throughout the centuries the battles to save India' s wilderness
were fought whether by autocratic means, or exclusionary policies
or authoritarian decisions or by keeping people out or restrictive
regulations or top-down approachescall it what you like. What
mattered in the end is that the forest survives and this book has
glimpses of some of those fighters and their efforts using every
available method. It is about a bunch of people who loved the
field in preference to the armchair or writing table. They knew
some of the realities that the wilderness faced and focused on
action rather than the endless academic exercises that go into the
rhetoric of today in terms of ' how to save'.
I hope this book inspires many more, especially forest officers,
to fight for our wilderness and in the field where it really matters.
I also hope that many NGOs learn from the example of the Bombay
Natural History Society (BNHS) about the critical role that this
organization played over the century in matters pertaining to
PREFACE x i
conservation. It is truly remarkable and even though there were
other associations, BNHS in a way spearheaded a variety of battles.
Some of these battles are very similar to what we fight even today.
The last decade in India' s wildlife history has been tough. I
have, through my own experiences, given it some shape. I only
know that in 19921 thought that the tiger would be virtually extinct
by 2000.1 was proved wrong and that is hopehope for the future
when more battles will be fought to save our wilderness from
extinction.
New Delhi
1 January 2003
VALMIK THAPAR
Acknowledgements
F
irstly I must thank J.C. Daniel of the Bombay Natural History
Society for not only pointing me in the right direction but also
permitting me to extract so much information from the Society's
journals which have been for me a source of great inspiration.
I thank Pradeep Sankhala for allowing me to quote his father' s
work and George Schaller and Billy Arjun Singh for permitting
me to use their work. I thank Oxford University Press for allowing
me the use of M. Krishnan' s text and Seminar for the use of my
own writings. I thank Devyani Kulkarni for all her help in the
research for this book.
I thank the Holkars for the use of that amazing picture of a
tiger on a car from their book, The Cooking of the Maharajas.
I thank N.C. Dhingra for his unique picture of a tiger with its
enormous crocodile kill probably one of the most unique pictures
from India' s wilderness ever taken.
I thank Malvika Singh, Paola Manfredi, and Romila Thapar
for their reactions and responses. I thank Sunny Philip for his help
in typing the manuscript.
I thank Mr Asim Ghosh and his team at Hutchinson Max Ltd.
for his support towards the production of this book.
And to Sanjna Kapoor and my son Hamir endless thanks for
their inspiration during 2002.
mm The Nineteenth Century
The Beginning
T
he early nineteenth century must have opened on an India
that was nat ure' s treasure houserich and dense with a
remarkable diversity of wildlife. Just a glimpse of those times
comes from a few comments on the unbelievable hunts that could
take place.
One of the early records of the jungles and wildlife of India
comes f r om a r emar kabl e book put t oget her by Capt ai n
T. Williamson in 1807, called Oriental Field Sports. It describes the
India of those times and, for me, has always been a fascinating
record of those early years when the wildlife of India resembled
Africa and the first sport hunting had only just begun.
This book, in a way, made history as the eighteenth century
ended and the nineteenth started. It was a unique record of India' s
untamed wilderness. I quote what is one of my favourite plates
and its connected description, which is about wild dogs and tigers:
I am aware that the subject of this plate will be considered, even by
many who have passed nearly their whole lives in Bengal, and
especially in other parts of India, as being by no means authentic;
and I am also sensible that some few have confounded the dhole, or
wild dog, with the jackal. In fact, it has fallen in the way of very few,
18 BATTLING FOR SURVIVAL
to ascertain the absolute existence of the animal in question. However,
the want of information in others shall not deter me from offering
to the public what I know to be true ...
About wild dogs Williamson states:
They are by nature extremely shy, and avoid all places which are
much frequented either by men or cattle. Residing, for the most
part, in those immense saul-jungles, which, for hundreds of miles,
appear like one black dreary wilderness, it cannot be supposed that
Europeans in general, who mostly confine their occupations and
their ordinary recreations to the open country, could have many
opportunities of seeing them.
The dhole community so called, though its name varies much
in different places, appears to be about the size of a small greyhound.
It has an uncommonly keen look; the countenance being highly
enlivened by a remarkably brilliant eye. The body, which is slender
and deep chested is very thinly covered with a reddish brown coat
of hair; or more properly of a rich bay colour. The tail is long and
thin; becoming like the feet, ears, muzzle and coat darker towards
the extremities. Their limbs, though light and compact, appear to
be remarkably strong, and to be equally calculated for speed, or for
power.
The peasants likewise state that the dholes are keen in proportion
to the size or powers of the animal they hunt; preferring elks to
other deer and particularly seeking the royal tiger. I have therefore
suggested the probability that some particular enemy exists, which
thins the tiger species; or else from the ordinary course of
propagation, their numbers would, inevitably, extend to the
destruction of every other animal.
Knowing the immense powers and activity of a tiger, I should
perhaps be somewhat skeptical in regard to the reports of the natives
who assert, that not even the largest and fiercest can hold out against
the dholes. When I first heard the people of Ramghur detailing
their anecdotes on the subject, I was not disposed to give any credit
to what appeared to me, such palpable absurdities; and indeed, I
THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 3
was so illiberal as to ridicule their attempts, for such I considered
them, to impose on me with such gross deception. I really could not
reconcile it to myself, that dogs of any kind, or however numerous,
could cope with a royal tiger.
In this same book there was even a remarkable description of
how local people hunt and kill tigers with arrows:
Such is the velocity of the arrow, and so quick does this simple
contrivance act, that, tigers are, for the most part, shot near the
shoulder. Generally, tigers fall within two hundred yards of the fatal
spot, they being most frequently struck through the lungs and
sometimes straight through the heart. If the arrow be poisoned, as is
most frequendy the case, locality is no particular object; though
without doubt, such wounds as would of themselves prove effectual,
unaided by the venom, give the shecarrie least trouble. The poison
never fails to kill within an hour.
As soon as the tiger is dead, no time is lost in stripping off the
skin; for, were it suffered to remain until the heat might taint it,
nothing could effect its preservation; it would rot a certainty; and,
even were it not to do so, rapidly the hair would loosen and fall off.
But it was also between 1806-1808 that the first 'conservation'
of forests started and Captain Watson was asked to assess the
forests of Malabar and Travancore. What an expedition it must
have been for him!
The gun was still to become a menace and its technology was
still antiquated. This was a great moment for jungle expeditions
and hunting parties.
An English lady describes her shooting expedition in 1837
into the Rajmahal Hills of Bengal with 260 attendants and twenty
elephants. Writing to a friend she stated:
They do say that there are hills in Bengal, not more than a hundred
and forty miles from here; and the unsophisticated population of
these hills is entirely composed of tigers, rhinoceroses, wild buffaloes
and, now and then, a herd of wild hogs. There, I'm going to live for
three weeks in a tent. I shall travel the first fifty miles in a palanquin
and then I shall march; it takes a full week to travel a hundred miles
in that manner . . . .
We had thirty-two elephants out this morning to beat the jungles
and to be sure, they were jungles that required beating. What is
called high grass jungles, the grass being the consistency of timber,
it seems to me, so very much higher than elephant, howdah, and
human creature, nothing to be seen of them at 5 yards distance,
nothing heard but the crunching of reeds by the elephants as they
break their way through . . . .
What is amazing about these times is the richness of the habitat
as endless rhinos and tigers got flushed out by these expeditions.
Another diary of 1839 has the following detail:
William arrived yesterday; he looks uncommonly well ... He and
Mr. A have killed 36 tigers, the largest number ever killed in this
part of the country by two guns, and his expedition seems to have
answered very well.
In the early ni net eent h century there was a remarkable
characterand probably one of the first in the history of the forests
of IndiaAlexander Gibson. He came to India for the first time
in 1821 and by 1825 he joined the marine depart ment of the
Bombay government. Just before coming to India he learnt the
Hindustani language in the UK. He served in India and in 1838,
at t he age of t hi rt y-ei ght , became one of t he fi rst act i ng
superintendents of the Botanical Gardens. From 1840 he conducted
some of the first 'forest missions' ever donehe examined the
northern forests, including Kolwun and Hunsool, and in 1841 did
a forest tour of the Concan. In 1843 he visited the teak plantations
in Poona and in 1844 the North Canara forests. By 1845 he was
the interim conservator of forests appointed by Sir George Arthur.
Till 1847 he surveyed endless forests in the Bombay Presidency
and was officially appointed in the same year as conservator of
forests, probably the first one in India. Even though there was an
earlier 'conservancy' in Malabar between 1806 and 1823, perhaps
Gibson was actually the first conservatoreven before the creation
of a national forest department or service. The reason for his
appointment was clearly to ensure enough timber for the British
navy. The state of Bombay's forests in the 1830s was so bad and
there was so much concern about timber supply that Governor
Farish, in 1839, banned the cutting of teakthis was when the
Military Board controlled all forests, though this changed in the
1840s under Gibson.
Soon the political, revenue, and military departments would
relinquish their hold on the forest. As a forest officer, Gibson was
given full magisterial powers as early as 1848. His job was to
provide timber to the government and to the people. Between
1846 and 1854 new responsibilities of planting roadside trees,
thinning plantations, preserving babul plantations in southern
Maratha country, and the scaling of fees on jungle timber were
given to him. If Gibson got Rs 500 per month and Rs 10 every day
as a travel allowance, the Bombay forest department had a budget
of Rs 293 which increased to Rs 328 by 1856. Gibson' s salary came
from the marine department till 1860. Thereafter it became the
responsibility of the public works department.
What an amazing time it must have been! One of the few
descriptions of Gibson' s travels comes from the book The Dapuri
Drawings whose author H.J. Noltie states:
The only description of Gibson's mode of travel occurs in a letter to
Hooker written in January 1858 from Tellicherry in Malabar
describing his progress from Calicut to Coorg as follows: 'getting
up at 3walking 8 miles by torch light, horse riding four, and the
remaining 3 in a mucheel or swinging hammock brings me to ground
with comfort by or before 8 am, and this life I expect to have for the
next hundred days'.
H.J. Noltie: The Dapuri Drawings.
The life of the first forest officers of India must have been
fascinating. It was only in 1864 that a national forest department
was creatednearly twenty years after Gibson's work. Let us have
some other glimpses of the nineteenth century. Major J.G. Elliot
writes in Field Sports in India: 1800-1947:
The troops of the Honourable East India Company, fighting their
way against the Mahrattas north-west from Calcutta to the frontier
on the Jumna, found a countryside where the cultivation surrounding
the villages was interspersed with areas of thick jungle, tall trees
growing out of dense undergrowth and extensive thickets laced with
briers. And through this plentiful cover swarmed tiger, pig, deer,
peacock, partridge, quail, snipe and duck. Small wonder that the
officers of those days turned to sport for relaxation, setting a fashion
that persisted to the end. By the start of the nineteenth century field
sports were everywhere recognised as part and parcel of the life of
the British community.
The officers of those days were born and bred in the English
countryside and love of sport was in the blood. There was game to
be ridden, hunted or shot by anyone who took the trouble to ride a
mile or two out of camp or cantonment. 'We had agreed to fire at
nothing but tiger, and in consequence the deer and hogs, which we
found in greater abundance than I could have believed, all escaped.'
Those halcyon days did not last for ever but the next seventy-
five years were the era of the great shikaris: Williamson, Shakespeare,
Burton, Kinloch, Forsyth, Gordon, Cumming, Sanderson, Baker,
Pollock, to name but a few of them. Game was everywhere plentiful
and there was little limit or restriction imposed on what they shot,
or where. In fact it was a matter of government policy to clear whole
areas of game to open up fresh tracts for cultivation. About 1880 it
began to dawn on the early conservationists that things had gone far
enough. Soil erosion, following in the footsteps of the sacred cow,
was stripping the countryside bare up to the boundaries of the
government forests. And inside those forests some control became
necessary over what might be shot. The early game laws date from
then. Responsibility for giving effect to these laws rested with the
officers of the Indian Forest Service, men who spent the months
from November to March in the jungle, 'wise in more than wood
lore alone', and they made a good job of it.
The trips taken on long leave are unforgettable. You booked
your forest block weeks, even months, ahead, wrote to the Survey of
India for large-scale maps, and pored over them in anticipation till
you felt you knew every corner of them. Then the day came and you
were away, away from the heat and dust of the plains, away from the
monotony of an individual training programme that decreed that
on the first of April each year the trained soldier once more became
a recruit, away to the cool and peace of the jungle where you could
not walk a hundred yards without seeing a track or hearing a sound
that excited your curiosity and tested your jungle lore. Or if your
fancy took you into hills, you marched for a week or ten days through
scenery which in truth 'made even Scotland seem tame'. Cold
sparkling air; perhaps by the side of the road a tiny waterfall pouring
down over a cliff, the rocks tinged with rust, the water, ice cold,
tasting faintly of iron; the camp fire outside the tent in the evenings.
You stalked barasingha, or ibex or marcher at a height of over 15,000
feet across ground so precipitous you began to wonder why you had
ever been fool enough to leave the flat. If you went back empty-
handed, though you seldom did, you had a host of memories to
console you in your disappointment.
If your regiment was stationed in central India, Cawnpore,
Jubbulpore, Mhow, Belgaum, the jungle was at your doorstep and
if you had your scouts out, and an indulgent colonel who asked no
questions if you disappeared for a couple of nights, you might bring
back a panther or even a tiger.
In the Sunderbands, the vast delta of the Ganges, game was
plentifultiger, deer, hog, rhinoceros and buffalo, but there the
sportsmen travelled by boat, not on foot or on elephants, and stalking
was difficult if not impossible because of the denseness of the reeds
and thickets; to say nothing of the danger from tigers who were the
most fearless and confirmed man-eaters in all India.
The jungles of the United Provinces started about Dehra Dun
and carried on along the foothills of the Himalayas beyond the
provincial boundary for a total of six hundred miles. This is the
Terai. In the south, along the frontier with Nepal, are vast swamps,
the last remaining haunt in India of the rhinoceros. The northern
half is drier but it is cut by foaming rivers pouring down from their
sources in glaciers above the snow line.
The greater part of this immense area consists of forest, dense
thicket and tangled vegetation, and where there is water, a very high
feathery-tipped grass, appropriately named elephant grass, grows
abundantly. Where the grass has been burnt by villagers to obtain
fresh pastures for their cattle, park-like glades, clothed in bright
green, prevail. And to complete this game reserve, perhaps one of
the finest in the world, there are numerous jheels and swamps. It
harboured a few elephants, which were strictly preserved, as well as
tiger, panther, sambhar and cheetal, barking deer and pig. The heat
was never oppressive right up to June, and to fill the cup of happiness
you might from your tent or forest bungalow hear one of the snow-
fed rivers tearing over rapids into deep pools that were the home of
crocodile and turtle. The tiger claimed your attention in the early
mornings and evenings, but the forenoon was given over to the
mahseer. A six-pounder caught in heavy water on a one-inch fly
spoon and a trout rod fought with a fury matched by few other fish.
There are three well-defined though overlapping periods in the
story of the sport of the British in India: up to about 1840, for forty
years to 1880, and from then to 1947. There was little finesse about
it to start with. Few knew or cared much about jungle lore; they
were fearless, hard hitting, straightforward Nimrods, ready to ride
down with spear or rifle anything they came across. They set the
fashion and laid the foundations for those who came after them,
but over the next seventy-five years the whole pattern of life changed
so muchGame swarmed over the countryside and village life over
large areas was disrupted by man-eaters. When the new military
road was built from Calcutta to Benares to cut the distance of the
old route along the Ganges, a belt of jungle had to be kept clear for
a hundred yards on either side; otherwise tiger would have taken
such toll of the travellers that only formed bodies of troops could
have used the road. The evolution of a battalion at drill might be
thrown into disorder by a stag seeking refuge from a tiger lurking in
the jungle that bordered the parade ground. And when the day's
work was over three or four officers would make up a party and go
questing after tiger, pig, deer or whatever the countryside offered,
much as their successors a hundred years later would go out after
partridge or peacock from battalion camp.
When the Mahratta wars were over, about 1810, the countryside
began to settle down, troops were collected in cantonments and
game became scarce in immediate vicinity of military stations, but
elsewhere it was still plentiful, and there were no game laws. You
might have to travel forty or fifty miles to find something to shoot
but there was no difficulty about that; parties of two or three would
go into camp for a fortnight or even longer. With some semblance
of law and order prevailing, the government, the East India Company
as it still was, turned its attention to exploring the resources of what
was really virgin forest. It was the day of Sanderson among the
elephants in Mysore. Forsyth and Sterndale in the Central Provinces,
men seconded for duty for the purpose. Their books mark the first
serious attempt to record the natural history of the country, the
customs of the people and the habits of the animals they shoot.
Major General J.G. Elliot: Field Sports in India: 1800-1947.
I agree with Major General Elliot that it was a bunch of men, I call
them the Wild Bunch, who somewhere between the middle to
the end of the nineteenth century started putting down not only
their hunting records but also what they saw of the rich natural
history. It was a period which saw a spate of books on those
remarkable times, and I am certain that it was because of the efforts
of this Wild Bunch that many of the first laws on forest and wildlife
conservation were founded and amended. The hunters had started
to protect their wilderness and some even considered giving up
the gun to save wildlife. People like Forsyth, Sanderson, and
Sterndale recorded the remarkable richness of wildlife, and even
without knowing it they were playing a vital role in what would
happen in the next century.
Even as early as in 1852 there was a growing concern in parts
of central India, especially in Seoni and Mandla districts, about
the cutting of teak and sal, and in the years that followed the first
restrictions regarding cutting were put in place. For the first time
permissions were required to cut timber while some species of
trees even got reserved, and as the years rolled on the restrictions
1 0 BATTLING FOR SURVIVAL
on the extraction of timber increased. The British knew this was
their wealth. They were fencing India' s forests for their own use.
Even in the Dangs district of Gujarat restrictions on felling were
imposed. In fact the pressures were rising. After the mutiny of
1857 there was an enormous focus on expanding the railways and
most of the wooden sleepers required came from the superb sal
forests dotted across India.
It must have been encounters like these in the nineteenth
cent ury t hat opened the mi nds of those in power to enact
legislation in order to own this untapped treasure house. By the
end of the 1860s the pressures began for legislation. Would anyone
ever believe that the first bit of wildlife or forest legislation
concerned the protection of elephants? The fauna and flora of India
from the 1860s till the turn of the twentieth century were protected
by the following legislations and rules:
1. The Elephant Preservation Acts of 1873 and 1879 (Madras
1 of 1873 and India VI of 1879): These Acts prohibit the
killing, injuring, or capturing of wild elephants except in
self-defence or under a licence. The reason for this act
was clear. The British wanted strict controls on the wild
elephant because it was an economically viable asset. At
least 2000 of them were being caught each year. This was
a historic law and functioned to limit the use of the
elephant. By 1879 this legislation on elephants was
applicable to all of British India. Shooting was permitted
only of i ndi vi dual el ephant s that were a danger to
humans. This law was enacted nine years after the
creation of the imperial forest department in 1864, and it
probably played a role in strengthening the powers of
this department. It also heralded the beginning of a series
of Acts and legislations that would empower the British
to control forest India.
2. Madras Act 11 of 1879: The operation of this Act is
confined to the Nilgiris and provides for closed hunting
seasons.
3. There were three other Acts concerning the forests of
India:
THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 1 1
(a) The Indian Forest Act, 1878.
(b) Madras Forest Act, 1882.
(c) Burma Forest Act, 1902.
The Indian Forest Act further strengthened the powers of the
forest officers and the imperial forest department while enabling
l arge tracts of forest s to be br ought under t he cont rol of
government. The wealth of the Indian forest had finally been
realizedbe it timber, minor forest produce, wildlife, or its
derivatives. It was all now the property of the government. By
the turn of the century nearly 20 per cent of British India would
be government-controlled forests.
There were a few other laws that were also enacted:
4. The Wild Birds and Game Protection Act, 1887.
5. The Act relating to fisheries in British India, 1897.
It was all these laws that carried India into the twentieth
century and they came about because a need must have been felt
to preserve the forests, keep them alive, and of course control
them. Controlling then meant controlling the wealth of India.
There must have been a group of people who intervened in the
system to create these laws and these were the first pieces of
legislation that were used in the governance of the natural wealth
of India.
It is in this period of time somewhere in the 1880s that our
story starts. It was in 1883 on 15 September that seven gentlemen,
interested in natural history, got together and proposed to meet
each month to exchange notes, exhibit specimens, and encourage
each other. It was this gathering that created the Bombay Natural
History Society (BNHS). The Wild Birds and Game Protection Act
of 1887 had probably triggered a debate. Concerned people were
getting involved in the process of governance. All the laws were
recent and the biggest debate concerned hunting.
The Wild Bird and Game Protection Act of 1887 came into
being because of a growing concern regarding the depletion of
gamethis concern being raised by hunters all across India. In a
way, it would be an Act that would protect game for the hunting
season and at t empt to pr event t he sl aught er of wi l dl i f e
indiscriminately. However, this Act was vital to India' s wildlife
and in t he per i od i mmedi at el y aft er its enact ment much
correspondence resulted. Probably some of the most fascinating
bits of dialogue were over the protection of insectivorous birds in
the interest of agriculture. BNHS was only a few years old, yet
many found it an important forum in which to express their
opinions. Within a year of the Act being passed there was a
demand for its reconsideration, as will be evident from the
correspondences quoted below:
Correspondence Relating to the Protection of
Insectivorous Birds in the Interests of Agriculture
Bengal Chamber of Commerce
Calcutta, 31
st
January 1888
No. 90 of 1888
From S.E.J. Clarke, Esq.
Secretary, Bengal Chamber of Commerce,
To Sir E.C. Buck, Kt., C.S.,
Secretary to the Government of India,
Revenue and Agricultural Department.
Sir,The Committee of the Chamber of Commerce desire me to hand
you copy of a letter, dated 5
th
January, from Mr. John Rudd Rainey,
Zemindar of Khulna, and copy of the Englishman of 31
st
December,
containing a report of a lecture delivered by him before the Agricultural
and Horticultural Society of India. With reference to these papers I am
to say, that a reconsideration of Act XX of 1887, An Act for the Protection
of Wild Birds and Game', for the more effectual protection of
insectivorous birds in the interests of Agriculture would have the support
of the Chamber of Commerce.I have, & C.,
(Signed) S.E.J. Clarke,
Secretary.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 4 (1889), p. 124.
The Protection of Insectivorous Birds
At a meeting of the Agri-Horticultural Society on Thursday,
Mr John. Rudd Rainey, F.R.G.S., delivered an address on the
' Effectual protection of insectivorous birds in the interests of
agriculture.' He said:
As this Society has ever since its foundation, extending over a period
of well nigh three score and ten years, been foremost in bringing
forward and discussing all subjects likely in any way to promote
agricultural interests in this country, as well as advocating such
measures as are calculated to prove conducive thereto, hence I
venture, as a member of it, to introduce this by no means
unimportant subject to their notice with, the view of inviting a
discussion upon it at this meeting, and persuading the Society to
move the Government to pass an enactment of the effectual
protection of insectivorous birds in the interest of agriculture. I am
more especially induced to do so now, as the recent promulgation
of a legislative enactment (Act No. XX of 1887), entitled An Act for
the Protection of Wild Birds and Game', fully recognizes the fact
that, the destruction of insectivorous birds injuriously affects
agriculture, and endeavours to mitigate the evil, but not to any
appreciable extent. This of course, is not sufficient. The utter
extermination of insectivorous birds will, no doubt, be thereby
prevented, but what is really wanted is something more, the effectual
protection from destruction of these useful, nay valuable, birds to
agriculturists.
It being now an admitted and well known fact, that insectivorous
birds are the best friends of agriculturists, it is therefore altogether
unnecessary for me to lay any stress upon this point. But it may be
stated that, in India, where insects are so various, numerous, and
prolific, the destruction they commit on growing and ripening crops
is simply incalculable, so much so that a stipulation is sometimes
inserted in agricultural leases to the effect that no reduction of rent
on account of destruction of crops by insects will be allowed.
Perhaps some persons may be inclined to think that the
preservation of insectivorous birds would result in the total
extermination of all insects, useful and destructive alike, so I may
point out that Nature, in her wise provision for the protection of all
things created, has happily provided against such a contingency, by
supplying to those insects most exposed to danger from birds, forms
and colours assimilating to the plants on which they are found, and
that they thus obtain some appreciable protection from their enemies
of the feathered tribe: the most striking illustrations of insects being
in some measure insured against danger by their similarity to plants
are of course those of grasshoppers, walking leaf insects (genus
Phylliam of Entomologists), and the various members of the curious
family Phasmida, all common to this country.
I hope that what I have here advanced will induce the Society to
make a fitting representation to the Government on the subject, in
order to move the Supreme Legislature to pass a more liberal measure
in the all-important interest of the agriculturists.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 4 (1889), pp. 126, 127, 129.
I find the above extracts of this 1888 note fascinating. More
than a century ago, one man fought to protect insectivorous birds,
whereas today no one even realizes the importance of these birds.
It was clear that the 1887 Act had started a process of dialogue
t owar ds prot ect i on and its i mpact was to be felt on ot her
legislations as well. By 1888 the impact of the previous year' s
legislation was to effect change in the Indian Forest Act of 1878,
and under Section 25 (i) of this Act the following restrictions and
amendments were made in the interest of ' game' :
Notification
The 29
th
November 1888
No. 6925The Chief Commissioner is pleased, under Section 25(i)
of Act VII of 1878 (The Indian Forest Act), to prescribe the following
rules to be in force in all 'Reserved Forests' in the Central Provinces:
I. The poisoning of water for any purpose whatever is
prohibited.
II. 1. Hunting, shooting, fishing or setting of traps or snares
is prohibited, except with the permission in writing of
the Deputy Commissioner or a Forest Officer duly
authorized by him or by the Conservator of Forests in
this behalf, and specifying the particular forest or forests
to which the permission applies, and the period for which
it is current.
2. The permit may either be general or may restrict the
holder to the hunting or shooting or trapping or snaring
of particular species, or may prohibit the hunting or
shooting or trapping or snaring of any particular species.
3. The permit shall specifically prohibit the destruction or
capture of animals of any species in respect of which the
Chief Commissioner has directed the observance of a
close season, during the term of such close season.
4. The permit may impose restrictions upon the choice of
camping grounds within the forests, and shall in all cases
specify the number of companions, retainers, followers,
and animals which the holder of the permit may take
with him into the forest.
5. Any permit granted under this rule shall be liable at any
time to be cancelled by order of the officer granting it or
of the Conservator of Forests, and shall cease to be valid
in the event of fire occurring in the forest to which it
applies.
6. Forest Officers of and above the rank of Sub-Assistant
Conservator of Forests are exempted from the operation
of this rule within the limits of their respective charges.
III. Any breach of the Forest Act or of any rules made under the
Act by the holder of a permit granted under Rule II, or by his
retainers, shall entail forfeiture of such permit.
IV. Nothing in these rules shall exempt the holder of a permit
granted under Rule II from liability under the Forest Act, or
any other Law, for anything done in contravention of such
law, or for any damage caused by him or his retainers.
V. The fees to be charged for the permit issued under Rule II
shall be as follows:
1. A fee of one rupee per diem for each sportsman or shikari
follower entering the Reserve.
2. A fee of eight annas per diem for each elephant or camel
entering the Reserve.
3. When the permit authorizes a camp to be formed within
the limits of a Reserve, the pay and allowances of a forest
subordinate to be deputed to attend the camp.
F.C. Anderson,
OfFg. Secy. To the Chief Commsr., Central Provinces.
As the technology of the gun advanced, a group of people
focused on creating restrictions in the laws in order to minimize
the damage of uncontrolled hunting. Where would we have been
without such interventions? What would have happened but for
these nineteenth century laws or their amendments? What would
have happened without the debates and actions of the NGOs of
that era, like the BNHS?
Again there was much debate about these issues and the BNHS
played a vital role restricting the desires of the hunters and their
lobbies. Let us not forget that the year was 1891, more then 110
years ago, but the few NGOs that existed were strong and effective
then, unlike today. Let us take a look at an early intervention by
the BNHS.
The Protection of Wild Birds and Animals
The following letter has been addressed to Government by the
Bombay Natural History Society on the subject of protection of
birds and animals in the presidency:
From
The Honorary Secretary, Bombay Natural History Society,
To
The Acting Undersecretary to Government, Bombay
SIR,I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No.
1575 of 28
th
February last, containing draft rules, under section 25(1) of
the Indian Forest Act, proposed by Mr. A.T. Shuttleworth.
The Rules have been submitted to a large number of the members of
this Society, and I am now instructed by the Committee to say that, in
their opinion, the rules, if passed (with exception of Nos. 1 and 4), will
be most unpopular and will prove a constant source of irritation and
annoyance to everyone. The Committee of the Society have carefully
considered the question from its various standpoints, and are strongly
of opinion that the subject is of such importance that Government should
pass a special Act with a view of establishing a 'Close Season', during
which all indigenous wild birds and harmless wild animals should be
protected.
Considering the wanton destruction of birds for the sake of their
plumage, which has of late taken place in many parts of the country, and
which appears to be on the increase, the Committee are of opinion that
protection should not be restricted to game, but should extend to all
indigenous wild birds, as well as to harmless wild animals, and that a
measure based on such liberal and comprehensive lines would meet with
the approval and sympathy of Natives as well as Europeans.
In the meanwhile, in an appendix, several extracts from a large number
of letters which have lately been sent to this Society from Sind and other
parts of the country.
H.M. Phipson, Honorary Secretary,
Bombay Natural History Society.
6, Apollo Street, 16
th
April, 1891.
Appendix
There can be no doubt that, unless some steps are taken to prevent it,
the time is not far distant when the indigenous game birds of Sind will
be well nigh exterminated in the more open parts of the country. Having
had some experience all over this district, I know that the Black Partridge
has decreased greatly in number, especially in the Rohri and Shikarpur
districts. It was in the Rohri district that they were netted for their
plumage in enormous numbers a few years ago. I believe the number
was as mentioned by Mr. Symonssome 40,000. The shooting grounds
about Mungrani, the Shikarpur district, are now worthless. As regards
other birds, a considerable traffic in plumage goes on in a quiet way, and
one only occasionally hears of it. A year or two ago there was a great
demand for certain feathers of the common paddy bird, for which Rs 22
per 'tola' were paid. As very few feathers from each bird are taken, and
these are small ones, the number of birds required to produce a tola'
weight of these feathers was considerable. I expostulated with the
zemindars about it, but I heard that several men had made a good deal
of money by slaughtering the birds for the sake of these few feathers. I
do not think this sort of thing ought to be permitted.
Sind, February, 1891.
I am afraid the figures reported to you were anything but exaggerated.
Seven or eight years ago it was rumoured that 80,000 Black Partridge
skins had been sent off from one station in the Rohri Division (Shikarpur
district). In this (the Eastern Nara) district large numbers of large blue
Kingfishers and Egrets used to be killed and last year I came across a
band of Madrassees engaged in trapping Kingfishers. The awful
destruction men of this class must cause may be imagined when it was
worth their while to come every year this long journey form Madras,
and they were able to pay all expenses and make a living out of the sale
of the skins they procured in their cold weather tour.
H.M. Phipson,
Honourary Secretary
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 6 (1891), pp. 281-2.
This was also a moment of time when people wrote about the
amazing links they found between Man and Beast. John Lockwood
Kipling in 1891 put pen to paper about 'Beast and Man in India'.
He called his book A Popular Sketch of Indian Animals in their
Relations with People. He wrote just after the Legislative Council
of India passed an Act XI of 1890 for the prevention of cruelty to
animals. All these early Acts would play a vital role in the future
protection of animals. An extract from Kipling's book follows:
One of the most surprising things in the country is the patience
with which depredations of the crops are endured. With far less
provocation the English farmer organizes sparrow clubs, and freely
uses the gun, the trap, and the poisoned bait. And the Indian farmer
suffers from creatures that earn no dole of grain by occasional
insecticide. The monkey, the nilgai and blackbuck, the wild pig,
and the parakeet fatten at his expense, and never kill a caterpillar or
weevil in return. He and his family spend long and dismal hours on
a platform of sticks raised a few feet above the crops, whence they
lift their voices against legions of thieves. The principle of abstaining
from slaughter is pushed to an almost suicidal point in purely Hindu
regions, and becomes a serious trouble at times. A large tract of
fertile country in the N.W. Provinces, bordering on Bhurtpore State,
is now lapsing into jungle on account of the inroads of the nilgai
and the wild pig. The 'blue cow' or nilgai is sacred, and may not be
killed even by the villagers whom the creature drives from their
homes, and there are not enough sportsmen or tigers to keep down
the wild boar.
Gardeners try to scare the birds with elaborate arrangements of
string, bamboos, old pans, and stones in their fruit trees; and
sometimes a watcher sits like a spider at the centre of an arrangement
of cords, radiating all over the field, so that an alarming movement
may be produced at any point. Yet their tempers do not give way,
and they preserve a monumental patience. Sometimes they say: 'The
peacock, the monkey, the deer, the partridge, these four are thieves,'
or include other animals and birds with varying numbers, but always
with more resignation than resentment. The wisdom of the village
says that public calamities are seven, and are visitations of God:
drought, floods, locusts, rats, parrots, tyranny, and invasion. The
professional bird catcher, however, is never of the farmer race, and
owes his victims no revenge; while a scornful proverb on his ragged
and disreputable condition shows that he earns no gratitude from
the cultivator. Another rustic saying about bird slaughter, expanded
into its full meaning, would run: 'You kill a paddy-bird, and what
do you get? A handful of feathers!' Yet since Parisian milliners have
decreed that civilised women shall wear birds in their head-gear,
there is not sufficient respect for animal life to say the barbarous
slaughter of them now going on all over India.
The tolerance or indifference which leaves wild creatures alone
is unfortunately an intimate ally of blank ignorance. That
townspeople should be ignorant of nature is to be expected, but
even in the country a flycatcher, a sparrow, and a shrike are all spoken
as chiriyas, birds merely, a not one in fifty, save outcaste folk, can
tell you anything of their habits, food, nests, or eggs. The most
vague and incorrect statements are accepted and repeated without
thought, a habit common to all populations, but more firmly rooted
in India than elsewhere. First-hand observation and accurate
statement of fact seem almost impossible to the Oriental, and
education has not hitherto availed to help him. In the West public
instruction becomes more real and vital year by year, but in the East
it is still bound hand and foot to corpse of a dead literature.
Educational authorities in India discern the fault, but they are
themselves mainly of the literary caste and direct native Professors
whose passion is for words. We talk of science teaching, but forget
to count with a national habit of mind that stands carefully aloof
from facts and is capable of reducing the splendid suggestions of
Darwin and Wallace, Faraday and Edison, to mechanical and inert
rote work.
Indifference is intensified by the narrowness of sympathy
produced by the caste system, and by the discouragement of
attachment to animals among respectable people. Our modern
schoolbooks, in which lessons on animal life and humane animal
treatment are wisely included, and do something in the course of
time to lighten this 'blind side' of Oriental character, and in a few
generations we may hope for an Indian student of natural history.
At present this splendid field is left entirely to European observers,
who mostly look at nature along the barrel of a gun, which is a false
perspective.
I conclude that, while admitting the need for a legislative measure
for the protection of animals, consonant with the wishes and feelings
of the most cultivated classes in India, and of itself a sign of advancing
civilisation and morality, it would be a task as difficult as hateful to
prove that the people at large have any abnormal and inborn tendency
to cruelty. The shadow of evil days of anarchy, disorder, and rapine
has but lately cleared away and given place to an era of security,
when, as the country proverb says, 'the tiger and the goat drink at
one ghat'. The people are better than their creeds, but it is not easy
to defend their practice, though it is often more due to necessity,
custom, and ignorance than to downright brutality of intent.
Kipling had a strange way of writinga strong sense of
arrogance pervaded through his words. He did not realize that
the so-called ignorance of the Indian people was not ignorance at
all but a deep rooted tradition towards nature, a fear and respect
of it that kept the natural world alive for them. Can you imagine
an India where everyone carried a gun and was ready to cut down
every tree? Can you imagine an India where the blue bull was not
sacred ? Can you imagine an India without Durga riding the tiger
to defeat evil? Can you imagine an India where the banyan tree
was not sacred? The soul of India was its belief in nature. Thank
god for a lack of Western education and scientific attitude! That
is why so much of it lived. And still does. Nature was a part and
parcel of daily life. Kipling never could understand this. There
were many who like Kipling could not fathom the ritual and belief
of the country. But there were others who knew that the secret to
the survival of India' s rich wildlife lay in the belief of her people
in nature and the connection of all the natural world to the gods
and goddesses that made up the universe. You do not have to
study natural history to protect nature.
By the 1890s there were several circulars, instructions, and
memos to control the indiscriminate hunting of species that were
deemed as going extinct. I reproduce one such circular:
Circular No. 1525 OF 1891
General Department
Commissioner's Office
Karachi, 23
rd
September, 1891
Memorandum
The Commissioner is informed that persons have been in the habit of
snaring and destroying, for the purpose of selling their plumage, the
Black Francolin Partridge, the Blue Kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis), and
several species of Egrets and other birds, and to so great an extent that
several species, useful for food as well as ornamental, have been rendered
nearly extinct in some parts of the Province. Two persons have recently
applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Thar and Parker, for permission
to destroy ornamental birds for the sake of their feathers, on the Eastern
Nara, on the ground that they have cleared the species out of the Delta
of the Indus.
2. The Commissioner desires, therefore, to remind District Officers
that the right to destroy ferae naturae as well as fish, has, in Sind, always
been a Government royalty, and privilege is sold in certain localities. No
one, therefore, can be allowed the privilege gratis as against Government,
and the Deputy Commissioner, Thar and Parker, has, therefore, properly
refused to grant the permission sought for.
3. Revenue and Police Officers are now directed to inform persons
who have not paid for the right that they will not be permitted to destroy
birds for the sake of their plumage, and to prevent their doing so.
Such circulars were examples of the first steps taken for the
enforcement of the laws and had been triggered by the process of
interventions made by the many concerned persons. It also reveals
the power of the government over the forest and its produce.
It must have been a really exciting time in the history of India's
forests. A century was coming to an end and another was about
to start. It was the beginning of the first discussions on how to
govern the forests and these were the first years of the birth of the
Imperial Forest Service. It was also a moment for many to bring
forth new ideas about wildlife and whet her game could be
replenished and how; but this was British India and as the
centuries changed there is no record of any Indian being involved
in conservationthey were totally out of itat least as far as the
British government records were concerned.
Also, there were endless discussions about proposals to
reintroduce game in different areas, one of which was Bombay.
Who said that the idea of reintroduction was a new phenomenon?
This was 1892!
The Proposed Introduction of
Game Into the Neighbourhood of Bombay
Mr. H. Littledale, of Baroda, in bringing forward his proposal,
said:
I beg to suggest that an attempt should be made to introduce the
Chukor into this part of India. Such an effort would certainly succeed
on the Aravellis and Vindhyas, along the big rivers. Again the painted
Partridge is our only Southern-Bombay bird; the Black Partridge, a
far finer bird, caught to take advantage of the R.M. Railway and
settle in our grass birs. He flourishes on the hot grassy plains of
Rajpootana, amid the tamarisks of the Indus, and along the banks
of the Jhelum in Cashmere; any climate seems to suit him, wet or
dry.
The Chukor stretches across Asia, Africa, and Europe, from the
Chenab to the Rhone; I have found its nest, at 11,000 feet, in
Baltistan, and it ranges through the low hot levels of Mekran and
Arabia. It is a very gamey bird, and, if a fair chance were given it, it
would certainly thrive on our ghats everywhere.
The Bengal Florican might flourish on the Neilgherries; it lives
at 7 to 9 thousand feet in the rainy Pir Pinjal, and the Neilgherry
climate would suit it perfectly. There are several African animals,
antelopes and so forth, that would thrive in India, and might be
easily introduced.
Let our Sectional Committees take this suggestion up, if they
think it worth action on. Money would certainly be forthcoming
for a well-considered scheme of introducing to the Bombay side
animals that would probably thrive there and give good sport to
future generations of sportsmen. I look to this, rather than to
vexatious game laws, to provide such shikar in the future as has
been enjoyed in the past.
Mr. G.W. Vidal said that he had received a letter from Mr. E.C.
Ozaune, the Director of Agriculture, in which he offered to allow
the Society to make use of the Government farms at Budgaum,
Poona, and Aligaum for experiments in connection with the
acclimatization of game birds. Mr. Vidal also pointed out that land
suitable for Black Partridges existed in this Presidency. But I take
the opportunity of suggesting that we make an experiment with
Pheasants. I thoroughly believe that if pheasants were turned down
in the grass lands and teak jungles near the Western Indian Ghats,
and protected, a splendid stock might be reared. Every kind of
suitable food is present in those jungles for pheasants, and there is
plenty of water. I should add about the Bengal Florican that it would
be a most interesting experiment, as the bird is not known west of
the Ganges. That it is possible it would thrive on the same lands and
food as its smaller half-brother, the Lesser Florican or Likh, which is
not uncommon in the Deccan and at the Null in the Guzerat. I
should doubt, however, our being able to obtain the Bengal Florican
in sufficient quantities. I should also suggest the introduction of the
African Guinea Fowl. Whatever we do now, we shall do more for
the next generation probably than for ourselves. The proposal about
Markhor can only be taken as a suggestion to offer to the Neilgherry
Game Association.
Many must have gone in for reintroductionsas we shall soon
see. Exotic species were an attraction and welcome everywhere.
Today few would think of introducing an exotic specie. In fact in
places like South Africa, all exotics are being exterminated,
including the Himalayan Tahr that ended up above Cape Town.
Different areas enacted their own laws, rules, and guidelines
for hunters and for the protection of wildlife. One such well-known
body was 'The Nilgiri Game and Fish Preservation Association'
which was created in the 1870s, and their Annual Report of 30
June 1893 makes interesting reading:
The Nilgiri Game and
Fish Preservation Association
[Extracts from the Annual Report
for the year ending 30
th
June, 1893.]
Increase of Game and Results of Protection
SambhurThere is still a great scarcity of good stags, and such scarcity
must continue so long as licence-holders and others butcher small
brockets. In the deer forests of Scotland, on Exmoor, in Germany,
Newfoundland and many other places, none but 'warrantable' stags are
allowed to be shot. On these hills, there is nothing whatever to restrain
anyone but his own feelings of humanity and sport.
For the Mudumalai Forest, however, special rules have been published,
which prohibit the shooting of brockets. These rules have been in force
from 1
st
July, 1892, and have worked satisfactorily.
IbexThe Association has to announce, with great regret, that the small
herd of 5 ibex which existed in Tarnad Burray has totally disappeared,
and the only buck left: on Konabettu was killed by a landslip last February.
It is to be hoped that one of the 2 kids born last year may be a buck;
otherwise this small herd of 7 (including the kids) must become extinct.
Elsewhere on the Kundahs and at Pakasuramalai the ibex are slowly
increasing. As already remarked, ibex are much preyed on by panthers,
and a small herd cannot make head against their depredations: a larger
herd of 20 or 30 may continue to increase in spite of such losses.
BisonA few young bulls are still with the herds in the Mudumalai
Forest. Though there were 6 sportsmen shooting in these forests during
the year and every inch of the ground was gone over by them, only one
black bull was seen. The herds, too, have decreased in number since last
year.
Spotted deerThe wild dogs have done much damage to these deer
during the year. A pack of over 40 dogs appeared in the Sigur Forests
and killed deer every day for some months, when the pack suddenly
broke up into twos and threes. Nine dogs were found lying dead in the
forests. Mr. Liebenrood also reports that he found 3 wild dogs lying
dead in the forests near Nellakotta. The presumption is that distemper
or some other disease broke out in the pack. Some such cause must
operate in keeping wild dogs in check, or they would rapidly increase
and overrun the whole country.
AntelopeThese will increase, no doubt, in time with efficient
protection. There are 3 or 4 small herds of 5 or 6 in each in the Sigur
forests.
Small GameWoodcock have been scarce. Hares fairly plentiful, except
in places where jackals are abundant. There is a satisfactory increase in
jungle fowl in all the large sholas, but in the small sholas they are shot
down every season and have but a poor chance of breeding.
Exotic and Introduced Game
ChickoreSingle birds are occasionally seen, and a convoy of 15 was
reported in the neighbourhood of Billikal.
PheasantsThose turned out in Lovedale are occasionally seen; others
have been seen in Governor's shola, Marliamund plantation, Tudor valley
and elsewhere. The birds have apparently scattered widely, as is their
habit. Of the 12 pheasants originally imported, there are 8 alive; also 3
chickens hatched out. The eggs do not appear to be fertile in the hot
climate of Karteri, and the chickens do not live long when hatched. Mr.
G. Oakes, who spent over a thousand rupees in importing pheasants
from England at his own expense, came to the same conclusion and
removed his birds to Ootacamund, where, to his great disappointment
and the lasting regret of all sportsmen, they were destroyed to a bird by
a marauding jackal, which gained entrance into the pen at night.
RabbitsThe game watcher reports that he occasionally sees rabbits,
but they have probably scattered and are not likely to increase very fast
in such a vermin-infested district as Karteri.
PeafowlThe Honorary Secretary has not relaxed his efforts to obtain
pardees to capture peafowl. After sending men over the Mysore District,
a gang was found, but they declined to enter the Government forests
even though offered an advance of Rs. 10, as they imagined it was only a
ruse to entice them away and put them in jail! The Forest Department
hunted them out of the forests before, and this is really the reason why it
is so difficult to get hold of them now. However, it is to be hoped that
when the season commences for capturing peafowl, the Association will
be able to obtain the assistance of these men.
PartridgesThe Association is under great obligations to those gentlemen
who have, at their own expense, endeavoured to further sport and benefit
the district by the introduction of game and fish or who have assisted
the Association by donations for the furtherance of the same good objects.
The Nilgiri Game and Fish Preservation Association was the
earliest private organization in the country to create its laws and
follow them meticulously. Hunters were very particular about
their game and would go to any lengths to protect it. They believed
that they were the protectors and that their shooting had minimal
impact on the wildlife of the area, as long as all the rules were
followed. And could the locals ever follow the rules? Or were
they poachers? Did they have any rights over the game? For most
of the British, the natives were a nuisance.
C.E.M. Russell had a section in his book Bullet and Shot in Indian
Forest, Plain, and Hill, written in 1900, about poaching and other
nuisances of the late nineteenth century. Did such people minimize
the damage caused by the poachers? Who was really causing the
damage?
Poachers and Nuisances
Of the multitude of poachers which harm the many species of large and
small game in the continent of India, I am doubtful whether I ought to
award the palm for destructive power to the Indian wild dog (Cuon
rutilans), or to the class of native whose object is to slay, by any means in
his power, and utterly regardless of both sex and age, any animals, the
flesh of which may command a ready sale in his vicinity. The injury
done to the head of game by both is incalculable; but, inasmuch as the
native is always at work, quietly and unostentatiously, slaying, without,
as a rule, driving the game out of the sphere of his operations, while the
terror which is inspired by a pack of wild dogs, hunting in any particular
tract of forest, is such as to denude that tract temporarily of all its fera
natura and so to necessarily limit the operations of the canine poachers
to an occasional visit, I am inclined to think that the human poachers
are even greater curse to the sportsman than are the dogs. I will therefore
deal first with the poaching native. Generally he possesses a gunan
antiquated, long-barrelled weapon as a rule, but one which, when loaded
with several irregularly shaped chunks of lead, a handful of slugs, or two
bullets, does terrible execution at close quartersand a native has far
too keen an eye to the retention of what he possesses to risk even a
charge of powder and lead unless he is morally certain of scoring. With
his bare feet he can walk almost as noiselessly as a cat; practice has rendered
both his eyesight and his sense of hearing exceedingly acute; he knows
every waterhole, salt lick, and glade in the jungles near his home (and
his operations do not usually take him far afield); and this knowledge,
together with his intimate acquaintances with the habits of the game,
added to an unlimited store of patience, and a total disregard of the
value of time, constitute, with his afore-mentioned antiquated weapon
and few charges of powder and lead, a stock-in-trade which is amply
sufficient for his purpose. For hours he will lie in ambush watching a
waterhole, at which, in the hot and dry season, deer will come to slake
their thirst; or a salt lick, whither they repair, especially in wet weather,
to eat the salt earth; but let even a gravid hind or young fawn approach
his hiding place so close that to miss is well-nigh impossible, the
murderous charge is launched, and the exulting poacher secures an animal
whose flesh can be sold.
The time has undoubtedly come when a check should be put on this
state of things by the impositions of gun and game licences, priced
sufficiently highly to prevent the majority of these poachers from
incurring the expense of so large an outlay. In Mysore, as I have elsewhere
stated, there is nothing to prevent anyone from entering even the State
forests (except during the fire season) for the purpose of shooting; and
the ridiculous cost of a gun licence (about four pence) and the absence
of any game regulations, enable the poacher to make a very comfortable
living at the cost of very little exertion, and at an outlay in cash of
almost nil.
There are many other human poachers, particularly gipsy-like
wandering tribes, who do not use guns, but who are extremely expert in
every conceivable device for capturing game, both large and small, and
whose methods often combine great simplicity in form, with consummate
ingenuity in design. Antelope are sometimes captured by the turning
out, on ground inhabited by wild herds, of a tame buck with nooses
fastened to his horns. The natural pugnacity of the wild buck induces
him to try conclusions with the intruder, with the result, of course, that
the former's horns are entangled, and he is then easily despatched.
By this method, bucks only are taken, but another plan for the
wholesale capture of the animals, without regard to sex or age, is practised
with success in parts of Mysore. A large number of natives, each with a
long cord, to which at intervals nooses of strong gut are attached, proceed
together to a place towards which the configuration of the ground renders
it probable that a herd inhabiting the vicinity may be successfully driven.
The cords are then firmly pegged down in a long and often double line
(the second some yards behind the first), and the men, by making a very
wide circuit, endeavour to get round the herd, and to drive it in the
desired direction, when, should the operation prove successful, several
of the animals are often caught by the legs, and promptly butchered by
the poachers. Pit-falls, dead-fall traps, nooses set in various ways, and
numberless devices, too manifold to enter upon here, are employed with
variable success to reduce wild animals into possession; while the
wholesale capture (by highly successful methods) of all edible game birds
and wild fowl, forms a never-failing source of income to the professors
of the art.
Nuisances in Indian Shooting
In addition to the list of poachers, all of whom in greater or less degree
are of course nuisances to the sportsman, there are two or three nuisances
to the sportsman, which are entitled to special mention.
One of these is the 'did-he-do-it plover, so called from its startling
strident note when disturbed. This troublesome bird is very partial (for
nesting purposes) to little open spaces in the jungle, and the sportsman
who may, while moving stealthily, with rifle on full cock, through a
likely part of the forest in search of deer, have had the misfortune to
startle one or a pair of these birds, knows well that every animal within
hearing of that eerie cry has as surely taken the alarm as if it had itself
seen the human intruder. Another unmitigated nuisance to the sportsman
in Thibet is the kyang or wild ass, whose irritating curiosity leads it to
gallop round a stalker as soon as it has perceived his presence, and by its
absurd antics to communicate the alarm to the game which he is
endeavouring to approach.
Monkeys, too, are often to blame by chattering when they see a
sportsman, and thus drawing the attention of all other animals within
hearing to the fact that an enemy is on foot; but as they often do the
sportsman a service by indicating in the same manner the whereabouts
of a tiger or a panther, it is comparatively easy to forgive them for an
occasional indiscretion.
C.E.M. Russell, Bullet and Shot in Indian Forest, Plain and Hill, p. 346-55.
Russell believed that after the native poachers the wild dog
was the biggest poacher and menace. It was because of people
like hi m that the wild dog was declared vermin and nearly
exterminated from the face of India. It was also a moment of time
when arrogance and self-righteousness directed the decision-
making process. The ruler was the hunter, and he was obsessed
with his sport and always trying to remove any obstacle in this
path, be it native poacher, wild dog, or even red-wattled lapwing!
The nineteenth century came to an end. No one knew what the
next century would bring for wildlife. Many who cared must have
had their fingers crossed. Poachers were out poaching, traders
trading, hunters slaughtering, villagers protecting, the govern-
ment pulling down the timber, and yet there was a tiny band of
people always fighting to save the wilds of India. The battle
entered the next century.
W l
%%
The Early Twentieth Century
A
s the century turned, stricter rules governed sport hunting.
Some of the first changes were initiated in the Bombay
presidency. I think the reason for this was very clear. By the end
of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century the system
of bounties had been totally abused. The gun had developedit
was easy to shoot and be accurate. Wolves, wild dogs, and even
tigers had been incessantly slaughtered. Even before the turn of
the century George Yule had killed 400 tigers and M. Gerrard
227. They were soon to be overtaken by the local rulers of Udaipur
and Gauripur who shot more than 500 tigers each. Another ruler,
the Nawab of Tonk, crossed the 600 mark. Such hunting records
were only the beginning. The situation led to much debate and
makes fascinating reading:
To
The Secretary,
SirI think it worth while to send you the above copy of a letter from
the Revenue Department that members of the Society may know how
they stand with regard to the new forest regulations. These apply to all
forests of any consequence in the Presidency.
Yours faithfully,
A.C. Logan, I.C.S.
Revenue Deaprtment
Bombay Castle, 18
th
August 1903
No. 5627.In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25, clause (i)
Section 31, clause (j), and Section 75, clause (d), of the Indian Forest
Act, 1878, the 25
th
July 1894, published at page 751 of Part I of the
Bombay Government Gazette (except in regard to the Province of Sind),
His Excellency the Governor in Council is pleased with the previous
sanction of the Governor-General in Council to prescribe the following
rules to regulate hunting, shooting, poisoning of water and setting of
traps or snares in the Reserved and Protected forest of the Bombay
Presidency excluding Sind:
1. The following acts are absolutely prohibited in all Reserved and
Protected forests:
(a) the poisoning of rivers or other water and explosion of
dynamite therein for the purpose of killing or catching fish;
(b) the setting of spring guns;
(c) the taking, wounding, or killing of big game, other than
tiger, panther, wolf, hyena, wild dog, pig or bear, over water
or saltlicks;
(d) wounding or killing any game birds or hares during the
close season fixed in the Appendix.
2. The setting of snares or traps is prohibited in all Reserved and
Protected forests except with the written permission of the
Divisional Forest Officer.
3. (a) In any reserved forests or portions of reserved or protected
forests to which the local Government may, for the purpose
of strict conservation or for the preservation of animals
which are becoming rare, or for both of these purposes,
apply these and the following rules by a notification
published in the Bombay Government Gazette, hunting
and shooting are prohibited except under a licence to be
obtained from the Conservator of Forests,
(b) Every licence issued under clause (a) of this rule shall permit
the holder to hunt and shoot, and shall be valid for a period
THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY 3 3
of one year from the date of its grant in any reserved or
protected forest in the presidency to which these rules are
made applicable under clause (a), subject to the condition
that before it has effect in any forest division in which the
licencee does not reside or exercise any jurisdiction, it must
be countersigned by the Divisional Forest Officer,
(c) No such licence shall entitle the holder to hunt or shoot
more than two stags or bulls of each species of animal to be
specified in the licence, according to a list to be prepared
for each Forest Division by the Conservator of Forests.
4. Licences shall not be refused except for special reasons to be
stated in writing.
5. Wounded game may be pursued into the forests of the division
adjoining that for which the licence is valid or into a forest
closed under Rule 8.
6. A licence granted under these rules shall not be transferable.
7. Every person to whom a licence has been granted under these
rules, and who is found hunting, shooting, snaring or trapping
in any forest to which these rules apply, shall on demand by any
forest, police or revenue officer, produce his licence.
8. The Conservator may on the recommendation of the Divisional
Forest Officer and the Collector, declare that any particular forest
or part of a forest is wholly closed for a term of years or annually
for a specified season. He may also prohibit the taking, wounding
or killing of any particular species of animal in any specified
tract of forest, with a view to the preservation of such species
but any such order shall be subject to revision by the
Commissioner. To such forests the validity of licences granted
under these rules does not extend or is modified accordingly,
provided that gazetted officers whose jurisdiction extends to
such forests, or persons holding licences on which the Divisional
Forest Officer has endorsed special permission to that effect
may kill pig, tigers and other dangerous or destructive animals
in such forests. Such special permission shall not be given for a
longer period than one month in any case.
9. If any person to whom permission under Rule 2 or a licence
under Rule 3 has been granted commits a breach of any provision
of the Indian Forest Act, 1878 (VII of 1878), as amended by
the Forest Act, 1890, (V of 1890) or any rules made thereunder,
he shall be liable to the penalty of having the permission or
licence, as the case may be, cancelled by the Divisional Forest
Officer, in addition to any other penalty to which he may be
liable under the Indian Forest Act, 1878 (VII of 1878), or
otherwise. An appeal against the cancellation of the permission
of the licence by the Divisional Forest Officer shall lie to the
Collector and a special appeal, in case of dismissal of the appeal
by the Collector, to the Commissioner, whose decision shall be
final.
10. In any case where the Divisional Forest Officer or Conservator
thinks it advisable, he may direct that a Forest Guard or other
person shall accompany the camp of any licenceholder hunting
or shooting in forests, with the object of seeing that forest rules
are not infringed by camp followers.
11. The word 'hunting' as used in these rules, includes tracking for
the purpose of discovering the lie of wild animals, provided
that any person holding a licence is not prohibited from
employing any number of trackers.
12. Nothing in these rules shall be taken to exempt any person from
liability in respect of any offence by injury to the forest or its
produce or of any other offence punishable under the Indian
Forest Act, 1878 (VII of 1879), as amended by the Forest Act,
1890 (V of 1890).
13. Nothing in these rules shall be taken to cancel any privileges
granted to resident wild tribes except by the express order of the
Collector, or to preclude the grant of special permission by the
Divisional Forest Officer or Collector to resident villagers on
special occasions.
[N.B.Forest in which wild tribes have been given the privilege
of hunting will not generally be notified under Rule. 3]
As the rules became stricter, some of the slaughter was
minimized but it led to much conflict and furore amongst those
who felt restrained. But there were always some who supported
the stricter rules. Reginald Gilbert was a sportsman who, in 1907,
felt that the general bounty on tigers should be suspended. He
felt that the drastic reduction of wild animals in the Indian empire
required immediate correctives. But in the years that followed, it
became clear that the enormous deforestation in places like Sind
and the Punjab and the pressures of bounty hunting had wiped
out the tigers from these areas.
As changes were proposed in the laws and efforts undertaken
to make stricter laws to protect game, the Bombay Natural History
Society was always consulted. This was probably because their
information base was so well respected. Those in the process of
governance knew that if they wanted good advice they would
get it from the BNHS. The year 1908 was critical as a vast area of
grassland along the Brahmaputra river in Assam was set aside
for what was to become India' s first preserve for the rhinos. It
was called Kaziranga. It was also the year when the Indian Forest
Service was managing two million hectares of sal forest for both
India and the British empire. The following correspondence
hi ghl i ght s the i mport ance of the BNHS and the respect it
commanded:
To
The Honorary Secretary,
SirI am directed to forward herewith copies of a letter from the
Government of India, No. 1848, dated the 14
th
August 1908, and the
Bill accompanying it and to request that Government may be favoured
with the opinion of your Society on the provisions of the Bill.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
(Sd.) R.E. Enthoven,
Secretary to Government.
(Copy)
No. 1848.
From
Sir Harold Stuart, K.C.V.O., C.S.J.,
Offg. Secretary to the Government of India.
To
The Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay
Simla, the 14
th
August 1908.
Home Department, Public.
SirI am directed to refer to the correspondence ending with your letter
No. 2739, dated the 19
th
May 1905, regarding the protection and
preservation of game and fish.
2. The replies to the Home Department letter No. 1082-90, dated
the 23
rd
May 1904, with which a draft bill was circulated, disclosed a
strong consensus of opinion in favour of protective legislation, while
indicating a considerable divergence of opinion on the principles of the
bill.
3. A revised draft bill has accordingly been drawn up, and I am directed
to circulate it for the further criticism and opinion of local Governments.
The revised bill defines game and takes power for local Governments to
declare a close time during which it will be unlawful to capture, kill or
deal in any specified kind of game or the plumage of any specified bird.
Fish have been excluded from the scope of the proposed law, as their
case can be suitably provided for by rules under the Indian Fisheries Act.
The bill also provides for a general exception in favour of the capture or
killing of game in self-defence or in protection of crops or fruit, and
gives power to local Governments to apply its provisions to birds other
than those specified in the definition. It may be noted that clause 3
corresponds substantially to clauses 5 and 7 of the original bill, which
were generally approved, and that clause 5 corresponds to clause 18 of
that bill which also met with general approval. Clause 7 which applies
only to birds is far less sweeping than clauses 2(1) and 7 of the original
bill. In short the present bill embodies in an improved and simplified
form those provisions of the original bill which met with general
acceptance. The Government of India consider that the proposed law
will for the present be sufficient to restrict the indiscriminate slaughter
of game, if it is combined with suitable restrictions imposed by rules
under the Forest Acts in force in the different provinces.
4. The legislation contemplated is likely to be of limited application,
as it is probable that in many parts of India the protection afforded by
forests to species threatened with extinction will make it unnecessary to
apply the measure, should it be passed into law. It may, however, be
argued that the proposed bill, so far as it goes beyond the scope of the
Wild Birds Protection Act, 1887, and especially in its application to
deer and other animals which are liable to injure growing crops, is open
to the objections stated in the Home Department Resolution No. 1471-
81, dated the 29
th
August 1885. I am to request that these points of
possible objection to the measure may receive the consideration of the
Governor in Council and that the Government of India may be furnished
with an expression of the views of His Excellency in Council on the
scheme of legislation now formulated.
Your most obedient servant,
H.A. Stuart,
Offg. Secretary to the Government of India.
(Copy)
A Bill to make better provision for the
protection and preservation of game.
Whereas it is expedient to make better provision
for the protection and preservation of game:
It is hereby enacted as follows.
Short title and extent.
1.(1) This Act may be called the Indian Game Act 1908.
(2) It extends to the whole of British India, including British
Baluchistan, Santhal Parganas and Pargana of Spiti.
Definition.
2. In this Act'game' means all kinds of the following birds and
animals when in their wild state, namely:
(1) bustards, ducks, floricans, geese, jungle fowl, partridges,
peafowl, pheasant, pigeons, quail, sandgrouse, snipe, spur
fowl, and woodcock;
(2) antelopes, asses, bison, buffaloes, deer, gazelles, goats, hares,
oxen, rhinoceroses and sheep.
Close time.
3. The Local Government may, by notification in the local official
Gazette, declare any period of the year to be a close time for any
specified kind of game throughout the whole and any part of
its territories; and, during such period and within the areas
specified in such declaration. It shall be unlawful:
(a) to capture or kill any such game;
(b) to deal in any such game;
(c) to deal in the plumage of any bird specified in such
notification captured or killed during such close time.
Penalty for illegal capture or killing of, or dealing in, game.
4. Whoever does, or attempts to do any action in contravention
of Section 3, shall be punishable:
(a) on the first conviction with fine which may extend to fifty
rupees, and
(b) on the second conviction with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month, or with fine which may
extend to one hundred rupees, or with both.
Presumption of commission of certain offences.
5. Where any person is found in possession of any game recently
captured of killed, the Court may presume that he has captured
or killed such game.
Savings.
6. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect the capture or
killing of game in self-defence, or in bona fide protection of a
standing crop or growing fruit.
Application of Act to other birds.
7. The Local Government may, by notification in the local official
Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any kind of bird
other than those specified in Section 2, which in its opinion it
is desirable to preserve from extinction.
Repeal.
8. The Wild Birds Protection Act, 1887, XX of 1887, is hereby
repealed.
To
The Secretary to Government,
General Department, Bombay Castle, 6, Apollo St., Fort,
Bombay,
13
th
January 1909.
SirWith reference to your letter No. 5740 of 1908, dated the 19
th
September 1908,1 beg to forward herewith the opinion of this Society
on the proposed Bill, 'to make better provision for the protection and
preservation of game.'
I regret the delay that has taken place in forwarding the Society's
opinion but the matter had to be referred to a Sub-Committee of
ornithologists and others many of whom are stationed in other
Presidencies, and it was only on receipt of these individual opinions that
my Committee were enabled to formulate their views.
Your most obedient servant,
(Sd) W.S. Millard,
Honorary Secretary,
Bombay Natural History Society
The Committee of the above Society have considered with great interest
the Bill in which the Government of India propose 'to make better
provision for the protection and preservation of game'. In view of the
importance of the subject to Members of the Society, the opinion of a
Sub-Committee of some of the leading ornithologists and sportsmen in
India has been obtained and this Sub-Committee, while approving
generally of the Bill, have made certain suggestions with a view to the
more effective attainment of the objects.
Clause 2Some alteration is in the opinion of this Society required in
this clause.
(1) Should read 'Bustards, (including florican), ducks (including
teal), jungle-fowl, spur-fowl, pea-fowl, pheasants, partridges
[including Snow-cocks (Tetraogallus himalayensis)], Snow-
Partridge (Lerua nicicola), Sandgrouse, Painted-Snipe, Quail,
Pigeons and Woodcock'.
The other snipe and Geese do not need to be included as
they breed outside Indian limits.
(2) This part of the clause needs no alteration in our opinion.
It has been suggested that Wild Asses should be excluded
from the provisions of this Act but it has recently been brought
to the notice of our Society by H.H. the Rao Saheb of Cutch
that these animals frequently stray from Cutch into British
Territory where they obtain no protection.
Clause 3(b). This clause might include the 'heads' or 'trophies' such
as skins, horns or hoofs.
(c) This Society would like to point out that in this clause no mention is
made of the Herons (Ardeidae) and Kingfishers (Alcedinidae), the plumage
of which is so greatly in demand in Europe, and they consider that
special mention should be made of these birds.
Clause 4This clause should be made to include the confiscation of
game heads, skins and other trophies as well as punishment for the offence
Clause 6This clause should in the opinion of our Society have the
following words added: 'but that the skins, heads or trophies or animals
so captured or killed shall be handed over to the local authorities together
with an explanation as to the reason of their being so killed or captured'.
The inclusion of these words will, it is hoped, prevent native shikaris
from shooting animals for trophies for sale under the plea of'protecting
crops'.
Clause 7This clause should in our opinion include any kind of'animal'
as well as 'bird'.
It is also the opinion of this Society that the results of this Bill will
depend entirely on the working of it by the various Local Governments
and it is partly with this idea that they suggest the inclusion of the above
additions.
As naturalists as well as sportsmen, the Society would like to see the
Bill extended to all Birds and Animals which are either harmless or useful
to man, and protection not merely restricted to game, and they hope
that the Government of India will be able to see their way to introduce
such a Bill at some future time.
W.S. Millard
Honorary Secretary
13
th
January 1909.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 19 (1908-09), pp. 220-^.
The above is a remarkable record of consultation between the
government and the non-government sector. This was 1909, and
the first serious amendments to the 1887 Wild Birds and Game
Act were being contemplated. The first decade of the twentieth
century had taken a toll on the wilderness. There was a flurry of
writing and a unique piece was written on the traffic in birds.
P.T.L. Dodsworth wrote on 'Protection of Wild Birds in India
and Traffic in Plumage' in the Bombay Natural History Society
Journal. What a superbly researched article it is, based at the end
of one century and the beginning of another, with a strong plea at
the end to ban the trade and fashion of feathers:
Protection of Wild Birds in India and
Traffic in Plumage
by
P.T.L. Dodsworth, F.Z.S.
The fauna of British India is protected by the following Acts and Rules:
(1) Madras Act II of 1879-The operation of this Act is confined
to the Nilgiris. It provides for close seasons, and prohibits the
killing, capturing, and selling of game and fish during such
seasons.
(2) The Elephant Preservation Acts of 1873 and 1879 (Madras I of
1873, and India VI of 1879)These Acts prohibit the killing,
injuring, or capturing of wild elephants, except in self-defence
or under a licence.
(3) Forest Laws:
(a) The Indian Forest Act, 1878Sections 25(i) and 31(j)
(b) Madras Forest Act, 1882Sections 21(i) and 26(f); and
(c) Burma Forest Act, 1902Sections 26(h) and 33(c).
(4) The Wild Birds and Game Protection Act of 1887 (Act XX of
1887).
(5) The Act Relating to Fisheries in British India (Act IV of 1897)
This Act prohibits the destruction of fish by dynamite or other
explosive substance in any water, or by poisoning of water; and
provides for the protection of fish in selected waters.
As the scope of the present inquiry is restricted to birds alone, it will
only be necessary to turn our attention to No. (4)The Wild Birds and
Game Protection Act of 1887. This Act extends to the whole of British
India, and empowers Local Governments, Municipalities, and
Cantonments to frame rules prohibiting (a) the possession or sale during
its breeding season within the Municipality or Cantonment of any kind
of wild bird recently killed or taken; and (b) the importation into the
Municipality or Cantonment of the plumage of any kind of wild bird
during such season.
It would be tedious and wearisome to dilate on the early history of
what is known as the 'protection' movement, which beginning in 1869,
culminated in the Act of 1887. It will suffice to state for our purpose
that in 1886 the question of having a general game law for India engaged
the attention of the authorities, but such law was then considered
unnecessary. It was, however, decided that Local Governments should
be empowered to frame rules prohibiting the sale of game within
cantonments or towns during a specified season of the year, and with
this object, the Act (XX of 1887) was passed. It is chiefly directed against
the destruction of birds, but Local Governments have the power to apply
its provisions to any other game.
The limited provisions of this Act, which apply to Municipal and
Cantonment areas only, will be readily understood when we bear in
mind some of the reasons which actuated Government in objecting to
afford wider and more stringent measures of protection. They were:
(a) The predominant claims of agriculture, to which all other
considerations must be subservient.
(b) The undesirability of interfering with the livelihood of forest
and other wild tribes, who depend largely upon the capture of
game for their subsistence.
(c) The general objection to the creation of new penal offences.
(d) The unjustifiability of legislation in the interests of the
sportsmen.
(e) The absence of evidence that the destruction of birds for the
sake of their plumage was carried out on an extensive scale, and
that there was any serious diminution in their numbers.
In 1900 the Honorary Secretary of the Society for the Protection of
Birds raised the question of the advisability of stopping the export of the
plumage of ornamental birds; and in the following year in the Budget
Debate of the 27
th
March in the Supreme Legislative Council, the Hon'ble
Sir Allan Arthur urged upon Government the expediency of protective
measures for game in India. During his visit to Burma in 1901 Lord
Curzon was approached upon the subject in a public address. His
Lordship returned a sympathetic reply, admitting that the enactments
in force did not go far enough, and that more stringent measures were
called for. In addition to this, numerous other representations to a similar
effect were received by Government, or appeared from time to time in
the public press.
In view of these representations, and of the fact that a considerable
time had elapsed since the passing of the Wild Birds and Game Protection
Act of 1887, Lord Curzon's Government decided to inquire into the
matter, and to ascertain how far the existing measures had been attended
with success. The Local Governments were accordingly asked to report
(i) upon the working of the Act in question; (ii) whether it afforded an
adequate measure of protection; (iii) the extent to which the skins of
birds of handsome or useful plumage were exported, and whether the
trade had increased or decreased of late years; and (iv) whether there was
any extensive destruction of wild birds, especially of non-migratory
insectivorous birds, during what should be close seasons for them; and,
if so, whether it was leading to the extermination of any species.
The replies received to this reference showed clearly that the working
of the Act had proved a failure. And this was only to be expected, since
the prohibitions applied only within a specified cantonment or town
during a specified season. Rural areas (except forest areas) were beyond
the scope of the Act. There was nothing to prevent birds being killed
during the close season, and the detention of their skins or feathers outside
Municipal or Cantonment limits as the case might be, until the prescribed
period was over; or by the transfer of the bird-killing operations beyond
the specified boundaries.
As to the adequacy or otherwise as a measure of protection, the general
consensus of opinion was that existing legislation did not sufficiently
meet the necessities of the case. After careful review of the whole subject
the authorities have taken up the question of the advisability of a general
Game Law for the protection of game in India, and this is at present
under consideration. The proposed bill is of a very simple nature, and
affords adequate protection to those wild birds and animals which are
threatened with extermination. It defines game, and takes power for
Local Governments to apply its provisions to birds other than certain
specified ones. Fish have been excluded from the scope of the proposed
bill, as their case has been suitably provided for by rules under the Indian
Fisheries Act.
The replies to (iii) and (iv), in respect of exportation and destruction,
disclosed not only a serious, but a most disastrous state of affairs. From
all parts of the country came the same cries of destruction and diminution,
which amounted to virtual extermination. Of Impeyan and Argus
pheasants throughout the Himalayas, of Peacocks and Black Partridges
from Bombay, of Egrets from Sind and Burma and of a host of others,
including Jungle-cocks, Paddy-birds, Kingfishers, Jays, and Orioles
throughout India generally. So lucrative was the trade that single districts,
such as Lucknow in the United Provinces, and Amritsar in the Punjab,
contributed between them nearly 16,000 lbs. of plumage annually. Taking
as an average 30 skins to the pound, the figures, indicated the destruction
of nearly five hundred thousand birds in a single year from two districts
alone! From Bombay it was reported that a single Railway Station to the
north of Sind had exported within a few months 30,000 skins of Black
Partridges, and that over many square miles in the Rohri Division these
birds had, within two seasons, been absolutely exterminated by a single
party of professional trappers. Various other reports showed that birds
were netted and trapped, not by thousands, but by millions, without
any regard to season or sex. The hen on her eggs, or with chicks at her
feet, were all fair spoil to these unscrupulous hunters. A Postal Official,
who was stationed for many years at Dharamsala, gives an interesting
account of these operations. 'Monal and Argus pheasants,' he remarks,
'are snared in large numbers by professional trappers in the Kashmir and
Chamba Native States, and also in the hills near Kulu, Dalhousie,
Dharamsala, Palampur, etc. Snares are set in localities which are not
frequented by sportsmen and others, and female birds and animals are
destroyed wholesale. I have personally seen scores of young Monals and
female pheasants entangled in the snares. The intention of the snares is,
of course, to entrap male Monal and Argus Pheasants, but the system is
such that every living thing that comes into the traps is destroyed. A
short description of the system of snaring might prove of some interest.
A hedge of branches of trees, brushwood and grass is erected from the
bottom of a hill to the top. At every ten or twelve places, there is a small
opening in which a spring snare is fastened. The snare is composed of a
bent branch and a slip-knot. While the birds and animals are feeding,
they come across the hedge, and naturally look for an opening in order
to cross it. On finding one, they endeavour to pass through it, and are
caught in the snare.' The writer adds that 'the extent of the indiscriminate
slaughter under such system can only be realised by those who have
witnessed it.' And if these reports were startling, the enormous extent of
the export trade in plumage was equally so. During the years 1895-
1900, the total quantity and value of feathers (Indian merchandise)
exported by sea from India to other Foreign countries amounted to the
gigantic total of 11,49,354 lbs., representing a value of Rs 15,51,831.
The details were made up as follows:
Province from which Exported Quantity Value
(Lbs.)
(Rs)
Bengal
1,69,499 6, 64, 942
Bombay 9, 46, 067 7, 43, 807
Sind 881 1,710
Madras
23, 499 1,12,388
Burma 9, 408 28, 984
Total 11,49,354 15,51,831
The greater part of these feathers were exported to the United Kingdom
and China; a considerable portion also went to Austria, Hungary, France,
Germany and the Straits Settlements, and the balance was distributed in
small quantities between Belgium, Japan, Arabia, Persia, etc. Nor were
these the only figures which the authorities had before them at the time.
It appeared that much of the export trade was also conducted through
the medium of the India Post Office. For the period from 1
st
July 1898
to 30
th
June 1901, the records of a single Post Office, namely, that of
Bombay disclosed the facts that 1,521 parcels, containing birds' feathers
of the aggregate weight of 6,813 lbs., and valued at 23,653 were
addressed to the United Kingdom, while the rest were addressed to other
countries.
With these data before them, it was obviously impossible for the
authorities to view with equanimity such an intolerable state of affairs.
All reports and returns showed conclusively that the trade was rapidly
increasing; that birds were being killed wholesale for the sake of their
plumage; and that, if prompt measures were not taken, the extermination
of various species, which are to be found in India only, was imminent.
Accordingly as a first step to check this indiscriminate slaughter, a
Notification No. 5028 S. R., dated the 19
th
September 1902, was issued,
under Sea Customs Act, 1878, (VIII of 1878), prohibiting the taking by
sea or by land out of British India of skins and feathers of all birds other
than domestic birds, except (a) feathers of ostriches, and (b) skins and
feathers exported bona fide as specimens illustrative of Natural History.
As this prohibition was issued without notice or warning, a large
number of representations were received, notably from a trader in Simla,
who had in stock skins of Impeyans and black Argus to the value of Rs
6,000 and from two firms in Calcutta who had in hand 6,000 skins of
Impeyan and Argus pheasants, and six cases of Kingfishers' feathers, and
to enable them to dispose of their stocks, and to wind up their businesses,
the operation of the orders was suspended until the 1
st
January 1903.
Shortly after this, the attention of Government was drawn to a letter
which appeared in the Madras Mail of the 29
th
June 1903, in which the
writer gave prominence to the fact that no provision had been made for
detecting the export of feathers and plumage by land to territories of
Foreign Governments in India, such as Goa and Pondicherry. This point
immediately received due attention, and with the cordial co-operation
of the French and Portuguese authorities, these outlets for export were
also closed.
In July of the same year (1903) a Postal Notice drawing attention of
the public to the prohibition of 18
th
September 1902, was issued to the
following effect:
'It is hereby notified that the transmission by post out of British India of
skins and feathers of all birds other than domestic birds, except (a) feathers
of ostriches and (b) skins and feathers exported bona fide as specimens
illustrative of Natural History is prohibited.
2. In the case of all parcels containing birds' skins or feathers for
which customs declarations are required, the name of the bird must be
entered in the customs declaration; and if exemption from the above
prohibition is claimed on the ground that the skins or feathers are being
exported bona fide as specimens illustrative of Natural History, a
statement to this effect must be made in the customs declaration,
otherwise the parcel will not be accepted for transmission by post.'
The trade in plumage, however, being very lucrative, the above
measures were not sufficient to check it, and it appeared that export by
foreign parcel post, under false declaration, was resorted to largely. In
consequence of this, two Notifications No. 1819-60 and 1821 -60, dated
the 26
th
February 1907, were issued under the Indian Post Office Act,
1898 (VI of 1898), empowering certain postal officers to search, or cause
search to be made, for birds' skins and feathers in course of transmission
by post to any place outside British India, and making the customs
declaration in respect of parcels handed to the Post Office for transmission
by the Foreign post, a declaration required by the Post Office Act.
As the position in respect of the illicit traffic in plumage from India is
not generally known, we have given in detail the foregoing review of the
various preventative measures, taken from time to time, in this country,
and it will be observed that the Indian Government have practically
closed every possible channel of export. But in spite of all these
prohibitions, smuggling to a large extent has commenced, and still
continues. The explanatory memorandum which is prefixed to Lord
Avebury's 'Importation of Plumage Prohibition Bill' is most pertinent
to the subject, and deserves to be quoted in full:
'The object of this Act is to check the wanton and wholesale destruction
of birds which is being carried on everywhere throughout the British
Empire, and in all parts of the world, without regard to agricultural,
educational and aesthetic value of birds. As a proof of the extent of the
destruction that at present goes on, and which is threatening the
extinction of the most beautiful species, it may be mentioned that at the
plume auctions held in London during the last six months of 1907 there
were catalogued 19,742 skins of birds of paradise, 1,411 packages of the
nesting plumes of the white heron (representing the feathers of nearly
115,000 birds), besides immense numbers of the feathers and skins of
almost every known species of ornamental plumaged bird. At the June
sale, held at the Commercial Sale Rooms, 1,386 crowned pigeons' heads
were sold, while among miscellaneous bird-skins one firm of auctioneers
alone catalogued over 20,000 Kingfishers. A deplorable feature of recent
sales is the offer of large numbers of lyrebirds' tails and of albatross quills.
The constant repetition of such figures as the aboveand these plume
sales take place at least every two monthsshows that the Legislature
must choose between the extermination or the protection of the birds in
question.'
The statements in the above memorandum, astounding as they may
seem, are nevertheless indisputable, and the inference that may be drawn
therefrom, viz., that an enormous illicit trade flourishes at the present
time, is fully borne out by an examination of the records of the Indian
Customs Authorities. During the years 1903-1910, no less that 19 cases
of smuggling were detected at the ports of Calcutta, Bombay, Madras
and Burma. There were 25 cases in Calcutta, 8 in Bombay, 10 in Madras,
and 6 in Burma.
A brief description of some of the more important of these cases which
have been detected (in addition to the one noticed by Mr. Buckland) is
not only interesting but instructive as showing the methods adopted by
smugglers engaged in the plume traffic:
Bengal
(a) In April 1903 a Chinese firm were caught exporting a case of
Kingfishers' skins. They were fined Rs 1,000, and the skins were
confiscated. The good were declared as 'Fish maws'.
(b) In October 1904 another firm were caught exporting three cases
of Peacock feathers. The goods were intended for Hamburg,
and were declared as 'Indian curios'.
(c) In August 1905 another Chinese firm were detected exporting
18 cases of Kingfishers' skins. They were intended for Hong
Kong, and were declared as 'Tobacco'. An examination of their
books showed that since the prohibition of 1902 they had made
no less than nine shipments of such goods. They were, therefore,
fined Rs 10,000.
(d) In the same year it came to light that a German firm in Calcutta
had on various occasions smuggled consignments of Osprey,
Heron and Grey Paddy Birds' feathers to the value of Rs 22,850.
They were fined Rs 7,200. The goods were intended for London
via Hamburg and Bremen.
(e) In January 1906 a ^f^pni edan presented a shipping bill for
'three baskets of Appfers', which really contained Kingfishers'
skins to the valuqfof Rs 800. The consignment was intercepted.
(f) In June 1906 a consignment of five parcels, containing Osprey
feathers, which had been posted in Calcutta addressed to
Colombo under a misdescription 'Pieces of yellow cloth' was
detected. This case is a typical one, and is illustrative of the
procedure sometimes adopted by smugglers. When they find it
difficult to ship goods from a particular port they send them by
post, and if they wish to make sure that they will not be seized
in the post, then, instead of despatching them direct to a foreign
address, they post them to some small Indian port, whence they
can be redespatched with less fear of detection; or else they send
them to a similar intermediate destination by rail.
Bombay
(a) During 1907-1908 two cases of smuggling of feathers occurred
in this Presidency. In one case 41 packets of Egrets' feathers
from Rangoon were intercepted at short intervals by the Bombay
Post Office. The feathers, which were of very considerable value,
were confiscated. In the other case 25 large boxes of Peacock
feathers were shipped from Singapore on their way to Europe
under a false shipping bill in which the contents were declared
as 'Country Cotton goods', and the identity of the shippers
concealed. The shippers were traced with much difficulty, and
severely dealt with, while the feathers were confiscated.
(b) In 1908-1909 a case of attempt to export by train 823 Jungle
fowl skins, with feathers complete, was detected at Castle Rock.
The exporter was fined Rs 300, and was given the option of
redeeming the feathers on payment of Rs 4,000.
Madras
During the year 1907-1908 there were 10 cases of attempted exportation
of Osprey feathers from the above port. The penalties imposed amounted
to Rs 3,005.
Burma
The only important case of smuggling of feathers reported from the
above is one which occurred in 1909-1910. The goods were exported
from Madras to Rangoon, but as this could not be regarded as 'exportation
out of British India', the matter was dealt with as a misdeclaration only,
and a nominal penalty imposed.
There will doubtless be a marked diminution in cases such as those
mentioned above, if, and when, the Bill prohibiting the sale of plumage
and skins of certain birds, which is at present before the House of
Commons, becomes law. But there seems little hope of stamping out
altogether this nefarious traffic, so long as the vicious taste for wearing
feathers and skins of birds by the fair sex in their headgear continues.
'Women,' says Mr. Buckland, 'have come down through the ages as
embodied mercy, tenderness and compassion. Sculptors have represented
her with the deep, maternal breast against which tearful little children
nestle for succour and comfort. Painters have depicted the poor and the
oppressed fleeing to her for refuge from cruelty and wrong. Writers have
given her the semblance of Venus, the peerless goddess, who, because of
her solicitude for the birds, would not permit victims to be offered her
or her altars to be stained with blood.
'What a travesty of this, the world's reverent ideal of womanhood, is
the befeathered Herodias of modern times! Is there in the wide world a
more repugnant anomaly than the spectacle of modern woman
claiming to be more tender than mantransformed, at the beck of
fashion, into a creature heedlessly destructive of bird life, and in practice
as bloodthirsty as the most sanguinary beast of prey? It cannot be said in
apology for her sin that she errs in ignorance. So much has been written
and said about the brutal methods by which her feathers are obtained
that the old subterfuges have become too battered to stand. Even those
soothing emollient she was wont to apply to her conscience, "artful"
and "moulted", have become too impaired by constant refutations to be
of further service. She knows, no one better, that art cannot reproduce a
feather, and she would toss her head in high disdain if asked to wear a
moulted plume.'
It would be interesting to know how the practice of wearing plumes
and feathers for ornamental purposes originally arose, but it is without
doubt of very ancient date. It is one of those relics of remote agesakin
to some superstitions in the religions of modern timeswhich in spite
of its disastrous effects, still lingers, and is an outrage on every feeling of
humanity. Through countless generations, man has been persistently
shaking off all traces of his barbaric ancestors, and when the progress
made by him is closely scrutinised, even after this enormous lapse of
time, it is surprising to find that faint traces of his ancient customs still
adhere to him with a wonderful tenacity. Times are, however, changing;
powerful Ornithologists' Unions are at work; and the feeling is growing
stronger daily that our feathered friends must be protected at all costs.
Nothing short of an international law will, perhaps, ever accomplish
this; but it is obvious that Governments can no longer countenance so
pernicious a trade, the sole object of which is to minister for a short
space of time to female vanity, or gratify the passing freak of a summer
fashion at the cost of an enormous sacrifice of life. At the present time
feathers, skins and other such like tawdries satisfy the demands of
millinery, but when these fail who would be bold enough to prophesy
that insects with bizarre and fantastic shapes, or exotic butterflies with
gorgeous colouring will not next be called into requisition to meet the
demands of a new fashion? The attention of Governments of the day
will doubtless then be drawn to the preservation of other species by
zealous entomologists pressing for legislation in a fresh direction. But to
return to the subject. It seems clear from the measures already taken that
India is no longer a haunt for dealers of birds' skins and feathers, and it
is high time now that they realized their precarious positions. We take
this opportunity of suggesting that no heed should be paid to deputations
and memorials urging absurd and frivolous objections, such as birds
dropping their feathers naturally, or millions of people being deprived
of their means of livelihood, or the prohibitions not affording the least
protection to birds, etc.
The points which strike us as deserving of further consideration by
Governments are:
(i) To prohibit the export of plumage from one India port to another
(vide the Burma case of 1909-1910).
(ii) To prohibit the possession in India of birds' skins and feathers,
except in reasonable quantities for personal use or for scientific
purposes only. This, it is thought, is the only measure which
will ever put an end to the illicit trade so far as India is concerned
at all events. For as long as there is a demand for feathers and
skins, smuggling is bound to continue.
In conclusion, we venture to express a hope, and we feel confident
that all true sportsmen and naturalists in India will join us that
Government will never be induced, even by the doctrine of non-
interference with trade which is the only argument that can reasonably
be urged, ever to relax the prohibition in respect of plumage, etc., now
in force. Even the most impartial student of this question could not
help but view with feelings of dismay and apprehension, the consequences
of any such relaxation. For the trade which is now practically extinct
would spring into renewed activity, and while causing lasting and
irreparable injury by bringing about the extermination of large number
of species of birds, would eventually end by killing itself by destroying
that on which it subsisted.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 20 (1910-11), pp. 1103-14.
What an article! Dodsworth was a real fighter and I am certain
that his interventions minimized the damage to a diverse range
of species. This is another example of the detailed work done on
an issue and is probably the first serious research on trafficking.
Again much for today' s NGOs to learn from. The trade must have
been enormous and the forests rich; and we need to peep into the
life and work of those who were in the forest service. Let us also
take a look at how the habitat was.
It is about the same time that Sainthill Eardley-Wilmot, a
former inspector general of forests in the Government of India,
wrote his book Forest Life and Sport in India. A small collection of
his writings reveals much about the work of the forest officers in
India and the beginning of the forest service. He was one of the
first officers to have worked under the 1878 Indian Forest Act
the bible for forest officers even today. An extract follows:
The Work of the Inspector General of Forests
To comprehend the administration of the State Forests of India, it will
be necessary to give a short sketch of the machinery of the Indian
Government. The Empire is ruled by a permanent Executive Council,
aided by a more numerous body of nominated Councillors, the whole
under the presidency of the Viceroy and Governor General, who holds
the portfolio of Foreign Affairs. The other Executive Councillors are the
Commander-in-Chief and the Ministers for the Home, Finance,
Legislative, Industry and Commerce, and Revenue and Agriculture
Departments. Finance and Legislation are administered by officers
appointed alternately from England and from amongst the members of
the Indian Civil Service; while the heads of the other departments are as
a rule recruited from that Service. In each department are Secretaries,
who also, with a very few exception, derive their origin from the Indian
Civil Service. Each department is divided into branches, and these, in
cases where special expert knowledge is deemed to be requisite, are
presided over by officials who have the requisite training, either in
England or through Indian experience. The heads of these branches,
who as a rule are not members of the Indian Civil Service, communicate
their advice to the Secretary of the department, who takes final orders
from the Minister concerned, or, in case of disagreement between
departments, from the Governor General in Council. State Forestry in
India is controlled by the Department of Revenue and Agriculture, and
the Inspector General of Forests is the expert in charge of its Forest
Branch.
But he has also other duties outside the scope of that department. On
him rests the initiative and control in the matter of forest education,
and he is responsible for the correctness of the silvicultural proposals
that are prepared under the orders of the Conservators for transmission
to the Local Governments. Thus, not only is his advice demanded on all
forest questions that are brought before the Government of India, but
his orders are required in all matters affecting the professional treatment
of the forests. In either case he is open to a salutary criticism which
absence of local knowledge on his part would render peculiarly effective,
and it is therefore of the utmost importance that he should acquire as
intimate an acquaintance as possible with the varying conditions that
obtain throughout the Peninsula. In respect of the two Provinces of
Bombay and Madras, ruled by Governors appointed in England, and
subject to only a general control of policy by the Government of India,
such acquaintance was difficult to obtain; for the Inspector General could
only visit these Provinces by special invitation of their Governments,
and he received their silvicultural and other reports for information,
and not for orders.
The efficiency of any Service is based on various conditions, and
perhaps the most important of these is the maintenance of a high moral
standard; but it becomes difficult to insist on this standard unless adequate
protection is afforded at least against lapses that are directly referable to
unavoidable financial distress; and if such protection is withheld,
relaxations of principle may occur that constitute a danger to official
prestige, and easily lead to felonies punishable by the law. The grant of a
salary calculated to meet the expenses of a public officer who is forced to
live up to a certain social status should be therefore a primary
consideration with his employers, but when taking steps to insure the
payment of such salaries other points of interest are speedily brought to
notice.
We are, for instance, often too ready with accusations of corruption
and expressions of abhorrence with regard to the acceptance of illegal
gratifications by Indians, without considering the difference between
the standard of probity created by the British Government and that
customary in the country before its arrival. With us, so-called illegal
gratifications are penal, because such are rightly held to affect the
impersonal service required by the State and the justice of its decisions;
we expect an official to refrain from commerce, from speculation, from
anything that may divert his attention from public to private interests;
we make this condition of his service, and punish, not only any breach
of contract, but also those who are accessory thereto. Under native rule
the case was widely different; then salaries were often held to be the least
part of the emoluments, and, indeed, appointments to onerous and
responsible posts were often purchased, and it is but fifty years since the
H.E.I.C. both ruled the country and exploited it to its own advantage.
The time-honoured system of the past has to give way to the sterner
morality of the present day, yet an Indian (not a Government official,
who by accepting office has contracted not to increase his income by
forbidden methods) sees no degradation, no dishonour, in adhering to
an ancient custom, even though he may recognize the theoretical
superiority of the new regime; and where this regime is not in force he
continues the customs of his forefathers.
Sainthill Eardley-Wilmot, Forest Life and Sport in India.
We are still at work trying desperately to improve the working
conditions of the forest staff and attempting to reform the service.
The inspector general has become the director general but the poor
forest serviceit has now been relegated to oblivion. Finance
departments still destroy the reform and recruitment process.
Wilmot probably did not realize it but his time was the golden
era for the forest service. The population of India is now over a
billion and the pressures on forest land enormous, but the
problems described by Wilmot a century ago remain pretty much
the same today.
In the conclusion Wilmot stated:
Finally, as to sport in India, in so far as the forest is concerned, the
time has already arrived when bitterness and jealousies are not
uncommon, as a perusal of correspondence in the daily press will
show. And this is but natural when the Government has been forced
to interfere to protect from promiscuous slaughter the interesting
fauna of the country. At present no one can shoot in Government
forests without first purchasing a licence that defines the area placed
at the sportsman's disposal, the number and kind of animals he may
kill; and in the midst of the eager applications for these licences the
Forest Officer may find himself entirely cut off from sport in the
area under his charge, or be afraid to fire a shot, lest he should be
encroaching on territory leased to another. So much is this the case
that more than one Forest Officer has laid aside gun and rifle entirely,
so as to have a freer hand in the issue of licences and in the decision
of disputes that may arise amongst othersa distinctly humourous
result of game laws that add to the duties of the forester, that of
gamekeeper, and deprive him of one of the most popular incentives
to a forester career.
As a rule, the man who passes his life amongst the big game
attacks it in his youth, with the ferocity born of primeval instincts
and of novelty. As he grows older he becomes more merciful, till at
last intimate acquaintance conduces to sympathetic affection. He
may still feel his blood boil with the excitement of a tiger-hunt, for
here is a pastime that never stales with its monotony, provided that
man and tiger meet with some pretence of equality; but, for the rest,
the wild beasts afford a companionship that is fully recognized in
the feeling of solitude experienced when living in a forest devoid of
animal life. To read by day on the ground the circumstances and
occupations of his neighbours, to interpret by night the cries that
tell of their passions and dangers, supplies that added interest which
brings vigour to the continuous labour of the forester. For that labour
he will find his reward in the generous response of the forest to his
fostering care, and in results that will endure for generations after
he has completed the short work of a lifetime.
Sainthill Eardley-Wilmot, Forest Life and Sport in India.
The 1887 Wild Birds Protection Act was amended and
repealed in 1912. The Wild Bird and Animals Protection Act (VIII
of 1912) replaced it to put the interests of wildlife on the agenda
of the country for the first time ever.
The new Act and its various amendments must have created
an atmosphere that inspired many to write. One of these writers
was a forest officer called E.P. Stebbing who, in a book published
in 1920 entitled The Diary of a Sportsman Naturalist in India, states
some of the most far-reaching thoughts for saving and governing
wildlife. He goes into great detail about the economic value of
fauna and then into what must have been some of the first strong
utterances about creating a sanctuary. What Stebbing was really
doing was forcing the prioritization of both the forest and wildlife
issue by going into the details of the economic value in order to
get attention and political will. It is amazing that this was early in
the last century. I do much the same even today as he was doing
nearly eighty years ago.
E.P. Stebbing wove a path through his writings in order to
minimize the effects of poaching and his attempt was to create
inviolate tracts or sanctuaries, since he felt there was an urgent
need for this at the turn of the last century itself! Stebbing deserves
extensive quoting:
The Economic Value of the Fauna
It has been previously mentioned that the Government of India, as the
successors to the former rulers of the country, became the owners of the
fauna of the forests and wastelands. This fauna has a very considerable
economic value, the realization of which has so far not been apparent.
Practically the only pecuniary return as yet achieved has been from the
sale of shooting licences to sportsmen. And yet the value of the flesh,
horns and skins of the mammals annually killed throughout the country
must be very considerable. That there is a ready market has been
mentioned and is well known to many. The economic value of these
products in all probability runs into many lacs of rupees annually. No
steps appear to have been yet taken to tap this source of revenue. And it
cannot be tapped until the matter is approached from the proper
viewpoint. The mere passing of an Act, and the notification of Regulations
under the Act by Local Governments, will not be sufficient to deal
adequately with the question.
The effective preservation of the mammals, birds and fish of a country
as large as India is a matter requiring constant and unremitting attention
if they are to be safeguarded. That this matter has not been envisaged
from the correct point of view to date is perhaps not surprising. To the
old-time sportsman it did not occur. Why should it? The game animals
and animals of economic value were in such abundance in the country
that the chances of a species becoming exterminated must have appeared
remote. The position, as has been shown, is now very different.
It is known for a fact that mammals yielding skins of a high commercial
value and birds producing plumes are in danger of extinction throughout
the world, owing to the cupidity of the commercial firms dealing in
such produce. The valuable egret plumes of India are a case in point, the
must deer of the Himalaya, and so forth. The trader is no respecter of
sex or season if he has a valuable market.
Where possible, there is no reason why the trade of a country in this
respect should not be maintained. But a trade whose existence depends
on the slaughter of animals should be regulated one. It requires to be
under supervision in order that a proper need of protection may be
accorded to the animal. Such supervision in India can only be effectually
given by the Supreme Government.
It is difficult to understand why the economic value of the fauna of
the country as a whole has not been realised. Most people are aware that
the flora contains many species of high economic value, whether as timber,
food and medicinal products, or other commercial articles, such as dyes,
tannins, grasses, and so forth. Many of these come from the forests. The
Forest Officer, for instance, is well aware that timber by no means
constitutes the only commercial article which the forest produces. In
fact he may be in charge of areas which produce no timber of commercial
size at all. His trees may only grow to a size which yields fuel, such as in
some of the Punjabi plains forests. But in most cases the fuel is by no
means the only saleable article the forests contain. There will be usually
what the forester collectively designates 'Minor products'. The Indian
forests contain a very large number of these minor products, varying
with the variations in the flora and climate. Lac, for instance, is the
product of an insect which is now carefully cultivated in blocks of forest
in the Central Provinces and elsewhere and yields a handsome revenue
in the parts of the country where it thrives. Bamboos are a minor product
which the future may see largely needed for the production of paper
pulp; for it has been commercially proved that they can be used in the
production of classes of this commodity, the demand for which is ever
increasing. Other products are grasses, also used in the manufacture of
paper and for thatching purposes; canes, tannins, resin, gums, wax, and
so forth, are all minor products, the collection of which in the forest is
well understood and the sale of which forms a very handsome proportion
of the annual sum realized from the Indian forests. These are derivable,
all but lac and wax, from the flora of the country. Why has not equal
attention been paid to the products which are obtainable from the fauna?
Horns, hides, furs, plumes and feathers, and fish of the rivers and streams.
There is a good source of revenue here. The horns shed annually by the
deer (Cervidae) in the forests throughout the country must represent
many thousand tons in weight. It is, however, unusual to find more than
a stray horn here and there in jungles where deer are numerous. They are
systematically searched for and collected by the neighbouring villagers
and sold in the bazaars. Government realises but little revenue under
this head.
The Forest Officer has had the duties of gamekeeper added to his
other arduous ones in the forest. He issues the permits for shooting;
allocates the blocks between the various permit-holders, possibly finding
when this distribution has been made that there will be but a small area
left in which he may fire a rifle himself. The revenue from the permits
goes to Government. But it is a small return for the value of the large
number of mammals, birds, and fish killed and sold annually on their
property. It has been recognized that the products of the flora belong to
the Government and they are collected and sold in the interests of the
revenue. The same policy should be extended to cover the products of
the fauna.
It may be suggested that this could be done by setting up a staff who
should have the charge of advising on the best means of collecting the
revenue derivable from the fauna as a whole. That, in fact, the fauna
should be treated as one of the economic products of the country and
that mammals, birds and fishes should only be killed on licence. The
case of the sportsman has already been dealt with. His object is to secure
pleasure combined with such trophies of the chase as good fortune and
his own skill will win by well-understood sporting methods. But the far
larger body of individuals interested in the destruction of the fauna of
the country are professionals. They kill to sell and their operations should
be controlled by the issue of a licence permitting them to kill a certain
number of head of the animal named in the permit, before they are
taken out of the area in which they are secured.
In fact they should be treated on similar lines to those employed in
the collection of minor produce from the forests. In the case of the forests
the licences would be issued and the royalties collected by the Forest
Staff in a manner similar to other forest produce. It would be essential,
for the orderly management of these forests under the existing working
plans in force, plans which have received the sanction of the Local
Governments, that all licences covering operations within the
Government forest area should be issued, the licences controlled, and
the revenue collected by the Forest Officer. In the case of the areas lying
outside the forests in each District the licences would be issued and
controlled by the Collector. The introduction of the universal licence
would, moreover, place the Collector in an easier position with reference
to the vexed question of the gun licence for the protection of crops. If
animals were shot in the crops the village shikari or villager would have
to pay the royalty on the horns, skins and flesh of the animals shot, and
the sex and age of these animals would be recorded. An effective check
would therefore be set up, for strict investigation could be carried out in
cases where the records showed an undue number of animals shot on
this pretext in any locality or the neighbourhood of any villagea check
which heretofore has been non-existent. An efficient scheme might well
be worked out by the Advisory Officer in the District for the protection
of crops which would eliminate once and for all the poaching shikari
and villager.
If some simple procedure as the one here sketched were brought into
force it would be unnecessary to set up a separate department to deal
with the protection of the fauna and to obtain from it the revenue which
is should certainly yield. The strengthening of the staffs in some cases
might be necessary and officers who are known to have made a close
practical study of the fauna of their province (they would be sportsmen
and naturalists and in their own province would be well known) could
be chosen and attached to the various districts and forest divisions for
the purpose of advising and bringing into force the new regime. Where
a number of adjoining districts or forest divisions in a province have a
similar fauna and methods of shooting and poaching, one officer would
suffice to deal with the whole area, the revenue derivable being paid into
the district of forest division concerned.
In every case it should be within the power of the Collector or Forest
Officer to refuse, or to recommend to a higher authority the refusal, of
all licences to kill any mammal, bird or fish whose numbers from whatever
cause has so seriously diminished as to lead to the fear that the species
might deteriorate or become extinct within the area.
Fish in the inland waters should be treated on similar lines to mammals
and birds. Poaching should be firmly put down. The use of the dynamite
charge has resulted in far larger numbers of fish being killed than was
possible in former lines, with much less trouble to the poacher. All
professional fishermen should be made to take out licences permitting
them to ply their vocation and should pay a royalty on the catch.
It is believed that the proper realization of the economic value of the
fauna of India and its exploitation under proper regulations would result
in a considerable revenue being derived.
The Preservation of the Indian Land Fauna as a Whole
The Permanent Sanctuary
In a preceding chapter we have discussed the Game Sanctuary from the
point of view of the preservation of animals of sporting interest, i.e., of
those usually termed Game Animals. I now propose to deal briefly with
Sanctuary regarded from the aspect of the preservation of the fauna of a
particular area or country as a whole. A Sanctuary formed for such a
purpose requires to have a permanent character. In other words, the area
should be permanently closed to shooting and to all and every
interruption to the ordinary habits of life of the species to be preserved.
It will be obvious at once that Sanctuaries of this nature and their
management will differ widely in different parts of the world. In some
cases the only prescriptions would probably relate to shooting, poaching,
egg collection, and so forth. It would be unnecessary to close the areas
entirely to man. In others, however, it is certain that some of the larger
and shier animals and birds, and, I believe, certain classes of insects and
so forth, can only be preserved from inevitable extinction if Permanent
Sanctuaries of considerable extent are maintained, solely with the object
of safeguarding the species for which they are created. In Sanctuaries of
this class it will not be merely sufficient to forbid shooting. It will be
necessary to close them to man altogether, to leave them, in other words,
in their primeval condition, to forbid the building of roads or railways
through their vastnesses, to prevent the Forest Department from
converting the areas into well-ordered blocks of forest managed for
commercial purposes; in fact to prevent in them all and every act of
man. In every case throughout the world such Sanctuaries will require
to be under supervision, but such supervision should be entirely confined
to a police supervision to prevent poaching, collecting, and any entrance
by man into the area.
In a previous chapter I alluded to the Presidential Address delivered
by Dr. P. Chalmers Mitchell, F.R.S., Secretary of the Zoological Society,
in London, before the British Association in Dundee in 1912.
Dr. Chalmers Mitchell was the first, I believe, to enunciate this theory
of a Sanctuary for the preservation, not merely of animals whose
protection from extinction was considered necessary either from their
sporting or economic value, but of the fauna as a whole.
He quite correctly pointed out that my paper, read before the
Zoological Society in November, 1911, only dealt with the former aspects
of the question.
After discussing the position of Europe in respect of the diminution
of extinction of animals which were abundant in the past the author
comes to India.
'India contains,' he says, 'the richest, the most varied, and, from many
points of view, the most interesting part of the Asiatic fauna.
Notwithstanding the teeming human population it has supported from
time immemorial, the extent of its area, its dense forests and jungles, its
magnificent series of river valleys, mountains, and hills have preserved
until recent times a fauna rich in individuals and species.'
After pointing out that the books of sportsmen show how abundant
game animals were forty years ago, he continues:
'The one-horned rhinoceros has been nearly exterminated in Northern
India and Assam. The magnificent gaur, one of the most splendid of
living creatures, has been almost killed off throughout the limits of its
rangeSouthern India and the Malay Peninsula. Bears and wolves, wild
dogs and leopards are persecuted remorselessly. Deer and antelope have
been reduced to numbers that alarm even the most thoughtless sportsmen,
and wild sheep and goats are being driven to the utmost limits of their
range.'
After alluding to the diminution of animals in other countries, and
especially game animals and those killed for economic reasons, the author
continues:
'And to us who are Zoologists, the vast destruction of invertebrate
life, the sweeping out, as forests are cleared and the soil tilled, of
innumerable species that are not even named or described is a real
calamity. I do not wish to appeal to sentiment. Man is worth many
sparrows; he is worth all the animal population of the globe, and if there
were not room for both, the animals must go. I will pass no judgement
on those who find the keenest pleasure of life in gratifying the primeval
instinct of sport. I will admit that there is no better destiny for the lovely
plumes of a rare bird than to enhance the beauty of a beautiful woman
... But I do not admit the right of the present generation to careless
indifference or to wanton destruction. Each generation is the guardian
of the existing resources of the world; it has come into a great inheritance,
but only as a trustee. We are learning to preserve the relics of early
civilizations, and the rude remains of man's primitive arts and crafts.
Every civilized nation spends great sums on painting and sculpture, on
libraries and museums. Living animals are of older lineage, more perfect
craftsmanship, and greater beauty than any of the creations of man. And
although we value the work of our forefathers, we do not doubt but that
the generations yet unborn will produce their own artists and writers of
the past. But there is no resurrection or recovery of an extinct species,
and it is not merely that here and there one species out of many is
threatened, but that whole genera, families, and orders are in danger.'
There still remains, then, the problem of carrying the preservation of
animals the one stage further to include the whole faunain a word,
the formation of Fauna Sanctuaries. Their creation so as to include some
of the most interesting of the fauna is still possible in India, e.g., in that
fascinating tract stretching from Assam down into Burma.
I am so entirely in sympathy with Dr. Mitchell's opinions on this
question that I will quote his concluding remarks before the Association:
'There are in all the great continents large tracts almost empty of
resident population, which still contain vegetation almost undisturbed
by the ravages of man and which still harbour a multitude of small
animals, and could afford space for the larger and better known animals.
These tracts have not yet been brought under cultivation, and are rarely
traversed except by the sportsman, the explorer, and the prospector. On
these there should be established, in all the characteristic faunistic areas,
reservations which should not be merely temporary recuperating grounds
for harassed game, but absolute Sanctuaries. Under no condition should
they be opened to the sportsmen. No gun should be fired, no animal
slaughtered or captured save by the direct authority of the wardens of
the Sanctuaries, for the removal of noxious individuals, the controlling
of species that were increasing beyond reason, the extirpation of diseased
or unhealthy animals. The obvious examples are not the game reserves
of the Old World, but the National Parks of the New World and
Australasia. In the United States, for instance, there are now the
Yellowstone National Park with over two million acres, the Yosemite in
California with nearly a million acres, the Grand Canon Game Preserve,
with two million acres, the Mount Olympus National Monument in
Washington with over half a million acres, as well as number of smaller
reserves for special purposes, and a chain of coastal areas all around the
shores for the preservation of birds. In Canada, in Alberta, there are the
Rocky Mountains Park, the Yoho Park, Glacier Park, and Jasper Park,
together extending to over nine million acres, whilst in British Columbia
there are smaller Sanctuaries. These, so far as laws can make them, are
inalienable and inviolable Sanctuaries for wild animals. We ought to
have similar Sanctuaries in every country of the world, national parks
secured for all time against all the changes and chances of the nations by
international agreement. In the older and more settled countries the
areas selected unfortunately must be determined by various
considerations, of which faunistic value cannot be the most important.
But certainly in Africa and in large parts of Asia, it would still be possible
that they should be selected in the first place for their faunistic value.
The scheme for them should be drawn up by an international commission
of experts in the geographical distribution of animals, and the winter
and summer haunts of migratory birds should be taken into
consideration. It is for zoologists to lead the way, by laying down what is
required to preserve for all time the most representative and most
complete series of surviving species without any reference to the extrinsic
value of the animals. And it then will be the duty of the nations, jointly
and severally, to arrange that the requirements laid down by the experts
shall be complied with.'
To the thoughtful man this lucid exposition of the case places the
whole problem in a nutshell.
I think the concluding extract from Dr. Chalmers Mitchell's paper is
one of the highest importance both in its wider sense and in the more
confined one as regards India.
Sanctuaries such as above sketched are the only possible method of
saving from extinction the rhinoceros, bison or gaur, and buffalo, to
take three of the best known of the big game animals requiring protection
in India. But these Sanctuaries require to be left in their state of primeval
forest. They cannot be treated as commercial forests managed from a
revenue-making point of view by the Forest Department. The most
scientific arrangements for opening and closing the blocks of forest as
they come up in rotation for felling and other operations will not avail
to make such areas true Sanctuaries. I have an idea that some of the areas
in America and Canada alluded to above by Dr. Chalmers Mitchell are
Sanctuaries which it is proposed to treat as revenue-giving forests. If this
is the case they will not remain Sanctuaries for a certain proportion of
the fauna they at present contain.
There can be little doubt that as it is with some of the shier mammals
so must it be with a proportion of other forms of animal life living in
the forests.
They can be preserved from extinction in an area of primeval forest
left untouched by man and maintained in its original condition. Amongst
insects it is, I think, probable that some of the forest members of the
longicorn, buprestid, brenthid and bark-boring beetles (Scolylidae), to
mention but four families, many species of which are still probably
unknown to science, will disappear with the cleaning up of the forests
and their systematic management by the Forest Department.
My point is that I am in complete agreement with Dr. Mitchell in his
contention that the Sanctuary, the large, permanent Sanctuary, should
not be regarded merely as a harbour for animals of game or economic
interest, but that it should be formed in the interests of the fauna as a
whole. I would, however, add to this the rider that in the case of the
large Sanctuaries required to preserve from extinction animals either of
a naturally roving disposition or of very shy habits the prohibition to
entry should not be confined to the sportsmen alone or to man generally
outside the officials connected with the area. But further, that it should
be recognized that in order to realize the objects aimed at it should be
rigidly laid down that no working of any kind can take place within the
Permanent Sanctuary. That in other words a Permanent Sanctuary does
not fall within the boundaries of any area worked by Government
officials, either for profit or other reasons, on behalf of the Government.
Officials would be appointed to supervise the Sanctuary, but their duties
would be confined to policing the area in order that the objects for
which it was created might be realized to the full.'
E.P. Stebbing, The Diary of a Sportsman Naturalist in India.
And I can fully understand the need for sanctuaries at that
moment of time. The last fifty years had seen devastation. As
Mahesh Rangarajan puts it: ' Over 80,000 tigers, more than 150,000
leopards and 200,000 wolves were slaughtered in 50 years from
1875 to 1925. It is possible this was only a fraction of the numbers
actually slain ...'
For those who cared, the 1920s and the reflections of the
horrors of hunting over the last decades must have given little
cause for hope. The 1920s was also a time for great bursts in human
populations. This was when the sharpest rise in births took place.
Mortality levels were also coming down. The pressures on the
forest had increased sharply.
By 1926 there were much discussion, dialogue, and debate on
' game' preservation in India. The Bombay Natural History Society
played a vital role in triggering the issues of this debatethey
wrote to forest officers and sportsmen for their opinions and a
series of editorials in the Journal created an awareness of the need
for ' conservation' . I think the reason for this was the state of
gameof wildlife in general. Again, there was much discussion
about the concept of a sanctuary and its feasibility. Many issues
were discussed, much as we discuss today, but in 1927 few
believed that the time had come to create protected areas. I have
edited a selection of writings during this period to provide a
glimpse of what must have been a critical turning point in the
history of both the forest and wildlife.
In 1926 an editorial in the Journal of the BNHS summarized
the important issues regarding preservation.
Game Preservation
(Editorial)
... It is as a poacher that man is the great destroyer.
In considering how to deal with the problem of the native who kills
game, the first thing to be considered is his reason for doing it, and three
reasons immediately appear. These are first for profit, in order that he
may sell the meat, hide and horns, and this would appear by far, the
most common one.
The second is, for the meat only, and this is not so common.
The third reason, is to protect his crops, and no one can possibly
complain of an agriculturist in any part of the world protecting his
property in such a way.
The increase in number of gun licences issued has had a most fatal
influence on the existence of game in many districts. It is not that the
licences themselves have done the actual damage, but that they have a
habit of lending or hiring out their weapons to others. In many cases it
is the custom for dear old Indian gentlemen whose figure puts out of the
question their personally taking an active part in hunting, to send out
their retainers with a gun to kill game for them, regardless of season, sex
or size; and there is no doubt that by stopping this abuse of a gun licence
granted as a personal privilege, much game would be saved. It is very
often for the purpose of such household use that gun licences are
applied for.
Such action would not however affect the poacher who poaches for
pecuniary profit, and from a larger number of the letters received, it is
evident that the buyer is the person to get at.
The formation of sanctuaries is the principle point on which the letters
differ. Where recommended the suggestion is always qualified by the
remark that they are expensive; as, to be effective, they must be well
guarded by unbribable Game Warden, and this is put forward as an
insuperable objection by several. The majority are of the opinion that
existing Reserved Forests are sufficient sanctuaries in themselves, and
the general consensus of opinion is that the licence holder is of
considerable assistance in Game preservation. In this connection it might
be remembered what has happened on nullahs being closed in Kashmir
for a long period as sanctuaries: they have almost invariably been found
almost empty of Game on being reopened, closing them having proved
to benefit the poacher only. This is the almost inevitable fate of any
sanctuary in India unless unbribable game watchers are found at very
high rates of pay. As there is no prospect of such paragons ever being
discovered without expenditure of money never likely to be available,
the provision of sanctuaries may be relegated to the dim future.
There is again the effect of preservation on the Forest itself. Bison
and Sambhar both do a great deal of damage to young teak and other
valuable timber trees, and must be kept within bounds. A sanctuary to
be effective must be big, and there are few places where the Forest
Department can afford to set aside a large tract of forest as a sanctuary.
One correspondent draws attention to the balance being upset in
another direction, and gives figures to support his contention that tigers
have taken to man-eating much more of late years in the Northern Circars
owing to the decrease in their natural food, namely deer, at the hands of
poachers.
To summarize the impression gained from the letters read it appears
that what is principally needed is a law forbidding the sale of any part of
a big game animal (carnivora excepted) save by a Forest Officer in the
public interest. An adequate penalty to be enforced.
Secondly that the use of a gun except by the licence holder in person
be strictly forbidden and penalties exacted.
It only remains for us to accord our most grateful thanks to all those
who have answered our letters and for the care and trouble they have
taken in doing so.
And there must have been endless discussions on new
concepts. The Nilgiri Game Association of 1879 also assessed the
prevailing state of affairs:
The Preservation in the Nilgiris
by
Major E.G. Phythian-Adams, I .A. (Retd.)
The Nilgiri Game Association was formed in 1879, and is therefore one
of the oldest societies for Game Preservation in India.
The mass of the Nilgiri plateau intercepts the monsoon currents and
accordingly one side receives heavy rain from the south-west monsoon
while the other obtains little except from the north-east. This climatic
variation considerably affects both the nesting seasons of birds and the
times when the deer, more especially chital, may be found in hard horn.
At the time of the formation of the Association in 1879 as the result of
considerable Press agitation, big game was fast approaching extinction
on the plateau. The butchers of that period knew no restriction of age,
sex, or season, and slaughtered alike doves, fawns, and stags in velvet.
Poaching is inevitable and all that can be done is to mitigate the evil
as far as possible. The N.G.A. has for many years and at considerable
expense maintained a staff of seventeen game watchers, but as they were
found to be quite useless, they were abolished in 1926, and their duties
taken over by ordinary Forest Guards, a special sum being set aside by
the N.G.A. for rewards for reporting cases. The N.G.A. is much hampered
by the amount of private Patta land in the area, over which it has no
control, and on which shooting takes place without restriction throughout
the year. Since the revision of the Indian Arms Act a few years ago the
number of licenced weapons has increased enormously, and there is,
unfortunately no doubt that poaching into Reserved Forests is far more
common than it used to be. What is needed is an Act to protect the
females of deer at all times, and game birds during the nesting-season
equally on private as on public land.
The Forest Rangers and their assistants in this district now receive
free shooting licences, and if they will fully realize their responsibilities
in the matter of Game Preservation, much might be effected.
Certain areas on the plateau are closed to shooting either big or small
game, and others to beating, and it is proposed to close next year to all
shooting a considerable area in the centre of the plateau to acclimatize
imported Jungle-fowl and Burmese Pheasants. For many years the large
tract on the west of the plateau known as the Kundahs has been closed
to all beating and small game shooting. It was re-opened this season, but
there is no appreciable increase in the number or size of heads in the case
of Sambur, nor in the number of small game. The Kundahs are
uninhabited and seldom visited except by an occasional sportsman or
by men grazing herds of cattle. Its southern edge is no doubt poached to
a certain extent by the jungle Kurrumbas from the Bhavani Valley, but
they do not penetrate far above the cliffs. The poor results obtained
seem to show that a long period of protection in the same area is a
mistake, and that closed areas should not be kept as such for more than
a few years.
General-The present condition of game in the area is satisfactory,
but the greatly increased number of licenced and unlicenced weapons in
the hands of Patta-land shooters renders necessary stricter supervision
than formerly, and an Act to regulate the sale of big game throughout
the year, with severe penalties for the use of a gun except by a licence-
holder in person. Unless some such steps on the lines indicated are taken
at an early date, the head of game in the area will diminish rapidly, and
no longer afford alike to the resident and to the visitor the sport that it
does at present.
Lovedale, Nilgiris
March 3, 1927.
It is quite clear that at the turn of the century India had spiralled
into a wildlife crisis. World War I had also taken its toll on India' s
rich timber supply. The guns were more advanced and motor car
had made its entry. With accelerating crisis came strident calls
from urgent conservation and now started a remarkable period
of 'battling' to save the wilds.
Ill
A Critical Period
1927-1947
T
he period between 1927 and 1937 was in a way fascinating
because there was a remarkable spurt in writing and about
what was considered as a rapidly developing wildlife crisis. The
Indian Forest Act (XIV of 1927) had just been enacted with new
rules and guidelines. The human population was growing rapidly
and t he fi rst waves of i nf r as t r uct ur e devel opment wer e
accelerating, especially the railway network, and with it came the
endless demands for wooden sleepers. Forests were cut rapidly.
Discussions about shooting rules, closed and open seasons, the
creation of game preservation societies, protection of monitor
lizards, and how different regions should create new laws to
protect species, became frequent. I think one of the pri mary
reasons for this was the development of the motor car and the
laying of roads. This caused havoc to wildlife since forests became
easily accessible to many, and cars fitted with lights or specially
designed hunting cars that were made for the maharajas, entered
the forests in great numbers.
Wildlife had little chance. Hunting records accelerated. Four
tigers in one night was the norm. By 1929, just outside Bombay,
which was the headquarters of the BNHS, a tiger that had swum
in from the Thane creek was shot dead. This was also the last
recorded tiger shot or seen in Bombay.
1 The plunders of the pasthundreds of ducks lined up after just one shoot.
An elephant in the process of trampling a tiger to death after it had
been severely injured.
A CRITICAL PERIOD 7 3
In nearby Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) there were also serious
concerns about the state of wildlife. People like Dunbar Brander
wrote on the problems of wildlife in the Central Provinces and
this was again a moment to re-discuss the creation of sanctuaries
and national parks. The debates raged on; Brander went to the
extent of giving a detailed outline for a 'Valley Reserve'. S.H. Prater
wrote of the problems of wildlife both in India and across the
world, and Milroy, a forest officer from Assam wrote on the serious
problems that afflicted that region. Champion wrote of the
concerns of wildlife in the United Provinces, and in a way a bunch
of forest officers across India who loved the wilderness were
revealing by the mid-thirties the severity of the crisis that was
enveloping them. At this time Cadell wrote on the predicament
of the Indian lion, and by 1935 a major conference was organized
to discuss the problems that plagued Indian wildlife. It must have
been the first of its kind. Richmond wrot e on the Madras
Presidency, Salim Ali on the Hyderabad State, Phythian-Adams
on Mysore, and Jepson on wildlife preservation in India. This, in
my opinion, is one of the first records of an Indian, Salim Ali,
getting involved with the process of conservation. It was, as I said
earlier, a burst of concern for what was going on. It led to the first
journal on Indian wildlife being edited by Corbett, which was
called Indian Wildlife, Official Organ of the All India Conference
for the Preservation of Wildlife, and it was born after the
conference in 1935. This was the 'wild bunch' in a major battle to
save India's wildlife. They were activated like never before. For
them the future must have looked bleak. In a way this was one of
the most turbulent periods in the history of Indian wildlife and a
collection of articles, letters, and comments about this period is
reproduced here:
Game Preservation in India
by
The Editors
Game Preservation wherever it may be undertaken embodies the same
principlethe principle that, in order to afford game animals that peace
and protection which will enable them to live and reproduce their kind
without damage to man, man should only be allowed to damage them
under certain rules and should be restricted from ruthless destruction.
How is this principle applied in India?
Let us take first the factors which adversely affect the existence of
game and then consider the remedies or lack of remedies.
Firstly as a settler, by clearing the forest and wastelands and driving
the game away from its natural habitat; secondly as a destroyer, by
protecting his own preserves from intrusion yet pursuing animal life
within the vastnesses of its retreat. Disease is a second adverse factor to
be reckoned with; rinderpest has accounted for a large number of bison
and buffalo in Peninsular India, while foot and mouth disease has in
recent years seriously affected game animals in Kashmir and Himalayan
ranges. A third adverse factor might be said to be the killing of game by
predatory animals, yet this factor we might set down as a natural check
on over-increase, and unless the balance of nature has been upset by
extraneous causes its effect on game as a whole is not considerable. The
remedy against man would appear to be obvious, namely the provision
of extensive areas of absolute wilderness affording harbourage to wild
life, and so long as there are refuges safeguarded by their very nature
against usurpation by man so long will wildlife thrive and maintain its
existence, provided there is no epidemic disease. In India the possession
of such areas has been one of the main factors tending to the protection
of its wild fauna and there should be little danger, for the present, of any
of the existing species being exterminated.
Viewed as a whole, therefore, the present condition of game in India
would appear decidedly goodbut for how long will this status be
maintained? In some parts of the country, as in the Central Provinces,
there has already been serious depletion and in other areas there is an
almost complete disappearance of game.
In making a plea for the protection of the wild fauna of the country
we must urge that apart from the purely sympathetic motives which
should impel man to permit to lesser creatures the right of existence
there are other, perhaps less worthy and more material, thoughts and
motives which are worth considering. These reasons are put forth on the
assumption of course that animal life is worth preserving somewhere.
From the scientific standpoint there are innumerable investigations
anatomical, physiological, ecological, geographic, taxonomic and
evolutionary, which can only be made from the study of animal life.
Biology has already produced many conceptions of practical and
educational value. The role of the parasite, the predator, the scavenger,
in the economic web of life has, besides its purely educative significance,
a not wholly useless application to social relations.
And what about the purely economic aspect? Even predatory animals
have a distinct value as a controlling influence against over-population
by species whose unrestricted increase would adversely affect the interests
of man. Again there is the utilization for man's benefit of animal products,
such as furs, hides and horns, which in themselves present a valuable
economic asset and are in themselves a plea for the conservation of the
sources of supply. Have these economic possibilities been exhausted? A
few years ago Insulin, that priceless boon to the diabetic, was discovered
in the liver of a shark. Who knows what animal products yet remain to
be discovered which will be of priceless value to man?
The principle of conservation being admitted, what are the methods
to be employed? The principle is the same in every country, the methods
to be employed must vary in every country and will probably vary in
different parts of the same country.
Let us consider some of the different methods of conservation in
vogue in different parts of India.
In the United Provinces shooting rules close and open shooting blocks
for altogether fortnights. This system provides and ensures fortnightly
periods of constantly recurring rest. In the Terai type of jungles, where
shooting blocks are small and game can be very thoroughly disturbed by
a line of elephants beating them day after day, the system is an absolute
necessity.
In the Central Provinces the forests are parcelled out into shooting
blocks usually of a large size. One block, usually a central one, being
reserved as a Sanctuary; this, coupled with the extensive size of the blocks,
secures game from undue disturbances. There is here, and in other parts
of India also, a strict limit to the kind and number of animals which
may be shot in a given block, and, in addition, an individual limit is
imposed on all sportsmen whether exempted from permits or not.
In Southern India the game laws are not applicable to the various
provinces as a whole and in certain areas no game laws exist. The Nilgiri
Districts and those parts of Coimbatore and Malabar which are so
effectively controlled by the Nilgiri Game Association are the only areas
with special laws excepting the areas known as reserved forests where the
number of animals that may be shot is controlled by licence.
The position as regards game in Assam is simple; here the game areas
are divided into wastelands, reserve forests, and hill forests. The immense
areas of wasteland which existed at one time are now being rapidly
cultivated by immigrant settlers or used as grazing lands by an invasion
of buffalo-keepers, Nepalese, so that game in these lands is rapidly losing
ground. In reserve forests shooting is controlled by licence. For the better
protection of rhinos, large areas of grass and swamp land have been
included in these reserves and treated as sanctuaries. In the hill forest
areas conditions are steadily approaching those obtaining in wastelands
where an increasing human population is gradually driving game from
its quondam preserves. Whilst game in Assam will be less and less exempt
from molestation as cultivation approaches forest boundaries, it must
be admitted that there is little danger of game in Assam becoming extinct
for a great many years so long as extensive forests continue to exist and
to provide safe harbourage to game.
The conditions prevailing in Assam may be applied to India as a
whole. On broad principles land may be classified in three main zones
urban areas, agricultural areas, and forest and waste areas. As far as animal
life is concerned we cannot expect its preservation in urban lands.
Cultivated areas with their domestic animals and crops provide at once
an opportunity for conflict between man's interests and those of the
wild species, and in such land the plea for protection cannot carry weight.
We come finally to forest areas and wastelands where, as shown, excellent
laws suited to local conditions have been framed for protection of wildlife,
yet nevertheless game is decreasing where once it abounded.
Existing game laws are excellent in themselves but it is in their efficient
application that the trouble arises. As far as the agency of man is concerned
there is no mystery attached to the causes of trouble. Firstly while the
licence holder is restricted by the terms of his licence from doing undue
damage, the poacher is affected by no law. He slaughters indiscriminately
I
everything that he sets his eyes upon, regardless of sex, age, or season, he
sits over saltlicks and waterholes, indulges in night shooting and does all
that he should not do. Secondly emphasis must be laid on the great
increase in recent years in the number of gun licences issued which
increase is producing, and will continue increasingly to produce, its
inevitable effect on game in forest areas and lands immediately adjoining.
Thirdly there is a mass of unlicensed guns carefully concealed but
constantly used, and there is also the loaning of fire arms by
accommodating licensees to friends and retainers, and finally there are
the professional trappers and gangs of men with dogs who slay and devour
all that falls before them. Those in control of forest areas cannot be
altogether exonerated for the ineffective application of the rules.
Conservators of Forests and Divisional Forest Officers are not necessarily
interested in game preservation, and in addition there often exists the
clash of interests between the sylviculturist and the game protector, for
game can do considerable damage to young teak and other valuable
forest timbers.
If the game in reserved forests and sanctuaries is to be protected a
more rigid application of the laws is necessarythe stimulus for which
might be obtained by an executive order from above. Much might also
be effected by cooperation with the police since every constable is in law
'a forest officer'. A more liberal system of rewards for detection of forest
crime, particularly of poaching, is another point worthy of consideration.
Rewards are far too rarely given and very rarely indeed in poaching cases;
the detection and capture of a poacher who is armed often involves
danger and there is no class of forest crime the detection of which merits
to a greater extent the granting of reward. It is evident that much of the
poaching that is done in forest preserves is carried on for profit. It is
significant that the decrease of game in certain areas has corresponded
with the increase in the export of skins, principally of bison, buffalo,
sambhar, etc. Bison, chital and sambhar hides are openly sold in the
bazaars and there is nothing to prevent these sales. If the poacher is
deprived of his market the temptation to kill would be largely removed
and it would appear that there could be no possible objection to a general
law throughout India forbidding the sale by unauthorized persons of
any portion of big game animalswhether hides, horns or meat and
with adequate penalties annexed for those who break the law.
As to the question of gun licences, it may be assumed that in 99 cases
out of 100 they are not obtained for the purpose for which they are
granted as it is the merest fiction to suppose that the guns are used
exclusively for crop protection, which is the only legitimate purpose to
which they can be put. While the reduction in the number of licences
may perhaps be a difficult matter, it would seem a perfectly fair
proposition to have all the 'crop protection' guns called in during the
hot weather when there are absolutely no crops to protect. It is during
the hot weather, when water is so scarce and the jungles are so thin, that
80 per cent of the damage is done. It has been found useful, where gun
licences are required solely for crop protection purposes, to have several
inches of barrel removed. Lastly a suitable penalty might be imposed for
the use of a gun except by the licence holder in person.
The formation of suitable game sanctuaries has been proposed by
many as a solution. They must be fairly large, must possess a perennial
water supply and must as far as possible be protected against fire and,
what is most important, they must have a special staff to look after them.
Each preserve will require well-paid watchers with a game warden over
themthe game warden should be well paid and given considerable
preventive powers. The case for the game warden and his special staff is
that many forest officials have neither the time nor perhaps the inclination
to apply themselves especially to game preservation. The exploitation of
timber and forest produce is annually increasing and forest officers find
it more and more difficult to get away from work which brings revenue
so as to be able to pay sufficient attention to a question which in this
material age is considered to be one of subsidiary importance. A game
warden requires special qualifications and besides being a sportsman
must also be a naturalist with a knowledge of the ways and habits of the
animals he is called upon to protect. The objection to the game sanctuary
is that it is expensive both as regards the extent of forest land which
must be sacrificed for the purpose and as regards its maintenance by
well-paid warden and an unbribable staff. Besides it may be maintained
that a long period of protection in the same area is probably a mistake.
Nullahs maintained as sanctuaries in Kashmir for considerable periods
were found, on reopening them to shooting, to be almost empty of game.
Lastly an unbribable staff of subordinate game watchers would be difficult
to procure. The Nilgiri Game Association which, at considerable expense,
maintained a staff of seventeen game watchers, abolished the system as
these were found to be quite useless and their duties have now been
taken over by ordinary forest guards.
The above article was written originally for publication in the Times
of India. As it proved too long for the purpose the Editor of the Times
published a resume in a leader which appeared in the paper on July 7.
The following note appeared in the Times, London, July 12, in
reference to the leader published in Bombay:
Any further proposals for preserving game in India as suggested in
Bombay are likely to be viewed with the greatest suspicion and disapproval
by the cultivating classes. Large game is already carefully preserved in
many of the Indian States whose rulers are usually ardent shikaris, and
in British India the Forest Department controls most of the game areas.
In these, shooting is restricted by the issue of licences and the number of
heads that may be bagged.
'The depredations of the larger beasts are one of the most serious
handicaps that the ryot has to face. Hundreds of thousands of plough
and milch cattle are carried off every year by tiger and panther, while the
number of human beings who fall prey to man-eaters is still very
considerable. Only last year a man-eater was at large within 50 miles of
Madras and was reported to have killed six persons.
'Besides the loss of cattle there is the damage done to crops, which in
many parts of India is very extensive. Wild elephants are well known as
the most destructive creatures. They will tread down or tear up three or
four times the area they eat of such favoured delicacies as cardamoms. It
is usually permissible to kill them when they are found doing damage
on private land, but it is no easy task to do so. Occasionally a small
owner at the foot of the hills may make a lucky coup by digging an
elephant pit in his land and capturing a small tusker which is worth
more than his field, but in an ordinary way the elephant is looked upon
as a sacred nuisance. Wild pigs do a great amount of damage to sugar-
cane, and many a weary cultivator spends the whole night on a
"machan" among his canes trying vainly to scare them away with horn
and tom-tom.
'One of the most popular of the provisions of the new Arms Act was
the reduction in fees for the possession of muzzle-loaders for the
protection of crops and the greatly increased facilities for obtaining
licences given to the agricultural classes. Previously, when the losses of
cattle from tiger or panther became intolerable and there were no guns
available, a whole village would turn out with spears, sticks and drums
and surrounding "stripes" or "spots" after his meal, would literally poke
him to death.
'The cattle mortality returns show no such decrease among them as
would justify any further protection of the felines. In fact in the last few
years an increase in the number of tiger has been reported in the Godavari
Agency.'
Game Associations
There are already in existence several game associations in the hills which
regulate the number of shooting licences issued in the area they control.
The Nilgiri Game Association which has been in existence for many
years has done very useful work in protecting sambur, bison, etc., and
has also spent quite a large sum in stocking rivers with imported trout.
Pulini Association, started about 15 years ago, is doing similar good
work. Both associations work under the auspices of the Local
Government.
So long as the innumerable Jheels of Northern India and the tanks of
the south receive their supply of water there is no fear of any diminution
in the myriads of duck and teal which flock to them every cold weather.
The Indian is not likely to change his food supply, and so long as he
grows paddy so long will the opportunities for snipe-shooting which
India affords be unequalled elsewhere.
As cultivation in the dry tracts increases, it is inevitable that the herds
of blackbuck and chinkara which roamed over the wastelands in former
days should diminish, but there will always be uncultivable areas which
will form a refuge for them as well as for partridge and sandgrouse and
the innumerable other small game of the Indian plains.
The days are yet far off when anything in the way of a National Park
to preserve Indian fauna is either called for or practicable. An extract
from the petition of a ryot sums up the present situation:
A reserve forest in the proximity of the village is the nursing ground
for all sorts of forest beasts, particularly that species of animals that exist
by the wild destruction and hasty consumption of the crops of innocent
but hard-working farmers. No human endeavour, however ingenious,
could scare them away; but if done they come with renewed vigour and
far more formidable companions. The declared enemies of the farmer,
the cheetahs, the leopards, undertake a perfect crusade against my sheep
and goats, more particularly my life-giving bulls and other cattle.'
The levels of the debate are fascinating. The 'back and forth'
about protected areas, the repeated request for unbribable staff,
and the lobbies which were strong and intense, as the hunter did
not want to part with his turf even if it were for the creation of a
national park. It is clear that at the end of the 1920s there was a
tiny minority fighting to create sanctuaries and national parks.
The majority, including even those at home in England who called
themselves the cultivated classes, wanted only to ensure that they
had unrestricted access to the best piece of hunting turf in Asia.
They had an enormous vested interest. It was the minority that
battled.
And thank god for them. Today it is only these protected areas
that house remnants of wildlife. The 'wild bunch' , eighty years
ago, played an extraordinary role in planting the seeds for the
protected areas of today. The editors of the BNHS journal did not
realize that the day was not far off when India would declare its
first national park in order to protect and preserve and minimize
the enormous impact of sport hunting that had begun to take a
toll on India' s wildlife.
Game Preservation
(BNHS Annual Report)
Attention must be drawn to various articles on Game Preservation in
India and Ceylon which have appeared in the Journal. The subject is
one of growing importance and is attracting attention in all parts of the
Empire. The general consensus of opinion in India is that game
sanctuaries, if by such are meant areas within which no shooting is to be
allowed, are not the remedy. They will be paradises for poachers. What
are wanted are Game Preserve in which shooting under regulation is
allowed, and the alienation of Forest land, which is the home of interesting
species of Forest Game which would be exterminated were the land put
under cultivation, should be prohibited. Our present difficulties are
mainly due to the increasing number of officials with no interest in
sport or natural history.
Here is another remarkable description of the prevailing state
of affairs. They viewed sanctuaries as a poachers' paradise. They
had to deal with officials who had no interest in wildlife. The
same malaise plagues us even today. The debate about sanctuaries
went on and more and more people came into the fray to write
about the regions they loved and the sorry state they were in.
Here are some extracts from A. A. Dunbar Brander on the Central
Provinces. He was a remarkable forest officer with a vision for
the future who was writing then on the preservation of wildlife
in India.
Good game tracts exist both in Indian States and in British India.
The British Government has no jurisdiction over the game in Indian
States. Most of the Indian Princes protect game, and there is a growing
tendency for this movement to spread and become more vigorous. In
most States the laws or rules for the protection of wild animals are
effectively enforced.
No more need be said about the States. With regard to British India,
game is found in country having a different legal status, and this must
be differentiated:
(a) Private land
(b) State land.
Generally speaking, game in (a) has no owner. It belongs neither to
the owner of the land nor to the State. The Government, however, has
the right to pass laws regulating the slaughter of game, and, in most
cases such laws have been passed. I shall refer to this in more detail when
dealing with game laws.
With regard to State land the great bulk of which consists of
Government forest, the State owns the game, and special laws dealing
with its protection throughout India have been passed. These laws are
administered by the Forest Department. I shall also refer to this in some
detail later on.
Types of Game Country
There are four main types of country in which game is found and which
I have designated as follows:
1. Himalayan
2. Terai
3. Central Plateau
4. Southern
I left India in 1922 but revisited it in 1928, and was appalled to find
such a change in so short a period, quite common species being found
only with difficulty. The finest game country in this tract is found in the
Central Provinces, and I shall deal at some length with the causes which
have brought about his state of affairs in that area, as I believe they have
a very wide application.
Position of Game on Private Lands
As already stated, the game in private lands has no owner. The State has
passed laws prohibiting the killing of does and immature animals. To all
intents and purposes the laws are a dead letter as there is no preventive
staff. The two main preventive services in India are the Police and the
Forest Service. The latter has no jurisdiction outside State forest, and
the Police take no interest in enforcing the rules. Prosecutions are very
rare, and any interest the local constable may take in the matter would
often be to share in the booty. The result is that game has almost
disappeared from private lands. The main Bombay-Allahabad line runs
through some 200 miles of antelope country. Twenty years ago one was
almost constantly in sight of herds. In 1928 in four hours I only saw two
small herds, watching from the train. The only fauna left in private lands
is a few chital and sambhar in specially favoured localities, pig in
considerable numbers, and a sprinkling of antelope, also lesser carnivora.
The great mass of the country, however is blank and it will be readily
understood that these blank unprotected spaces surrounding Government
forests which contain game act as a constant drain on the stock of fauna
in the protected lands: there is constant leakage to destruction. In my
opinion nothing can save the fauna in these private lands. Its
extermination is certain. The people have been educated to destroy it:
there is no staff to protect it, and even if the Indian Legislatures could be
induced to take measures, financial considerations preclude adequate
protection.
State Lands: Position of Game
These mostly consist of State forests where the Forest Act and the rules
made thereunder apply; amongst these are included the rules regulating
the killing of game. On the whole, these are excellent, and, although I
shall suggest certain stiffening to meet modern conditions, nevertheless
it is not in the rules themselves but in their application that failure arises.
As regards the European and Indian sportsmen who enter the forest to
shoot under permit, the rules are absolutely efficacious, and this type of
sportsmen does no harm. Where they fail is in the prevention of poaching.
There is lucrative trade in game; the initial detection of poaching often
rests with a lowly-paid forest guard. Men possessing guns often command
respect, and the guard finds the easiest plan is to take a percentage of the
profits. Moreover, too sparingly given, the magistrates' sentences are often
quite inadequate.
The Main Reasons why the Destruction of Game has Recently
Increased.
1. During the war the rules were relaxed. In certain cases the
shooting of does was permitted to make leather jackets for sailors.
There was a general activity in the trade in the products of game:
tanneries came into being, and what was previously an occasional
trade has now become an active competitive one with wide
ramifications: a slaughtered deer no longer means merely a gorge
of meat for the local aborigines, it is an article of commerce and
a valuable one.
2. There has been a very large increase in the number of gun licences
issued as well as a large increase in unlicensed or illegal guns. It
is easy to see that with a large number of guns legally possessed,
the detection of illegal guns becomes more difficult. Be the causes
what they may, the State forests are surrounded by guns, many
of which are constantly used in destroying game both inside the
forest and just outside it. In the present political situation any
attempt to regulate the number of guns to actual requirements
for crop protection is hopeless. The guns have come, and to
stay.
3. The Motor CarThis is perhaps the biggest factor of all, in the
disappearance of game, although without the two previous causes
its significance would be small. Since the war whole tracts have
been opened upin fact no tract is inviolatecars penetrating
along dirt tracks into country in one day which previously took
a week's marching with camels and horses. Every car that moves
by day or night has one or more guns in it, and practically every
animal seen which presents a fair chance of being killed, without
further questions asked, is fired at. Moreover, expeditions go
out at night with strong moveable searchlights and shoot down
whatever is encountered, and the car enables the booty to be
removed. The destruction is terrible. I came across glaring cases
during my short three months' trip in 1928. The present game
laws were framed before this menace arose, and they require to
be reviewed and amended in consequence.
Some Remedial Measures Suggested:
1. An attempt to check the increase of guns, even reduce them.
2. Much stricter control and regulation of tanneries and business
trading in wild fauna and its products.
3. Complete review of the rules so as to deal with the motor car
amongst other things, and to bring the owner and the driver of
any car within the penalties of law-breaking.
4. Press for stiffer sentences in poaching cases and rewards to
subordinates detecting the same. These rewards are at present
optional, but should be made as a matter of course, save for
definite reasons.
5. Establishing associations for the protection of Wildlife and
housing enlightened Indian opinion, and enlisting influential
men as members of such Societies.
Sanctuaries
As will be seen from what I have written above, the Himalayan and Terai
areas are hardly suitable places, even if required, in which to create
National Sanctuaries. With regard to the Central and Southern areas,
the case is different. In these tracts they will form a useful and interesting
purpose, especially in the former, where the fauna can be readily observed,
will readily tame, and be a delight to visitors.
My knowledge of the Southern tract does not enable me to suggest
any particular area, but as I know every square mile of the Central
Provinces I can definitely assert that one area is suited par excellence for
a National Park. This is known as the Banjar Valley Reserve.
The Banjar Valley Reserve
SituationSituated in the South Mandla Forest Division, 30 miles south-
east of Mandla, which is the District Headquarters.
Mandla is almost 60 miles, due south of Jabalpur, and served by first-
class road and light railway. There is a fair weather motor road from
Mandla to Khana in the centre of the valley.
MapsSplendid forest maps on the 4 inch to 1 mile scale made by the
Forest Survey can be got from the Map Office, Dehra Dun. These show
25 feet contours, and, if desired, maps showing grasslands, sal forest and
mixed forests (Stock Maps) can be purchased.
AreaFrom memory the area is about 40,000 acres, but for the purpose
of a National Sanctuary some 30,000 additional and adjoining acres
should be included. The Banjar Valley is merely a name given to a
forest unit.
General DescriptionBroadly speaking the area is a huge amphitheatre
surrounded in a circular manner by a range of hills about 3,000 feet
high. The bulk of the area is within these hills, but the forest extends
down the outward slopes of the hills until the cultivated plains are reached.
It is well watered throughout, but this of course could be improved,
especially on the hilltops.
The low-lying portions consist of grass maidans or open plains, young
trees being cut back annually by frost. As soon as the contour above the
frost level is reached pure Sal (Shorca robusta) forest is found. This,
however, only extends a short way up the hillsides, where it gives place
to the usual mixed forest of 200 or 300 species and bamboos. The rock
and soil are metamorphic sand with occasional pockets of black
cotton soil.
The GameIn 1900 this tract contained as much game as any tract I
ever saw in the best parts of Africa in 1908. I have seen 1,500 head
consisting of 11 species in an evenings stroll. It is nothing like that now,
but it is still probably true to say that it contains more numbers and
more species than any other tract of its size in the whole Asia.
Legal Position
This area is one of the oldest State reserves and belongs to Government.
It contains valuable timber and is policed and administered by the Forest
Department. Government would not care to give up working the valuable
timber in the area, but this need not interfere with Sanctuary.
It is essential that the area remain State Forest, otherwise the Forest
Act would not apply. Also it is absolutely essential for our purposes that
the Act should continue to apply. Some form of 'dedication' could no
doubt adjust this as there is no incompatibility.
If the Act applies, as it must, and if the Forest Department continues
to manage the Forest (timber), as it will, it is clear that our staff must be
also the Forest Staff. Otherwise there will be two staffs in the same area,
and one will be in opposition to the other. Moreover, the Forest
Department has managed the game in India, against great difficulty,
with signal success in most cases, and to deprive them of these functions
would create resentment, especially, unless it could be shown to be
reasonable and necessary.
Banjar Valley
The shooting of game is strictly regulated, but a tremendous lot of
poaching takes place. Part of it is always sanctuary, but these sanctuaries
which are found in numbers in all districts are merely administrative
shooting sanctuaries, resting blocks, pending opening to shooting again.
They have nothing like the status of a National Sanctuary.
Some Suggestions
The local Government might agree to the area being declared a National
Sanctuary but would, I consider, be more inclined to give the proposal
favourable consideration if it was initiated by Indian gendemen. It might,
therefore, be the best course to first obtain the support of the non-official
members of the Legislative Council and it is believed that the conservation
of Indian wildlife for the benefit of the Indian People is a plea which no
party can lightly thrust aside.
Conclusion
I consider that action in India is urgently required, perhaps more so
than in Africa. There are I know questions of detail which apply to
particular areas and particular species which I have not touched upon
but in the above I have attempted to tell you something about India as a
whole, and in particular what definite action that might be taken in the
Central Provinces.'
What Dunbar Brander was describing must be the area in and
around the Kanha National Park in Madhya Pradesh. He considers
this region better than the wilderness of Africa. It must have been
magical. He would have loved to have known that this area is
one of India' s finest national parks today. In a way his dream
came true. His proposal for the earmarking this area as a sanctuary
is exceptional because of the detail that he went into. Again, it
was such men and their work that made a critical difference to
the fut ure of Indian wildlife. It was 1933 and Salim Ali's first
treatise on the protection of birds in India had just been published.
His knowledge was amazing. Prater was another such scholar,
an encyclopaedia of knowledge. He was curator of the BNHS in
1933 and his book on Indian animals is still as relevant today as it
was then. He also wrote on the preservation of wildlife and the
remedies necessary to resolve some of the problems. Here are some
extracts from a speech he made in 1933 on the occasion of the
golden jubilee of the BNHS.
The Wild Animals of the Indian Empire
Part 1
Introduction
[Extracts of an address given by Mr. S.H. Prater, M.L.C., C.M.Z.S., the
Society's Curator, at the Jubilee Meeting of the Society held in Bombay
on the 10
th
of August, 1933]
The Need for a Special Organization to Protect Wildlife
Whether our reserve forests remain the principal sanctuaries for wildlife
in this country or whether in some of the Provinces the purpose is affected
by establishing national parks, there is need for a real organization whose
sole concern will be the protection of wild animals in these preserves.
Our effort to protect wildlife have failed mainly because of the haphazard
methods we employ, the lack of any coordinate policy and the lack of
any real protective agency to carry that policy into effect. The Forest
Department which ordinarily administers the Forest laws has multifarious
duties to perform and, while the Forest Officer has discharged this trust
to the best of his ability, he cannot give the question his personal attention,
nor can he find time, except in a general way, to control the protection
of wildlife in our forests. Experience of other countries has shown the
need of a separate and distinct organization whose sole concern is the
protection of wildlife in the areas in which it operates.
Further, the existing laws, as now applicable in many of our Provinces,
are obsolete. Naturally, their primary purpose is the protection of the
forest rather than its wildlife. These laws require consolidation and
bringing up to modern standards of conservation. No better guide to
our Provincial Governments seeking to amend their game laws exists
than the recently issued report of the Wildlife Commission in Malaya.
Volume II of this Report gives the general principles of conservation. It
shows how these principles may be embodied in an Act and indicates
new administrative methods, based on actual experience and on the laws
of other countries. With modifications, where necessary, it will serve as
a model for Protective Legislation in India.
Lastly there is the all-important question of making adequate financial
provision for carrying out the work of conservation.
In these days of depression, when most Governments are faced with
deficit budgets, the apportioning of money for this purpose must be a
matter of difficulty but, unless and until suitable financial provision is
made by the State for the conservation of wildlife within its borders, the
effort cannot succeed. This much is clear. Our present haphazard methods
have failed. The experience of other countries indicates the system that
should replace them. The effective introduction of this system depends
upon money being provided to work it. In the United States and in
other countries the problem of financing the work of conservation has
been helped by the creation of special funds.
The recent Wildlife Commission of Malaya, which made a careful
study of this aspect of the problem, strongly urges the creation of such a
fund to be termed the Wildlife Fund to be used solely for the purpose of
conservation. The idea is that all fees which could be collected under
Wildlife Enactments, including any licence or fees for riverine fishing,
as well as revenues from all sporting arms licences, permits, duties on
arms (sporting) and ammunition (sporting) should be credited to the
Wildlife Fund. If any of these fees are collected by another department,
then the cost of collection should be borne by the Wildlife Fund. It is
the only means by which financial provision can be made expressly for
the purpose of conservation. It is the only means by which the money
devoted to this purpose will have a definite relation to the revenue derived
by the State from wildlife sources and which, therefore, can be expended
with every justification upon the conservation of these sources. It is the
only way to ensure an equitable system of conservation; the only way in
which a properly organized department can be stabilized. It is the solution
advocated in other countries and one which is equally applicable to any
country which undertakes conservation of wildlife on sound lines. If the
idea of creating a Wildlife Fund is not acceptable and, if we are yet
serious in our intention to do what is possible for the conservation of
wildlife in India, then we must replace the Wildlife Fund by an alternative
policy, which will ensure the allocation of sufficient money to meet the
requirements of adequate conservation. It is so easy to refuse a constructive
policy and then put nothing in its place. The necessity for conservation
being clear, the importance of an adequate financial policy to support it
cannot be ignored.
We have indicated what other countries are doing for the protection
of wildlife but it must be apparent that the measures which they have
taken, whether initiated by acts of Government or by private enterprise
must owe their success to the support of public opinion. There is need
for the creation of sane public opinion on the subject of wildlife protection
in India. At present, such opinion hardly exists and even if it does, in
some quarters it may be antagonistic. This is mainly because people do
not know, nor has any attempt been made to teach them something of
the beauty, the interest and the value of the magnificent fauna of this
country.'
This was the early 1930s in India. Prater looked globally at
the issues involved and then zeroed down on to what India really
needed. His appeal for a special organization to defend wildlife
is somet hi ng we fi ght for unsuccessful l y even t oday. We
desperately need a centralized organization whose sole job will
be to protect the protected areas. We fail because there is no
consensus and there are too many vested interests. The Indian
Forest Service does not want an Indian Wildlife Service. We have
not even got an independent federal structure in place to govern
both forests and wildlife. Will it ever happen? Prater believed it
was essential way back in the 1930s. We are now in the twenty-
first century, but our political leaders are still deaf to reason. They
want to keep the doors to nature' s treasure-house open so that it
can be looted and plundered. Is it not amazing how good common
sense can be ignored over generations and for nearly seventy years.
Assam in the early 1930s must have been like a Noah' s ark.
Rich dense grasslands and the endless plains of the Brahmaputra
river must have created some of the finest habitat and one of the
highest densities of both predator and prey. It must have been a
remarkable time. A.J.W. Milroy who served as a forest officer in
Assam describes the 1930s in a land where hundreds of rhinos,
t hous ands of el ephant s, and wi l d buf f al o wer e f ound
everywherea land of gaints:
The Preservation of Wildlife in India
No. 3.Assam
by
A.J.W. Milroy
(Conservator of Forests, Assam)
Types of Game Country
Enormous areas of grass and reeds used to extend from the banks of the
Brahmaputra towards the hills which enclose the valley on both sides,
and it was here that most game used always to be foundrhinoceros,
and swamp deer in the low-lying places, elephants, bison and other deer
nearer the hillsbut these are precisely the very localities that attract
the buffalo-herdsmen and the settlers, so that a great deal of this type of
jungle has now disappeared for ever and it is only a matter of time before
most of the balance goes too. In these circumstances the policy adopted
a few years ago of issuing gun licences almost indiscriminately has only
accelerated what was bound eventually to take place, and what has already
occurred in all countries suffering from or blessed (as the less far-sighted
hold) with, an increasing human population.
Most of the former great shooting grounds are thus being occupied
exclusively by Man and nothing can be done in them for wild animals.
There remain for consideration the Reserve Forests, which have been
taken up mostly for timber, but which include as Game Sanctuaries two
important grassy areas.
Dense, evergreen forests contain comparatively little fodder suitable
for game animals, which prefer the most open and the deciduous tree
forests, but everywhere in Reserves reasonable game preservation should
be looked for, seeing that the sale of shooting permits is a possible source
of revenue, that rules exist for the benefit of the various species of animals,
and that a Forest Staff is provided by Government to uphold these and
other Forest Laws. It must be confessed, however, that in Assam just as
in Burma, judging from some recent Annual Forest Administration
Reports from that Province, game preservation is largely a matter of
individual whim, and that encouraging results obtained by one Divisional
Forest Officer are only too often dissipated during the regime of a
successor, who is indifferent to this side of his multifarious duties.
The present Government cannot be accused of lack of keenness. Three
years ago, a British Officer and a Company of Assam Riffles were detailed
to spend six weeks touring a district where the inhabitants had got out
of hand and were poaching in the Manas Game Sanctuary on a
commercial scale, while at the present moment an energetic Assistant
Conservator is on special duty at the head of an anti-poaching campaign
that is doing some very good work indeed. The Assam Legislative Council
have recently declared Rhinoceros horns to be forest produce wherever
found; it has become much easier to deal into the trade in these, as
horns are now liable to seizure unless their possession can be satisfactorily
accounted for. No help from the Centre, however, can make up for lack
of interest on the part of the officers on the spot, though an enthusiastic
Conservator can do much to overcome apathy, thanks to the tradition
of loyalty in the Forest Service, but to be really effective he must possess
both the time and the inclination to tour 'off the map' and away from
the usual comfortable, stereotyped marching routes.
At the worst a certain amount of game of most sorts will linger on in
the larger Reserves for some time yet, but not in the smaller ones which
can be easily raided, and from which animals are always straying into
settled lands bristling with guns: at the best, if the Forest Department
does not depart from the policy of recent years as regards Forest Villages
and as regards demanding the cooperation in these matters of its
subordinates, quite a fair number (in some places sufficient to allow of
restricted shikar) of the more interesting species will survive in suitable
localities within the forest boundaries. Increased pressure on the outside
land being likely to lead to a demand for catastrophic deforestation of
cultivable areas inside the Reserves.
It had been intended, in order to obtain complete control, to acquire
on behalf of Government all the guns owned by forest villager for
temporary issue at the right time, together with any others that might be
necessary, but this measure has had to be postponed until funds become
available again.
Game Sanctuaries
The two Game Sanctuaries of which mention has been made are situated,
the Manas towards the north-west on the Bhutan frontier and the
Kaziranga in the centre of the valley on the south bank of Brahmaputra.
Both areas were originally selected for the Great One-horned Rhinoceros
(R.unicornis) they contained, and a very fine stock of these animals was
raised as the result of the protection afforded. Kaziranga, the more low-
lying, is particularly suited for buffalo too, the Manas for bison along
the Bhutan boundary.
The rhinoceros, our most important animal from the natural history
point of view, is a difficult species to preserve even though its destruction
is forbidden by law, because all parts of its body may be eaten even by
Brahmins and because its horn is reputed throughout the East to possess
aphrodisiac properties, while it lays itself open to easy slaughter by its
habit of depositing dung on the same heap day after day. The demand
for rhinoceros' horns has always been considerable in India, but of recent
years China has also been in the market, consequent on the practical
extermination of R. sondaicus in Lower Burma, Tenasserim, etc., with
the result that a horn is now worth just about half its weight in gold.
The prospect of a lucrative business led to an organization being formed
for passing on rhinoceros' horns and elephant tusks to Calcutta, and the
disturbed political conditions provided the virile Boro tribes (Meches
and Kacharies) living near the Manas with the opportunity to take up
poaching on a large scale.
The operations of the financiers in the background were checked for
the time being; the advent of the Assam Rifles restored order; additional
game-watchers were engaged, and an Assistant Conservator was placed
in charge of the Sanctuary to carry on the good work, but in view of
what has happened in Burma, despite the best efforts of the authorities
there, one cannot be confident that the fight we are putting up will not
prove in the end to be a losing one if we merely continue on present
lines.
A fundamental obstacle to success lies in the difficulty of identifying
poachers unless these are actually caught in flagrante delicto, and this
must always be a rare occurrence when members of a gang have only to
separate and run a few yards into the high grass to evade capture.
Both Sanctuaries are at present inaccessible for want of roads and
camping huts except to those who can travel light, such as poachers and
game-watchers, and to those who can command the use of elephants,
such as Forest Officers and a few planters. It was pointed out some years
ago that this being so it would be quite possible, without the outside
world being any the wiser at the time, for a dishonest subordinate in
immediate charge of a Sanctuary to sell all the game while his forest
officer, absorbed in other duties, was earning credit for the good work
he might be doing elsewhere in the division. The loss would obviously
be irreparable, and it was suggested that in these circumstances the western
and eastern portions of the Manas Sanctuary, which with adjacent
Reserves contains an effective area of about 150 sq. miles, should be
opened to shooting under very strict supervision, the bag being limited
(wounded to count as killed) and very high fees being charged, while the
central part was preserved inviolate for the benefit of those interested in
studying or photographing wild animals.
It is permissible to believe that the Sanctuaries might have some chance
of survival if they could be made more or less self-supporting, but precious
little otherwise, and the question is one on which, we may feel sure,
advice from the Society from the depths of its experience would not be
resented. The Assam of the future may very well be proud to think it is
taking its stand by the side of other civilized countries in saving its fauna
from extinction, but it is going to be a poor Province, at any rate to start
with, and if only some revenue could be expected from shooting permits
and from the sale of captured specimens to Zoological Gardens, there
would clearly be less initial hostility for the good cause to face.
Anything in the nature of a Public Park on the lines of the Kruger
National Park would be out of the question unless it was under Imperial
control because if the Assamese tax payer ever wants anything of this
sort, he will certainly demand that all predatory and dangerous animals
be removed before he disports himself in it.
Milroy realized the uniqueness of Manas and advocated in
the early 1930s that it be inviolate. Today it is one of the most
troubled UNESCO world heritage sites. Forest officers like Milroy
and Champion at different ends of India were unique in their quest
for protection. Here is what F.W. Champion wrote about wildlife
in the United Provinces in 1934:
Preserving Wildlife in the United Provinces
F. W. Champion
One among the numerous striking results of the Great War has been an
awakening all over the world to the fact that wild animals are tending to
become less and less in numbers in many countries, and often species
that were common a few decades ago are being, or actually have been,
entirely exterminated. Most of us who went through the War saw far too
much of killing ever to want to see any more; and the natural reaction
has been that a new spirit of sympathy with wild creatures has become
firmly established in many countries. Wildlife protection societies are
springing up here and there, particularly in America and England, and
the Society for the Protection of the Fauna of the Empire is doing great
work in trying to preserve the wonderful fauna of the British empire
from further wanton destruction. An enthusiastic branch of this society
has been started in India and a very good work is being done, but
unfortunately it is not receiving so much support from Indians as could
be desired. Indians, many of whom are prohibited by their religion from
taking life, should be the very first to support such a society and a number
are already whole heartedly doing so, but real mass support has yet to be
received. This I believe to be very largely due to lack of knowledge of the
aims and objects of such a society, and insufficient propaganda, and I
am confident that much greater support will be received in future as a
result of the great efforts now being made by the Bombay Natural History
Society and the various local branches of the Society for the Preservation
of the Fauna of the Empire, which all who have the slightest interest in
wild animals should join without a day's further delay. After all, once a
species of wild animal has been exterminated, no money, no society, no
human agency can bring that species back to the world, and delay in
helping those who are doing their best to save species already threatened
with extermination may mean that help, tardily given, is given too late.
Position of Wildlife
The present position in the United Provinces is perhaps not quite so bad
as in some other parts of India, owing to the presence of a very sympathetic
government, an influential forest department, and great land holders,
all of whom have always remembered that within limits, wild creatures
have just as much right to exist as human race. The position inside
reserved forests and in certain large estates, which is fairly satisfactory,
will be discussed later in this article, but first the present state of affairs
in the ordinary districts composing 80 per cent or more of the whole
Province, which are causing so much worry to those who are interested
in wildlife. Frankly the position is appalling. The vast increase in gun
licences which has taken place within recent years, combined with the
greatly improved means of transport, has caused a drain on the wildlife
of the districts such as can end only in the almost complete destruction
of any kind of wild creature considered to be worth powder and shot.
Laws do exist imposing close seasons, but these laws often are not, and
cannot be, observed in present-day conditions. Deputy Commissioners
and Superintendents of Police in some cases do their utmost, but they
are so over-worked nowadays with political and economical troubles
that, however keen they may be, they literally have neither the time nor
the energy to try to enforce unpopular laws, which, by comparison with
present-day troubles, possibly do not seem very important. Further the
responsible officers in a district are very few in number and it is quite
impossible for them to stop bribery among their often low-paid
subordinates. A rupee or two or a piece of meat is quite sufficient
temptation to an underpaid chowkidar not to report an offence under a
Wild Animals Protection Act, particularly as it is often extremely difficult
to prove such offence, and, even if proved, a subordinate magistrate will
generally let off the offender with a purely nominal fine. It therefore
seems that, in the present state of the country, any Act enforcing close
seasons outside Reserved Forests, however well it may be conceived, is
worth little more than the paper on which it is written. In actual fact
special efforts are now being made in Hamirpur and Meerut districts to
protect sambar and chital; but it is not known to the writer how far such
efforts are proving successful. Animals like blackbuck and chital and
game-birds, both in the plains and particularly the hills, are literally
being wiped out at an increasingly rapid rate and one wonders if there
will be anything left except monkeys and jackals after another two or
three decades. There is one bright spot, however, and that is that non-
game birds at least are not harried to the same extent as in England
because the egg-collector is scarce, and the average Indian boy, unlike
his British confrere, does not amuse himself by collecting vast numbers
of birds' eggs, only to throw them away in most cases as soon as the boy
begins to grow up. Taken as a whole there is no doubt whatever but that
the position in these plains districts of the United Provinces is just about
as bad as it could be, but one must always remember that these areas are
very densely populated and that really there is not very much room for
any considerable numbers of the larger game animals, which must tend
to interfere with the cultivator and his crops. In any case leopards are
found in many places, since they are prolific breeders and very difficult
to keep in check, and even if more adequate protection were given to the
game animals in cultivated districts, it is probable that their numbers
would still be kept down by a corresponding increase in the numbers of
leopards.
Sufficient has now been written to show that the position in the
cultivated districts is very unsatisfactory, but that increasing population
in already heavily populated areas, combined with the present political
and economic distress, makes it very difficult to make practical
suggestions for improving matters. What can be done is for large land-
holders in sparsely populated districts to preserve restricted areas really
efficiently and noble examples of what a great help to the wildlife of a
country such measures can prove to be is to be found in the great swamp-
deer preserves of Oudh, notably those of the Maharani Saheba of Singahi
and of Captain Lionel Hearsey. The former of these has been under
careful protection for many years and an area of perhaps 20 square miles
now contains several thousand heads of these magnificent deer. A few
are shot annually, but the number destroyed is almost certainly less than
the natural increase and these public-spirited benefactors can justifiably
feel that, so long as they maintain their present standard of efficient
preservation, there is no fear of the swamp-deer following the already
long list of fine animals which have been exterminated from the United
Provinces.
Reserved Forests
Now the position of wild animals in the Reserved Forest, of which the
writer, being a Forest Officer, has perhaps a specialised knowledge, will
be considered. Firstly the writer would state most emphatically that
United Provinces forest officers as a class are, and always have been,
extremely sympathetic towards wild animals. Few are really heavy killers
and quite a number do not shoot animals at all, beyond their requirements
for food for themselves or their camp followers. An odd individual here
and there both in the present day and in the past, has possibly let his
sporting instincts drive him into becoming a really heavy killer, but the
amount of slaughter done by the average forest officer in these Provinces
is conspicuously small. It sometimes happens that disgruntled sportsmen
state that forest officers are selfish or destroy more animals than all other
1 0 0 BATTLING FOR SURVIVAL
classes put together; but these statements are most emphatically untrue
and generally have an inner history, which reveals the accuser as having
some personal grudge against an individual forest officer, which leads
him to make general insinuations which are totally unfounded. None
could be keener on the preservation of wildlife than the present writer,
and, if he thought that his brother officers were indifferent to the
preservation of wild animals, he would not hesitate to say so. The writer
believes that it would be a great mistake to remove the wild animals
inside Reserved Forests from the protection of the forest department
and place them in charge of a separate Game Department. The present
system is working very well and such action would be regarded as a slur
on forest officers and would alienate the all-important sympathy of the
powerful forest department.
The United Provinces reserved forests are not very extensive and they
are all under the personal supervision of divisional forest officers.
Poaching does occur to a limited extent, particularly during the monsoon
when the forests have to be deserted owing to their unhealthiness, and
from motor cars, but such poaching is not very extensive and every effort
is made to keep it in check. Elaborate rules, which are constantly being
amended, do exist for the issue for shooting licences, for the enforcement
of close seasons, and for helping any species which is tending to become
scarce. These rules may not be perfectno rules ever arebut at least
their object is to provide shooting for all who apply in the right way, and
at the same time to preserve the wild animals in perpetuity without
letting them increase to such an extent as to become a nuisance to forest
management or to surrounding villages. Species that, for any particular
reason, need help are entirely protected, examples being wild elephants
for many years and sambar in Lansdowne division since an attack of
rinderpest in 1927; and senior forest officers are always ready to listen
sympathetically to applications for protecting particular animals in
particular tracts. Even tigers now have a close season and are not allowed
to be shot by artificial light. Some may argue that it is a wrong policy to
protect tigers, but at least such protection shows that forest officers
consider that even tigers have the right to live in their jungles.
It is sometimes stated that, even in the reserved forests, wild animals
are much scarcer than they used to be. The writer cannot speak for thirty
A CRITICAL PERIOD 1 0 1
or forty years ago since the old records are not clear and he was not in
India at that time; but, even if the head of game had diminished, it is
possible that the numbers were excessive in the past or that the memories
of those who claim that animals are disappearing are a little at fault.
After all, most of us tend to think of the 'good old times', although it is
possible that those times were not quite so good as they now appear in
perspective. An effort has been made to collect figures of animals shot in
the past with those shot nowadays for comparison, but records of thirty
or forty years ago do not give the information required. The following
are the conclusions that the writer draws from the figures that are
available:
(a) Taken as a whole the head of game shot recently has generally
not shown any marked decrease, except in the mountain reserved
forests, where control is not so easy.
(b) Tigers appear to have increased and marked decreases seem to
have taken place in the numbers of nilgai, kakar, wild dog and
blackbuck. The decreases are partly due to serious floods and
rinderpest epidemics, and are probably natural fluctuations
which will right themselves in time. Wild dogs have decreased
owing to the large reward paid for their destruction.
(c) The decreases in the number of some animals shot recently are
due to the removal of rewards as a measure of economy.
(d) It may always be remembered, however, that the number of
animals inside Reserved Forests is probably being artificially
swelled by the influx of refugees from the appalling conditions
at present prevailing outside. This influx will decrease as animals
outside become exterminated. Also modern rifles are so good
and shooting with the help of a motor car is so easy, that probably
a greater proportion of the existing animal population is shot
annually nowadays than was the case in the past.
(e) The forest department watches these lists carefully and takes
action whenever such action appeared to be required.
(f) The general impression of senior forest officers is that, although
there have been considerable fluctuations in particular areas,
the game in the United Provincial Reserved Forests as a whole
has not markedly decreased during the last 25 years, except in
the high hill forests.
To summarise, the present position of wild animals inside the Reserved
Forests of the plains and foot hills of the United Provinces does not give
cause for serious anxiety, except for the ever-increasing use of that arch
enemy of the wild animalsthe motor car. The numbers of the wild
animals in the mountain reserved forests appear definitely to be
decreasing. The position in some zemindari estates is good and in others
poorer; and the position in the ordinary districts is almost hopeless.
Some Suggestions
The writer would make the following suggestions to help the present
state of affairs:
(a) Public opinionThis is by far the most important of all
methods of wildlife conservation and without it, ail efforts to
preserve wild creatures will prove abortive. Good work is already
being done by propaganda and by lectures but much more
remains to be done. Good illustrated books help greatly and
the formation of sanctuaries and national parks, where the
general public can see wild animals in their natural state, would
all help. Major Corbett as local Secretary of the United Provinces
branch of the Preservation of the Fauna of the Empire Society
is doing a lot to assist in this work.
(b) LawsIt is much easier in the present state of India to pass a
law than to see it enforced, but the writer would greatly like to
see laws passed on the following points:
1. Sale of shikar meat, trophies, etc.It is of vital importance
that a law be passed at an early date totally forbidding the
sale of any portion of a wild animal, with certain definite
exceptions. Such exceptions would be the dropped horns
of deer, and the hides of deer where numbers have to be
reduced. Special licences should be issued in such cases and
such licences, liable to cancellation at any moment, should
be under the personal control of the Divisional forests
officers, where reserved forests are anywhere near, or under
Deputy commissioners where there are no forest officers.
The sale of any shikar trophy should be entirely and
absolutely prohibited. Such a law, properly enforced, would
finish the professional poacher, and would end the nefarious
dealings of certain taxidermists who sell shikar trophies to
those 'sportsmen' who are incapable of bagging anything
themselves.
2. Limitation of gun licencesThis is very difficult in the
present political state of the country, but at least greater
efforts could be made to differentiate between game licences
and licences for the protection of the crops, person, property
or display. Gun licences for the protection of crops should
insist that barrels should be sawn-off short, as such licences
are very largely applied for when the real object is poaching.
3. Motor cars (and also carts and tongas)The shooting of
any wild animal from, or within, say, 400 yards of a motor-
car, cart or tonga, either by day or by night, should be made
an offence liable to prosecution. The writer personally would
like to stop motor cars altogether from entering Reserved
Forests, or, where this cannot be done, he would like to
place check-chowkies at the entrances and exits of such
roads, the cost to be covered by a small wheel-tax. Fire-
arms would either have to be deposited at such chowkies or
would be scaled, so that they could not be used while inside
the forests. The excuse of requiring fire arms for protection
en route should not be accepted, as passengers in motor-
cars very rarely need protection from wild animals except
possibly from occasional rogue elephants or man-eaters.
Luckily recent economies have resulted in the abandoning
of some of the motor-roads in the reserved forests of the
United Provinces. The writer would like to see them all
abandoned! The old-time shikari or forest officer managed
perfectly well without them, and they tend only too often
to make his modern successor slap-dash and lazy.
4. Protection of rare stragglersIt occasionally happens that
a rare animal, such as a rhinoceros, strays into reserved forests
from Nepal or elsewhere. Such animals should be rigidly
protected with a fine of, say, Rs 2,000, or imprisonment,
for their destruction. The excuse that 'If I don't shoot it,
someone else will' should never be accepted in such cases.
The recent law passed in Bengal for the protection of the
rhinoceros, should be extended to the whole of India.
5. RewardsThe writer considers that Government rewards
for destroying wild animals should be given far more
sparingly than in the past. Luckily, recent economies have
resulted in a great reduction in the rewards offered, and it
is sincerely to be hoped that such reduction will be
permanent. Rewards in the past have encouraged poachers
and have sometimes caused as upset in the balance of nature
where they were misapplied. They are really quite
unnecessary except for man-eaters and notoriously
destructive creatures such as porcupines.
Since writing the above I have been reconsidering the question and
have read up a certain amount of literature on the subject. On the whole
I have little to add to what I wrote before except that I am not so certain
as I was that the head of game inside the United Provinces' reserved
forests is not decreasing. I was posted to N. Kheri Division in 1921 and
I returned there again in 1931. Although still a good place for animals
in 1931, I would estimate that there had been at least a 25 per cent
decrease in nearly all species during that decade. The reasons for this
reduction I would put down to (a) Motor cars making shooting far
easier than it used to be, (b) the destruction of game in the adjoining
areas outside the forests resulting in a smaller influx and greater damage
to animals straying outside.
I am now in Bahraich division in Oudh which has a reputation of
being a good game division. I have now been here for 5 months and so
far I have found game of all kinds to be rather scarce although I hear that
more animals come in from Nepal in the hot weather. The reasons for
this apparent decrease are the same as in Kheri, i.e., motor cars and
destruction of animals outside the forests, combined with increased
poaching along and near the Nepal border.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 37 (1934).
Champion was a real character of the forest service. One of
the few who gave up the gun totally and only photographed wild
animals. His books are remarkable. His pictures even better. He
hated the invention of the motor car and its impact on the hunters
who used it to hunt, even more. He loved the forests of the United
Provinces. He was one of the greatest fighters of those times for
wildlife, and was endlessly suggesting steps to protect the rich
wilderness of those times. In a way, we are journeying with a
wild bunch of people from one corner of India to anot her be it
Assam or UP or the Saurashtra coast. The 1920s had triggered so
much debate that the 1930s were full of detailed analysis of those
times and the suggested means of solving some of the problems.
The 1930s was a decade where the maximum amount of writing
on wildlife took place as compared to any period before that.
People were really worried about the future. The BNHS played a
vital role in the expression of comment and opinion in its journal.
Examples follow:
No. 5The Indian Lion
By
Sir Patrick Cadell, KT., C.S.I., C.I,E.
I have been asked by the Honorary Secretary of Bombay Natural History
Society to write a note upon the Indian Lion, and the measures needed
for his preservation. I gladly do so because I believe that there is no other
wild animal in India which could so easily become totally extinct. It is
now preserved solely by the efforts of one State. Should that State for
any reason become weary of well doing, the lion would disappear from
India in two or three years.
I am often asked how many lions still remain in the Gir. As I have
said above, there were supposed to be less than a dozen in 1880, and
about the same at the beginning of the century when Lord Curzon's visit
was cancelled. As a result of the strict preservation during the
Administration the number was believed to have increased to fifty, though
even in those days poaching was not unknown. It has since been stated
in the London Times, and the statement is quoted in General Burton's
book, that there are now two hundred lions. I believe this number to be
greatly exaggerated. The fact that lions move in troops, and that they
cover long distances leads to over estimation. If a man sees a troop of six
or seven animals, and hears of a similar number some miles away within
a few days, he naturally fixes too high a number for the whole forest. My
own opinion though it is only a guess is that there are not much more
than 75 to 80. It is obvious that this number cannot stand a drain of ten
or twelve being shot yearly, especially if the animals so killed outside
Junagadh limits are all of young breeding stock.
It may be observed that there is no real excuse for shooting a lioness
in mistake for a lion. Even if the shooting of female tigers and panthers
were regarded as being unsportsmanlike and reprehensible, the sportsman
might well plead that he had not sufficient time, or sufficient knowledge,
to distinguish. But he could not truthfully say so in the case of the lioness.
A lion which is hot easily distinguishable as being such, must be very
young and worthless as a trophy to a self-respecting sportsman.
What then is the remedy to be adopted against unfair or unwise
shooting? It has been recently proposed in a high official quarter that all
the jurisdictions concerned, that is all those which possess or border
upon any portion of the Gir forest, should agree to refrain from shooting
within a mile from the boundary of another jurisdiction, and from
shooting any but full-grown males. This would lead to some improvement
though in two recent cases the condition that the animal shot should be
a full-grown male has been, I am afraid, somewhat liberally interpreted.
But it may be doubted whether this is enough, and I venture to think
that it would be better to come to an agreement that the total number of
lions to be shot in one year should not exceed some such figure as five or
six.
The pressure on Junagadh of suggestions for invitations to shoot lions
is, it may be observed, increasing year by year, and the Junagadh Darbar
would gladly welcome some such limitation. Unless an agreement is
reached, and is faithfully observed, the danger of the disappearance of
the lion from the fauna of India and consequently from its last home in
Asia, is obvious.
R.W. Burton, 'The Preservation of Wildlife in India,
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
The ruler of Junagadh had, in the nick of time, protected the
lion. He was an exception to the rule. That is why the Asiatic lion
survives in Gir today. It was in 1900 that the nawabs controlled
hunting by carefully limiting the shoots. Strict quotas helped in
the recovery of the lion. As Mahesh Rangarajan puts it: 'Its rarity
and value as a trophy made the Lion a valuable political pawn to
have at handparadoxically its value in the hunt became vital to
its continued existence.' The British supported the Nawab at
critical points and there was never any indiscriminate killing of
Lionsthere were no bounties either. The lions ended up with
large amounts of protection. Let us not forget that the hunting
records of another ruler from the then state of Bikaner, in the 1930s,
was very different. Sadul Singh of Bikaner shot 50000 heads of
animal including 46000 game birds! And in the bag was also one
Asiatic lion.
Wild Animals of the Indian Empire
and the Problem of their Protection
(Proceedings of the Annual Meeting
of the BNHS38(1):1935)
An interesting development of the whole question of Preservation of
Wildlife in India was the recent Inter-Provincial Conference convened
by the Government of India at Delhi in January 1935 at which the
Society was represented by the Curator, Mr. S.H. Prater.
The Conference was instrumental in making a number of detailed
recommendations for the better protection of wild animals both inside
and outside forest areas. If these recommendations are accepted and put
into force by the various provincial governments, much will have been
accomplished to improve the deplorable conditions, which exist in many
parts of the country. But while the Conference made numerous
recommendations of detailthe broad issues underlying the whole
problem remain unsettled. Among these is the need of fully exploring
the possibility of creating permanent sanctuaries wherever necessary for
giving permanent shelter to wildlife. Equally important is administering
the laws related to the protection of wild animals. To fix the responsibility
on an already overworked and under-staffed department without
providing it with adequate means to enforce these laws will not improve
the position. The same holds good regarding the protection of animal
life outside forest areas, where their destruction is now greatest. Mere
legislation without the means to enforce it, must remain, as at present,
quite useless in preventing the destruction of wildlife outside forest areas
both in and out of season.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 38(1) (1935), p. 223.
I think that this 1935 conference was the first ever to look at
the pr obl ems of wi l dl i fe all across India. To this nat i onal
conference went many of the people whose writings I have
extracted. The ' wild bunch' must have fought its battles at this
conference and I am certain that many of their recommendations
must have been accepted for action. The conference signified the
seriousness of the problem that forests and wildlife faced. It must
have activated many into action. Let us travel to southern India
and see what it was like then:
vl hr i sM' ;ti aioq n^agf t f i SI ri?9fuivi <m * . .
cVnwfiq issbiloq o'.Hf.ub.v s noi l arfi -bf.fu [
\jj >ui j .j. n
w
n* M inyf?;/^ D9fjni.lnO
No.7: Madras Presidency
(The wild animals of the Indian Empire
and the problem of their preservation)
By
R.D. Richmond, I.ES. (Retd.)
The Status of Wildlife
In the Godavari, where the gaur is probably on the increase, chital and
sambar are not as numerous as they were; much of the damage, strangely
enough, being done with the bow and arrow. For very many years there
has been little game in the Ganjam district, so little in fact that the
balance of nature is upset and the district is principally notorious for
man-eating tigers. The populated north of the vast tract ofVizagapatnam
and Jeypore, which is a native state, has little game left in it, but the
sparsely populated south is well off for all kinds and is the only place in
the Madras Presidency where the buffalo is found. Very little of these
areas are reserved forests. The Eastern Ghats are of little interest, except
bsiu;J'.)b !c t ^ mi a - < >
:
line I
j uq boB w : >' ' ..
for chinkara at the foothills and some antelope on the plains. The 2,000
sq. miles of the Nallamalai hills contain plenty of game of all kinds and
it is strange that the gaur does not occur. What are known as the Ceded
Districts contain very little at the present day. Once the haunt of the
elephant, forest destruction preceding cultivation, and accelerated by
the goat, has had the inevitable result of driving the game away as well as
of reducing parts of the country almost to the condition of desert. There
are however, still antelope and chinkara, while sambur are to be found
on the hills of Cuddapah and Chittoor; in fact there are still plenty of
game in the latter district, even if the glory of Chamla Valley has
departeddue to fewer Europeans visiting it. The Javadi and Salem
hills contain gaur which are closely protected and which do some damage
to forest works, but the rest of the game animals are poorly represented.
The Palni hills of Madura provide representative animals on the slopes,
the Nilgiri goat (Hemitragus hylocrius) on the edges of the plateau (7,000
ft.), while the gaur occasionally visits the plateau. But protection is none
too good in spite of a constituted game association. Tinnevelly is
moderately well off and here too the Nilgiri goat is to be found, though
the numbers have decreased considerably. The forest area of South
Coimbatore is famous for the 'Grassy Hills', on the borders of the Cochin
State, at an elevation of6,0008,000 ft.; the Nilgiri goat being common,
while elephant and gaur are to be found on the open grass. This forest
division contains, in one particular part, the white bison which appears
to be developing into a distinct variety.
The North Coimbatore and Kollegal divisions have perhaps suffered
more than most, including, as they do, so many villages, from the increase
of poaching; but other and perhaps temporary factors are at work, if
anything is to be inferred from the varying incidence of the number of
game animals in a certain locality. Reported in 1893 as denuded of game,
once very common, the old state of affairs was restored from 1901
onwards while there is now again complaint of scarcity. Elephants have
increased to an inconvenient extent in numbers of recent years.
The forests of Malabar, that is to say the protected areas, for there are
very considerable tracts of private forest land in which there is no
protection or shooting regulation, are for the most part exceedingly well
stocked with game and other animals of all kinds, particularly elephant
and gaurthe forest areas belonging to Government are more compact
than elsewhere and there is far less population inside them and on their
edgesconsequently there is less poaching.
To judge by the complaints of damage done by wild animals it would
be supposed that South Kanara teemed with wildlife; but such is far
from being the case, the complaints being in reinforcement of agitation
for the abolition of the forests. But in the upper hills there are sambur
and there are a few gauralso elephants. The tiger, accused of killing
great numbers of domesticated cattle (and it is a fact that the mortality
of cattle from wild animals is greater here than elsewhere) is in fact rare,
the delinquent being the panther, living in low rocky hills distant from
the real forests, and killing cattle as there is nothing else to live on.
The Nilgiris, a district at elevation from 1,000-8,000 ft., is richer in
fauna of all kinds than any other. Naturally well endowed in this respect,
protection in the last forty or fifty years has been good on the whole.
The shooting is regulated by a Game Association, the members of which
are those who take out annual shooting licencesthese are mostly
Europeansand a special protective staff is entertained.
Recommendations
There is no need to apprehend that the fauna of Madras is decreasing to
a dangerous extent at present, though it would be idle to pretend that
there are not forces at work which should be guarded against. Apathy on
the part of a new class of officer, who is not interested in sport or natural
history, and the increased facility with which arms may be legally
possessed may both be corrected. Public opinion may in course of time
be developed, though this will necessarily be a slow process and it will be
fatal if the impression is formed that the interests of the cultivator will
not be protected. There is ample room for the wild animals in the
considerable areas of forest land which is the property of the state and
which need never be alienated, all that is required is the determination
to make protection effective. 'Preserves', in the Presidency at all events,
appear to be uncalled forthe whole of the forest area is a 'preserve'
and the regulations permit of certain parts being closed to shooting either
permanently or temporarily. 'National Parks', if by these are meant areas
which are specially protected and in which no shooting by the public is
allowed, but which are maintained so that the public may see and study
the habits of wild animals, are on a different footing. These should be of
great general interest and educational value and tend to promote that
public opinion which is so desirable. A difficulty in connection with
these 'National Parks', however, is their location; they should be near
areas of considerable population, and be served by roads; also the forest
should be of a type which allows of the animals being easily seen. It is
perhaps sometimes overlooked that conditions in different countries vary
and that what may be suitable in Africa, for example, is inappropriate in
Madras.
It will not be easy to find an area which fulfils all the essentials; a
considerable sum of money will ultimately be required and it cannot be
expected that National Parks will be self-supporting; but the first steps
are being taken and it may be h^oed that they will bear fruit.
Suggestions are from time to time heard as to the desirability of
establishing a separate game department under a Warden. Those who
advance this view possibly have the conditions of Africa in mind; in
India there is already an organization one of the duties of which is to
protect the animals as in the case of the other contents of the forestthe
appointment of a Warden, and some additional staff, would lead to dual
control and friction: nor is there any need for it. Properly controlled and
supported, with some strengthening in certain places, the ordinary staff
of the forest department should be well able to do what is required.
But the department requires greater support. It is essential that the
authority responsible for the issue of licence under the Arms Act should
consult the forest authorities on applications, in respect of residents in,
or near, the forest; that guns concerned in shooting offences be
confiscated, that the Magistracy should attach greater importance to
offences of this class and it is extremely desirable that the sale of flesh at
certain seasons should be declared illegal. Finally it is anomalous that
the head of the forest department should, in theory, be unconcerned
with this branch of the work of his department, at present in the hands
of an authority which has no occasion to go into the forests and which is
not in any way concerned with other branches of forest administration.
The BNHS encouraged debate, and R.C. Morris was the first
in his attack on Richmond' s view of the wildlife of the Madras
Presidency. The dialogue in those days could get furious but were
remarkably detailed in their content, as can be seen in the following
piece from Morris:
Comments on Mr. Richmond's Note
By
R.C. Morris
In the note on the 'Game Preservation in the Madras Presidency it is
mentioned that there is an area of 16,000 sq. miles providing a natural
Sanctuary for the fauna with the Forest Department as an organization
to protect it, the protection of game being a definite duty of the forest
staff.
This may be said to apply to nearly every country holding forests
with a forest department to control the same. Although in theory the
machinery of protection exists, and shooting is regulated, in practice it
has been found, and I fear always will be found, that Game Protection is
relegated to the background as forest officers find that the whole of their
time is taken up by other work, in other words the preservation of the
fauna takes a back seat to the protection of the flora. That the forest
department have failed to afford the necessary protection for the fauna
cannot be gainsaid, nor can forest officers be expected to devote the
required amount of time to Game Preservation, however interested they
might be in the matter, and I am sorry to say that in many cases these
days there is little interest.
It is mentioned that areas denuded of game in 1893 were restored to
the old state of affairs from 1901 onwards. I think it would be more
correct to have said 'denuded of chital' instead of game. I am fairly sure
that the author had before him a note written by a Collector in 1893,
and if I remember rightly this only referred to chital in a particular area.
I do not agree with the opinion that there is no cause for apprehension
that the fauna of the Madras Presidency is decreasing to a dangerous
extent. This statement covers the whole of the fauna and I consider that
chital, blackbuck and chinkara have certainly decreased to a dangerous
extent and will be extinct in South India in not many years hence unless
steps are taken in the matter. The Nilgai in South India have already
gone the same way.
I entirely disagree with the opinion that the appointment of a Game
Warden and special staff for the control of a National Park, Game
Sanctuary for the fauna in the Ordinary Reserves is unnecessary, nor can
I see how the present staff of the forest department will be in any better
position to control the fauna, still less a National Park or game sanctuary,
than it has been in the past. I cannot see how any friction could arise if
the Chief Conservator of Forests controlled both the Forest and Game
Departments, the Game Warden if required being a forest officer specially
seconded for this purpose as was the case in Burma. To my mind it is
quite certain that a Game Department would improve matters
considerably whether a National Park was established or not, and if any
doubt exists on this point a visit to Ceylon might be made to compare
the condition of game in areas under the control of the Game Association
or Game Department in Ceylon with that in the areas controlled only
by the forest department.
I do agree with the author in his opinion that the present dual control
in connection with shooting licences should cease. Shooting licences
should be issued by the District Forest Officers (on behalf of the
Collectors). Further no arms licences should be issued by District
Magistrates to people living near Reserved or Unreserved forests without
the District Forest Officers being consulted in the matter: more important
still Magistrates should be made to take a far more serious view of
poaching offences under the Arms Act (illegal possession of guns) than
they do at present. Punishments meted out to poachers are ridiculous:
an inveterate poacher is not worried at all at the prospect of serving two
or three months' imprisonment occasionally.
The status of Wildlife in the Madras Presidency may be put shortly as
follows:
1. (a) Within Government forests
In one or two districts, take Ganjam of example, there is
little or no game left. In other districts a few species exist
thinly scattered, and in parts of the districts of Coimbatore,
Malabar, Madura and South Kanara game, with the
exception of chital and antelope, is still fairly plentiful. The
reason is not far to seek. These districts hold areas which
have been difficult of access to the poacher and here game
still holds its own. Chital and antelope live in country that
is easily poached and unless early measures are taken chital,
blackbuck and chinkara will be exterminated in South India
not very many years hence, just as the Nilgai have been. I
say that certain areas 'have been' inaccessible to poachers as
with modern guns and cheap electric torches the present
day poacher is a far more dangerous enemy to game than
he was in the past. Poachers are now penetrating into parts
they have never been into before, and it is a certainty that
in course of time no part of the jungle will be free from the
poachers' activities. Take for example the Billigirirangans.
Were it not for the presence of Planters residing on the hills
to put a curb on poaching sambhur on the hills would be
exterminated. At the northern end of the hills, in the Kollegal
Di/ision far from these Estates, very few sambhur are left,
most of them have been shot out by the Sholagas who hold
guns (some time back 14 guns were seized in one day, but
the Sholagas hold just as many now). In the Mysore part of
the hills very few sambhur exist although the area is known
as the Chamarajanagar Game Sanctuary. What applies here
also applies to other districts with the exception of the
Nilgiris where the Nilgiri Game Association run a fairly
good show. In the more accessible tracts of the Coimbatore,
Malabar, Madura and South Kanara districts the status of
wildlife is not found in large populations.
The new experimental measure for the compulsory
inoculation of village cattle in the Kollegal and North
Coimbatore Divisions should keep bison comparatively free
from rinderpest, and is a measure that I should like to see
carried out in other districts where bison occur,
(b) Outside Government Forests
Very little game exists, and the remnant is rapidly vanishing.
2. (a) The species of animals for the protection of which there is
a special urgency:
Chital, blackbuck, chinkara, 4-horned antelope and,
in some parts, sambhur.
(b) Animals which do not require vigorous protection but need
a modified form of protection:
Bison only should be placed in this category.
Legislation
3. The effectiveness of the laws at present in force in various
Provinces which regulate the killing or trapping of Wildlife in
Government Forests. Proposals for their improvement where
necessary, particularly in regard to the use of motor cars, dazzle
light, nets and pits.
The present laws in force in the Madras Presidency would be
very effective if properly enforced. Suggested improvements are:
(1) Considerable moderation in the issue of gun licences,
especially in areas adjacent to reserved or unreserved forests;
(2) the necessity of Magistrates consulting District Forest
Officers on all application for arms licences when the applicants
reside within poachable distances of reserved or unreserved
forests; (3) the necessity for far more severe and deterrent
punishments on offenders convicted under the Forest Laws and
the Arms Act; (4) the necessity for District Forest Officers to
treat the subject of Game Preservation as one of their most
important duties; (5) stricter rules in regard to the use of motor
cars for shooting. It is suggested that the Governments concerned
should prohibit the shooting of large or small game within 100
to 200 yards of any public road.
There is already a rule against shooting any animals except
the carnivores with a torchlight, and I do not think this can be
improved upon if enforced properly.
The stricter enforcement of the laws against netting and
pitting, both of which are carried on in out-of-the-way parts
(instances have been reported recently), and the prohibition of
either netting or pitting in unreserved forests.
4. The control of slaughter of wildlife outside government forests:
This is a more difficult matter, and I am not sure whether
government have any legal right to put forward measures for
the control of slaughter in private lands. This is probably a case
of educating the landowners on the matter.
5. Legislation controlling sale of hides, horns, etc.
In the Madras Presidency I do not think there is any legislation
in force at present prohibiting the marketing of flesh, hides and
horns of game animals either in close season or out and such
legislation should be enacted at a very early date. A law against
the export of plumage exists; and legislation prohibiting the
marketing of all parts of game animals throughout the year is
very necessary.
Under the heading of legislation I should like to see the Indian
chevrotain or Mouse Deer added to the list of animals completely
protected, and the use of a shot gun (buck shot) on all deer and
antelope should be prohibited.
In Coimbatore a slip is now added to all shooting licences
asking the licensees to look for and report to the District Forest
Officer of the Division in which they are shooting all cases of
poachers' machans on trees, or hides on the ground, over water
and saltlicks which they may come across and this should be
made one of the clauses in the Rules attached to shooting
licences. If Government could be persuaded to agree to the
immediate dismissal of any Forest Guard in whose beat an illicit
hide or machan is found the would-be poacher would receive a
tremendous knock, as no Forest Guard is going to risk losing
his job to help a poacher whatever inducement the latter may
offer him.
Administration
6. (a) The desirability of definitely laying on the Forest
Department the duty of preserving the Fauna and Flora
(and not merely trees) in the areas in their charge; (b) the
desirability of creating a distinct organisation within the
Forest Department for the protection of wild animals within
government forests.
I consider it is definitely desirable to create a special
department, to be controlled by the Chief Conservator of
Forests, for the protection of wild animals within
government reserved and unreserved forests. The control
of both the forest and game departments by the Chief
Conservator of the Province should remove most causes of
friction that may otherwise occur between the two
departments, whether the game warden is a seconded forest
officer or not. However much district forest officers are
encouraged to treat game preservation in the proper light
this interest is bound to fade again in course of time and
will only be kept alive by the existence of game departments
with which the forest officers will have to cooperate in full.
The existence of a game department is bound to improve
matters whether National Parks or Game Sanctuaries are
established or not.
7. The formation of National Parks or in the alternative of
strict Nature Reserves where possible, and
8. The question of making separate financial provision or the
creation of a special fund for carrying out the work of
conservation.
If the formation of National Park in the Madras
Presidency is considered unfeasible, I do not think the
necessity for a separate financial provision will arise as a
Game Department would presumably be financed under
an increased Forest Budget; but for the creation of a National
Park or Game Sanctuaries separate financial provision would
be required. Two areas do exist in the Madras Presidency
which could be turned into National Parks provided
communications are improved, and here the value of having
the Chief Conservator of Forests as the head of both
departments will be seen, as in one of the areas the
improvement of communications will assist considerably
in the extraction of forest produce. In this case the term
'National Park' will not be correct as forest work will be
carried on in that area, and it would be a Game Sanctuary,
but in either category the control of the fauna in this area
should fall on the Game Department, and would have to
have a special staff in permanent control, special funds for
financing the work being drawn from the most obvious
sources, i.e. the revenue derived from:
(1) Game licences;
(2) Licences and permits for sporting arms;
(3) Import and export licences for the above arms;
(4) Duty on sporting arms and cartridges;
(5) Licences to sell or store sporting arms and cartridges;
(6) Fishing licences;
(7) Fines and penalties for infringement of shooting rules;
(8) Fines imposed for offences connected with poaching
etc.;
(9) Sales of confiscated and picked up trophies and parts
of game animals and birds (both game and protected).
The other area is I consider eminently suitable for the
formation of a National Park and should be self-supporting
in course of time.
General
9. The position of the cultivator in relation to wildlife and the
provision which might be made for the protection of human
life and property in the neighbourhood of forests from the
ravages of wild beasts.
The damages done by wild beasts, other than elephants, is
very much exaggerated. Elephants do a lot of damage, in fact
unless early measures are taken to deal with the elephant menace
it will be, and has been in the last few years, an intolerable
hardship on the cultivator whose lands are adjacent to or
surrounded by forests in which elephants occur. It is suggested
that one of the best methods to meet the elephant problem is
the appointment of three or four salaried men to shoot the
leading offending bulls at the time crops are being raided. I say
'bulls' as bulls are generally the chief offenders, they play havoc
with the crops, either solitaries, in pairs, or as leaders of herds.
The experience in Africa has been, on a few of their leaders
being shot, elephants soon recognise raiding crops to be an
unhealthy pastime. It is only during harvest season, or for a
month before, that the damage from elephant occurs. Ivory from
elephants shot would be handed over to government and should
cover the salaries paid out. A strong fence round fields will keep
out most of the other animals that matter. The protection of
human life hardly comes into the question as regards the
cultivated areas of the Madras Presidency, except it be from
elephants, and here again the shooting of solitary tuskers has
long been advocated being as often as not potential rogues, and
nowadays many of them are wounded by the muzzle-loading
and cheap breech-loading guns of the Ryots in cultivation.
Solitaries which are not necessary for the propagation of the
species, generally hard to tame it captured, often frequenting
public roads and bridle paths, are a terror to travellers, and sooner
or later an accident occurs. I have said 'tuskers' as mucknas are
not generally vicious, being usually of a docile temperament.
One of the most important aspects of bird protection should
be kept well to the fore: the necessity of showing the cultivator
where he does wrong in killing out many of the species of birds
found on his land, and for this purpose an ecological bird survey
should be made of every province which will prove of immense
value in demonstrating the birds that are the friends and the
enemies of the cultivator.
10. Measures to restrict the possession or use of weapons which
may be used for poaching.
A great curb to poaching would be the recall of all guns issued
for the purpose of crop protection; immediately harvesting is
over, the issue of weapons to applicants must be curtailed; this
is very important.
Rewards should be offered, and paid out promptly, for
information leading to the seizure of illicit guns, and action
taken to recover the weapons immediately information is
received. What frequently happens is this: A Sub-Inspector of
Police receives information that an illicit gun is to be found
(either in a hut, a grain pit, a haystack or more frequently in a
watchman's shelter on a tree). Instead of prompt action being
taken days elapse before constables are sent to recover the weapon
and in the meantime it has been removed. To my knowledge
this has occurred time and again, the informers get no reward
or compensation for their trouble, and so give no further
information in regard to any other weapons they may get to
know of. The same delay has been experienced over Range
Officers taking action when illicit machans and hides are
reported, even when instructed to proceed immediately to the
spot by the District Forest Officers. A few days are allowed to
elapse before action is taken, in the meantime the poachers get
wind of the matter and the machans or hides are removed.
A forest guard should be immediately dismissed if a poaching
case in his beat is not reported by him. It is suggested that a
Monegar, Village Munsiff, or Village Headman should be heavily
fined if a case of illicit possession of arms is discovered in his
village or villages under his jurisdiction. There is not the slightest
doubt that every village Munsif or Headman knows exactly what
arms there are in the village or villages under his jurisdiction,
whether licensed or unlicensed.'
Again exceptional comments by Morris. There was even a
collective view where many felt the need to have a separate
department to govern wildlife. Morris even wanted a special fund
to be allocated for all conservation activities. He was an advocate
for strict curbs and controls on weapons, and severe punishments
and fines for those that violated the rules. Morris was also an
advocate for protected areas. He had remarkable vision. Much of
what he suggested then we need even today, but it has not
happened. Which district administration in India today will recall
all guns that have been issued for crop protection? Who today
woul d effectively run wildlife wings with specially allocated
funds? Does anyone punish forest guards for violations of the
law? How many informers get the right rewards for their troubles?
What a state we are in and that too in the twenty-first century!
A young Salim Ali in his twenties in one of his first major
writings on conservation assesses the Hyderabad state. This is
the first Indian writing about the issues that confronted the forests
and wildlife in the 1930s.
No. 8: Hyderabad State
By
Salim Ali
The Hyderabad State occupies an area of about 82,000 sq. miles of the
Deccan Plateau. Its north-eastern boundary adjoins the Chanda district
of the Central Provinces, renowned among sportsmen of the last century
as an ideal game country. Hyderabad State at one time, not so very long
ago, provided some of the finest big game shootingespecially tiger
in India, and even at the present day in spite of the penetration and
colonization of the vast tracts of forest land and the consequent depletion
of wild life, there still exist in the Dominions parts which are in no wise
inferior to the best that can be found elsewhere within the Indian Empire.
Some idea of the abundance of tigers in the last century can be obtained
from the fact that the famous shikari Col. Nightingale (who died at
Bolarum in 1901) alone killed during his service over 300 tigers, the
majority of which were in Hyderabad territory.
Status of Wildlife
The wildlife of Hyderabad is as varied as it is interesting. Tigers are still
comparatively numerous in the forests of the Eastern and Western Circles,
which also contain some gaur. Leopards and sloth bears are fairly plentiful;
sambhur, cheetal, muntjac, four-horned antelope, nilgai, blackbuck,
chinkara, hyenas, wild dogs, jackals and wild pig are found in suitable
localities, while there still remain a few cheetahs or hunting leopards
and wolves. Besides these, porcupines and many other species of smaller
mammals are found. A few buffalo are said to occur in the Eturnagaram
Range of the Mulug Taluka (Warangal District) but their numbers are
very small. The shooting of buffalo and gaur has been totally prohibited
for some years past, owing to which they have, for the time being, been
saved from extinction.
In his Reminiscences of Sport in India (published 1895) Major General
E.F. Burton mentions a herd of twelve wild elephants near 'Percall' Lake
in 1847, which were said to be descendants of animals that had broken
loose in the wars about 200 years previously. In 1866 this herd had
increased to fourteen or fifteen individuals. Nothing is known as to what
became of them until the 1909 edition of the Imperial Gazetteer, which
stated that there was one single female still left in those parts. Despite
the above, however, Nawab Hamid Yar Jung Bahadur, the Inspector
General of Forests, informs me that no elephants in a wild state have
been heard of in Parkal Taluka within the memory of the oldest man
living.
Provision for Protection of Wildlife
Up to the year 1897 or thereabouts, there were apparently no restrictions
in Hyderabad against tiger or any other shooting. The present Game
Regulations came into force from 28 September 1914. For the purpose
of their application, the Dominions are divided into four circles which
include both reserved and open forests. They also include Jagir and
Samastan forests as well as the private Game Reserves or Shikargahs of
His Exalted Highness the Nizam. The Paigah Nobles, who have extensive
estates (the largest being that of Nawab Moin-ud-dowla Bahadur which
covers an area of 1,287 sq. miles) the owners of Samastans, and the
Jagirdars manage their own forests and are entitled to regulate shooting
on their private domains. The rules relating to close seasons, shooting of
does and immature animals, and the restriction against shooting buffalo,
gaur and hunting leopards are, however, applicable to them Theoretically
speaking, therefore, no shooting can be done in the State without either
a licence from the Government or a permit from the Paigah Nobles,
Samstan-owners or Jagirdars concerned.
According to the Game Regulations only one circle is thrown open
for shooting each year from 1 March to 31 May and again for ten days at
Christmas. For blackbuck the open season is 1 December to 31 May.
Only the number of districts comprising such circles are open at a time,
and shooting areas in these open districts are also defined. Certain areas
are thrown open and others closed to tiger shooting from time to time
depending upon the increase or decrease of these animals.
Depletion of Game Animals
In spite of the measures promulgated for the protection and preservation
of the fauna, which theoretically speaking should give adequate protection
to the existing species, Hyderabad unfortunately is no longer the prolific
game country it was during the last century, and even during the past
thirty years there has been a steady and perceptible diminution. The
chief causes of the decline will be analysed later; in the meantime it is
interesting to collate the present conditions with whatever little
information we can gather concerning the recent past. In the middle of
last century the country between Hingoli and Bokar (Nander District,
Western Circle) was famous for tiger and Col. Nightingale shot many of
his animals here. In two seasons (March-April) 1897 and 1899 Brigadier
General R.G. Burton of the then Hyderabad Contingent, killed twenty-
six tigers in Sirpur-Tandur, mostly round Jangaonthe present Asifabad.
On his last visit to this district in 1899 he still found tigers as numerous
as ever, and heard fifteen years later that they were just as abundant. He
always thought there was a great breeding ground of tigers in the stretch
of Hyderabad territory south of the Peinganga River in the Bela and
Rajura talukas of the Sirpur-Tandur district and sees no reason why it
should not now be as full of tiger as it was thirty-five years ago. Whatever
the reason, those conversant with modern conditions in Hyderabad will
agree that this is unfortunately not the case. The Ajanta Range all along
the Khandesh border north of Aurangabad to Kannad was also famous
for tiger in the early part of the last century, but now merely harbours
occasional stragglers.
There were a few herds of gaur in Sirpur-Tandur in the 1890s. One
whole herd was reported to have perished from foot and mouth disease
at Maikgarh. These animals are now very scarce, and though I often
heard of their occurrence, I actually saw only one pair at Utnoor, and
from the footmarks I came across in that part of the country they were
obviously rare. Inspite, however, of the total prohibition of the killing of
these bovines, I came across more persons than one who boastfully
claimed to have shot them in recent years!
Jerdon, in the first quarter of the last century, referred to herds of
thousands of blackbuck in the country around Jalna. According to Col.
R.W. Burton there were in 1897-1903 blackbuck and chinkara along
the railway line between Secunderabad and Manmad, but fast being
wiped out. In 1892 he saw herds of many hundred blackbuck when
marching through the country. In 1903 these herds had dwindled to a
dozen to twenty, not more. Though still fairly plentiful in some of the
remoter parts of the Mahrattwada districts, blackbuck are fast
disappearing with the advance of colonisation and increasing facilities
of swift transport, coupled with a complete disregard on the part of the
man with the gun for age, sex or season. Herds of more than a few
individuals are now uncommon, and heads of any decent size difficult
to find.
My work in connection with the recent Hyderabad Ornithological
Survey (1931-32) took me to many parts of the country once famous
for game, and I made a point of investigating as far as possible into the
present state of affairs. On the whole, it seemed to me that compared
with accounts of even as recently as thirty years ago, the condition is
distinctly poor, and this conclusion has since been confirmed by the
State Inspector General of Forests. It is true that tigers are still plentiful
in certain portions of the Godavari Forest Belt, but a rapid diminution
in their numbers is inevitable if the present attitude of apathy is persisted
in and things allowed to drift as now. Moving about the country as a
non-official outsider, I had many opportunities of entering into
conversation with people in every walk of like from whom much useful
information could be gleaned concerning the subject. Moreover, once
their initial suspicion was allayed and they perceived that my interest
was chiefly confined to collecting birds, they came out with a good deal
more about their exploits with the larger game animals than it would
have been possible to extract by direct cross-examination. All I had usually
to do was to lead them up to a point and leave them to damn themselves!
Even after due allowance for bravado and for shikaris' tales, the magnitude
of the wanton destruction of life that goes on everywhere, was manifest.
What struck me as curious was that inspite of the formalities and
obstacles in the way of getting shooting licence and the limits of bags, as
prescribed under the Regulations, almost every man possessing a gun
boasted of the number of tiger, sambhar, cheetal, often gaur and other
game he had shot and was still continuing to shoot! The more discoursive
ones could, with sufficient encouragement, usually be made to reveal
the objectionable methods they employed, which they often did, not
unmixed with a certain measure of pride in their achievements. In the
course of my wanderings in the forest at Nelipaka (in the Paloncha
Samastan), Amrabad, Utnoor and elsewhere, I constantly came upon
machans built on trees or pits dug round the edges of swamps or pools
in nullah-beds, etc., from whose concealment these relentless gunners
slaughtered every animal that came to drink, regardless of the season or
whether it was male, female or young. A petty police, revenue or forest
official who hears guns popping off almost every night close to his village
even in seasons when there are no crops to justify them, can usually be
induced to 'keep the peace' if he receives a leg of venison as hush-money.
I say this with first-hand knowledge, and it is a fact known well enough
to many of the higher officials with whom I had occasion to discuss the
question, but who are powerless to put a stop to the practice under
prevailing conditions. Sambhur and cheetal are perhaps the worst
sufferers, and in areas where they were plentiful as recently as 10 years
ago, a marked decline in their numbers is noticeable.
It is sad, but nevertheless true, that some of the greatest offenders are
not the ignorant ryot and the village shikari, but directly or indirectly
they are people like vakils, officials (usually, but not always, petty!) and
well-to-do and so-called educated citizens who should know better. They
either do the slaughtering themselves, regardless of regulations and time
of year, or lend out their guns to professional shikaris, or encourage the
latter indirectly by commissioning them to procure game for them or by
readily buying up whatever is offered for sale at all times of the year.
This indirect sort of abetment is not confined to four-footed game,
but applies largely also to game birds such as partridge and quail. While
on survey work on the outskirts of Aurangabad town in the second half
of April (1932), I came upon a party of professional snarers complete
with paraphernalia and decoy birds. Investigation showed that these men
had been commissioned to catch bush quails for a dinner being given
the next day by a military 'Burra Saheb' of the British Cantonments!
These professional snarersPardis and othersare veritable pests, but
it is only thus that they are able to carry on their nefarious operations
year in, year out, with the result that in many areas feathered game has
been reduced to the verge of extinction. In the words of a highly-placed
police officer who was also a keen sportsman and nature lover and strived
at all times to ensure an observance of the Game Regulations, 'The man
with the gun does not do half so much damage (to feathered game) as
the snarer. He is like a broom, for he sweeps everything before him into
his net.'
Principal Reasons for Depletion of Game
Some of the causes contributory to the rapid and steady depletion of
wildlife in the Hyderabad State have been hinted at above. Many of
them are the same as obtaining in other parts of India, but there are
others which are peculiar to the Dominions and the direct outcome of
conditions there prevailing. To tabulate them all, they are as follows:
1. Enormous and continued increase of population in the last two
decades as shown by the Census Reports of 1921 and 1931.
2. Improvement, extension and opening up of new roads and
railway lines (cf. the Kazipet-Beilarsha line and others) and the
introduction and penetration of motor cars and buses, which
combined with (1), are having the effect of throwing open large
tracts of country that hitherto provided a refuge to wildlife.
3. The facilities provided by (2), in bringing distant game tracts
within speedy and comfortable reach of the man with the gun.
I remember that in October 1925, just after the monsoon, it
took three days by bullock cart to reach Utnoor from Nirmal.
There was no road most of the way and the journey had to be
done over cart tracks little better than boulder-strewn ravines,
and through swollen streams with rocky beds and steep muddy
banks in which the wheels sank to the axle-trees. It was an
experience not to be repeated in a hurry, however keen a shikari
one might be. With the opening up of the Hatnur-Utnoor road,
it is the main Nirmal-Adilabad road, the same journey was
performed in 1932 by motor car in about as many hours! As
Utnoor lies in the midst of some of the finest shooting country,
the effect of this innovation on game can be imagined.
In the exploits of veteran shikaris of the 1800s, like General
Burton, one constantly comes across names of places in the State
like Jangaon (now Asifabad) which it took him days of riding
or marching to reach, and with an infinite amount of bandobast
for his kit. 'The place is now accessible by rail and bus within a
fraction of the time, and with no more bandobast than the
purchasing of one's ticket!
4. Shooting from motor cars and buses both by day and by night
is a growing menace. The practice has assumed alarming
proportions since the Game Regulations were promulgated in
1914, and since it is apparently not contrary to law, it is freely
indulged in by all and sundry.
5. The non-existence hitherto of the Arms Act and the easy
availability of cheap guns of foreign and local manufacture, and
of gunpowder and percussion caps for muzzle-loaders.
6. Indiscriminate poaching and slaughter of game for commercial
purposes at all times of the year.
7. Wholesale snaring, netting and trapping of game birds such as
partridges and quail, often at all seasons, and the taking of their
e
gg
s
-
8. Droughts and epidemics.
9. Wild Dogs.
Remedies Suggested
1, 2, 3. Increase of population, clearance of forest lands, extension of
cultivation and of transport facilities are the natural concomitant
of progress, and it would be unreasonable to check these, except
perhaps (1), for which suggestions are out of place here! No
case can be made out for protection of wildlife at the expense of
human interests. However, a strict observance of the Game
Regulations in such areas should be enforced and punishments
of a deterrent nature meted out to offenders uniformly, regardless
of rank or social position.
4. Shooting from cars and buses, especially by night with the aid
of powerful headlights and electric torches, should be made
unlawful.
5. The recent introduction of the Arms Act into the State has not
been a day too early. The restriction it will impose on the
possession of firearms and on the purchase of ammunition,
gunpowder and percussion caps should, if properly enforced,
have a beneficial effect on wild life in course of time.
6 & 7. It is a fact that most of the poachingslaughtering and
snaringis done for monetary gain and is encouraged directly
or indirectly by people who have no excuse for pleading
ignorance of the law. It is an axiom that if there were no receivers
of stolen property, there would be not thefts committed which,
in the main, is unassailable. Therefore, if the promiscuous
purchase of the meat, hides and horns of game animals (except
perhaps of game birds in season under a regulated system) was
made illegal, as well as the sale of these articles, the chief incentive
to poaching would be eliminated and a great deal of professional
poaching would disappear. I suggest that as regards partridge
and quail, areas should be set apart in rotation to remain entirely
closed to snaring and trapping at all seasons, until such time as
they become sufficiently replenished. The taking of eggs of all
game birds should be made punishable.
8. Droughts can be remedied to some extent by the provision of
reservoirs and by means of canals and channels leading from
them. This has already been partly achieved in certain areas, cf.
Pakhal and Nizamsagar Lakes, and others. In times of drought,
such places tend to draw round them animals from distant parts
and, wherever possible, adequate forest land should be set apart
near such reservoirs to provide harbourage to wildlife at ordinary
times, and specially in seasons of water famine.
Epidemics
According to the Inspector General of Forests, no epidemics among wild
animals are reported, and no measures are taken to protect game in the
forest against them. That measures are called for, however, is patent; an
instance has been given above of a whole herd of bison being exterminated
by foot-and-mouth disease near Manikgarh and the late Mr. E. Ogilvie,
a District Superintendent of Police, informed me that some years ago
hundreds of animals perished in the Warangal District in a similar
epidemics.
9. Wild Dogs do considerable damage to game, and inspire of a
recent suggestion that their ravages have been over-estimated, it
cannot be denied that measures devised to reduce their numbers
in certain other Indian States and Provinces resulted manifestly
in a corresponding increase of such animals as sambhar and
cheetal which are their favourite prey. It may be a fact that they
actually drive away more game than they kill, but it is none the
less true that they do considerable slaughter. Moreover, the game
thus driven out often suffers heavily in an indirect way by being
forcibly exposed to other dangers perhaps just as great, if not
greater. It may, for instance, be driven from its forest fortresses
to the neighbourhood of villages and cultivation, where it stands
a good chance of falling to the gun of the village shikari or
poacher, or in the case of young animals, to his dogs
When I was at Asifabad, the surrounding country was overrun by
wild dogs, in consequence of which forests said to contain a fair amount
of game ordinarily, were bare. I shot a wild dog which was later sent
with the shikari to the kutcheri for claiming the prescribed reward. The
Tahsildar was wholly unaware of any reward having to be paid! Enquiries
of the Inspector General of Forests elicited that some years ago rewards
were paid for killing wild dogs (as per Clause 42 of the Game Regulations)
but due to disuse this had become a dead letter and no rewards were
now being paid. In my opinion, no case has been made out of the
discontinuance of the rewards and the sooner they are reinstated the
better.
The existing Game Regulation, with perhaps a few alterations and
additions, are sound enough on paper. Their application and enforcement
is quite another matter. Mr. Hankin, a former Inspector General of Police,
tried his best during many years, but though a forceful and able officer,
it is doubtful if he was able to effect much. Neither have the authorities
at the top relaxed their efforts since, but for all practical purposes the
position has not improved. In my opinion the immediate way of dealing
with the problem as far as the State is concerned, would be to form a
small committee comprised of a competent non-official sportsman and
naturalist, and Forest, Police and Revenue officials interested to go into
the matter thoroughly and de novo, and to investigate the exact present
position of wildlife from district to district. Having once determined
this, and with due regard to the varying conditions, they should be able
to devise practicable measures for giving effect to remedies suggested
above and to any others that may seem to them necessary.
There are extensive tracts of forests in the State which might be
demarcated and set apart as Wildlife Sanctuaries on the model of the
National Parks now in existence in most civilized countries of the West.
Three suitable localities suggested by the Inspector General of Forests
for such reservation are: (1) along the cart track from Asifabad to Utnoor-
Adilabad District; (2) Amrabad-Mahbubnagar District; (3) around the
newly constructed Nizamsagar Lake, Medak District. For the
administration of the Game Regulations in other State forests, the need
of creating a separate and efficient Game Department becomes
imperative. This should consist of a Game Warden with a staff of
assistants, and watchers of the right type. It should either be subject to
the Inspector General of Forests and work in full cooperation with his
department, or better still be directed by a small committee consisting
of the Inspector General of Forests, the Inspector General of Police, the
Revenue Member and the Game Warden (ex-officio). By a curious
anachronism, shooting licences are at present issued by the Political
Department. Whatever may have been the origin and desirability of this
practice in the past, it is clear that the function should now be transferred
to the Forest Department where it rightly belongs. Later it could be
taken over by the Game Department. The present procedure has little to
recommend it; it results in unnecessary inconvenience and lack of
coordination which does not make for efficiency.
After a proper investigation into the problem of wildlife conservation
in the Nizam's Dominions, as elsewhere, it emerges more clearly than
ever that at the back of all the senseless slaughter and law-breaking, which
has brought about the present sorry plight, is the apathy of public opinion
towards the need for the preservation of our fauna. The backing of public
opinion is vital to the success of a campaign of this nature. Lectures and
the exhibition of suitable cinema films should be organised in order to
rouse the public from its apathy and make it realise the value and
importance of wildlife, and appreciate the measures and the arguments
put forward for its protection and preservation. A beginning must also
be made with children in the schools, by means of properly arranged
Nature Study Programmes.
Dehra Dun
30
th
September, 1933.
In 1933 Salim Ali suggested a series of measures to resolve
the serious problems of the wilderness of Hyderabad state. I think
that over all these years nobody bothered to resolve them. Most
of the area that Salim Ali talked about has been wiped out. Andhra
Pradesh, be it the forests or the wildlife, is in a total mess. What
about other areas? Let us examine the case of Mysore:
No. 9: Mysore
By
Major E.G. Phythian-Adams, EZ.S.
The State of Mysore is an elevated table-land varying in altitude for the
most part from 2,500 to 3,000 ft. above sea level. The Western Ghats
rising to some 5,000 ft. bound it on the west and break the force of the
South-West Monsoon. On the south are the Nilgiri Hills and on the
south-east the Billigirirangans, the highest point of which is about 5,000
ft. above sea-level. In the interior the country is undulating and in many
parts hilly. Generally speaking the northern part of the State consists of
open plains with occasional rocky hills, the centre is the most intensely
cultivated, while on the western and southern fringes are the denser
forests. The total area of the State is some 30,000 sq. miles of which
forests cover over one-tenth. The forests are divided into: (1) Game
Preserves which are closed to all shooting and fishing except by special
permission; (2) State forests corresponding to Reserved forests in British
India where the pursuit of game is illegal except on licence; and (3)
District forests which now hold little but small game, panthers and
wild pig.
Mysore is the fortunate possessor of a fauna so diverse and varied that
few other parts of India can equal it. The extensive open plains of the
north are the home of numerous herds of blackbuck, which extend more
or less over all cultivated areas of the State; the more broken country
holds chinkara and wolves, while nilgai though uncommon are still
reported to exist in certain parts. The forests contain herds of elephant
and bison, and a good herd of sambhur and spotted deer, while lesser
fry, barking deer, wild pig, etc. are common in suitable localities. The
State contains some famous tiger grounds and panthers are ubiquitous,
though hunting leopards are probably now extinct. Bears are fairly
common in certain parts and wild dogs even more so. The list of
indigenous small game includes the Great Indian Bustard, Florican,
Peafowl, Jungle and Spurfowl, Partridge, Sandgrouse (two or more
varieties), several species of Quail, Green, Bluerock and Imperial Pigeons,
and the Indian Hare, to which must be added in the cold weather
countless numbers of Snipe, Duck and Teal and some Bar-headed Geese,
which find rich subsistence in the paddy fields and on the irrigation
tanks with which the state is so well provided.
As has been said above, the existing Game Laws are a model of their
kind, but as has been found in other parts of India, it is one thing to pass
a law and quite another to enforce it. The public generally and many
even of the subordinate officials appear to have no knowledge of the
existence of these laws, far less of their provisions, and poaching is
widespread and largely unchecked. Public opinion is not yet sufficiently
educated to realise the importance of the preservation of the fauna, and
until the scope and purpose of the Game Laws are more widely known,
it cannot be expected that their provisions will be generally observed.
Much good would be effected if the subordinate Government officials
of all departments concerned were made to realise their responsibility in
the matter, and this applies with particular force to the Forest Range
Officers who if they like can put a definite stop to all poaching.
But still more important is the education of public opinion which
can best be effected by propaganda in the Press, by lectures and nature
classes in schools and colleges, by the formation of local associations for
the study and protection of wildlife, and by collaboration with similar
societies already existing in other parts of India.
Equally important is the creation of a Wildlife Fund to which would
be credited all revenue from arms licences, shooting and fishing licence
fees, fines for offences, etc. while the Fund would be used to pay rewards
for the destruction of vermin, for preventing poaching, and for the upkeep
of a Game Warden and National park. At present there are in the State
no sanctuaries for wildlife, though to a certain extent the Game Preserves
take their place, but a stricter supervision is required if these are to fulfil
a really useful purpose. It is suggested that part of the Bandipur Game
Preserve might with advantage be turned into a National Park. This area
holds a good head of game and wild life generally, and being adjacent to
the strictly preserved Mudumalai forest under control of the N.G.A.
could be easily policed. Bandipur lies on the main road some 50 miles
equidistant from Ootacamund and Mysore City, and a well-organised
Park there should prove a great attraction. The existing Travellers'
Bungalow could be easily enlarged to provide the necessary
accommodation.
There is no doubt that the presence of sportsmen in shooting areas is
one of the greatest curbs on the activities of the poacher, and more
encouragement should be given to them by reducing licence fees which
are at present excessive in comparison with the bag obtainable and by
throwing open to the general public some at any rate of the Game
Preserves.
Legislation is also required to prevent the sale of game in the close
season; this would considerably restrict the activities of the motor poacher
who shoots solely for gain.
To sum up, the present position of wildlife in Mysore is, considering
all the factors involved, not unsatisfactory; but this position will certainly
deteriorate seriously in the near future unless steps are taken to prevent
it, in which connection the following are suggested as most important:
(1) Strict enforcement of the existing Game Laws;
(2) Education of Public opinion in every possible way;
(3) Formation of Wildlife Fund;
(4) Prohibition of all motor car shooting;
(5) Prohibition of sale of game out of season and control of traffic
in hides and horns;
(6) Protection for the Great Indian Bustard;
(7) Encouragement of genuine sportsmen; and
(8) Establishment of a National Park.
Mysore has been blessed by Nature with an unusually rich fauna, and
every possible step should be taken in time to safeguard it and to make
its people realise the importance from every point of view of such a
national asset.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 38 (1935), pp. 241, 244-5.
The writing of the 1930s was remarkable. There were at least
twenty people writing and making appeals to save wildlife. There
were all the big names. Corbett, Champion, Salim Ali, Jepson,
and so many more. Jepson even compared wildlife with the Taj
Mahal, something I often do in my talks. Over the century, human
minds have searched for answers and some of the ways in which
this process worked has amazing connectionswhether it be
today or sixty-six years agoas can be seen in the following extract
from Stanley Jepson:
An Appeal for the Preservation of Wildlife
By
Stanley Jepson
There is nothing selfish or incongruous in the idea of sportsmen taking
up the preservation of wildlife. They are in the best position to do so
and in India and Africa have always supported these movementspeople
who spend leisure hours in the jungle soon become very keen on the
preservation of the wild.
Were the Taj Mahal at Agra to be allowed to fall into ruins, or to be
destroyed by vandals, a cry of indignation would arise from north to
south and east to west of the Indian Empire and of the world. But the
hand of man could re-create this structure. Yet several equally beautiful
works of the Creator, rare species in the rich and varied fauna of India,
are threatened with complete extinction and the hand of no man can re-
create them. No howl of indignations arises. As the years go by, people
seem to grow apathetic to the need for some action to preserve India's
fauna for posterity.
Then there arises the question of game sanctuaries. The formation of
these on lines which have proved so successful in many countries should
surely commend itself to the Government of India without delay. Mr.
Dunbar Brander has mentioned in the 'Bombay Natural History Society's
Journal' one very suitable area in the Central Provinces, and other places
might be selected within motorable distances of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi,
etc. Thus, visitors would have an opportunity of seeing wildlife in its
natural surroundings. Such sanctuaries would be under a separate Game
Department with a warden in charge, and shooting would, of course, be
permanently forbidden. Or Government might sanction a local increase
in the F.D. staff for the special purpose of protecting the sanctuary.
There is ample information available about game sanctuaries in other
countries. In Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the Union of South
Africa large areas have been reserved which offer security and shelter to
wildlife. Other countries have rapidly followed these Empire examples.
Switzerland has her national park amid Alpine splendour. Italy and Spain
have established similar areas. Sweden surpasses all Continental countries
with her fourteen national parks. Finland, Austria, Poland and Czecho-
slovakia have such districts. Belgium has in the Congo that great sanctuary
the Pare National Albert, created by royal decree in 1925, and providing
so successful that four years later its area was increased tenfold. An example
to India has been set by Travancore State where the Maharajah is
personally interesting himself in the formation of a large sanctuary on
the shores of Periyar Lake to give a sure refuge to the elephant, bison and
other species which are about there. There may be nervousness about
the financial liabilities in setting up a game sanctuary. This aspect rightly
demands careful study. But there is encouragement in the history of the
Kruger National Park in South Africa. This covers over 8,000 square
miles of territory, and contains the best collection of wild animals
anywhere in the world, while its 500 miles of motor road bring tourists
and photographers from all parts. The Park fully justifies its existence by
increasing revenues to the State.
Such sanctuaries, however, should be run on scientific game-keeping
lines, with effective supervision; otherwise experience has shown that
they may merely encourage quiet poaching in out-of-the-way forests.
When nalas have been closed in Upper Kashmir and Ladakh in order to
increase the number of markhor and ibex, the authorities have at times
had a rude surprise on reopening them to sportsmen after some years
one or two nalas were found to be completely devoid of big game. The
same experience occurred once in Sind, where an effort was made to
preserve the Sind ibex through closing certain areaswith the final result
that the ibex disappeared from those areas.
One of the main benefits such sanctuaries would give would be the
arousing of public opinion to the value of India's rich and varied fauna.
It is surely an anachronism that while most other countries have big
game sanctuaries, India with her fine religious traditions which give
protection to animal life, and with a selection of wild animals amazing
in its numbers and variety, was until recently doing nothing to arouse
public opinion on this point.
Stanley Jepson (ed.), Big Game Encounters.
The 1930s were busy times. People came together in the
interest of wildlife. Wildlife needed them. The 1935 all-India confe-
rence on wildlife brought people like Corbett, Morris, Champion,
and many others together. It also saw the birth of the journal Indian
Wildlife, the official organ of the All-India Conference for the
Preservation of Wildlife. Given below are some extracts from the
first issue that provi de a flavour of those times. The editors
included Corbett and Morris, and then once again, the name of
another Indian Hasan Abid Jafry. This was their first editorial:
Editorial
(Editorial Board: Major J. Corbett,
Randolph C. Morris, Hasan Abid Jafry)
No apologies are needed in sending forth a frail paper boat on a mission
worthy of a modern Liner. The very project by its circumstances is rash
and reckless. Dangers of an hazardous adventure are all too apparent,
and, even if the craft is trailed along coast lines, a puff of breeze is enough
to flounder it! We concede that many highly successful enterprises have
had humble beginnings, but the plans and charts before us urge us to
embark on an ambitious voyage that needs the courage and experience
of a Columbus or a Vasco de Gama!!
We are engaged in changing the mentality of a people, and desire to
introduce a new angle of Cisiona new system of thoughtan
altogether new attitude of mind towards the Fauna and Flora of India.
Europe, America and Japan appreciate the value of wildlife. They
rightly look upon it with pride, consider it a National asset, and spend
millions of pounds to save and preserve it. But conditions are different
in India; National pride or economic considerations have little to do
here. The reason is not far to seek. Religious veneration for 'life in any
form', and abhorrence at its destruction, like many other religious dogmas
ended in mere passive recognition of a tenet! It failed to create active
love for wild birds and animals, so that while the majority of the people
desisted from killing or destroying wildlife, they took no interest in saving
and protecting it. Similarly, Muslims in India who having confused the
religious permission 'to hunt' in cases of absolute necessity with a free
licence to kill recklessly for pleasure sake, never considered, en masse, to
love and preserve wildlife. This produced a strange mentality, and
provided unrestricted scope for netting, capturing and killing.
Since the time of Asoka, wildlife has not been seriously considered
King's property. For centuries wild birds and animals have been netted,
trapped and shot, here, there and everywhere, as 'God's creation and
destructor's property'. Their capture and destruction has been sanctioned
by usage from time immemorial, and game has been followed everywhere.
Owners of land never objected, as they witnessed the practice and heard
of it from their elders. Conscience rarely bothered the captor and the
hunter; and 'trespass' and 'poaching' were almost unknown terms.
Sanctity of case law in India, on these matters, amply justifies our
conclusions.
Destructive methods have always been employed in India as elsewhere,
but fortunately, the number of destroyers and opportunities for
destruction have been not too many. Demand for the table was little;
firearms were few and shooting was an expensive hobby. Firearms and
licences for crop protection were almost unknown, and commercial
possibilities were definitely limited. But now, with the introduction of
modern firearms, commercial possibilities, gang methods, and the use
of motor cars and searchlights, wild birds and animals are alarmingly
reduced, and many species are threatened with complete destruction.
Game was plentiful and was found in all parts of India; but within the
last thirty years, it has passed through the most destructive period in
history. It is but a modest estimate that within these years it is reduced
by 75 per cent! India is blessed with at least 2,700 species of Birds alone!!
She is richer than Africa in the variety of wildlife, but is certainly poorer
in number, though Africa is one of the most heavily shot countries and
has been attracting sportsmen and poachers of all kinds from all parts of
the world for a number of years. African wildlife is being systematically
protected. India is in utter confusion! Inadequacy of legislation,
unwillingness on the part of subordinate government officials and public
servants to enforce the existing laws and orders, and general apathy of
the public, through sheer ignorance and for want of proper educative
bodies, India is beset with many difficulties. The problem is acute, and
unless bold measures are adopted, and movement for protection of
wildlife is brought to the forefront, no effort on the part of legislators,
sportsmen and friends of wildlife will be able to save it.
India is hopelessly ignorant of the significance of her wildlife, and
there is not a single Province or State which is contributing anything or
making efforts, to remove this ignorance, and educate public opinion to
realise its responsibility towards creatures which have played no small
part in making the country fertile and inhabitable, by doing positive
service in the protection of crop, the growing of fruits and vegetables
and the production of beautiful flowers and plants.
We started the Association for the Preservation of Game in U.P. as no
one could be persuaded to take up the responsibility of forming and
running it. Having done educative work for three years in India, we
suggested the formation of All India Conference for the Preservation of
Wildlife. Again we were compelled to shoulder the responsibility, and
were able to found it with the help and support of friends. Fortunately,
His Excellency Lord Willingdon, who has done more than any other
Viceroy for wildlife, graciously accepted our humble suggestion through
Provincial Governments and was pleased to call the All India Conference
for the Protection ofWildlife, in Delhi, in January 1935. The Conference
was an unqualified success and was responsible for excellent resolutions.
But the Conference is over, the resolutions are on paper, and although
more than a year has passed, we are not aware that any serious effort has
been made in any part of India to give practicability to any of the
resolutions. The geographical distribution of wildlife is such, that an
All-India platform is an absolute necessity, and it is for this reason that
we are obliged to keep alive the Conference for the Preservation of
Wildlife, and we sincerely hope that we will be able to persuade the
Provinces and States of India to take positive steps to save the valuable
and wonderful wildlife. The Conference is a representative body and
has its members from all the Provinces; in fact, we are flattered with the
welcome it has been given by prominent public men and responsible
Forest officers.
The Magazine will be the herald of the Conference, and if the friends
of wildlife in all parts of India will only give their support to the venture,
we are sure, it will soon become a powerful advocate of the cause of
wildlife in India. There is yet another reason for bringing out the
Magazine. There is no Sportsmen's nor Naturalists' monthly Magazine
in India. It will be our earnest effort to keep our readers informed of the
activities in the cause of wildlife in Europe, America and the Eastern
countries; give publicity to the views of sportsmen and naturalists;
establish inter-states and inter-provincial relations; provide a medium
for exchange of informations and publish latest Rules and Orders of
Forest and Government Departments regarding wildlife. We undertake
to publish entertaining stories, adventures and many other interesting
matters about wildlife. In short, it will be our endeavour to give a readable
Magazine to public at almost cost price.
We have confessed the frailty of the 'paper boat', and have no hesitation
in admitting that we are producing the Magazine under exactly the same
circumstances as were responsible for bringing into being the Association
for the Preservation of Game in U.P., and All India Conference for the
Preservation of Wildlife. We are the publishers of the Magazine, as no
publishing house is prepared to take it up except on the basis of a large
profit to itself. This will naturally increase the annual subscription, and
we are not prepared for it. It rests entirely with our generous readers and
friends of wildlife to enable us to make the Magazine bigger, more
attractive and usefulin fact a success, in every sense of the term, in the
interest of a very worthy and noble cause. We look to you for the ultimate
success of the enterprise.
A Prisoner for Life
Major W.R. Lawrenson
Once it was I who was 'Lord of the Jungle'.
My home the wide forest, my roof was the sky.
Now I envy the mongrel that prowls in the gutter.
He has his freedom. A prison have I.
What was my crime? Of what was I guilty?
Nature's laws I obeyed. That, none can decry.
Because of my strength, my power, and my beauty,
I'm behind prison bars 'till the hour that I die.
Oh! For a day to roam through my jungle,
To recline once again 'neath the bamboos' cool shade.
To list to the cry of the sambhur and cheetal.
Disturbed by my mate as she moves through the glade.
Oh! For a day to forget this mad torture.
The thrust of the goad. The lock, bar, and chain.
Oh! For an hour, to lie by the hillside.
And once more to feel, the wind and the rain.
Indian WMife, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 1936.
What an amazing time it must have been! The first wildlife
conference in the history of India was just over and there was
already criticism about the delays in implementing some of the
resolutions. The editors were appealing for immediate action. For
Corbett it was his first entry into serious conservation. Corbett
may never have given up the gun but he spent more and more
time with a camera. He bought his first camera in the 1920s and
filmed for more than twenty years. His major achievement was
his ability to get the local provincial government to create the
Hailey National Park in 1935, now called Corbett National Park.
By the end of the 1930s the journal he edited folded up because of
lack of support. Only three issues came out. The last shoot he
organized was in 1946 for Lord Wavell.
By 1939 Great Britain was in the midst of dealing with World
War II. In a way this was one of the worst moments for India' s
forests. It was a period of endless timber cutting, and contractors
involved in this went after wildlife with a vengeance, forgetting
about the rules and regulations that governed the area. After all it
was a time of war. All the British were occupied with was the war
effort and if not that, it was the heat of the independence struggle.
It is estimated that over 300,000 cu metres of just sal was cut in
these war years. In the early 1940s there was little writing on
conservation and it was only after the war ended in 1945 that the
writings started again. But it was a complex time as India entered
the period of independence, the British got ready to leave, and
the priorities of that moment relegated the forests of India to
oblivion. In my opinion damage and destruction was at its highest
at this time and wildlife suffered its greatest damage. The. 1940s
must have been a nightmare for conservation and wildlife activists.
Let us look at the situation in Udaipur region in Rajasthan in
1941. This was a feudal state and the British tried their best to
interfere. The Second World War was on and in November 1941,
Rao Sahib E.V. Padmanabh Pillai was transferred from Madras
to Udaipur and he brought in a new Forest Act with stringent
measures. He describes the state of Udaipur' s forests as probably
reflective of other regions of India. This is what he writes:
Everywhere reckless felling was going on and wanton destruction
was to be seen. The only thing that so far had protected the forests
was the personal interest taken by the Ruler of the State in protecting
certain areas for game preservation. The forests left by the Ruler to
be managed by his Government had been mismanaged and ruined.
When the town of Udaipur was founded [c. 1550], it was in the
middle of thick jungles. Great lakes were formed by throwing
embankments across the streams flowing down the hills . . . . Now
Udaipur is surrounded by hills bare of vegetation. On these hills the
soil is only a thin layer not more than 2 feet in depth. Rain beats on
these bare hill sides and washes away the surface soil little by little
year after year exposing bare rocks. Thousands of tons of silt have
been deposited in these lakes. There could be no doubt that in course
of time these lakes would be silted up completely. This kind of
denudation of forest growth from the hill sides was going on not
only in the capital but everywhere in the State . . . . As the Prime
Minister stated to the Mahasabha of Rajputs, noblemen and
commoners, that if timely steps were not taken to preserve the forests
the fair fields of Udaipur would in the course of the next generation
be found deposited at the bottom of the Bay of Bengal.
'UdaipurReport on the Administration 1940-42.'
And most of Rajasthan's forests today are probably sitting at the
bottom of the Bay of Bengal!
The following article gives an idea of the situation prevailing
at the time of and immediately after independence:
The Bombay Presidency
By
G. Monteath, I.C.S.
It is five years since I left India, and a good many more since I was last in
some of the Forest districts in which I have served. Those that I knew are
all, with the exception of Thana, in the Central and Southern Divisions
of the Presidency. Sind and Guzerat; Surat, the Panchmahals, and the
Dangs are 'terra incognita'. Anything I say therefore is subject to the
qualification that my personal knowledge of conditions is limited to
certain districts, and my experience hardly up to date.
In some forest districts a heavy decrease in the numbers of certain
speciesthose that afford, in addition to the sport of hunting them,
desirable trophieshad taken place before the question of protection
began to be considered seriously and rules were made under the Forest
Act to impose some limit on killing. It must be admitted that up to that
timethat is till after the beginning of this centurythe main agent of
destruction was the 'European' sportsman, to give him the title established
by long usage in India. Neither the indigenous 'shikari' nor the wild
dogtwo kinds of poacher' frequently accusedcan properly be blamed
for it.
To take the villager firsthis share of damage done in the past in this
part of India, where, as far as I have been able to find out, he has had no
inducement of profit worth considering, is negligible, and his present
activities hardly make enough impression by themselves to counterbalance
the natural increase of the species he is generally concerned with. His
usual method of huntinga long and wearisome, and more often than
not fruitless, watch by night, whether lawfully in his field or unlawfully
and surreptitiously over water or a game-path in the adjoining forest
practically precludes such result. He is little, if at all, more efficiently
armed, and it is scarcely to be supposed that he is better marksman or
sees better at night, than his predecessorsmost of whom, as Forsyth
says, were bunglers at this kind of work. When a number of villagers
combine, as they sometimes domost often in my experience in the
Kanara districtwith nets or dogs or both, they may do a little better,
but even these hunts are not on the whole, I think, much more productive
of result than the solitary watch. The fact that they are illegal makes it
necessary to keep them as dark as possible, and since they cannot be
conducted without numbers and some noise, secrecyunless there is
connivance on the part of local subordinate officialsis not altogether
easy. They do not therefore take place very often, and when they do the
total result after a good deal of work, involving much careful preliminary
investigation and placing of nets, hardly, according to my observation,
warrants the conclusion that his kind of hunting causes any real decrease
in the numbers of the species that is their main objectin the Kanara
district for our purposes cheetal, which seldom go far from the
comparatively easily worked forests adjoining village sites. I say 'for our
purposes' because I am dealing just now with forest species that are in
need of protection. Pig of course are hunted toopig and cheetal are
the two kinds of forest dwellers that do most of the trespassing on
cultivation that villagers complain aboutbut pig are prolific and in no
need of protectionin Kanara perhaps rather the contrary. Cheetal also,
if considerably less prolific, have still a natural rate of increase that would
more than counterbalance the occasional killing of a few of them by
villagers, as long as this was all they had to fear. Provided that due care
and discrimination are exercised in the matter of gun licences for crop
protection, there is not very much danger that the occasional unlawful
use of a gun will do more harm than it has done in the past, and the
evidence seems to show that this has been inconsiderable. In fact, if the
grant of licences for smooth-bore gunswhich are all that is needed for
protection of crops, and all that villagers usually want (most often single-
barrelled ones and nearly always muzzle-loaders, for financial reasons)
is proportioned to the area of cultivation (and of course conditioned by
the respectability of the individuals concerned), inhabitants of forest
villages will do very well, other things being equal, if they hold their
own against deer and pig. If sometimes for the sake of meat one or
another of them sits up with his gun in a forest, or a number of the 'lads
of the village' combine for a hunt with nets and spears (in this case
usually their only armament, for guns are noisy and likely to be more
dangerous to hunters than hunted) and they happen to be caught at it, I
should be inclined to be lenient with them. After all it is arguable that
the motive is as good a one as the desire for a trophy, which if the animal
shot is a large onesay a bisonoften involves, in Kanara at any rate,
almost entire waste of the carcass.
Local Regulations: (1) Southern Circle.
That the present state of things in the Southern Circle forest areas is on
the whole, as I think it is, satisfactory, is attributable mainly or very
largely to the fact that the 'block' system and attendant rules were
introduced in good time, that is before the general use of motor transport
had begun to make many parts of North Kanara so much more accessible
than they were in former days. The restrictions imposed by the old rules
consisting of little more than the necessity, for the purpose of shooting
in government forests, of buying a licence available for a year, and a
limit of the number of head of certain species that might be shot by an
individual licencewould hardly have been enough by themselves to
counteract the effect of a much greater annual influx of sportsmen, with
the inveterate tendency of the majority to follow one another into well-
known and favoured localities. The system now in force seems to provide
as adequately as any set of regulations can against overshooting of those
parts of the Southern Circle forests to which it applies by means of a
threefold check.
Sanctuaries
To sum up, the system of licensing that is in force in the Southern Circle
having so far proved on the whole adequate there for its purpose, its
extension to other parts of the Presidency where there are considerable
tracts of forest in fairly regular request for shooting seems desirable. In
fact I can see no other means at present available by which the gradual
disappearance of the species most generally sought after may possibly be
stayed, or the stock increased. Nor can I think of any further measures
in supplement that would be feasible. The establishment, for instance,
of sanctuaries on the lines of the African Game Reserves (but of necessity
on a smaller scale), which I have seen advocated for some parts of India,
and which may (though I doubt it) be a practical proposition for them,
is manifestly out of the question for Bombay, and likely to be so for a
long time to come. Expenditure on a special establishment to look after
them could never be justified, and the burden of supervising much larger
areas closed to shooting, which would consequently fall on the forest
staff, would be made no lighter for themrather the contraryby the
absence as a matter of course of licensed sportsmen. Sanctuaries indeed
other than those of manageable size provided under the rules by
temporary closures of blocks, plus such natural ones as still exist in parts
of different districts by reason of inaccessibility combined with climate,
might very well in the end prove to be no sanctuaries at all.
Wild Animals in Non-Forested Areas
Antelope and gazelle (blackbuck and chinkara) when I left India had
begun to disappear from many places where they used to be numerous,
and doubtless the process continues. Here again local poachers' may be
acquitted of blame, if one can call 'local' the peripatetic sortPardi,
Haran-Shikari, or whatever his label. The ordinary villager seldom
bothered his head about blackbuck, further than to scare them away
from his crops. The others, from time immemorial, have wandered from
one place to anothera gang of them does not want to camp long
anywhere, and could not if it would, for they are 'criminal tribes' and
the Police see to it that they move on. Their numbers are not large, and
their painstaking method of snaring their quarry never produced results
worth considering. They may do better with partridges and quail, or
haresI am inclined to think they dobut on the whole they can be
counted out. Nor for that matter did the toll taken by the sportsman in
the past affect perceptibly the stock of these speciesblackbuck quickly
learnt to adapt themselves to the range of improved weapons, and the
chinkara is seldom an easy mark.
The extension of motor transport and the greatly increased number
of licences for rifles are what has made the difference. The modern high-
velocity magazine rifle of foreign make is cheap enough to be bought,
even new, by many who could not have afforded the shorter-ranging
express, and motor cars or cycles can go almost anywhere.
Protection in Non-Forest Areas
A licence for the possession of a rifle can be granted for the purpose of
self-protection, of crop protection, or of sport, for all three purposes, or
for any two of them. For self-protection a rifle is with rare exceptions
unnecessary and unsuitable, and for crop protection smooth-bore guns
are the most that is needed. Remains sport. In the first place, then, when
that is the ostensible object, the licence would prescribe certain definite
restrictions on the species of game, and the number of each, allowed to
the holder during the period for which it is available.
So much for the licence to own a rifle (or gun) for sport, and the
condition to which it should be subject. The next thing to consider is
the motorprivately owned, or public conveyance. It should be definitely
forbidden, under pain of an adequate fine, to shoot from, or from the
cover of, any kind of motor vehicle, and more especially to shoot by the
aid of motor headlights. I believe this prohibition already obtains in
forest areas. The provision that no shooting at all should be allowed
from or within a certain distance of a highway should be added in
supplement, but it must be admitted that in any case, since cars can
beand aretaken over the roughest tracks across country, it would in
practice be chiefly the users of public conveyances that these prohibitions
would affect. Still, that would be something.
The last measure of those that I can think of is that to which I referred
further back. The sale and purchase of meat or trophies of any kind of
game animal, and not only such as can be brought within the definition
of 'Forest Produce', should be made illegal, and the penalty should be
heavy enough to make both buyer and seller cautious. It goes without
saying that the bribery of subordinate officials, by the present for instance
of part of the meat of an animal shot, is 'illegal gratification', and it is
equally clear that it is an offence nearly impossible to detect: information
offered by a jealous rival is about the only means by which it is ever
brought to light.
The Motoring Poacher
It was in this context that I mentioned that it was time to get ready for
another kind of 'poacher'one very different from and a good deal
more efficient than the resident varietyand this brings me back to the
forests, where he has already arrived, though he has not as yet perhaps
done very much execution on the whole. The opening up by means of
roads for the exploitation of timber of more and more of the high forest
areas puts more and more places that were previously hardly accessible
within reach of the man who can command the use of a motor car. So
far not much advantage seems to have been taken by the unlicensed
shikari of roads other than the main Public Works routes that run through
forest land, and little damage has been done to species other than
cheetalthe most 'get-at-able' for the motoring 'poacher'but quite
sufficient. I am told, to them in some places to give reason for anxiety. If
he widens his sphere of operations by taking to forest roads other species
may suffer, but it should be easier to obstruct him here than on the
public routeshe will be more noticeable and less mobile, and there is
greater likelihood of his falling in with some of the forest staff. On the
main roads I think the most that forest officers can generally do is to
keep these gentry moving, but the illegality of shooting without licence
should be emphasised by adequate punishment of the offender when he
does happen to be brought to bookincluding attachment of his gun
or rifle, which may be unlicensed, or if licensed has probably been brought
outside the district for which it is licensed. Ordinarily of course a licence
to possess a rifleor even gunfor sport should not be valid beyond
the boundaries of the district in which it is sanctioned.
Agencies for the Protection of Wild Animals
I said further back that the formation of larger sanctuaries than what the
forest game laws afford, to be looked after by a special department, were
out of the question in Bombay for financial reasons. I add here my definite
opinion that for forest areas they are also unnecessary. The officers
concerned have managed the laws for the protection of game in their
own sphere of authority efficiently, and can be trusted to do so in the
future, so long as their discretion is not unduly interfered with. The
example of Africa, sometimes cited, is clearly no precedent for IndiaI
need hardly set forth the reasons, for that would be to elucidate the
obvious. The motor car is likely, it is true, to be an increasing
embarrassment, but a special Game Department would be, as far as I
can see, in no better case than the forest staff for dealing with it. However,
I am wandering into an academic discussiona Game Department is
anyhow not a practical proposition for Bombay.
It was clear that Monteath wanted little change in the Bombay
Presidency. He was an officer of the Indian Civil Service and the
preference for status quo was a part of his analysis. But it is quite
clear that the last forty years had seen the decimation of India' s
wilderness. The twenty year period between 1927-47 was one of
the richest in conservation writings and therefore, many must have
at least minimised the damage. Many must have intervened by
the crisis was clearly overwhelming. It was many years of World
War II combined with the fury of the independence struggle, and
a moment where battling for the wilderness was not a priority for
governance. Even those who cared battled on God knows what
would have been the situation today if they had not.
The great hunting trophy in post-independence Indiathousands were
slaughtered in the name of' sport' .
A fisherman's bagthe giant 'Mahseer that roamed the rivers of India.
It is so difficult to find today.
The Nehru Years
Independent India: 1947-1964
I
n the turmoil of independence I wonder if anyone had time to
worry about wildlife and forests. Forests had been slaughtered
during the war and more had been cut just before independence.
If the motor car and its invention had started to take a toll on
wildlife since the 1920s, its development, speed, and four-wheel-
drive abilities took an enormous toll on wildlife in the 1940s just
after the war. The world war, and India' s independence, changed
the priorities and everyone was focused on other issues. The wild
bunch had other battles that they were forced into .The forest
vanished and soon after independence the first shrill alarms
sounded. In 1948 D. Dorai Rajan wrote an article in the Madras
Mail appealing for the preservation of wildlife. One of the Britisher
who stayed on was a great stalwart of conservation, R.W. Burton.
Bur t on mus t have been a real l y i ncr edi bl e force behi nd
conservation in the 1940s. He not only wrote extensively, but was
actually battling a brand new government in post-independent
India and was keeping the flag of wildlife flying against all odds.
Most at that time must have thought he was mad! The effect of
the war and the state of wildlife in post-independent India had
triggered another debate. But this time it would be tough. The
country was now under Indian rule. The British who had stayed
on wanted to see the wildlife safe, but there were very few Indian
voices in support of his. R.W. Burton swung into action. Corbett
and Champion had left for East Africa. Corbett died there but
Champion continued to work as a forester. They both probably
did not believe that the wildlife of India would survive. This is
what Burton wrote in January 1948:
Wildlife Preservation
India's Vanishing Asset
By
Lt. Col. R.W. Burton
This contribution to the Journal of the Society was in course of
preparation when there appeared in the 'Madras Mail' newspaper of 6
th
January 1948 an article by Mr. D. Dorai Rajan under the caption,
'Preserve India's Wildlifean appeal for Government action.'
It is well that the first ventilation of this urgently important subject
in the public press since the 15
th
August 1947 should have been put
forward by a national of the new India.
Mr. Rajan's plea deals with South India only, so a similar plea with
regard to both the dominions into which this subcontinent has been
recently divided is now placed before the members of the Bombay Natural
History Societywhich has been for many years in actual fact an All-
India Society-and the readers of the Journal, and through them to the
pubic at large, the Governments of India and of Pakistan; all the Provincial
Governments and rulers of States, and all owners of land.
The Bombay Natural History Society
For many years the Society, through the medium of its Journal and other
attractive publications, has endeavoured to create and stimulate in India
an interest in the wildlife of the country. During the past sixty years
there have appeared in the Journal upwards of fifty longer and shorter
articles and editorial on the subject. It was to a great extent owing to the
Society that Act XX of 1887, 'An Act for the Preservation of Wild Birds
and Game' (passed after nearly 30 years' agitation in the matter), was
replaced by 'The Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act (VIII of 1912)
THE NEHRU YEARS 1 5 1
which, together with the Indian Forest Act (XIV of 1927) is the basis of
all rules in force at the present time.
Principles
In all civilised countries there is a general recognition of the need for
concerted and practical measures to stop the forces of destruction which
threaten wildlife in all parts of the world. The principle is the same
everywhere, the methods to be employed must vary in every country,
and will also vary in different parts of the same country. That has special
application to India as a whole, and is the reason why legislation on
wildlife in this country has been complex and difficult.
'Until it is recognised that Wildlife is a valuable natural resource, and
the benefits derived from an unguarded resource are wasting benefits,
waste will continue until the resource has gone and the benefits have
vanished. No natural resources is more sensitive to conservation than
wildlife, and no natural resource has suffered more from lack of
conservation. During the last sixty years species have been exterminated
due to this deficiency.'
Hubback
At present time the pace and extent of the waste is alarming. In this
country there is the gravest need for concerted action.
'In its fauna and flora nature has endowed India with a magnificent
asset. A further interest attaches to our wildlife from its association with
the folklore and legendary beliefs of the country. It is an interest not
confined to India alone, but which has spread among men of culture
everywhere because of the esteem and admiration with which her sacred
books and writings are held.'
Prater
Birds
Although birds are not now persecuted to the same extent as animals,
yet an enormous amount of unnecessary and preventable damage is going
on. One bright spot in India, as Champion has remarked, is that non-
game birds are not harried to the same extent as used to be the case in
some Western countries, for the Indian boy does not amuse himself by
uselessly collecting vast numbers of birds' eggs. But India had the dreadful
plumage trade, which was far worse.
The Great Indian Bustard is becoming increasingly scarce and has
gone from areas where it was common not many years ago. The Monal
pheasant and the Tragopan of the Himalayas have been saved only
through prohibition of export of plumage. Other birds saved from what
would have practically become extermination through the extremely
lucrative plumage trade were peacocks and black partridges, egrets, jungle-
cocks, paddy-birds, kingfishers, jays and rollers, orioles and a host of
others. The governments controlling Pondicherry, Goa and other ports
on the coasts of India cooperated so the traffic was stopped. But there
were many subsequent cases of smuggling, and these will certainly recur
if the plumage trade measures are ever relaxed.
Value of Birds
In connection with all that is written above the thought-provoking article,
'Bird Protection in India: Why it is necessary and How it should be
controlled,' by Salim Ali, M.B.O.U., contributed in 1933 to the U.P.
Association should be read by all governing bodies. Indeed it is most
essential to national India that bird life should be adequately conserved.
For 'Quite apart from a sentimental value, birds render incalculable
service to man. Without their protection our crops, our orchards, our
food supply would be devoured by hordes of ravaging insects. Birds are
the principal agency that controls the bewildering multiplication of insect
life which, if unchecked, would overwhelm all life on this planet.'
Prater
Species in Danger
MammalsThe Great One-horned Rhinoceros has only been saved by
special measures and these, if in any way relaxed, will inevitably lead to
its extinction. A close relative to the above, the lesser One-horned
Rhinoceros (sondaicus), which has been within the memory of many an
inhabitant of the Sunderbans jungles and other tracts, has completely
disappearednone now exist on the soil of India. The Asiatic Two-
horned Rhinoceros which occurred in parts of Assam has gone from
there for ever, and both these species are approaching the vanishing point
in Burma and other countries where they were formerly in fair number.
In Burma the Thamin Deer is probably doomed to extinction.
In Western Pakistan and neighbouring mountains the Straight-horned
Markhor is rapidly disappearing; and if the Punjab Urial is not carefully
preserved that specie will not long survive.
The Indian Antelope (blackbuck) is becoming increasingly scarce and
will eventually only be preserved through protection; to a less extent the
same can be said of the Indian Gazelle. The Cheetah or Hunting Leopard,
was not uncommon in the central parts of the peninsula but is now
practically extinct in a wild state. The Wild Buffalo has almost gone
from the areas east of the Godavari river where it was common not long
ago; and it needs continued protection in Assam. The Asiatic Lion in
India has only survived in its last stronghold through protection in the
Gir Forest of the Junagadh State in Kathiawar.
'In many districts the larger animals have been totally wiped out. In
others, where they were once common, they are now hopelessly depleted.
There are a few parts of India where the position of wildlife is to some
extent satisfactory, though insecure. Equally there are extensive areas
where conditions are so appalling that, if left unchecked, they must lead
to the complete destruction of all the larger wild creatures which live in
them.'
Prater
Year in year out there is terrible destruction throughout the enormous
tract of mostly hilly and forested country comprising the Eastern States,
from the Godavari river as far as Bengal, some of which are being now
merged into India. The methods of the aboriginal tribes inhabiting this
huge area (and other parts of India also) are those of extinction, for they
net, snare, shoot all edible living creatures at all possible seasons and
particularly during the hot weather months when water at the few pools
is a necessary to all and tenders them an easy prey.
In the Himalayan mountains also where control is difficult wild
animals are definitely decreasing, and only to be found in any number
in the more inaccessible places.
Time for Decision
The Governments have to decide without delay if wildlife is to be
effectually preserved or the present lamentable state of affairs allowed to
continue. In the latter event there can be but one resultthe total and
irreplaceable extinction of some forms of wildlife, with everywhere woeful
reduction in number of all wild animals and many species of birds.
There is no middle course. Half measures will be futile and waste of
time. Wildlife is a national and natural asset which, if it is ever lost, can
never be replaced. It is necessary that governments should give a lead, a
strong and unambiguous lead.
India and Pakistan should be proud to stand side by side with other
civilised countries of the world in saving their fauna from extinction.
In these days public opinion should recognise that flesh of wild animals
is not necessary to human existence; but public opinion may not eventuate
for many a long day. Meateaters want something for nothing and care
not how they get it. Posterity means nothing to them.
One instance. In November 1947 six shot carcasses of chital hinds
were found with a man in a country bazaar in a British district. Police
said prosecution doubtful because no evidence as to where the animals
were killed. But a so-called 'Sanctuary' was not far distant. Burden of
proof should be on the possessor. In any case Rules under Act VIII of
1912 must have been contravened and conviction could have been had.
Legislation, and that very speedily, should absolutely prohibit offering
for sale, possession for sale, or marketing in any way the hides, horns,
flesh or any other part of any indigenous wild animal throughout the
year. And, as was done by Notification in 1902 to suppress the plumage
trade, so also should the trade in products of wild animals be stopped by
prohibition of export by sea, and by land now that Burma is independent
of India.
It would appear that there is no possible objection on religious or
other grounds to a general law throughout the whole country to the
above effect. Profits are large and really deterrent sentences would be
necessary.
Public Opinion
At the present time public opinion as to wildlife preservation is almost
non-existent in this country. It is only through public opinion that wild
life can be saved and preserved through all the future years.
Hear a great statesman of former days in another land:
'In proportion as the structure of a Government gives force to public
opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.'
George Washington
In these days that is done through the many avenues of propaganda.
Enemies to Wildlife Preservation
ForgetfulnessIndifferenceIgnoranceGreed for Gain
Laws are enacted, rules are made and forgotten, for there is no continuity
of official enforcement and no public opinion to keep them in mind.
India
Within not many years Act VIII of 1912 was forgotten, the wide scope
of its provisions unknown. The rules under the Act were ignored and its
provisions a dead letter.
1933'The Governor in Council has reason to believe that there
has been little improvement in the administration of this Act and that
subordinate officials are, not infrequently, offenders against its provisions,
x x xx xx it is believed that sheer ignorance of close season is in many
cases the cause of offences against the Act
Guns and Greed
Apart from genuine sportsmen, it is the possessors of guns and rifles
who do the greatest amount of harm. In many cases it is not the actual
licensee who does the damage, but illegal habit of lending or hiring out
the weapon to others. Could the abuse of license granted as a personal
privilege be stopped much good would result. But how is this to be
done? Only through public opinion could it be effectually curtailed. So
what? Suggestions as to Arms Act, if carried out, would do some good.
It is as a poacher that man is the great destroyer; and the main incentive
is profit by selling hides, horns, meatto a less degree, is it meat only.
In some places local dealers finance the village shikari, providing him
with guns and ammunition in exchange for hides, etc. Sambar and chital
hides and heads are openly bought and sold in many bazaars and there is
nothing to prevent it. Sale of trophies is common in many large towns
and cities. To deprive sellers of their markets by effectively enforced
legislation and through public opinion is the only way to remove
temptation to kill for profit. If there were no buyers there could be no
sellers. Utopia!
Crop Protection
It has always been pointed out, and is notorious, that crop protection
and other weapons are used for the slaughter of game animals in adjacent
and further forests regardless of all laws, rules, age, sex, season, or any
other consideration whatever than profit. All this and other poaching is
mostly carried on in government forests, for there are to be found more
animals than outside them.
So far as crop protection goes the argument in the mind of the
cultivator is that if there are no animals the crops will not be eaten so he
may well hasten the coming of the welcome day and meanwhile make
money for himself and provide meat to the community.
Guns
The great increase over former years in the number of licensed guns is
producing its inevitable adverse effect; and there is the mass of unlicensed
weapons carefully concealed and constantly used. While the reduction
in the number of weapons is admittedly a difficult matterthe
withdrawal of crop protection guns during the seasons when the crops
are off the ground and the guns not needed for legitimate use is a
reasonable proposition. That would be of much benefit as those are the
months in which they do the most harm.
A suggestion from Assam was that crop protection guns now owned
by villagers (more especially those inside government forests) might be
acquired by government for temporary issue at the right time and
withdrawn when no crops, or for other season.
It is not likely, however, that Provincial Governments would adopt
these gun withdrawal suggestions on account of practical difficulties
and extra work to District magistrates and other officials.
A proposal advocated by many is that crop protection weapons should
be licensed for cut-short barrels only. Cogent arguments against such
modified weapons are that they are more liable to be loaded with
buckshot, so causing many animals to be wounded and lost; are dangerous
in hands of such persons as ordinary cultivators; and such restriction
would cause and increase of concealed weapons for poaching.
It has been demonstrated in South India by Colonel R. C. Morris
that bamboo-tube rocket-firing "guns" are both cheap and effective for
scaring crop-raiding animals and so enable a large reduction in the
number of guns now licensed for ostensible crop protection.
The Arms Act
Some suggestions:
Firearms licences are issued for
(1) SportThese should be breech-loaders, and in case of rifles
may be magazine weapons. Automatic weapons and muzzle-
loaders should not be licensed for sport. The former lead to
indiscriminate firing, the latter to cruelty through use of
buckshot, bits of iron, old nails, etc.
(2) Crop and cattle protectionThese should be smoothbore guns
only; and being by law available at holder's residence only, due
care on part of licensing officer can limit use of the weapon to
within village boundaries only. These are surveyed and marked
in forest maps so above entry would have effect of a conviction
where otherwise a loophole might exist. Perusal of an annotated
edition of Arms Act and Rules is illuminating as to number of
avenues for escape of the wrongdoer under all categories.
(3) Personal protectionThe only weapons allowed, unless the
licence is for sport also, should be revolver or pistol. A rifle or
shotgun is easily robbed and just as easily turned against the
possessor.
(4) DisplayThis meaning 'show with ostentation' such weapons
only as are non-lethal should be licensed for this purpose.
In all cases licence should be plainly crossed with words 'Sport only'
or 'Personal protection only, etc., as the case may be.
Licences for possession of smoothbore guns are ordinarily issued on
application and without previous enquiry. Other licences are issued to
persons of approved character and status, this latter being as may be
prescribed by the local government.
Were the foregoing suggestions adopted there would be no real
hardship to anyone, and wildlife might greatly benefit.
Agriculture and Wild Life
For purposes of wildlife conservation lands may be classified in five main
categories: Urban, Agricultural, Waste, Private, Forest.
Urban Lands
(1) In these, measures should be taken for the protection of all birds.
Areas actually under the control of municipalities or local boards
could with advantage be constituted bird sanctuaries where the
killing of, or taking the eggs of, any wild bird should be
forbidden. The necessary machinery is at hand in Act VIII of
1912.
In 1915 (vol. 24 p. 382) it was pointed out that the practice of taking
the eggs of sitting pheasants and partridges is becoming increasingly
common and to this malpractice the Act provides no safeguard. That
suggestion has not been followed. To the above may now be added that
it is a common practice to rob for food the eggs of indigenous wildfowl
the Spot-bill duck and the Cotton teal.
The suggested amendment to Section 3 was addition of a clause
regarding eggs and nests. This suggestion is now again brought to notice
as desirable: 'To take or possess, to sell or buy, or offer to sell or buy, an
egg or eggs or nest of any such bird'.
Agricultural Lands
Here lies the clash between the interests of Man and Animal; for which
there are two main reasons.
Firstly, the population of the country is increasing by about five
millions yearly, so the areas under cultivation are extending, and must
continually extend to the utmost limit, which means the continual
absorption of all cultivable wastelands and secondary forest lands.
Secondly, there is the imperative need of protecting present and future
cultivated lands from wild animals.
In some parts, where cultivation is contiguous to or near Reserved
forest the depredations of wild animals present one of the most serious
handicaps the cultivator has to face. The animals are not only deer and
pig and some species of birds, but nilgai, monkeys and parrots which are
protected by religious beliefs.
'Human progress must continue, and in the clash of interests between
Man and Animals human effort must not suffer. But this problem has
been faced by other countries. Cannot a reasonable effort be made to
face it in our own? That an intensive development of the agricultural
resources of a country may accompany a sane and adequate policy for
the conservation of its wildlife is shown by the measures taken to this
end by all progressive countries.'
Prater
But in those countries there is universal literacy, a people easily
educated to a proper public opinion, and where the masses do not
clamour for possession of guns and rifles and even for repeal of the
Arms Act.
Wastelands
These are beyond redemption as to wildlife, and in any case all that are
at all cultivable will soon be merged with Agricultural lands.
Private Lands
The general consensus of opinion is that in most ordinary tracts the
position is hopeless. The people have been educated to destroy, and there
is no agency to stop it. Only through the owners themselves and through
propaganda can any change be wrought: and before these operate the
position is likely to be beyond any remedy.
The Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912 deals with the
right of private owners only in so far as it prohibits the shooting of the
specified animals whether on private lands or elsewhere. This prohibits
private owners killing females of deer, etc., and killing during prescribed
close seasons.
Government Forests
These are several kinds and mostly under the Forest Department, but
some are under Revenue Department; none of the latter are Reserved
Forests.
While it is essential that the cultivator should have reasonable latitude
to defend his property, it is equally essential that there should be certain
areas of reserved forests, where the laws and rules for protection of wild
life are, or should be, rigidly enforced.
Legitimate Sport
Shooting rules and licence conditions for reserved forests as at present
framed for the several provinces and districts, also for some of the larger
states, are good and well adapted to local conditions. They provide against
all conditions, all malpractices, including the motor vehicle and use of
torch against deer.
Licence fees are on the whole rather cheap; and where the shooting
block does not obtain, and district or forest division licences are issued
for a whole year on payment of a very small fee, the introduction of the
Block System would cause a larger number of sportsmen to visit the
forests. This is productive of much good, for when right-thinking
sportsmen are in the forests, poaching is held in check for the time being;
and the sportsmen can (or should) report such malpractices as come to
his notice.
The short-term license system also enables the controlling officer to
regulate the number of species, whether deer, etc. or carnivore, for each
block in his division. Such control preserves the balance of nature and
aids efficient protection.
Where a change is necessary is the adoption everywhere of the Assam
arrangement by which the sportsman has to pay a fixed royalty for each
animal shot by him under his licence. The system makes sportsmen
more careful as to animals they shoot at, and aids needed funds for a
Wildlife Department.
Wildlife and/or Game Associations
Where these exist they are, if well organized and conducted, wholly
productive of good. There is the Association for the Preservation of Game
in the United Provinces through which the All-India Conference for the
Protection of Wildlife was held at Delhi in January 1935 and the Hailey
National Park established in the Kalagarh Forest Division. At the
Conference it was declared that, 'Indian Wildlife could only be saved by
Public Opinion, and that legislation, however efficient, could do little
in matters like these without the wholehearted support of the Public.'
How true. Where is the Public Opinion? Where is the support of the
public? What is the state of wildlife at this thirteen years later date?
In Northern Bengal are three shooting and fishing associations:
1. Darjeeling Fishing and Shooting Association.
2. Tista-Torsa Game and Fishing Association.
3. Torsa-Sankar Game and Fishing Association.
In Madras is the 69-years-old Nilgiri Game Association but for which
little wildlife would now exist in that district. Continuity of purpose,
efficient control.
In 1933 an Association for the Preservation ofWildlife in South India
was inaugurated at Madras by the then Governor of the Presidency, but
it came to nothing and has never been heard of since then. Continuity
of Purpose-Public Opinion these basic essentials do not exist. Without
them there can be no effectual preservation of wildlife for posterity.
Natural Enemies of Wildlife
TigersWhere in forest areas deer have been excessively reduced in
number through poaching the tiger turns increased attention to cattle
killing. The tiger needs the pursuit of deer to satisfy his hunting instincts,
and where of nature in this respect is not unduly disturbed he is of
benefit, as also the panther, to the cultivator of land within the forests
and along its borders, for he keeps the deer and wild pig population
within natural limits. But where the stock of deer is unduly reduced not
only are all the deer killed out but the tiger is forced to prey on cattle:
and as these are penned at night he is compelled to change his habits and
hunt by day. That is when he takes great toll of grazing cattle and
sometimes turns against the people also. Then the cultivators clamour
for protection from the menace brought about by the unlawful poaching
done by themselves and others.
PanthersThese are less destructive to village cattle as they prey on
sounders of pig and a variety of smaller animals ordinarily ignored by
the tiger; but they also kill cattle and other domestic stock to a greater
extent when the balance of nature has been disturbed. In areas where
panthers have been unduly reduced through rewards for their destruction
there has resulted such an increase of wild pig as to necessitate rewards
to reduce their number.
Even predatory animals (not wild dogs) have a distinct value as a
controlling influence against overpopulation by species whose
unrestricted increase would adversely affect the interests of man.
The balance of nature cannot be unduly disturbed with impunity.
Wild DogsThese are wholly destructive of game animals and can be
given no mercy. Rewards should not exceed Rs 15 for a larger sum induces
frauds of several kinds. Disbursing officers should have by them skins
and skulls by which to check those produced; and skins for reward must
have tails and skulls attached and these be effectively destroyed when
reward paid.
Best methods for reducing wild dog population are through digging
out breeding lairs, and strychnine poisoning of carcasses by instructed
persons.
CrocodilesIn the jungles of India the crocodile is not the menace to
human life that he is in Borneo, Sumatra, etc., and Africa. But where
there are dry-season jungle pools in reserved and other forests crocodiles
do an enormous amount of damage to all creatures, deer especially, which
are forced to drink at those places.
It should be the duty of the Wildlife Department to destroy as many
of them as possible. Visiting sportsmen should also give help in the
matter.
Unnatural Enemies
Cattle diseasesA great cause of much periodical mortality to buffalo
and bison is through rinderpest. Against the introduction of this by
grazing cattle effective action has been found impossible.
Crop Enemies
ElephantsEffective legislation was enacted in 1873 and 1879 to protect
the elephant. In these days of mechanical haulage the preservation of
these animals is not necessary in such large number as formerly. In some
areas it is now very definitely necessary that regulated thinning out of
herds and crop protection methods be initiated to protect landowners
and cultivators from the great damage they suffer. This should be done
by the suggested Wildlife Department on systems to meet local
conditions.
Wild PigsDeer and the like are crop raiders, but it is the wild pig
which is the principal crop destroyer both in the open country, adjacent
to the forests and within the forests. Where the balance of nature has not
been disturbed the larger carnivores take care of the surplus pig population
harbouring in the forests. It is not by the lone-working cultivator with
his gun that any impression is made on the number of pig.
Some 25 years ago it was realised by the Bombay Government that
damage to crops by wild pig amounted to crores of rupees. Measures to
deal with the trouble outside reserved forests included clearance of cactus
and thorn thickets and other such coverts together with organisation of
inter-village pig drives. Those measures will have had good results if
continued as a fixed policy, but not otherwise.
At the time of writing (end of January 1948) the Government of
India have been asked by the Government of the Central Provinces to
supply arms and ammunition for use of cultivators against wild pig.
If the weapons are used against pig only, and at organised drives only,
good may result, but if not so controlled they will assuredly be turned
against the fast dwindling wildlife.
National Parks
Those who have knowledge of the subject are of opinion that India is
not yet ready for these. The Hailey National Park, the situation of which
conforms in most respects to conditions laid down for a sanctuary (Smith)
is specially situated and may be a success. A full account of it would be
welcomed by members of the Society.
The Banjar Valley Reserved Forests area in the Central Provinces is
perhaps suited for eventual status of a National Sanctuary (no Park).
The case for it is outlined by Dunbar Brander. Buffalo, lost to it not
many years ago could be re-introduced; otherwise it contains all the
wild animals of the plains except elephant, lion and gazelle. Elephants
are not wanted as there are plenty in other provinces.
Even fifteen years ago the area was admittedly tremendously poached.
Sanctuaries
All sportsmen are agreed that these are of little use unless adequately
guarded and, as that has not yet been found possible in India, such areas
merely become happy hunting grounds for poachers from far and near.
The constant presence of sportsmen of the right kind has been found
the best guarantee for preservation of wildlife in reserved forests.
There are however, tracts and forests where forethought and
administration can, with the willing cooperation of the people if that
can be obtained, do much to preserve wildlife for posterity.
Wildlife Department
Forest Officers of the regime now ending have been of opinion that
animals inside reserved forests should not be removed from the protection
of the forest department and placed in the charge of a separate
department. Their argument has been that the present system has worked
well; such action would create resentment and alienate the all-important
sympathy of the powerful forest department; and that a game department
would be in no better case than the forest department for dealing with
breaches of laws and rules.
On the other hand, sportsmen and other with many years of experience
are of opinion that under the present changed conditions forest officers,
while not relieved of all responsibility, should be relieved of their present
whole-time onus and share the burden of preservation of wildlife with a
specially organised Wildlife Department.
Why should not the two departments work amicably in liaison? There
need be no friction. The appointment of Honorary Wardens has not
always proved a success, not on account of any disagreements but because
the conservation of wildlife is a whole-time duty which no man with
other interests and work to do can efficiently perform. There could be
Honorary Wardens to assist the Government Wardens and enthusiasts
could be found for that work.
In these days of intensive exploitation of timber and forest produce
the work of forest administration has become more and more exacting
and the officers find it exceedingly difficult to give time in office and
out of doors to work which brings in no revenue and is considered of
subsidiary importance.
Would not Forest Officers welcome the considerable measure of relief
which the formation of a Wildlife Department would afford them? Surely
they would. Neither their pay nor their prestige would be in any way
affected.
It has been experienced that an unbribable staff of Game Watchers
has been difficult to procure. That again is strong reason why there should
be whole-time Wardens whose interest would be to prevent malpractices.
A Wildlife Department means that continuity of purpose without
which all endeavour is of no avail.
Money and FundsThe whole question is a matter of money.
Wildlife cannot be effectually conserved without spending money on
an organisation for the purpose. It is necessary to recognise the fact that
there is an intimate connection between the revenue derived from wildlife
resources and the amount of money that can be spent on conservation.
This is the basis on which the financial policy should be built, together
with the recognition that 'wildlife is a national asset and it is the
responsibility and duty of the State to preserve it'. Therefore the fund
will need such State grants as may be necessary to make the department
effective, more especially in the commencing years.
It should not be possible for funds to be cut off, reduced or abrogated
by governments. The Wildlife Fund, as it might be termed, should not
be within the control of any Finance Department, Central or Provincial.
It should be established by law, kept apart from General revenues,
earmarked for conservation of wildlife and protected from any possible
raiding of it or interference by the Legislatures.
Organisation
Some suggestions:
The Central Game Fund to be maintained in the office of the Ministry
for Agriculture. The Wildlife Department to be linked through the
Ministry of Agriculture with the Provincial and Forest Departments.
Each Province to have a Provincial Warden, and as many Deputy
Wardens as found advisable or necessary. These Wardens to rank with
Conservators and Deputy Conservators of Forests respectively, and Game
Rangers and Guards with corresponding Forest Department ranks.
Should the idea of Wildlife Department be considered, a suitable
committee could work out all details. Recruitment of staff would need
to be through careful selection of applicants in all grades; and there
would have to be deputation of some of the Provincial Wardens to
America and other countries to acquire knowledge of principles, methods,
and all details.
It is commonly said that it will take years and years to arouse public
opinion as to wildlife. But we daily see what the present leaders of public
opinion in this country can do in many ways vitally affecting the present
and future lives of the masses, how speedily laws are enacted and far-
reaching measures put into motion. There is, for instance, the vast
organisation for further education of the literates and the initiation of
universal literacy for masses. There seems to be no reason why wildlife
preservation could not also be given the highest priority. Some of the
reforms could wait, not that they should, far from it, but the wild creatures
cannot waitand survive.
Wildlife preservation does not only mean the protection of animals
and birds, it means a fight against the destruction which is going on at
an increasing paceparticularly against deerand is not of Nature's
ordering. It is simply asserting the right to live of the undomesticated
animals and indigenous birds.
The years are passing; this great national asset is wasting away. It is
the duty of every government to preserve it for posterity. The urge should
come form the highest levels.
Propaganda Methods
The time is now.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting could make it a routine
matter to keep this subject constantly before all classes of the people.
Special talks could be given on All India Radio, and other systems.
The Educational Department could cause all governing bodies and
educational institutions to issue pamphlets, organise lectures, lantern
slides, and issue of suitable leaflets to all colleges, schools, and primary
schools. All this could be worked out on the lines of the anti-malarial
campaign which was an India-wide effort. But it must be a continued
effort.
For the literate classes there are the newspapers and other publications
as media for propaganda; and for all classes there is the cinema screen.
Suitable slogan could be devised and shown as a routine matter at
commencement and during intervals of all cinema shows, accompanied
twice a week by a short talk in regional languages.
A Brief for Action
1. A decision by the Governments.
2. Issue of a general law to prohibit sale, possession, marketing of
meat, hides, horns, etc., of indigenous animals and birds.
3. Enforcement of Arms Licence rules and conditions.
4. Enforcement of laws and rules under Act VIII of 1912 and Act
XIV of 1927.
5. Formation of Wildlife Department.
6. Propaganda.
7. Generally all possible steps towards saving wildlife
Through the continued efforts of their leaders the peoples of India
were roused to political consciousness. Through their long-sustained
efforts they attained political freedom. Will the leaders and people not
now demonstrate to other civilised nations that they are equally capable
of preserving wildlife for posterity? Surely they will. Because they should,
and because it is demanded for the prestige of India.
It was the intention of the Society and the writer to submit this
pamphlet to Mahatma Gandhi with appeal for his powerful advocacy.
Alas! It was not so ordained.
Yet, in view of the late Mahatma's well-known sympathy with all things
created, it may surely be hoped that the peoples of India and of Pakistan
will respond to this appeal in accordance with what would without doubt
have been his wishes and his guidance for the preservation of wildlife in
this country.
R.W. Burton had, just after India's independence, summarized
more then fifty years of conservation efforts, and in his treatise he
spelt out his recommendations as well. He had observed the
devastation and his views were rooted in that detailed knowledge.
How I wish his treatise had been submitted to Mahatma Gandhi
before his assassination. Post-independence India was a horror
for wildlife. Now, and with a vengeance, every forest officer's
training commenced by 'shooting a tiger'. Travel agencies seduced
the hunters of the world. They mushroomed in leaps and bounds.
Forests were rapidly cleared using the magic word ' development' .
The Maharajas went out to fulfil their wildest dreams of hunting
and creating records. It was a free-for-all and few laws were
fol l owed or even enforced. Few cared and in t he guise of
development forest India was being gobbled up wi t h all its
treasures. What would the future hold? Would people like Burton
succeed? Would Salim Ali become a force?
Burton continued to push for an agency to do the job of wildlife
protection. It was now 1949 and he was seeing with his very eyes
the deteriorating state of India' s wildlife. He therefore battled on
by continuously putting pen to paper. I am certain that this process
minimized the damage. In fact his voracious writing was having
its impact in the corridors of power in New Delhi. These were the
early years of independence. Burton had put t wo long notes
t hrough the system. He saw the solution to Indi a' s wildlife
problems very clearly. He stated at the conclusion of his second
note: ' Without a wildlife department as suggested herein the
sur vi val of much of t he wonde r f ul wi l dl i f e of Indi a is
inconceivable and a great national asset will disappear never to
be regained, as the majority of the unique species will become
extinct.'
What is amazing is that fifty-four years later we are fighting
exactly the same battles as Burton fought earlier. Independent
departments or separate ministries, it is all the same thing. The
weird thing is that we are getting the same kind of responses as
Burton got from the senior forest officers of the country. Does
anything ever change?
Finally a year after Burton' s first note in 1948 the highest
forest officer in the country, Inspector General of Forests M.D.
Chaturvedi, was forced by Burton' s writing to come up with the
first so-called ' plan' to save the wildlife of India as was then
envisaged:
Preservation of Wild Life
With Comment by Lieut. Col. R. W. Burton, L.A.
By
M.D. Chaturvedi, B.Sc. (Oxon.), I.F.S.
Chief Conservator of Forests, and now
Inspector-General of Forests and Vice-Chairman
of the Board of Control
Lt. Col. Burton is to be congratulated for the missionary zeal with which
he has championed the cause of wildlife in India. Forest Officers who
spend the best part of their lives in jungles get to know and love their
animal associates to the extent of being jealous of sportsmen. The credit
for whatever protection was afforded to our wildlife in the past goes to
the lone forest officer who among his multifarious duties found time to
enforce the game laws and apprehend poachers. In the United Provinces,
it was at the initiative of the Forest Department that the first National
Park in India was constituted.
2. Far be it from me to belittle the part played by eminent sportsmen
like Col. Burton in riveting the attention of the public to the need of
preserving wildlife. Officers of the civil and military services have rendered
yeoman service to this noble cause.
3. While agreeing with much that Lt. Col. Burton has said in his
valuable pamphlet on 'Preservation of Wildlife' and in the supplement
issued later, I cannot reconcile myself with the view expressed by him
that the interests of wildlife come in such sharp conflict with forestry,
that forest officers cannot be entrusted with the task of looking after
animals, a task which they have performed so well for the best part of a
century. Theirs has been a labour of love. I do not deny our shortcomings,
but I do feel that the contribution of several generations of forest officers
towards the preservation of wildlife deserves better appreciation.
4.1 must confess, I see the advantages of organizing a separate Wildlife
Department, the best justification for it being its ability to cover vast
areas outside the reserved forests. In the early stages, however, the balance
of advantage would lie in enlisting both the services and the cooperation
of forest officers in the stupendous task of preserving wildlife. True,
forest officers are not conversant with the modern technique adopted in
the preservation, control and protection of wildlife. But, what I submit
for the consideration of enthusiasts like Lt. Col. Burton in that after all
said and done, an average forest officer knows far more about wildlife
than an average civilian or an agriculturist or even a sportsman. One
wonders where the game wardens and upper grade assistants will come
to be recruited from in Burton's scheme. In no other walk of life is even
a nodding acquaintance with the animal kingdom available except in
the forestry profession.
5. There is at present neither need nor room for organizing a separate
Wildlife Department. Might I urge that the solution of the problem lies
in the adoption of a middle course? The cadre of the forest department
should be supplemented to enable it to organize wildlife preservation on
modern lines. What is needed is not the creation of a separate department
consisting of a large number of whole-time officers, a host of clerks,
menials, orderlies and other paraphernalia, but the appointment of
regional wildlife officers working in close collaboration with the existing
forest departments and their vast organization for surveying, mapping,
policing and maintenance of roads and rest houses.
6. The sort of organization which I envisage for the United Provinces
is as under:
(i) Provincial board for the preservation of wildlife.
The Board will consist of the following members:
(1) Honourable Minister in charge of the forests or his
Parliamentary Secretary (Chairman)
(2) A member from each of the two houses of legislature.
(3) Enthusiasts from sporting circles
(4) Chief Conservator of Forests
(5) Director of Agriculture
(6) Director of Veterinary Services
(7) A senior Commissioner
(8) Provincial Wildlife Officer (Secretary).
The functions of this board should be advisory. It will be a sort of
standing committee to advise government in respect of legislation to be
enacted for the preservation of wildlife. The board will direct its secretary
to devise ways and means to enforce existing game laws to afford facilities
for tourists and to secure protection from and for wildlife. The board
will meet twice a year.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 48, No. 3 (1949).
Burton's comments on the above were again clear and strong.
'This constructive note is the first communication regarding my pamphlet
received by the Society, or by me, from any officer of the Indian Forest
Service. As such it is very welcome; also because criticism by an
experienced officer of the forest department has much value.
Mr. Chaturvedi appears to have overlooked the handsome and well-
deserved tribute expressed in paragraph 8 of the supplement (published
ante at pp. 290-9) to the many officers of the Imperial Forest Service
who, throughout their service, worked continually and persistently to
enforce wildlife protection and the laws and rules in regard to it, and to
have them perfected.
In paragraph 4 of his note the Chief Conservator sees the advantages
of organizing a Wildlife Department. In the next paragraph he says there
is neither need nor room for organizing a separate Wildlife Department,
and advocates a middle course which he outlines in some detail.
In other countries it has been found that half measures are futile and
waste of time; and that there is in fact no satisfactory middle course.
The Chief Conservator wonders where the wardens and upper grade
assistants will come from. Surely it can be envisaged that the bulk of
them will be obtained from among those of the Forest Service who have
at heart, as has the CCF, the interests of the wild animals, and birds they
have seen daily in the forests through the years of their service.
Recruitment of staff would be through careful selection of applicants in
all grades.
All things have a beginning. Perhaps the scheme drawn up for the
United Provinces by the Chief Conservator will herald the
commencement of the much needed all-India policy envisaged in Section
D of the proceedings of the Conference held at Delhi on the 8
th
-9
th
September 1948 to secure the implementation of a coordinated forest
policy dealing with Inter-Provincial and national matters.
There is no matter more wholly national than the effective protection
and preservation of that Wildlife which is the Vanishing Asset of the
peoples of this country.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 48, No. 3 (1949).
I would have agreed entirely with Burton. Half measures
never work and are a total waste of time. If only the then powers
that were had listened to Burton and created a separate wildlife
infrastructure!
1
There was a great spurt in writings and interventions in the
1950s. It was a combi nat i on of post -war i nput s and post -
independence India, and it was probably a moment where a wild
bunch of people battled hard. In India at this moment the cheetah
was about to vanish. But this was not just India' s condition. It
was the state all over the world. From the crisis had come the
creation of a new organization. The International Union for the
Protection of Nature (IUPN), what is now the IUCN, had just been
set up. Lots of texts of new legislations got published for different
areas. It was critical time for India' s wildlife, probably because
those who cared were witnessing massive devastation. By 1952 a
Central Board for Wildlife was created, which is now called the
Indian Board for Wildlife. It was in its first meeting that a second
home for the Gir lions was suggested. Fifty years later we are still
discussing the same issue. It was a moment where many mooted
the establishment of associations for the protection of wildlife,
something which is still a matter of importance within the NGO
movement in India. It was a time when there was a great push
forward for the creation of national parks and sanctuaries,
probably because the rate of loss of forests was so high that those
who cared no l onger had other opt i on. There was a great
concern about the acceleration in the use of both motor cars and
searchlights to shoot and hunt, and many who cared advocated a
ban on both. The 1950s also heralded a series of 'State of India' s
Wildlife' reports, as an enormous effort went into minimizing the
negatives by revealing the tragic state of affairs. This was true all
1. See Appendix I
over the world and even before the beginning of the 1950s the
first international response to saving the wilderness across the
globe had started. Burton describes the salient points of this 1948
worldwide effort.
The International Union for the Protection of Nature
By
Lt. Col. R.W. Burton, I.A. (Retd.)
The IUPN was established at Fontainebleau on the 5
th
October 1948.
Thirty-three countries in all were represented at the Conference.
A clear definition of the meaning of' Nature Protection' was given:
'The term "Protection of Nature" may be defined as the preservation
of entire world biotic community, or man's natural environment, which
includes the earth's renewable natural resources of which it is composed,
and on which rests the foundation of human civilisation.'
It was also declared that:
' . . . ever more effective means for exploiting these resources (are
required) and moreover soils, water, wildlife and wilderness areas are of
vital importance for economic, social, educational and cultural reasons.'
Also that:
'Protection of Nature is a matter of vital concern to all nations, and
the furthering of it is the primary concern of no single effective
international agency.'
The IUCN, as it came to be known, could probably be consid-
ered in 1948 a revolutionary agency. Over the last fifty years it
has diluted itself by taking on more and more esoteric issues. For
most who work in the field it is now a spent force.
As India entered the 1950s, everyone who cared tried to find
new waysthrough changes in the lawto save India' s rapidly
vanishing wildlife heritage. Within the pages of the BNHS journal
were endless policy suggestions and recommendations. What a
remarkable role the BNHS played for wildlife at so many critical
moments of the twentieth century. But still the majority of people
fighting for India's wildlife were British. It would changebut
slowly. The first bunch of Indians were stepping in. But till the
1950s the entire issue of saving wildlife was spearheaded by the
British and we must acknowledge this fact.
The 1950s started with a focus on the laws that governed
wildlife. This had over the years become a really important issue.
It was the only deterrent to the future depletion of wildlife. Again,
it was the BNHS which played a unique role in steering through,
what was then, a ground-breaking legislation. Another Indian,
Humayun Abdulali, played a vital role in the first drafts of this
bill. It was the Bombay Wild Animals and Wild Birds Protection
Act, 1951, which formed the basis of the Wildlife Protection Act,
1972. All the spadework for this Act was done in the early 1950s.
In my opinion, this is the kind of work that created the awareness
to prevent what was clearly the rapid extinction of India's wildlife.
Hats off to those who worked so hard on it! People like Burton,
Phythian-Adams, Morris, Stracey, and of course Abdulali can
never be forgotten. There was also a forest officer, J. A. Singh, who
played a critical role. What on earth would have been the state
without such interventions and amendments?
It is very clear from past records that post-independent India
had a very active group of people fighting to keep alive the wildlife
of those times. As the crisis deepened it was these people who
came to the fore to write and fight. In the 1950s E.P. Gee took on
the cause of wildlife as few before him had. He became one of the
most active spokespersons for the wildlife and forests of India. In
many ways the decade of the 1950s belongs to him and his
writings:
The Management of India's Wildlife
Sanctuaries and National Parks
By
E.P. Gee, M.A., C.M.Z.S. (1952)
Introduction
The gradual extermination of wildlife in India has now reached a stage
when it is of the utmost importance that the exact status of wildlife
sanctuaries should be reviewed, and the feasibility of creating national
parks considered. The administration of these sanctuaries, formerly game
reserves', has up to date been entirely in the hands of the Forest
Department, under whose jurisdiction they naturally fall.
Here it should be stressed that a strong, independent and separate
department, adequately officered by men of sound training and a natural
aptitude for the work in hand, is the best means of ensuring the really
successful organisation and administration of India's wildlife sanctuaries
and national parks. The possibility of some State, perhaps Bombay,
succeeding in creating and financing a separate Wildlife Department
should not altogether be ruled out.
But while it would be eminently desirable to form a separate and
independent 'Wildlife Department' to control the management of all
sanctuaries containing valuable wildlife, shortage of funds and personnel
as well as other considerations may render it necessary that, for the present
at any rate, the State Forest Departments should continue to administer
these sanctuaries. Strengthened by supplementary staff to perform the
extra supervisory duties entailed by the preservation of wildlife, and with
the necessary directives from the Central and State Governments, it
should not be impossible for the State Forest Departments to perform
effectively the task of wildlife conservation in addition to their other
work. By this system the problems of dual control are eliminated, and
the difficulties of a separate Wildlife Department working alongside the
Forest department with inevitable duplications will not arise.
It is sometimes difficult, however, to reconcile the functions of the
Forest Department, which might seek to exploit the timber and other
revenue-producing resources of the forests, with measures dictated by
the necessity of preserving intact places of great faunal and scenic value.
With this difficulty in view, a step forward has recently been made by
the proposal to create wildlife advisory committees to advise state
governments on measures to be adopted for the preservation and control
of wildlife, and for the creation of national parks.
A start has already been made at the Centre by the constitution of a
Central Board for Wildlife, presumably to advise the Central and State
Governments, to coordinate measures and to collect information and
the like. Each state in turn will, it is hoped, form its own committee to
advise the state government, as at the Centre. As these committees will
consist of non-officials as well as officials, the personnel would be properly
representative of the people of the country and its best interests.
It is to be hoped that each important state of the Indian Union will
be able to create the post of'Wildlife Warden' or 'Wildlife Officer'. This
person should be of a status not lower than that of a Divisional Forest
Officer, and not under any DFO but responsible to the head of the
Government department himself. It would be an advantage if he resided
at the main sanctuary or national park of the state, and not at the city
headquarters of the government.
There is some uncertainty in certain circles as to whether the utilisation
of forest and other resources is permissible within a sanctuary or national
park. It will soon be the duty of Wildlife Advisory Committees in India
to make decisions on this point, and to advise their governments on all
matters pertaining to sanctuaries and national parks. With the object of
resolving doubts, avoiding controversies and making the decisions of
Advisory Committees easier, it is necessary to examine carefully the
different aspects of sanctuary and park management and their possible
good or bad effects on wildlife in relation to the country's interests.
Measures for the preservation of wildlife in general and matters relating
to finance are beyond the scope of this paper, and have therefore not
been dealt with.
The exploitable resources of India's existing or potential national parks
include timber, fuel, thatch-building posts, cane, grazing and fodder;
mineral resources; water for hydro-electric schemes; catching of wild
animals such as elephant and rhinoceros; and fishing. There are in India
two viewpoints on this question: one is that the sanctuaries and national
parks should be entirely sacrosanct, and that no form of exploitation or
interference would be justifiable under any circumstances. And the other
viewpoint is that this source of revenue should be tapped and the bulk
of it utilised for the upkeep of the park concerned.
An analysis of the experience of other countries in this matter would
not be out of place here, and might even be of some assistance to us in
India in the conservation of our rich and varied wildlife and in the
management of the places in which it is found.
National Parks in India
Though there are a great many sanctuaries in India for the preservation
of wildlife, and many more reserved forests in which shooting of game is
controlled by law (officially, at least), the concept of national parks is
still in its infancy. Nonetheless there is in India a clear distinction between
a wildlife sanctuary and a national park. Sanctuaries are formed by state
forest departments and proclaimed as such in Gazette Notifications,
and can therefore be altered or abolished in a similar manner; though in
actual practice substantial changes are not usually made in sanctuaries
without the sanction of the Ministers concerned. National parks, on the
other hand, are created by Acts of the state legislatures, and therefore
possess the same degree of permanency as in other countries.
Hence it should be mentioned that under the new Constitution of
the Indian Union all powers regarding legislation for the protection of
wild animals and birds are vested in the state governments. The Centre
will only encourage, advise, assist, coordinate and so on.
A National Park Policy for India
The next year or two will see the foundation of a national park system in
India, in which the management of national parks may be entirely in the
hands of the forest departmentadvised, if not controlled, by Wildlife
Advisory Committees consisting of both official and non-official
members. It is essential, therefore, that the system should be founded on
a sound basis, in which the interests of fauna and scenery, as far as is
consistent with the interests of India as a whole, can be safeguarded for
all time.
Geological, historical, prehistorical, archaeological and other such
national parks are not within the scope of this memorandum, which
deals primarily with faunal and scenic areas, priority being given to those
places which combine faunal with scenic interests. Those wildlife
sanctuaries of India which have been tried out and proved to be of success
should be made into national parks as soon as possible, in order to ensure
that their status is legally secured for all time before it is too late. In the
management of sanctuaries and national parks, most activities fall under
the headings of either exploitation or interference with nature.
(1) ExploitationIt is advisable at the outset to define the word
'exploitation'. Exploitation can be used either in the bad sense of'revenue-
hunting' and 'squeezing' everything possible out of a forest into the
exchequer of the state; or it can be used in the better sense of sound
forest management as laid down by the principles of good sylviculture.
The first-mentioned type of exploitation by 'revenue-hunting' should
in all cases be rigidly avoided: such a practice would hardly ever be justified
at all in any wildlife sanctuary or national park.
But as a general concept sanctuaries and national parks should be left
entirely unexploited and undisturbed, presuming that by this the fauna
and flora will benefit. And it must be admitted at the outset that the
comparatively small size of such places in India, which do not usually
exceed a hundred or two hundred square miles in extent, is strongly in
favour of their being left entirely unworked by the forest department. In
many cases the forest operations could be done elsewhere in neighbouring
forests. The 23 square mile Mudumalai wildlife sanctuary in Madras
state, where exploitation of timber is still being done, is a case of a
beautiful though small potential national park which should be exempt
from exploitation, and if possible enlarged.
The arguments against exploitation of forest produce by the forest
department in sanctuaries and national parks are (a) that the strict
international concept of sanctity is violated, (b) that the value of the
original flora and fauna in their original state is lost to biologists, (c) that
the wildlife is disturbed and (d) that poaching is done by contractors
and their labourers.
It has often been found in India, however, that if a portion of forest is
sealed off by the forest department as a sanctuary and left entirely
'undisturbed', it soon becomes a paradise for poachers who, in the absence
of a strong and costly protection staff, can carry on their profitable
destructive illegalities with complete impunity.
It can be argued that the conditions peculiar to India may not, as in
the case of Uttar Pradesh, permit of an inflexible adherence to the idealistic
definitions of faunal national parks in the USA and Africa as large areas
to be kept entirely undisturbed by man, under the control of a separate
wildlife department. Some of India's sanctuaries and national parks
contain valuable timber forests as are not normally found in America
and Africa, and their revenues would be indispensable to the states in
which they are situated.
If the extraction of this timber were to be done by selective felling
under rigid control and under a carefully prepared working plan, with
suitable permanent preservation plots here and there where wild animals
could retreat into perfect seclusion if they so desired, and with due regard
to the scenery of the area, it is theoretically feasible that such a policy
might not be detrimental to the wildlife.
The actual disturbance to wildlife in such places is not as great as
imagined: the entry of human beings into forests for firewood and timber
is a recognised part of the ecological situation of most forests. R.W.
Burton has described how he has met tiger, panther and bear in blocks
where contractors were working, and how a tigress walked through the
ashes of his campfire. F.W. Champion has also stated that deer would
browse at night on the foliage of freshly felled trees, and how tiger roamed
at night the roads which were full of human activity in daylight.
In any case such a policy of controlled and restricted exploitation
throughout a national park would detract greatly from its intrinsic value
as a national park, especially from the scientific point of view. There can
be little doubt that in such cases a preferable plan would be either to
eliminate exploitation altogether in the park; or elseif the revenue has
in previous years been realised and is vital to the stateto divide the
park and thus maintain sanctity in at least one portion, with the exploited
portion remaining as a buffer or intermediate zone of reserved forest
closed to all shooting, with the wildlife control in the hands of the park
authorities.
It is evident that each case must be carefully studied on its own merits
by the Advisory Committee, and decided accordingly. In the case of any
exploitation of forest produce already in practice in a sanctuary of India,
it would be only reasonable to expect that at least a part of the revenue
thus realised should be made available for the development and protection
of the sanctuary.
A limited extraction of timber, thatch and such forest produce would,
of course, be permissible for meeting the actual needs of the sanctuary
or national park, should the occasion arise. This would be a matter for
the Advisory Committee or park authority to decide.
Another form of exploitation in sanctuaries in India is the issuing of
permits to graziers for grazing of domestic cattle. It is generally agreed
that such intrusion by domestic cattle is most undesirable. Not only is it
most detrimental to the grazing potential of the sanctuary, but also it is
a means by which disease is spread with devastating effect on wild animals.
It should, therefore, be avoided wherever humanly possible; and in any
case compulsory prophylactic inoculations should be done among the
cattle in the vicinity of a sanctuary or park. It should also be made
compulsory for all owners of cattle living in the locality of a park to
report any outbreak of cattle disease immediately to the appropriate
authority.
(2) Interference with NatureIn addition to the utilisation of
sanctuary resources for revenue, another form of violation of the strict
concept of 'undisturbed nature' is intervention, or interference with
nature. This may often be expedient, or even necessary.
One of these acts of interference with nature is the deliberate burning
off of grass and reeds in order to improve the grazing for ungulates and
visibility for visitors. This is very often advisable and any temporary
disturbance to wildlife is probably offset by the resultant advantage of
the growth of young shoots of grass, which are extremely palatable to
hoofed animals. Rhino, buffalo and deer in the Kaziranga Wildlife
Sanctuary are to be found in burnt off patches almost immediately after
the burning, and seem to find even the ashes of some edible value. It is
reported that the cessation of burning in the Jaldapara Game Sanctuary
of Bengal has resulted in an overabundance of undesirable trees, such as
khair, sidha, simul and others, out of place in such a sanctuary.
A point to be carefully borne in mind is that where some form of
human activity, such as the burning off of grass every year over a period
of years, has brought about an ecological situation, the removal of that
interference would be liable to cause a change in the general situation
which might upset the ecological equilibrium of the place, with possible
adverse effects on the wildlife.
In most parts of India the reserved forests contain 'Forest villages' (as
in Assam), or 'Settlements' of aborigines and 'Revenue Enclosures' (as in
South India). These usually provide free labour to the forest department
in return for the land they occupy; and while the advantages of this
scheme for forestry work are obvious, the disadvantages are equally
apparent in those particular places where fauna is of importance. It is
reported that in the Chamarajnagar wildlife sanctuary of Mysore, for
example, the presence of settlers in possession of guns in the sanctuary
has resulted in the depletion of the deer. Only in very rare cases could
their existence be justified in a wildlife sanctuary or national park.
With regard to the damming of large rivers for hydroelectric and
irrigation schemes, this may be deemed unavoidable in the overriding
interests of the State. Although there would be considerable disturbance,
though not necessarily destruction, of wildlife during the construction
of the dam and other works, the ultimate result need not be
disadvantageous to the wildlife or detracting from the sceneryas has
been proved in the case of the Periyar wildlife sanctuary of Travancore.
Moreover the acquisition of the roads, buildings and the like would be
an asset to the park. If the water of the Manas river in the North Kamrup
Wildlife sanctuary of Assam were ever to be impounded, the resultant
lake in the Bhutan Hills could be made to fit into the general scheme of
a park with satisfying resultsboth scenic and faunal.
It may also be necessary to interfere in the natural course of events in
the domestic affairs of wildlife. For should any particular animal or bird
in a sanctuary multiply to undesirable numbers, its increase might have
to be checked in the interest of the wildlife as a whole. Where the 'balance
of nature' has been upset by man, it can be justifiably corrected by man.
In the Periyar Wildlife Sanctuary of Travancore, the number of sambar
has declined due to the increase of wild dogs. These pests must be
ruthlessly destroyed. Crocodiles in some places need to be kept under
control. This form of control has been found necessary in other countries:
for example in the Nairobi National Park 300 hyaenas recently had to
be destroyed.
Conversely it may become desirable to introduce certain animals and
birds into a sanctuary or national park. It is strongly recommended that
in no case should a 'foreign' species be introduced into India's wildlife
sanctuaries. The introduction some years ago of zebra into the Periyar
Wildlife Sanctuary was a mistakefortunately none of them survives
today. There could be no objection, however, to the reintroduction of
species which formerly existed in an area. For example, Indian cheetah,
Indian wild ass, Indian lion, brow-antlered deer and others could most
advantageously be reintroduced where they have now become extinct.
Conclusion
I have tried to represent factually and realistically the main facts and
problems confronting the nature conservationists in India today. In India,
in a forest area, it is essential that one and the same department should
control both the wildlife and the forests in which it lives. Provided that
the Forest department of India, both at the Centre and in the States,
attain full understanding of and sympathy with wildlife, and pay due
attention to the advice of naturalists and others, there is no reason why
this method of control should not succeed.
F.W. Champion has observed: 'There is no sound reason why good
forestry and wildlife conservation should not work perfectly satisfactorily
together provided there is a reasonable amount of give and take on both
sides... . There is no doubt that the interests of good forestry and fauna
conservation sometimes do tend to clash. This is largely because there is
only too often a lack of coordination between the two.' In this connection,
the broad principle advocated by Keith Caldwell should be accepted,
namely that in national parks, when development seriously conflicts
with wildlife, the interests of wildlife should have precedence.
It is not possible, therefore, to arrive easily at any detailed cut-and-
dried conclusions as to the exact lines on which the administration and
management of sanctuaries and national parks in India can be carried
out. In all cases, however, extremist views are to be avoided.
A few basic generalisations can, at the same time, be made; and these
might form a broad foundation on which Central and State polices might
be based in India. In the first place, all Advisory Boards and Committees
should be widely representative of the public as well as of officials, and
should contain at least some persons with expert knowledge of the subject.
Officers in charge of sanctuaries or national parks should be specially
selected for these appointments. And as the task of administering India's
sanctuaries and national parks will probably fall on the shoulders of the
forest departments, the study of wildlife problems and wildlife ecology
should immediately be included in the curricula of forest training schools.
A great deal of publicity and propaganda needs to be done in India in
order to bring about a speedy realisation of the need for nature
conservation, and in order to ensure the successful enforcement of laws
protecting sanctuaries, national parks and the wildlife they contain. In
this respect it should be made clear that wildlife includes flora as well as
fauna, since measures to protect forests and to prevent soil erosion and
other evils are more likely to find favour with the public at the present
time.
Actual 'revenue-hunting' should be rigidly ruled out where any
sanctuaries or national parks are concerned. Carefully planned and
restricted forest operations, improvements and 'interferences with nature'
should be permitted when essential, or when known to be beneficial to
the sanctuary or national park and its wildlife.
Whenever possible, a national park or wildlife sanctuary should be
separated from areas of human occupation by buffer zones, or
intermediate zones, of a suitable width, in order to allow animal drift
without repercussions on their numbers.
In all cases, therefore, when a problem arises as to whether some specific
form of activity or intervention can be allowed, the criterion should be:
Will the fauna and flora, and the sanctuary or park itself, benefit from
this action in the long run? Left strictly alone, a sanctuary or national
park may deteriorate: it must be carefully watched and actively managed
by an efficient and knowledgeable controlling authority.
India should not entirely overlook the advantages of placing any
important preservation area under the control of an independent and
permanent Trust, secure from temporary, political and other changing
influences. This was advocated in the proceedings of the International
Convention held in London in 1933. The nomination of the members
of such a Trust, and of all Wildlife Advisory Committees and of National
Park Advisory or Controlling Committees, should not be entirely in the
hands of Governors and Ministers, but also in the hands of well-
established societies, universities and such bodies. The object, of course,
is to appoint persons of eminence, independence, experience,
understanding and integrity to such positions.
The 'balance of nature', especially the ups and downs of mammal
and bird populations, must be accurately assessed, with the full realisation
that nature is never static but subject to constant change. The ecologies
of the plants, mammals and birds in each wildlife sanctuary or national
park all need to be intelligently studied: both their interrelationships
among themselves, and the effects on them of all the important factors
in their environment. It is only on the result of the study of the biological
requirements of species, and of the biotic communities to be preserved,
that controls and adjustments in the ecological situation of a place can
safely be made by human agency for the benefit of humans, without
detriment to the wildlife.
A matter of policy should in all cases be carefully and objectively
examined by the members of a wildlife advisory committee. Expert
opinion, whenever necessary, should be sought from biologists, ecologists,
veterinary research officers and such persons, before any new policy is
determined or disputable action taken. The ultimate well-being of the
sanctuary or national park and its wildlife should always be the foremost
consideration.
On all occasions when there is any doubt as to whether a sanctuary or
national park and its wildlife will benefit from any specific action, the
general principles of 'unspoilt nature' and 'undisturbed ecological
equilibrium' may be followed. In the discharge of their duties great care
needs to be exercised by the members of advisory committees or
controlling authorities, as these persons are responsible to future
generations as the Trustees of India's valuable wildlife.'
Journal ofBombay Natural History Society, Vol. 51 (1952), pp. 1-17.
Gee was a tea planter from Assam. His area of special expertise
was the eastern region of India. His knowledge of wildlife was
encyclopaedic and he had a clear view of the solutions ahead. I
am certain he was also a diplomat, since by 1952 he was put on a
series of committees for determining policies on wildlife issues.
We will continue to look at his writings since the attention to detail
was remarkable, and a lesson for all of us today who are involved
in conservation. Let us also look at the contributions by other
contemporaries:
Jungle Memories
By
Major (Lt. Col.) E.G. Phythian-Adams,
O.B.E., F.Z.S., I .A. (Retd.)
Conservation
Before bringing these Memories to a close, it may be worthwhile to look
back and consider the changes in sporting ethics during the past 50
years, and their resultant effect on wildlife. When I landed in India the
standard of sportsmanship was very high indeed, and approximately
very nearly to what the Greek writer Arrian wrote 1800 years ago
regarding the people of Britain, who he said 'hunt for the beauty of the
sport, and consider the killing of the prey to be of minor importance'.
Gone, it seemed for ever, were the days of the butchers of the 70s and
80s of last century, whose bloody exploits are so unblushingly detailed
in certain old shikar books. The game laws too had been tightened up
and were rigidly enforced. In fact it seemed reasonable to assume, without
undue complacency, that the future of wildlife in India was secure for
many years to come.
Then came the two World Wars and their aftermaththe
disappearance of many who could have passed on the traditions they
had inherited, and a general disrespect for law and order. The increasing
use of motor cars too, enabled an ever-increasing number to indulge in
a new form of shikar, and to slaughter animals with a minimum of
exertion or risk, subordinating all ideas of sportsmanship to the desire
to kill. With India's attainment of independence, matters went from bad
to worse. There was undoubtedly a widespread belief (which persists
even today) that the game laws in force till then were introduced by
alien rulers to serve their own ends, and might now be safely disregarded.
Their real purpose, to conserve wildlife, was, and still is, completely
ignored. Gun clubs were formed in many places, ostensibly for crop
protection, but mostly for the high profit to be derived from the sale of
meat. With few exceptions everyone possessing a firearm uses it for the
indiscriminate destruction of game, regardless of sex or season. Persons
without the least experience of shikar fire with buckshot at all kinds of
animals, of which many in consequence escape to die a lingering death.
If a dangerous animal is not killed on the spot, no attempt is made to
follow it up, with the result that it becomes a source of danger to some
unfortunate villager. The game laws are not adequately enforced, since
forest subordinates are in many cases afraid to report poachers lest their
families suffer reprisals, or else the social status of the offender ensures
his immunity. These things are matters of common knowledge, and it is
no exaggeration to say that if the slaughter taking place all over the country
continues at the present rate, game animals in India will soon become
practically extinct in all but most inaccessible areas.
Unfortunately it is only too obvious that in this country to date, in
spite of much propaganda, the real object of conservation is very far
from being understood.
Wildlife is a very real national asset, and no one can object to all
reasonable steps being taken for its preservation.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 50, No. 3 (April 1952), pp. 466-8.
It was in December 1952 that the first resolutions of the Central
Board of Wildlife were adopted.
1
Let us glance at what was happening to the eastern region of
India in the early 1950s. E.P. Gee takes us on our journey.
Wildlife Preservation in India
Annual Report for 1953 on The Eastern Region
By
E.P. GEE, M.A., C.M.Z.S.,
Honorary Regional Secretary, Indian Board for Wildlife
The Eastern Region
During the year 1953 the Eastern Region under the Indian Board for
Wildlife comprised the following States: Assam, Bengal, Bihar, Manipur,
Orissa and Tripura.
1. See Appendix II.
The North East Frontier Agency, an area containing rich and varied
wildlife and some of the finest mountain and river scenery in India, is
not included in this Region. It is to be hoped that in the near future the
N.E.F.A. will be in a position either to form its own Wildlife Board or
to send representatives to the Assam Wildlife Board and thus become
coordinated with Assam in the matter of wildlife preservation.
Similarly, Bhutan is adjacent to Bengal and Assam and has mutual
problems concerning wildlife preservation; and it would be in the interests
both of India and Bhutan if the latter country could be closely associated
with India in this respect. The same kind of problems exist on the borders
of Bihar and Nepal, and it would also be in the interests of both these
States if concerted action could be taken to preserve wildlife.
Wildlife Legislation
1. The Effectiveness of Existing Legislation
There are two alternatives now: one is to revive the old legislation
and strictly enforce it, and the other is to make new and up-to-date
legislation. I am in favour of the latter course, provided it is not too
elaborate or difficult to enforce. I consider the Bombay Act of 1951 an
excellent piece of legislation for the preservation of wildlife, but can it
be enforced? According to this Bombay Act, if a man shoots a bulbul,
say, in his own vegetable garden he is liable to prosecution. There is no
chance of such intricate legislation being properly enforced.
I feel that a simplified and up to date form of the Wild Birds and
Animals Protection Act of 1912 might be the answer. A rationalised and
simplified schedule of close seasons and protected animals and birds,
easy of enforcement, is desirable.
I also recommend that first things be done first; that is pay full
attention to the sanctuaries first and make them proof against poaching
and properly guarded; then pay attention to the reserved forests and
make them proof against poaching and all illicit practices; and then
after these two items have been fully dealt with turn attention to the
unclassed forests, wastelands, private lands, and so on.
Under the present state of legislation, detection of offenders is difficult
and charges hard to substantiate. And when a case is successfully brought
and proved, the magistrate imposes an absurdly lenient fineRs 60,
say, for a hog deer killed and valued at Rs 120 for its meat, or even for a
sambar valued at Rs 400. These fines were probably fixed some 50 years
ago, and since then the value of money has changed, but not the fines.
The forest department, which has control of all sanctuaries and
reserved forests, can 'compound' a case for up to Rs 50 only. This 'fine'
was also fixed some 50 years ago, and by the present value of money
should be raised to Rs 200. If a Divisional Forest Officer could compound
cases of offence against the Forest Regulations with a fine of Rs 200 and
also possibly with a liability of the offender to pay the amount of damage
done (as is sometimes done in Bengala good idea), the immediate
protection given to wildlife would be very great indeed. In fact I feel
certain that the first step in any proposed legislation of any kind should
be the revision and improvement of the State's Forest Regulations in so
far as they apply to wildlife preservation.
Holders of 'crop protection' guns are well known as responsible for
extermination of much wildlife. Since the handing in of these guns after
the crops have been reaped presents a great administrative problem, it
would perhaps be a better idea if the use of these guns is restricted to the
area of crop-producing land actually belonging to the possessor of the
gun, and if he wishes to shoot elsewhere he must obtain an extra licence.
Licence fees for possession of guns and for shooting with them should
be increasedthese again are in many cases the same as they were 50
years ago when the value of money was much greater than now.
2. New Legislation Passed or Contemplated.
(1) AssamThe draft Assam Rhinoceros Preservation Bill was
scrutinised by the Assam Wildlife Board, and modified in places where
considered necessary. An Assam National Parks Bill has been drafted
and will soon be placed before the Wildlife Board for approval. Sub-
committees have made proposals for the Rules, etc., of the State Wildlife
Board, and for the revision of the Assam Forest Regulation.
(2) BengalProposals are being put up to Government for the
management of the Jaldapara Sanctuary as a national park. The
Conservator General of Forests is of the opinion that Forest Officers
should be invested with the powers of a police officer to demand the
production of a licence and of a gun for examination. The Government
has renewed the leases to the Associations of the Game Federation of
Bengal.
(3) BiharMeasures contemplated are: Rationalisation of the 'Close'
season for all kinds of birds and animals; the enactment of a special law
applicable only to the State-owned Forests which will provide for deterrent
penalties, including confiscation of firearms and cancellation of licences
of habitual offenders, and the creation of a national park, or in the
alternative of a large sanctuary covering about 200-300 sq. miles in
area.
General
It is generally agreed, particularly in the Eastern Region of India, that a
separate wildlife organisation is not feasible, and that wildlife preservation
is best taken care of by the Forest Department under whose charge most
of the wildlife already falls.
To counteract the possibility that the Minister of Forests and the
officials of the forest department may not always act in a way best
calculated to serve the interests of wildlife, it has been accepted that each
state should have a wildlife board whose main function will be to advise
the forest department on all matters affecting wildlife. Obviously these
boards must contain a strong, influential and knowledgeable element of
non-officials, who should fully represent all important sections of public
opinion and should contain among their number some experts in the
field of nature conservation, natural history and sport.
In order that the forest department, advised by the wildlife board,
may efficiently carry out its duties, it is essential that the forest regulations
should be revised and brought up to date.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 53,
Nos. 2 & 3 (1954), pp. 233, 237-9.
Gee was an expert on the eastern region of the country. He
played a critical role in ensuring that places like Manas and
Kaziranga survived the pressures of those times. The efforts of
people like Gee must have been enormous just to suggest policy
and then make sure it was delivered with field action. Large
port i ons of Assam' s fertile grassl ands were r api dl y bei ng
converted into agricultural fields, and battling to save them in
the 1950s must have been a nightmare. By the end of the century
the eastern region would end up getting completely hammered.
Only the protected areas would remain alive. And thank God that
the battles for protected areas were fought and won in the 1940s
and 1950s. The Central Board of Wildlife, which later became
known as the Indian Board of Wildlife, had just been set up and
in the enthusiasm that the Board would deliver on its promises,
many put pen to paper and assessed the general state of affairs
across India. Here is one from Y.R. Ghorpade on the southern
region:
Annual Report for 1953 on the Southern Region
By
Y.R. Ghorpade
Regional Secretary
Wildlife in the Region
The Great Indian Bustard, the Hunting Leopard, the Nilgiri Tahr and
the Nilgiri Black Langur, and perhaps the Malabar Squirrel, are good
examples of species more or less threatened with extinction; in some of
these the threat has gone a long way towards fulfilment. However, I
think that certain other animals, not so patently threatened, are no less
in need of protection. It is wise to act on the basis that prevention is
better than cure in the matter of wildlife conservation, especially as we
are not now in a position to fully realise or completely control the factors
that lead to the decline and disappearance of our fauna. Hence, I would
certainly include such animals as the Four-horned Antelope, the
Chinkara, and the Blackbuck in any list of beasts specially in need of
protection in the Southern Region.
Blackbuck are still to be found in certain parts of the Southern region,
especially in the black cotton soil tracts near theTungabhadra Dam area,
in and around the Hyderabad boundary. Some fifteen years ago, I
distinctly remember counting no less than a hundred buck in a single
spot in this area, not to mention the innumerable does in the herds. A
sight such as that is an impossibility today in that very place, which used
to be so replete with these most graceful and purely Indian antelope.
Local tribes, who are professional netters of buck for food and sale of
meat and skins, and shooting from cars by both licensed and unlicensed
guns, have contributed to the great decline of the Blackbuck of this area.
It is possible to kill off these buck from an area by indiscriminate shooting;
it has happened before.
The decline of these buck and other beasts of open country in places
where the Hunting Leopard was once not uncommon is the chief reason
for the disappearance of the latter. One still hopes for the survival of
stray specimens of the Hunting Leopard in the regionone was reported
to have been seen in the Chittoor district recently. Some villagers in the
Koppbal district of Hyderabad, near the village of Mukumpi, talk of a
rare animal which they call the Shivanga or Shivungi, which they claim
to have seen sitting on the boulders of the rocky terrain. I have good
reason to believe that Shivanga and Shivungi are the Kanarese names of
the Hunting Leopard and, although I have not been able to see a Shivanga
in this locality for all my efforts, I think there is every chance of a few
specimens surviving here. Should it be possible to restore a sufficient
tract in this area to near the natural conditions of the past, and to
effectively prevent the killing of a hunting leopard by any means, the
species might be restored here. Surely it is worth taking considerable
pains to restore the hunting leopard to India, if necessary by
reintroductions after the terrain has been suitably prepared.
The Great Indian Bustard should also be pretty high in the list of
protected animals and birds. I have seen quite a few of them in the black
cotton soil areas in the extreme south of Hyderabad, already referred to
in connection with blackbuck. They are found wherever there are expanses
of flat black cotton soil. I have been seeing them for the last so many
years in the blackbuck country in the southernmost parts of Hyderabad.
The setting up of parks and sanctuaries envisaged by the Wildlife Board
is good, but not until many square miles of open country are set apart in
many places all over South India, exclusively for the animals of the flat
open country, can anyone really hope to preserve our wildlifeespecially
the Great Indian Bustard, the Blackbuck and the Hunting Leopard.
Merely to declare certain animals and birds as protected by law is not
a sufficient safeguard against their destruction, apart from the
administrative difficulties of enforcing protection. For, apart from the
environmental conditions necessary for them to thrive, there are so may
other animals which enter into their lives, and which are therefore also
necessary, directly or indirectly, for them to live in a healthy state.
Therefore, the most effective way of giving protection to animals is to
see to it that the entire area which they inhabit, or a good portion of it,
is as little disturbed or interfered with as possible. Given protection from
disturbance and interference, Nature will look after itself better than we
can ever hope to do, with all our meticulous laws and by-laws. This is, in
the ultimate analysis, a far more effective measure than merely declaring
a few rare or diminishing species as protected, without bothering
sufficiently to ensure protection from all other kinds of interference for
the whole area or a big chunk of it, in which these species are to be
found.
Some twenty-five years ago there is evidence of H.H. the Maharaja
Catrapatti of Kolhapur having sent his men to capture a few Hunting
Leopards from this area for his sporting purposes in Kolhapur. These
cheetahs were caught, tamed and trained to catch blackbuck. Obviously
there must have been quite a few of these animals then. As regards the
Great Indian Bustard I have known people who once upon a time have
seen them in droves of thirty and forty. I have been a witness to the
gradual decline in the numbers of bustards through the years. One can
give a large number of reasons for this. But the main reason is of course
the increasing disturbance of wildlife in this area by the industrial and
other activities of our ever-increasing population which has, directly
and indirectly, interfered in a thousand and one ways with the normal
activities of the animals. To take only one example, the recent
Tungabhadra Project near Hospet caused a noticeable reduction in the
game in Koppbal. The number of people wanting to shoot, with and
without licence, increased. Many enthusiasts from the Project area started
disturbing game by endless night drives with searchlights. A local shikari
at Mukumpi village, a few miles from Hospet in Koppbal, told me that
within the last few months one amateur shikari from the Tungabhadra
Project had fired at no less than fifteen panthers in addition to several
other animals, which he shot and wounded during night drives. This is
only to illustrate the amount of disturbance one single industrial project
can cause to the game. This does not of course mean that such projects
must not be started, but it does mean that stricter methods of protecting
wildlife must be evoked, to cope with the encroachment of the noise
and bustle of civilisation into the peace of the wilderness. Apart from
indiscriminate shooting and slaughter for meat or money, deprivation
of territory by the utterly haphazard and needlessly extensive methods
for augmenting transport and agriculture, practised by our alarmingly
increasing population, can be, and should be, regulated in such areas, if
not completely stopped. Four different but closely linked concepts are
involved in this last statement. That is, interference with the environment
by (i) interfering with the flora by forestry work or wood-cutting, or the
introduction of new plants intentionally or unintentionally, (ii) by
shooting or otherwise killing or persecuting a part of the fauna, (iii) by
disturbing the animals and so interfering with their normal activitya
very potent causeand (iv) loss of territory by needlessly extensive
agriculture and transport practices. Is it just fortuitous that the game
animals are plentiful in Bandipur and not in Mudumalai?
Measures Taken, and Effectiveness of
Current Protective Legislation
In accordance with the suggestion of the Executive Committee of the
Central Wildlife Board to the State Governments to set up State Wildlife
Boards and to promulgate wildlife protection laws on the lines of the
Bombay law, Mysore and Hyderabad have already set up Wildlife Boards.
I had suggested to all the State Governments in the Southern Region, in
my letter dated 12
th
June 1953, to consider taking certain urgent measures,
such as prohibiting sale of wildlife, netting of wild birds and animals,
strictly observing close seasons, discouraging or prohibiting the use of
crop protection weapons for purposes of hunting in the forests and lands
at the disposal of Government, etc., until more comprehensive measures
were taken after the recommendations of the State Wildlife Boards. I
had also requested all the Chief Conservators of Forests in my region,
and also non-officials who were keenly interested in wildlife protection,
to give their view on the effectiveness of existing legislation and the
measures that should be taken to effectively protect wildlife.
The consensus of opinion was that it is 'not so much the nature of the
legislation as the effective implementation of it' which is the crux of the
problem. If the existing game laws were enforced properly they would
be adequate to protect game. But the utter inefficiency in enforcing
game laws cannot be exaggerated or overemphasised. The callous
indifference and appalling apathy of forest guards who are supposed to
be the guardians of the forest is simply staggering. I am convinced of
this. To give an example, the sambar in Sandur (S. India) till a few years
ago before the state was merged, could be, and was, protected effectively
with the same legislation that exists today. One could see forty to fifty
sambar in single drive of seven to eight miles. As a result, tiger started
coming into Sandur where they were never known to exist before. Both
tiger and sambar increased faster than expectations. But suddenly within
the last few years there has been a tragic extermination of the sambar.
Poaching and nocturnal sambar hunts with packs of dogs have been
responsible for this. The foresters now just do not seem to be interested
in stopping it. Game is openly sold for money. The same fate befell the
partridges. Passepardis caught them by the hundreds and sold them with
impunity. I have seen with my own eyes the disappearance of game in
Sandur which I had protected and fostered for the last twenty years. I
decided to give this example of the Sandur sambar because I can personally
vouch for its veracity, and because it illustrates vividly the amount of
damage indifferent implementation of game laws can do to game in a
short time. It is amazing how fast game can be destroyed. And there is
only one explanation to it in the above casenon-enforcement of existing
laws. In short, present laws do not encourage wildlife. They only prohibit,
and they are often unknown and unimplemented.
Issue of game and gun licences in the name of crop protection is
another potent cause. Practically all the keen sportsmen I wrote to
mentioned this as a grave threat to wildlife. It was suggested by the Nilgiri
Association that gun permits for crop protection should be withdrawn
when the crops are garnered. Better still crackers or dummy cartridges
should be used for scaring away game from fields.
Small game and antelopes require protection from wandering tribes
of professional trappers such as the 'Hacci Pacci Avaru' or Passepardis
who are responsible for the small game being on the verge of extinction.
It was suggested at the Mysore Wildlife Board that these people in Mysore
state be found alternative employment by giving them lands. There were,
however, so many applications, including those from outside Mysore,
that the matter had to be kept in abeyance. These passepardis are keen to
take agriculture, as they say small game is now so reduced that they are
put to great hardships and sometimes starvation. First of all, a thorough
census must be made of these tribes whose livelihood involves the
destruction of small game.
Another piece of information which is worth noting is that all people
in Coorg enjoy a free licence and a large majority of them own guns.
Clearly this could not be very conducive to the protection of game in
Coorg. Free licences ought to be cancelled and licences be issued only to
bona fide sportsmen. There are quite a few keen sportsmen in Coorg, as
elsewhere, who should be made Honorary Game Wardens. This will
have a salutary effect on poaching which is going on there, as everywhere
else.
The Honorary Secretary of the Peermade Game Association in reply
to inquiries made by me writes as follows: (I am quoting from his letter
as it brings out certain of the administrative problems of maintaining a
game sanctuary. A game sanctuary only becomes a home for poachers if
it is not properly supervised.) 'The Periyar Game Sanctuary in Travancore-
Cochin State is about 300 sq. miles in area. There are no separate laws or
rules in respect of the sanctuary except the laws covered by the State
Forests Act. The Staff now working under the Game Department is
quite inadequate to effectively protect the sanctuary and for preservation
work. The staff consists of the D.F.O.-cum-Game Warden, Kottayam,
Assistant Game Warden (also the Secretary of the Peermade Game
Association), one Game Range Officer, two foresters and thirteen guards.
Of these, one forester and a few guards are posted for protection work
outside the sanctuary. The amenities such as transport facilities, housing
conveniences, etc., provided for the subordinate staff are very poor. They
have also to be provided with necessary arms and ammunition. The
existing paths in the sanctuary are very limited. The opening of a few
more paths through the sanctuary will help better patrol work and
supervision of the area. For the Periyar Sanctuary, the D.F.O., Kottayam,
is also the Game Warden, and his headquarters is at Kottayam, far away
from the game area. A separate Game Warden, as was the case when the
sanctuary started, with headquarters in the game area, who could
concentrate all his attention on wildlife preservation, must be appointed.
With dual duty it will not be possible to exercise effective control and
personal supervision over the area . . . . The more lowly paid members of
the forest staff should be encouraged by a system of rewards, as for
instance, a proportion of fines levied . . . . Fines and penalties are not
sufficiently deterrent . . . . Officials charged with the enforcement of
game laws are frequently indifferent. The Nilgiri Game Association feels
that 'existing legislation is not sufficient to stop poaching. The present
maximum fine of Rs 50 is totally inadequate. It might be increased to Rs
500 with the alternative of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and thus
brought into line with penalties for breaches of Nilgiri Fishing Rules. In
addition, confiscation of weapons and/or motor cars is most desirable.
Failure to report the wounding of dangerous animals should be
punishable with a mandatory sentence of 6 months' imprisonment as is
the case under the Kenya Game Rules.'
As regards the Mudumalai Sanctuary, I believe that there is a proposal
to increase its area by attaching the Wynad area. The Wynad area, I am
told, is full of private holdings and Estates, and hence the advisability
and wisdom of adding Wynad to the Mudumalai Sanctuary should be
carefully examined.
Lastly, I must mention that widespread publicity to remove public
apathy towards the cause of wildlife preservation is more important than
one imagines.
Sandur
December 31, 1953
I find the writings of the first Indians in wildlife conservation
fascinating. Ghorpade was a strong believer in the inviolate
area where there was little disturbance. Everyone talked of
punishments and enforcement of the law because like today, it
must have been a period when most did not care and endless
laws were broken. The ecology of the countryside was changing
rapidly as the new catchword of development ploughed across
the country. Agriculture had become a priority and large areas of
grasslands were soon lost to agriculture. Let us look at what was
happening in western India. Again, there was another Indian
whose immense knowledge of that region, and especially its birds,
was a great asset in their protection and this in the fragile
wilderness of western India. This is what Dharmakumarsinhji
wrote:
Annual Report for 1953 on the Western Region
By
K.S. Dharmakumarsinhji
Vice-Chairman, Indian Board for
Wildlife and Hon. Regional Secretary
A brief summary of the wildlife situation within my region is necessary.
The position of wildlife exclusive of game species appears to be
satisfactory. Big game species on the whole, are on the decrease, and
certain species such as Lion, Blackbuck, Chinkara, Swamp Deer, and
perhaps Sambar with their respective habitats require special protection.
The Crocodiles (two speciesPalustris and Gavialis gangeticus) are
definitely diminishing in numbers and therefore need discreet protection.
Small game in general is not yet seriously affected: in some States it is on
the increase. But the Great Indian Bustard (Choriotis nigriceps) and Jungle-
fowls (red and grey) require careful preservation.
The formation of State Wildlife Advisory Boards has had a beneficial
effect on the general public and State Governments all over, and has
done much to save the wildlife in Western India. The Wild Animals and
Wild Birds Protection Acts in the States of Bombay and Saurashtra are
certainly welcome and there is a growing sympathy by the people towards
the preservation of wildlife in the two States. However, 'Touring Wildlife
Committees' are essential to estimate and evaluate wildlife populations
'on the spot'. Schemes for National Parks are rapidly gaining strength.
'Protected Areas' for wildlife are being established. More attention is
being given to Sanctuaries.
Fish life during drought years have suffered heavily in some States,
but fish depletion in the larger rivers has not taken place. The freshwater
fish industry needs special attention.
This report has been prepared from information received from various
States, and includes a rapid survey of the Gir Forest in Saurashtra, the
home of the Indian Lion.
The Divisional Forest Officer's report from Jamnagar states that game
species are increasing in the Gir Forest and Barda Hilla and decreasing
in other parts of Saurashtra. My rapid survey of wildlife of the Gir forest
between 1
st
April and 15
th
April, failed to reveal game in abundance,
while actually some species were found in small numbers and are
obviously reduced.
The Indian lion is one of the most important animal species in Asia
today, the preservation of which has drawn the attention of the
International Union for the Protection of Nature. My report of 1949 to
the Union referred to this problem. The Asiatic Lion (Panthera leopersica)
formerly ranged throughout the Middle East and northern India. Today,
it is restricted to the Gir forest in Sauratra and Bombay (Amreli district
formerly Baroda territory). The Saurashtra Government has given
protection to the animal by order Notification No. DP/ F/ 1118-7/157
dated 25
th
July 1953 and by Section 16 of the Saurashtra Wild Animals
and Wild Birds Protection Act, 1952; and the Bombay state has given
the lion complete protection. The lion census made by Mr. M.A. Wynter-
Blyth in 1950 on behalf of the Saurashtra government revealed between
219 to 227 lions (adult and young inclusive) with a maximum of 250
lions in the whole of Gir forest. The killing of lions is carefully controlled
by the Rajpramukh of Saurashtra and the limit of four lions to be shot
per annum has been laid down as a general policy. This seems to be
reasonable in spite of the fact that lions may increase rapidly if given
proper protection. The State Wildlife Board, at its second meeting
recommended 3 lions and 3 lionesses to be shot as maximum for the
whole year. However, lions have been ordered to be destroyed for cattle
lifting from time to time and it is unfortunate that a number have been
thus killed. Moreover, an accurate record of lions destroyed or found
dead has not been kept by the forest department. It appears that a good
number of lions have been destroyed in a clandestine manner. Actually,
I feel that on no account should lions be killed for cattle lifting since
most lions in the Gir forest, at one time or another, feed upon cattle
owing to the density of livestock within the Forest. It is deplorable that
records of game killed in the Gir forest, as well as in areas in some other
states, have not been accurately maintained, and in a few are even
completely wanting. My recent survey of the Gir forest revealed that
game had been indiscriminately shot, especially Cheetal, Wild Boar, and
Sambar, while Chousingha and Nilgai were holding their own in fair
numbers, though not in abundance. It is unfortunate that the wildlife of
the Gir area has not had the rigid protection as made known officially in
spite of the importance of the lion. The Grey Hornbill (Tockus hirostris)
appears now to be extinct. The Green Pigeon (Crocopus phoenicopterus)
may have the same fate due to carelessness if not well protected, for the
feathers are sought for the same medicinal purpose as those of the Grey
Hornbill. During my rapid survey, firing was heard within the Gir forest
and animal life was seen to flee at the approach of motor vehicles. This
behaviour of game species discloses indiscriminate shooting from motor
vehicles in contravention of Section 17 of the Saurashtra Wild Animals
and Wild Birds Protection Act, 1952. The State Government has
appointed a Wildlife Officer for the Gir with a small staff. This so-called
Wildlife department enjoys a reputation of supplying shikar to some
sportsmen only. The present set-up is wholly unsatisfactory since
poaching is rampant, mostly by forest contractors and their workmen.
The Forest Department is ignorant of how to manage wildlife in the
Gir. The sooner a National Park is formed in the Gir, the better it will be
in the interest of the lion. The lion's natural food is slowly decreasing,
and unless firm steps are taken to prevent the killing of game species
which supply its food a crisis is inevitable. The State Government should
keep a proper record of the lions and game killed or found dead, and
this information should be passed on to the Regional Secretary for
Wildlife regularly every month.
The present question of controlling the maldharieslivestock
ownersin the Gir forest is under the consideration of the Saurashtra
government.
Grassland Habitat: Grassland without mixed deciduous forest canopy
comprises ideal habitat for Nilgai, Blackbuck, Chinkara, Bustard and
small game. The grass and bushy cover supply them with food and shelter.
Since the tendency to plough grass lands has grown, and owing to the
encroachment of livestock upon grass land, the above species and their
habitat are threatened. Again, owing to the ease with which these 'lowland'
game animals are killed, they are decreasing at an alarming rate, in spite
of the existing laws and regulations giving them protection.
It is evident that game species such as Blackbuck and Chinkara have
been reduced to danger point in Saurashtra State. And this may well
apply also to other States within the zone. It means that unless these
species are given adequate protection, they are open to the hazards of
extirpation. As for forest land, the game within is comparatively less
reduced but is nowhere in abundance. In my report of the rapid survey
of wildlife and game, 1950, in the States of Rajasthan, Madhya Bharat,
and Saurashtra, which are now within my region, I had emphasised
upon the need for protecting wildlife and game and left no stone unturned
in advising and supplying the States with useful information on National
Parks, Sanctuaries, Wildlife Boards and Wildlife Department, etc., etc.
Since then very little progress has been made, apart from what has been
done by the Bombay and Saurashtra States. It is unfortunate that the
Rajpramukhs and their Governments have neglected the subject of
wildlife preservation.
Assessment of the Effectiveness of
Existing Legislation
Bombay and Saurashtra have, as mentioned earlier, made their own
Wildlife Acts known as the Bombay Wild Animals and Wild Birds
Protection Act, 1951 and the Saurashtra Wild Animals and Wild Birds
Protection Act XXXII of 1952. The Saurashtra Act has been amended as
advised by the State Wildlife Advisory Board. This will make the Act
one of the best in India. The State Board in its second meeting have
recommended 'Protected Areas' for saving Chinkara and Blackbuck
especially, and each district will have two such areas each for the safety
of the species. The Grey Hornbill has been declared a protected bird,
but I fear that this measure is too late. The same might be said in the
case of the Great Indian Bustard; however, some birds are still to be
seen. State departments such as Police, Forest and Revenue should take
a keener interest in seeing that regulations like Close Season, etc., are
observed. The Military, particularly, are the greatest offenders of shooting
regulations and certain areas of wildlife abundance have been completely
ruined by them.
If any Wildlife Act is to be effective, the magistrates and judicial
councillors should fully understand and realise the importance of Wildlife
as a national asset and lawbreakers should be heavily punished. From
information gathered from various States, it appears that there is not
enough cooperation from State Departments or from the public for
stamping out indiscriminate killing of game and for enforcing the existing
laws pertaining to wildlife protection.
Sanctuaries in the States have not been effectively managed and wildlife
is being killed at a rapid rate. It is therefore of vital importance that the
Government of India should nominate Committees consisting of experts
to tour all States to see for themselves the position of wildlife population
and then advise the States on how to manage their wildlife resources.
These Touring Committees would organise, where necessary, 'Game
Censuses', so as to estimate the density of game population. I strongly
emphasise the importance of having Touring Committees, which may
actually see or investigate on the spot how wildlife is managed, and
whether it is given the necessary protection or not.
In spite of repeated warnings of wildlife depletion the progress made
for protecting game species has been painfully slow, and in some cases
much too late. However, if even now other States were to follow in the
footsteps of Bombay and Saurashtra, they would gain considerably in
protecting their wildlife before it vanishes completely. I have come to
the conclusion that, it is essential for the States to inaugurate 'Protected
Areas' where Sanctuaries in the strict sense, cannot be established, as
early as possible and, with the aid of the Central Government, create
National Parks immediately.
In the interests of State Governments to ensure that their wildlife is
adequately protected and that areas of Sanctuaries or Preserves are being
managed satisfactorily, I even suggest District Wildlife Committees,
consisting of the following persons: Collector, District Superintendent
of Police, Divisional Forest Officer and one unofficial Honorary Game
Warden. This team could tour important areas together and assess the
wildlife population of the district from time to time.
journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 52 (1955), pp. 865-73.
By 1955 Dharmakumarsi nhj i had completed his uni que
treatise on the 'Birds of Saurashtra', and would later in the 50's
complete a guide to the census of larger animals.
What critical years 1953, 1954, and 1955 must have been for
wildlife! This was the time for big dams and hydroelectric projects.
Our then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru believed that these
projects were the temples of modern India and would lead to rapid
development. If only he knew. These so-called modern temples
ripped apart large tracts of splendid forests. Nehru was not
wildlife or forest savvy. Little was he to know that in the next
decade when his daughter would rule, she would create some of
the most dynamic policies to protect the rich remnants of the
wilderness from its modern temples. In a way if Nehru' s policies
t owards forests were exploitative, his daught er' s woul d be
protective. But the conservationists of those days did not have an
Indira Gandhi to deal with. So people like Gee kept on writing
and fighting. Between 1954 and 1960 he was forever reiterating
his stand on a series of issues. I highlight a few of them here:
By
E.P. Gee, M.A., C.M.Z.S.
Part-II
Poaching
With regard to poaching and similar illegal practices, it has been the
experience of the writer and many of his friends in India that the forest
department is a little 'touchy on this subject when instances are brought
to its notice.
When I visit a sanctuary I usually talk to the Range Officer or Beat
Officer-in-charge, and sooner or later put the question: 'Do you have
any difficulty with poachers? Is any poaching going on here?' The answers
to this enquiry fall broadly into two categories. One is: 'No, sir, this is a
sanctuary. How can there be poaching in a sanctuary?' The other is:
'There is some poaching going on. We are trying our best to stop it.'
Obviously the former answer indicates a doubtful or even most
unsatisfactory state of affairs, while the latter is almost certainly an
accurate and honest statement.
Divisional forest officers and even Conservators are also often evasive
or non-committal when the subject of poaching is brought up by
members of the public. How often the writer and other members of the
general public have travelled many miles at great expense and discomfort
to visit a sanctuary or Reserved Forest, and when we report a case of
poaching, no reply or even acknowledgement is ever received!
If a visitor or member of the public detects a case of poaching or
similar malpractice, what is he to do about it? Is he to remain silent? Or
is he to take the trouble to note the details and report the incident?
Obviously to remain silent is not only to fail in one's duty as a citizen
but also actually to render a disservice to the forest department. For in
remaining silent he is almost conniving at the offence. It is clearly the
duty of everyone to assist the forest department by noting carefully
anything serious that he sees wrong and by reporting it to the appropriate
officer as soon as possible.
Why then is it so often the case that in so doing one's duty, no reply
not even an acknowledgement is received, the person reporting is led to
wonder (a) if the report has ever been received, or (b) if received, if any
action is being taken. In either case a sense of frustration is the result.
In order to minimise poaching, for complete elimination would be
impracticable, it is obvious that only cooperation between the public
and the authorities will produce any real results. The public can cooperate
by developing a strong healthy public opinion, and by reporting all cases
of malpractice as they occur.
It is recognised throughout the world that the presence of bona fide
sportsmen in shooting blocks, and bona fide visitors and naturalists in
sanctuaries and national parks is the best deterrent against poaching. It
is plainly the duty of such people to assist the authorities at all times and
at all places, and it is equally obligatory on the authorities at least to
acknowledge such assistance whenever it is rendered.
Without doubt India has a unique opportunity of developing sound
but broad-minded systems of wildlife conservation and national park
administration, even improving on those policies and systems evolved
in other parts of the world. And with her wildlife situated as it is mostly
in beautiful tree forests as opposed to bare scrub areas of, say, East Africa,
she has the chance of creating and developing some of the finest faunal
national parks in the world.
In a way, I think India lost her opportunities of creating the
finest National Parks in the world. Gee would have been a very
disappointed man. If only he had known. We learnt nothing from
the African models and we still do not even accept that some of
them work in the greater interest of wildlife. We are still plagued
with all the problems Gee talked about in the 1950sfrom VIP
tourism to the enforcement of laws, and the non-implementation
of the endless recommendations that have piled up and collected
dust over the decades. That is the sorry state of wildlife governance
in India and we shall see later on the crisis that emerged when the
century ended. Like many of us, I am certain that Gee had faith in
the system to deliver, and so kept waiting and writing:
By
E.P. Gee, M.A., C.M.Z.S.
Part-Ill
Extracts: Sport and Wildlife Preservation
It is important that we should recognize the exact status of the sportsman
when considering measures for wildlife preservation in India. By
'sportsman' I mean, of course, the bona fide sportsman who not only
scrupulously observes the game laws and shooting rules in respect of
close seasons, protected animals, reserved forests, and so on, but who also
shoots only a limited number of game birds and animals. The so-called
'sportsman' who is a butcher, or who is in any way unscrupulous, is a
menace to wildlife conservation almost as much as the poacher is.
It is universally admitted by all those concerned with conservation of
wildlife throughout the world that the bona fide sportsman is one of the
best friends of wildlife. For by occasionally tracking and shooting game
within the law, he becomes well versed in jungle lore and jungle craft
and develops a knowledge and love of wild animals and birds not always
obtainable by the man who is purely an observer or naturalist. The bona
fide sportsman who later in life gives up all shooting for the camera,
binoculars, and notebook is usually one of the ablest protagonists of
wildlife conservation.
It is universally admitted, also, that the presence of a bona fide
sportsman in a forest is the most effective deterrent against poachers.
Obviously no sportsman who has paid for and taken out licences, permits,
and reservations in a Forest Block is going to tolerate any kind of
interference from poachers during his shoot. And even if there has been
any poaching previous to his shoot he will soon hear about it and 'raise
hell'. For this reason poachers usually give sportsmen a very wide berth.
And for this reason many experienced sportsmen all over India have
been made Honorary Forest Officers in order to assist the Forest
Departments of States in the preservation of wildlife.
At the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Indian Board for
Wildlife held at Ootacamund in May 1955 it was agreed that Game,
Shooting, and Fishing Associations play a very important role, and that
real sportsmen in any area are an asset in the preservation of wildlife.
Consequent upon this, the Secretary of the Board in October 1955
addressed a letter to all Heads of State Forest Departments to the effect
that Game Associations and Natural History Societies should be
encouraged.
And yet, in spite of all the foregoing evidence that bona fide sportsmen
are an asset to the country in general and to the forest department in
particular, how often do we hear of sportsmen being rebuffed, of
sportsmen receiving no replies to their letters, of sportsmen not being
issued with shooting and fishing permits after payment of the usual fees!
Worse still, many sportsmen and naturalists have written helpful reports
about poaching, bombing of rivers for fish, and other illegalities to the
Forest Officers, but not even an acknowledgement!
It is essential to preserve the wildlife outside as well as inside our
sanctuaries and national parks; and no real progress can be made in
India until full encouragement and recognition is given to genuine sport
and genuine sportsmen throughout the country.
Conclusion
Unless we can produce evidence of the economic or tourism value of
our wildlife sanctuaries, the other values (aesthetic, recreational, scientific,
and biological) may not be sufficient to tip the scales in favour of their
maintenance and continuance. Our statesmen, politicians, planners,
economists, and others may give heed to the unwise ephemeral demands
of unenlightened local interests, instead of considering the need for long-
term planning and preservation for the benefit of the country as a whole.
Tourists from abroad and visitors from other parts of India coming
to our wildlife sanctuaries and national parks will bring revenue as well
as the general realization of the value of our wildlife. This revenue and
this realization are both sorely needed to preserve for posterity a valuable
but vanishing national asset.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 54,
No. 1 (1956), pp. 1-5, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20 & 21.
As far as I am concerned, the 1950s was Gee's decade. He
dominated these years with his ideas and suggestions. He fought
for wildlife on the Indian Board of Wildlife, he wrote frequently
on a variety of issues that Indian wildlife faced, and he tried really
hard to create political will particularly with people like Nehru.
That is why the issue of the economic importance of wildlife
tourism was back on the agenda. Because of the pressures of those
times there were always arguments for and against wildlife
protection. Why were national parks important? Could they bring
in the revenue? Could the politician be persuaded to save them?
Gee battled on and fought the then inspector general of forests
for his dictat that only if a forest officer has shot a tiger could he
be put in charge of a forest division. He came up wi t h an
alternative that every forest officer should be able to catch a fish
with a rod and line! He wrote and I quote: 'Fifty years ago it might
have been all right. But if every divisional forest officer in India
today were to bag a tiger there would be no tigers left.' I believe
that in the 1950s Gee played a much stronger role in conservation
t han either Salim Ali or anot her nat ural i st of those times,
M. Krishnan. This role of Gee's changed only in the 1960s. Let's
not forget that Gee started his work as early as 1933 on the
hornbills of Assam much before most of his colleagues... . Gee
was an Englishmen and educated at Cambridge University. He
had stayed on after independence and, in my opinion, surpassed
the conservation efforts of all his Indian colleagues. It was Nehru
who wrote the foreword for his book on Indian Wildlife at the
end of the 1950s. It was clear that the decimation of wildlife was
accelerating, the forests were vanishing, and by the time India
entered the 1960s many raised their voices on the morals of how
to hunt and how much.
Let us go back for a moment to the 1950s, which was a decade
of devastation for wildlife and much of that responsibility goes to
the Princes of India. Mahesh Rangarajan describes it succinctly:
Princely India left behind a mixed legacy. There is no doubt that
many of today's famous nature reserves from Gir in the west to
Bandipur in the south had their origins as royal hunting reserves.
But to see the princes' efforts as conservationists in present-day terms
would go against their own records of their deeds. Many exceeded
the British in their lust for trophies. They used the rules of the hunt
to oppress their subjects at times endangering the latter's lives and
much more often offending their sense of human dignity.
And this is absolutely true. The hunting records of the Indian
Princes completely outstripped those of the British in their tens
of thousands. Let us never forget that fact. The 1960s posed many
moral dilemmas. How much to hunt and how? Shikar travel
agencies had flourished and who would ever have the will to
control the horrors of this so-called sport. Let us look at some of
the letters that went back and forth at that time.
Wildlife Problems
Mr. Humayun Abdulali's notes on Wildlife in the Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society (Vol. 56 (2): 1959) make sad reading. The
disillusioning thing is that it is not only in Madhya Pradesh that these
conditions prevail. They seem to be common all over the subcontinent.
I often wonder whether we are not fighting an almost impossible
battle in trying to protect the wildlife of our country. I am a tea planter
and live in the High Ranges of Kerala and I have had the opportunity of
studying this protection problem at close quarters. I have come to certain
conclusions and quote them for your perusal.
1. The vast majority of our people have never heard of the Indian
Board for Wildlife, do not know what it stands for, and have no idea
about the work it is doing.
2. The vast majority of our people have yet to develop a genuine
interest in wildlife. I mean sufficient interest to worry about its welfare.
It is highly idealistic to expect a man to treat the Great Indian Bustard
with respect when he does not know-what the bird looks like, has no
appreciation of how it is being rapidly wiped out, and does not
understand why we wish to prevent its extermination. To the miscreant
his bustard is a goodly bird that will do well for the evenings pot.
Similarly, I know of numerous cases of Jungle fowl, spur fowl and Painted
Bush Quail snared in traps in the tea and jungle in these hills nearly all
the year round. I have watched shot guns go after these birds with the
'same degree of indiscrimination. I have seen Rainbow Trout floating on
our waters after being poisoned. I have seen how a species of mountain
goat has been nearly exterminated in these hills. I have known of health-
crazy parties going out to slaughter Black Monkeys for medicinal
purposes. I have heard that a flourishing trade in bison meat exists in the
foothills of the High Ranges. I was not surprised to read that Mr. and
Mrs. T.H. Basset were 'horrified to see two figures carrying rifles' in the
Periyar Sanctuary. This is typical of what goes on all the time.
3. It does not matter how many big names are associated with our
Wildlife Board. What is important is the influence it has in successfully
getting the State Governments to adopt and enforce its resolutions.
4. One Wildlife Week a year is totally insufficient for our needs
What we need is a Wildlife Century in our country.
5. The Wildlife Board and a Society like ours must make concerted
attempts to educate our people about natural history. How we can do
this is best left to a subcommittee and to interested educationists.
Personally, I think it calls for more emphasis on nature study in our
school curricula from the earliest stages.
6. Steps must be taken to see that poachers are really severely punished.
There is no point in passing resolutions and making laws if they cannot
be enforced.
In the final analysis it all depends on whether we, as a people, want to
save our wildlife or not. If we do not there is very little that Societies and
individuals can do in the matter.
Periavurrai Estate M.A. Khan
Munnar P.O., Kerala State, S. India, November 22, 1959.
[We fully agree with our correspondent that so far the Indian Board
for Wildlife has not been conspicuously effective in the purpose for
which it was constituted. Reports from all over the country continue
to confirm the fact that the wildlife position is steadily deteriorating;
poaching and illicit misuse of crop protection guns, and illegal
practices of every kind are on the increase. The members of the
Board have stressed again and again, at each successive meeting,
that perhaps our most pressing need at the present time is publicity
and educating the public to realize that our wildlife is a national
asset.
As our correspondent points out, it is quite true that the vast
majority of people are unaware of the very existence of the Wildlife
Board and of the work it is intended to be doing. In a country
where literacy is as low as in ours, the only effective way of educating
the public on the problems of wildlife and the need for its protection
would seem to be the movie film. Every successive meeting of the
Board has reiterated the urgent need for film documentaries on
Indian wildlife for countrywide 'plugging' in cinemas in an earnest
attempt to awaken interest in the problem. Yet, today, eight years
after the formation of the Wildlife Board, we are not yet aware that
any such film has been produced by the Films Division. If such a
film has been produced the secret has been well kept. We have not
heard of any one having seen it. The Society has certainly never
been consulted about its making as one would reasonably have
expected. It is obvious that the high-ups both in the Central and
State governments are not seriously interested in the problem.
Otherwise it is inconceivable that so little would be done about it.
It is a disheartening state of affairs and we can sympathize with
the pessimistic note struck in the last para above.]
journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 57 (1960), pp. 218-19.
Some Sorry Notes on Wildlife in N.W. Madhya Pradesh
In mid-December 1958,1 was invited to a week's shoot in one of the old
Rajputana States (now in northern Madhya Pradesh) and, as I had not
been into that country before, I gladly accepted.
Before, in and after we moved into camp we met the Sub-Divisional
Officer, the Collector of the District, and the District Superintendent of
Police, and in the course of our several conversations were jointly and
generally informed that shooting from cars and jeeps was permissible
and in fact the only manner in which shikar was practised. Our protest
against this form of 'sport' was politely turned aside as impracticable
and idealistic. More than one official claimed to have recently shot the
Great Indian Bustard.
Our camp was outside a village surrounded by cultivation, and a mile
away was a shallow ravine 50 to 200 yards wide and covered with thorny
scrub interspersed with the dhak (Butea monosperma). This was said to
hold tiger, and with the assistance of our host, the local landlord, three
beats were arranged, one necessitating the employment of almost a
hundred beaters. There were several tiger in the 5-mile length of the
ravine but the beats were all made in an amateurish and haphazard manner
and the animals never showed themselves. Chital were twice said to have
broken back but I did not see any animals at all. Beats were arranged in
forested areas further away with similar results, though chital, sambar,
and nilgai were seen. The beaters always included several persons armed
with muzzle-loading guns. The Indian Arms Act has recently come into
operation in this area and some of these guns were not yet covered by
any form of licence.
All tigers are termed cattle-lifters or man-eaters and receive no
protection at all and Government officers travelling in the districts carried
loaded weapons and shot at all they saw, both by day and night.
In this area, the slaughter of cattle is prohibited and there were fewer
goats and sheep than in any other place in India that I could remember.
The shortage of meat was acute and formed a problem to which I had
not had my attention so forcibly drawn before. Our host was a Jain
landlord, and the food which he very kindly sent to camp was entirely
vegetarian. The few partridge which we shot were not enough to prevent
everybody from becoming meat-hungry.
Attached to our camp was an enthusiastic shikari who had done a fair
amount of poaching when the shooting was controlled by the Ruler of
the State, and he now shot deer and antelope at night whenever a jeep or
other suitable conveyance was available.
On the first night we drove out in a jeep for about 10 miles and the
local shikaris immediately produced spotlights, operated on the car
battery, with which they searched the fields and forests in an expert
manner. With the greatest difficulty, shooting was restrained and in the
course of the drive we saw several small parties of nilgai and chital. They
were distinctly alarmed by the noise of the car, but once the light was on
them they could be approached within easy shooting distance. After we
failed to shoot anything in the beats, the local enthusiasts took over the
meat supply problem. They preferred to use our host's tractor rather the
jeep, for once the eyes were sighted, the animals could be approached in
a straight line, there being less need to go round nullahs and other
obstacles! The party left after supper and were back in two hours with a
chital stag and doe. Only two shots were fired, and another doe got
away wounded!
We were in one of the few parts of the country where tiger and deer
still existed in some numbers. But the tigers in the forest have been shot
out or driven into the scrub-covered ravines where a jeep cannot reach
them and which do not afford enough cover to the deer. The tigers have,
therefore, to pick up cattle from the adjoining villages while the deer
that have survived the shooting are in the forests separated by miles of
cultivation. Though relatively safe from the tigers, they come into the
fields at night and are indiscriminately shot whenever they can be seen
from jeeps or tractors. My experience is restricted to a relatively small
area, but it did appear that this anomalous distribution of tigers and
deer was widespread.
Unless the Indian Board for Wildlife is able to carry out more actively
the work which it has undertaken, both tiger and deer will be completely
gone in a few years. All officers no doubt have in their files cyclostyled
copies of the resolutions passed at the first meeting of the Board held in
1951, stating that wild animals should not be shot at night from cars
and listing the Great Indian Bustard as one of the birds which is in
urgent need of protection throughout the country.
Every year we hold a Wildlife Week, presumably to draw the attention
of the public to the resolutions of the Board, but seven years after the
setting up of the Board we have departmental heads of districtspersons
directly associated with the administration of the law and the carrying
out of the Board's resolutions so ardently endorsed by the President, the
Prime Minister, the Chief Ministers of Statesnot only ignorant of the
wildlife preservation laws but utterly callous and indifferent to their
enforcement when their attention is drawn to them.
The need of opening up more land for cultivation is admittedly making
things difficult for wildlife preservation, but there can be no doubt that
if an intelligent and practical approach is made we can solve the problem.
Last year 120,000 deer were shot by licence holders in the State of
California alone, but the report states that this was not enough and the
number left over for the following year will necessitate more deer being
shot to prevent there being more animals than the country can support.
No attempts at the census of wild animals, other than the lion in the
Gir, have been attempted in India, but though we have many areas
ecologically as good as those in California I wonder if the total number
of deer left: over the whole of India is anywhere near the number shot
there annually.
Bombay Natural History Society
91, Walkeshwar Road, Bombay 6
March 10, 1959.
Humayun Abdulali
Further Wildlife Notes from
Madhya PradeshA Rejoinder
In the August 1959 number Mr. Humayun Abdulali contributed a
miscellaneous note about methods of shooting and conservation of
wildlife in Madhya Pradesh (J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 56: 321-3). Mr.
Vidya Charan Shukla, M.P., in a letter to the Society, raised strong
objections to certain statements therein and some correspondence was
exchanged with Mr. Abdulali thereafter. Mr. Shukla wrote to the Editors
requesting that his letter be published and it was thought that certain
points from Mr. Abdulali's replies should also be reproduced. As, however,
personal elements had crept into the correspondence, the Editors decided
to publish a comprehensive editorial note embodying as objectively as
possible both points of view. Pending publication, however, Mr. Abdulali
is now a Joint Editor of the Journal and the Editors considered that in
fairness to Mr. Shukla his objections should be reproduced in his own
words without any comments thereon omitting only passages in the
nature of personal criticism. Mr. Shukla writes:
'In miscellaneous note No. 6 of Vol. 56, No. 2 of the Journal, Shri
Humayun Abdulali has made certain statements which are grossly
misleading and erroneous. As a person closely connected with hunting
and matters pertaining to wildlife, I consider it my duty to correct such
untrue reports.
I am the "Managing Director of one of the leading shikar agencies in
the country" who drove Shri Abdulali to Supkhar in Balaghat district to
join the party of Americans who had invited him.
We discussed wildlife and hunting, it being the topic of our mutual
interest, and naturally came to the subject of illicit shooting. Shri Abdulali
complained of shooting at night from jeeps with particular reference to
our staff. I explained him that when a tiger or a panther is wily and the
hunters fail to shoot it in a sit-up or beat and happen to cross it on a
night drive, when out looking for vermin, shooting of which is allowed
at nights from jeep, they step down with a spotlight from jeep, to hunt it
and the jeep is driven away.
There was no mention of spotlights being connected to the battery of
the jeep and the connecting wire being rolled all along the road or the
jeep being backed the prescribed distance of 100 yards in the dark. The
spotlights used at such times have self-contained batteries and the jeep is
reversed or turned according to the space available.
The entire purpose behind restricting shooting at night from jeeps is
to give a sporting chance to the animals and the method used by our
hunters on such occasions affords more chances and advantages to the
animals than in beats or sit-ups which are universally accepted methods
of sport.
From the way the shooting of bear and wild boar at night has been
described in the note, it will lead to think that it was illegal. Both these
animals are classed as 'vermin' and their shooting is permitted at night
from jeeps. Apart from the legal aspects of the night shooting of these
animals, their shooting whenever one gets a chance is morally just and
warranted. In the forests, 95% of mauling instances are by bears who
without any provocation attack villagers when they go to jungles to seek
their livelihood. Wild pig is the greatest destroyer of crops. If the wildlife
preservation is considered rationally on the basis of practical experiences
and circumstances as they exist, the number of such vermins will never
be allowed to grow uncontrolled under the protection of game laws to
the extent of being detrimental to "man and food".
Another thing Shri Abdulali has put in my mouth during my
conversation with him. From the way he has reported, it implies that we
had been breaking laws in the past. What I told him was that in the
earlier years of our business, our hunters did unwittingly shoot a few
animals in violation of game laws; but the redeeming factor was that the
matter was immediately brought to the notice of the forest authorities
and due punishment was meted out for the same. I had taken the trouble
to impress that such instances were due to inexperience of our staff and
now we have gained more experience, the cases of game law violation are
rare.
The note poses a question whether it is a wise policy to "sell" the
remains of our wildlife in the temptation of earning a few more dollars.
A critical study of the problem of wildlife preservation at first hand will
show that the real menace to our wildlife is from poaching by our own
people over which neither any control is beirig exercised nor is being
desired; and not from hunting by foreigners who without exception
shoot only on valid permits and strictly restricted number of animals
allowed to them. A complete watch on their shooting is always kept.
The wildlife preservation will never assume the importance it deserves
unless it shows immediate economic benefits and shikar tourism from
abroad gives a certain economic value to our well-stocked forests. Mr.
Abdulali himself admits the well-stocking of our forests when he says
the party, whose guest he was shot its quota in 10 days; but did they in
any way exceed the game limit allowed to them? How are they or other
foreign hunters guilty of destroying wildlife if they shoot within the
limits allowed to them which is set by the Forest Department after a
survey of the wildlife population? No country in the world has stopped
sport-hunting to protect its common run of wildlife for the obvious
reason that essentially the hunters who particularly understand the
wildlife preservation problem have its interest in their hearts.'
Bombay Natural History Society,
91, Walkeshwar Road, Bombay 6
November 1, I960
Editors
These were bits and pieces of really interesting conversation,
dialogue, and letters from a variety of people about the state of
what was happening all over forest India. Let us not forget that in
1960 V.C. Shukla was the owner of a hunting travel agency and
was a reputed hunter. He did not know then that in the decade of
the 1960s he would be a Cabinet minister serving Indira Gandhi.
And very quickly all his hunting exploits would stop.
The 1960s were the worst time for India' s forests and wildlife.
This decade revealed the horrors of the 50s. P.D. Stracey in his
book, Wildlife in India looks at the crisis of these years:
This book has been compiled as the result of an urge to contribute
something towards the saving of the wildlife of India before it is too late.
As one who has been both a shikari and a conservationist throughout a
career as a forest officer in Assam and who has witnessed, heard and read
of the destruction of wildlife at an increasingly rapid pace during the
past few years while being associated with measures for its conservation,
I have become gradually filled with the realisation that the situation is
rapidly deteriorating to the point of no recovery. As a practical
administrator I have often been impatient with mere words and latterly
I have increasingly felt that while considerable planning for the
preservation of wildlife is in the air not much of it is reaching the ground
fast enough to be of use. This compilation is admittedly a mere collection
of 'words' but if it can contribute some stimulus to the campaign of
saving India's wildlife, it is as much as one can hope for under the
circumstances.
What India's wildlife now needs is an attempt at a reasoned argument
for its correct management and a large plea for its preservationand
this is what the book attempts.
The decline started and with greater rapidity from about the middle
of the 19
th
century with the increase in the number of sporting weapons
and the development, in succession, of the large-bore rifle in 1840 and
the express rifle in I860. The early British army officers, tea planters
and the civil servants were, in many cases, heavy despoilers of game. The
records prove it. Eighty lions were shot by one cavalry officer in Kathiawar
in those days; today there are no lions left in that part of the country.
Fourteen lions were once shot in the Gir forest in one day. In Central
India and Hyderabad two hundred and twenty-seven tigers were killed
by a British sportsman up to 1903 and one hundred and forty-seven by
another in the Central Provinces during a service life which ended in
1930. In the Oriental Sporting Magazine of 1876 it is recorded that a
sportsman in the Bengal Dooars, probably a planter, fired about one
hundred shots at rhinoceroses in one day, killing five and wounding
more than twenty-five. In Assam Colonel Pollock, a military engineer,
engaged in laying out roads in the Brahmaputra valley, practically shot a
rhino or a buffalo for breakfast everyday, to judge from the descriptions
he has left! F.B. Simson, author of Sport in Eastern Bengal shot five to six
hundred tigers in twenty-one years in India, towards the end of the last
century.
It was not long before the infection spread to the then ruling princes.
In the shoots organised by Maharajah Nripendra Narayan of Cooch
Behar between 1871 and 1907, no less than 370 tigers, 208 rhinoceroses,
430 buffaloes and 324 barasingha deer were shot, in addition to many
other animals. The late Maharajah of Rewa shot 616 tigers during his
life time while the Maharajah of Surguja, who is still alive, holds the
record with 1116 tigers. Nor was the destruction confined to animals
and to tigers in particular. In Kashmir one sportsman accounted for
58,613 wild fowl between the years 1907 to 1919 or an average of over
4500 birds per annum. In the 1938 shoot at the Keoladeo Ghana of
Bharatpur for the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, 4273 ducks and geese were
killed, the Viceroy himself firing 1900 shots. In Bikaner the record for
the shooting of Imperial Sandgrouse at the Gajnar Lake was 11,000
birds with thirty-five guns in two days. Such figures stagger the
imagination and are quoted here solely in the interests of conservation.
This period of'grow-more-food', coming as it did close on the heels
of the war years when heavy depletion of wildlife stocks took place in
many parts of India wherever armies were encamped for training or for
fighting, has been indeed disastrous for our animals and birds and it is
safe to say that more damage has resulted in the last fifteen years than in
the previous one hundred and fifty.
To the cumulative effect of the war and the expansion of agriculture
that followed it must be added that large numbers of gun licences have
been issued since the securing of independence. Under the British
administration such gun issues were restricted, for obvious reasons, but
with the passing of the power into the hands of the people it was but
natural to expect a much greater degree of leniency in the consideration
of applications for weapon licences, whether for display, sport or crop
protection. The inevitable result has been the development of a new
type of sportsman with a new set of sporting values, whose influence on
the status of wildlife has been profound. And when in addition we
consider the deadly potentialities of the mighty little jeep in the
countryside, one may well doubt the chances of large-scale survival of
wildlife.
When the cultivator going to his fields in the morning can no longer
see the blackbuck doe kicking up her heels at her lord and master with
the beautiful spiral horns, or when he can no longer flush the partridge
or junglefowl feeding on the verges; when his womenfolk going to collect
firewood from the forests can no longer come across the scrapings of a
bear or the imprint in the dust of the leopard or tiger that has passed in
the night, they will have lost something that can never be replaced!
Fortunately for wildlife, Indian agriculture has not yet reached the
stage where thousands of acres are cultivated by machinery and where
there are no trees, shrubs or weedy patches to break the monotony. 'Clean
farming' is a much more important and insidious enemy of wildlife
than are the natural predators. Field crops grow better, especially in a
dry climate, when fields are not too extensive and are bordered by trees,
shrubs or tall grasses to break the winds that dry out and disperse the
soil.
The need for increasing food production for human consumption in
India is well recognised but crop specialists agree that much bigger results
can be obtained by selecting better seed and through the use of fertilizers
and modern cultivation methods rather than by clearance and ploughing
up of every 'marginal' jungle patch, no matter how poor the soil and
deficient the water. To the extent to which this is recognized, many species
of wildlife will prosper accordingly.
As regards available legislation, this will be dealt with in more detail
subsequently but generally speaking the Wild Birds and Animals
Protection Act or the game laws or shooting rules under the Indian Forest
Act, combined with the Arms Act rules, are adequate for protection of
wildlife both outside and inside reserved and protected forests, provided
there is a determined and efficient machinery to enforce it. While the
forest department is specifically in charge within the managed forests,
'what is everybody's business is nobody's business' may well be said of
the wildlife protective machinery in areas outside such forests in India.
The civil and police departments, whose function it is to administer the
Arms Act rules and the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act where it
exists, are generally woefully ignorant of the rules and regulations and
far too preoccupied with other duties to pay much attention to game
protection. Looking back one can cite many incidents to illustrate this.
In India unless more realistic and positive steps are taken and as
speedily as possible, there will be no wildlife left to protect in areas outside
the managed forests in a few years and the only stocks of wildlife will be
found in the reserved and protected forests, in which are included the
sanctuaries and national parks. Even here the comparatively stringent
provisions of the Indian Forest Act require necessary modification to
suit altered conditions and the normal, long-established system of
protection embodied in the forest departments requires reinforcement
by special staff. Elsewhere, wildlife can continue to exist only if public
opinion is favourable and it is dependent to very large extent on public
cooperation. To secure this a cadre of honorary wildlife wardens from
among the public should be built up and a vigorous campaign of publicity
and education, particularly among the youth of the country, launched.
Lastly, while these measures may be expected to improve conditions
in the managed forests and the areas adjoining them, certain long-term
measures of insurance are to be implemented, such as the declaration of
certain species as protected in areas where they are threatened, their
reintroduction into areas from which they have disappeared and the
creation of sanctuaries and national parks wherever conditions permit.
The main responsibility for all these measures to 'rescue' wildlife will, of
course, rest with the forest departments of the States but in this task the
assistance, cooperation and sympathy of the civil administration is
essential.
In India, the real threat to wildlife and to game animals in particular,
has been the great increase in the number of firearms as the result of a
much more liberal policy in the issue of licences to possess weapons,
partly as the result of political emancipation and partly for protection of
crops in the context of grow-more-food schemes. But fundamentally it
is a question of a too rapid increase in population. This has particularly
affected the areas outside the Government forests but its general effect
has been severe. At the present rate of increase in population there will
soon be no room for animals.
The political situation consequent on the merging of the princely
states resulted in severe depletion of game stocks, particularly of meat
animals, in most of these areas. Most of the twenty-four covenanting
states of Rajasthan had game laws of their own and the rulers enforced
protection rigidly, though admittedly for the sake of shikar and in some
cases at the expense of the crops of the people. In Indore city there were
once several thousand antelopes which peacefully grazed where the present
aerodrome is situated. In Rajasthan were found the true sanctuaries: in
Dholpur, for instance, the Maharajah had conditioned animals and birds
to feed from his hand and in Udaipur deer and wild pig would come to
the call for feeding with grain at sundown, in an almost religious ritual.
In Patiala there was a well-run game department and thousands of
blackbuck could once be seen near the town. Overnight the game laws
were abolished along with the State game departments and with the
merging of the latter with the forest departments the strict care and
protection disappeared and the thousands of animals that could once be
seen in certain areas also disappeared. This is one of the less glorious, if
more obscure, results of independence and the disappearance of the
princely order.
The first and most urgent measure is to control the use of crop-
protection guns so that they are only used for the purpose for which
they are granted and in the correct season. Their withdrawal in the areas
where danger to crops is insignificant or where the danger is seasonal
should be enforced.
Owners of crop-protection guns and all patta-holders living on the
edges of forests should be categorically warned that harbouring of outside
meat hunters on their land will result in cancellation of their licences
and this should be acted upon.
An efficient organisation with a system of rewards for informers should
be established between the civil and forest departments, which must
both play their part to maintain check over poaching.
Issue of gunpowder and ammunition to licensees should be curtailed
and the sale of 'buck-shot' banned or severely controlled by district
authorities.
A system of rewards and accelerated promotions to lower categories
of civil and police officers who detect and report offences against the
arms act or game laws should be applied.
The trade in netted birds should be abolished or strictly licensed and
the serving of game birds in restaurants or their stocking in cold-storage
establishments in the close seasons prohibited.
What is really needed is greater vigilance in enforcing the rules of the
weapon licences by civil and police authorities. If in addition the forest
department introduces more effective protection of the government
forests with increased and special staff, the damage now being done by
illicit shooting, abuse of the close seasons and killing of protected species
and prohibited sexes, can greatly be reduced. All these measures should
be accompanied by a vigorous campaign of propaganda and publicity in
favour of preservation of game species and conservation of wildlife in
general, particularly among the youth of the country.
The sale of the meat of wild animals should be banned, for it must be
recognised that such is no longer essential for human existence, as may
have been the case when man was more primitive. But even if this is not
practicable, stricter control of this trade is essential. Close seasons must
be observed and sales in the open season must have some indication that
it is the flesh of a mature male deer, such as the display of the antlers, to
satisfy the law. In most cases of vending of meat of wild animals, the
forest officer is powerless to act unless there are definite rules under the
Forest Act defining such meat as 'forest produce' within the meaning of
the law, transit rules under which such produce can be moved only under
a permit and with a transit pass or challan and legal provision under
which the onus of proof as regards origin of the forest produce lies on
the suspect. In most States such dovetailing legal machinery is absent
and it is necessary to amend the forest acts and rules in order to secure
greater protection for 'meat animals'.
Another direction from which wildlife is seriously threatened is that
which is tied up with the habits of certain primitive groups of peoples,
such as the Hos and Santhals of Bihar, the Baigas and Gonds of Madhya
Pradesh, the Bhils of Bombay, the Kurubas of Mysore, the Chenchus of
Andhra, the Pardis and Poligars of Madras, and the Hacharis and other
tribes of Assam. These aboriginal tribes, whose passion is hunting, have
practically laid waste their jungles in the matter of wildlife and as their
diet is practically omnivorous the damage is general and not confined
only to the customarily recognised meat animal. The large number of
man-eaters reported recently from parts of Orissa can quite easily be
accounted for by the destruction of their natural prey, deer and pig, by
these people. Tribal people employ dogs and fire to drive game and all
manner of traps and devices to capture animals and birds and are expert
marksmen with the bow and arrow. The use of birdlime to capture birds
is probably the most destructive method and one that takes toll
indiscriminately. The Kacharis of Assam stretch a long, wide-meshed
net across the countryside and then drive game into it; everything living
that runs into the net is killed with spears and staves. Other tribes like
the Mikirs of Assam poison water with the bark of certain climbers and
kill all the fish in the locality. In the North Cachar Hills of Assam there
is a practice of destroying birds which are attracted to fires lit at night at
certain times of the year for the purpose. The Nagas of Assam have
virtually exterminated wildlife, even birds, in their hills particularly since
the war when large quantities of weapons came into their possession.
There is no longer any room for these primitive and destructive tribal
practices and their eradication is an essential step in the restoration of
wildlife in certain parts of the country, though it is realised that this
may, as in certain cases like the traditional 'hakwa shikar' of the Hos of
Bihar or 'Parad' of the Bastar tribes, impinge on tribal ways of life and
result in some curtailment of supplies of meat. Rehabilitation of the
several tribes scattered over India who are professional bird and animal
trappers and killers and of those tribes who at present live on hunting
and forest produce is urgently called for.
Turning to the details of the legislation, we find that wildlife in India
had received a fair amount of protection under British administrators.
The Indian Forest Act (1879, 1927, 1950) and its adaptations in
States is administered by the forest departments and gives basic protection
to wildlife in reserved and protected forests as follows:
Prohibition of shooting, fishing and poisoning water, setting of traps
and snares: Section 26(1) Reserved Forests, Section 32(J) Protected
Forests.
Prohibition of killing or capturing of elephants or capturing of
elephants in areas where the Elephant Preservation Act of 1879 is not in
force: Section 33(J) Protected Forests, Section 26(J) Reserved Forests.
The penalties under these sections are imprisonment for a term up to
six months or fine up to Rs 500, or both, vide Section 26 for Reserved
Forests and Section 32 for Protected Forests. The State Governments
may make rules 'generally to carry out the provision of the Act' under
Section 76.
The power to compound offences on payment by a person, against
whom a 'Reasonable suspicion exists of having committed a forest
offence', of a sum of money not exceeding Rs 50 by way of compensation
for the offence, is vested by notification with forest officers of rank not
inferior to that of a Ranger and drawing a monthly salary of not less
than Rs 100, under Section 68 of the Act.
In addition to the Indian Forest Act there was the 1887 Act for the
Preservation of Wild Birds and Game, or the 'Wild Birds and Animals
Protection Act' as it became in 1912. This Act is applicable to all types
of areas and in areas outside the reserves is administered by the civil and
police departments of the States to which it has been extended, though
in reality it is a dead letter. The Act applies in the first instance to certain
specified wild birds and animals notified from time to time and close
seasons are declared for them as considered necessary. The penalties under
the Act are fine up to Rs 50 and for every subsequent conviction,
imprisonment up to one month or fine up to Rs 100, or both. Nothing
done in defence of property or of human life is an offence, however,
confiscation of the animal or bird may be ordered in addition to the
punishments. Besides these acts, certain special pieces of legislation have
been in existence for some time, such as the Elephant Preservation Act
of 1879, the Indian Fisheries Act of 1897, the Assam Rhinoceros
Preservation Act and the Bengal Rhinoceros Protection Act.
As the result of the impetus given to wildlife conservation in recent
years after the formation of the Indian Board of Wildlife, some State
Governments have been overhauling their wildlife legislation. The
Bombay Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act of 1951 is an advanced
piece of legislation, which has been recommended as a model for other
States, and some mention of it is necessary here.
There is great need for the rewriting of the rules concerning wildlife
and their compilation in handy book form to show the close seasons,
protected species, and prohibited sexes for ready reference. If drawings
or photographs illustrating the various species and their local names are
added it will greatly assist in their identification. Among the public
generally there is great ignorance of the rules while among officials and
even staff of the forest departments, there is both ignorance and
indifference, which is not aided by inscrutability of the rules in question.
Some States publish their rules in handy book form, but they are
practically repetitions of the legal provisions and schedules under the
act and require considerable study to be clearly understood by the average
person. What is wanted is a brief but adequate presentation of all the
restrictions on the destruction of wild life in a form that can be readily
comprehended.
What is important is the absence of a special organisation to protect
wildlife in areas outside reserved and protected forests and in this respect
the African models are worthy of imitation. When the onerous duties of
the existing forest departments and the impossibility of their being able
to deal adequately with wildlife protection is appreciated, the seriousness
of the position will be realised. Unless the enforcement of existing
protective laws is improved the situation will continue to deteriorate
until in a short time there will be no wildlife left outside the Government
forests, while inside them it will be greatly reduced.
The need for publicity and education in the service of wildlife is
urgent. One of the greatest obstacles in India which the wildlife enthusiast
has to face is the comparatively uneducated state of the very class of
society which he has to convince of the utility of wildlife and the need to
preserve it, the man in the street and particularly the rural dweller. And
yet it is certain that wildlife can survive only if the people wish it to do
so. Top-level planning for conservation of wildlife can be thorough and
far reaching but if it is not accompanied by adequate publicity,
propaganda and education, the effect will be lost.
Side by side with a strong policy of enforcement of wildlife legislation
there should be an intensive campaign of propaganda and publicity,
designed to remove false ideas with regard to wild animals and birds and
their exaggerated harmful effects on man, his crops and his kin and at
the same time to convince people in regard to the need for conservation
of wildlife for inherent values. This propaganda must be honest and
there must be no attempt to conceal or distort facts, while at the same
time it must be scientifically based to convince people. It must be
particularly aimed at India's youth and the village and rural dweller,
who lives more close to wildlife than the educated sportsman. The latter
should undertake the task by banding themselves into associations for
the preservation of wildlife and for propaganda and education on the
need for it. Such propaganda and education can succeed most if directed
at the youth of the country, for the 'youth of today are the conservationists
of tomorrow.
Wildlife in India: Its Conservation and Control, P.D. Stracey, IFS, 1963.
It was by early 1964 that E.P. Gee's book The Wildlife of India
got published. This, to me, signifies the end of the Nehru era and
the beginning of the Gandhi era. E.P. Gee was very clear about
how he perceived the end of 1950's. Let us look at an extract from
this book:
As I see it, there can be no doubt that, at the present rate of cutting
vegetation, overgrazing by domestic stock and killing of wild animals in
India, by the time public opinion can rally in support of wise conservation
of wildlife there will be practically nothing left to conserve. There will
be very little wildlife left by the year AD 2000, only thirty-six years from
now, except in zoological gardens.
The first to go will, generally speaking, be the large mammals and
birds, especially those which are edible. Smaller mammals and birds,
particularly the latter which can escape by flying, will be the last to
disappear.
Imagine the year 2000, with the only wildlife consisting of those
creatures which can adapt themselves easily to thickly populated areas,
such as jackals, rats, mice, vultures, pariah and Brahminy kites, crows
and sparrows!
How the inhabitants of the future would miss the lovely sight of a
snowy white cattle egret gracefully alighting on the back of a rhino placidly
grazing among the flowering reeds and grasses of Kaziranga! What would
the Gir Forest be like if, bereft of its stunted trees, there were no noble
lions and lionesses with their cubs to enrich our lives? Can one imagine
Bandipur without its magnificent 'bison', or Periyar without its lordly
elephants, or Kanha without its elegant swamp deer? Or Bharatpur
without its wonderful congregation of breeding waterbirds?
If the spectacular tiger, the proud peacock and all the other splendid
denizens of the forests and grasslands were to cease to exist, then how
dull life would be!
If nature conservation could be considered important in India as long
ago as 300 BC and 242 BC, it should surely be accepted as a first-priority
necessity at the present time. The existence of a sound nature and wildlife
conservation organisation in a country is a reliable indication of a stage
of a country's progress and development. There is very good chance that
the leaders, planners and people of India will see the 'writing on the
wall', and that they will not fail today in their duty of preserving the
country's heritage of forests and fauna for those of tomorrow.
It was this piece of E.P. Gee that really brings the Nehru era
to an end. We need to briefly examine for a moment what Nehru
said and did for the forests and wildlife of India from 1947 to
1964. Jawaharlal Nehru was a great statesman but did he have any po-
litical will for saving forest India?
His first words that I was able to find on the subject were in
March 1949 at the annual convocation of the Forest Research
Institute in Dehradun: 'I am a lover of mountains and forests and
birds and animals that live in them. I am keenly interested in
India' s forests and in their playing a full part in promoting the
prosperity of the country.' In 1956 he stated:
Our forests are essential for us from many points of view. Let us
preserve them as it is. We have destroyed them far too much. It is
true that as population grows, the need for greater food production
becomes necessary. But this should be by more intensive cultivation
and not by the destruction of the forests, which play a vital part in
the nation's economy.
Somehow I am convinced that Nehru did not do enough for
the forests of India. In his foreword to E.P. Gee's The Wildlife of
India, Nehru quoted from his own writing in 1956:
Wildlife? That is how we refer to the magnificent animals of our
jungles and the beautiful birds that brighten our lives. I wonder
sometimes what these animals and birds think of man and how they
would describe him if they had the capacity to do so. I rather doubt
if their description would be very complimentary to man. In spite
of our culture and civilization, in many ways man continues to be
not only wild, but more dangerous than any of the so-called wild
animals ... I welcome this new interest in India in the preservation
of wildlife. I cannot say that we should preserve that form of wildlife
which is a danger in our civilized haunts or which destroys our crops.
But life would become very dull and colourless if we did not have
these magnificent animals and birds to look at and to play with. We
should, therefore, encourage as many sanctuaries as possible for
preservation of what yet remains of our wildlife.
From 1947 to 1964the Nehru-erawildlife had been mauled
to the brink of extinction in India. Nehru' s understanding of the
issues was simplistic and limited. It was 'their beauty' which was
commented on and from a distance. In a way for him this was not
a priority area and this is one of the primary reasons that forests
and wildlife suffered at this timeit was and will always be re-
membered as an era of exploitation. Indira Gandhi would soon
be in power and the attitudinal differences between father and
daughter were remarkably like the difference between the sky
and the earth.
Nehru in his younger days had by fluke killed a bear in
Kashmir and then an incident with a little antelope that fell
wounded at his feet and died left him little ardour for blood sports
and shikar. He talks of the antelope and states: 'This harmless
little animal fell down at my feet wounded to death and looked
up at me with its great big eyes full of tears. Those eyes have
often haunted me since.'
I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky that Nehru was
not a hunter. A typical example of his address on forests and
wildlife issues is to be found in 1958. In his inaugural address to
the third session of the Indian Board for Wildlife at New Delhi on
15 February, 1958 he said:
I am very glad of this opportunity of paying my tribute to the
importance of the work you have in hand. There are present here, I
presume, experts on the subject and I am no expert and my only
qualification for being here today is my love of animals and birds
and I am often not only surprised but greatly distressed at the general
lack of interest in the subject in this country. Of course, there are
plenty of individuals who take interest, but broadly speaking, it is
not one that interests people here. I don't feel it is the fault of the
people so much as perhaps the lack of opportunity for directing
their minds to it and the first thing that I have, therefore, to suggest
to you is that your Board should produce good readable books on
the subjectbooks for children, because presumably if the grown-
ups have not thus far developed a love of animals, they are not likely
to do so, they become rigid in their thinking. But children normally
take to them and if encouraged will develop great interest.
Therefore, I do hope that your Board will help in producing
good books not only for the experts but for common folk like me
and more especially for children, which we could publish in our
various national languages in this country; and it is obvious that
books on animals and birds must have coloured pictures. I want a
large number of interesting little books to come out for our children
of various agesfrom the earliest period to the High Schools and
Colleges. So this is an idea that I have placed before you for
consideration. I believe you are doing something of this kind. I am
told a book on birds is likely to come out one of these days. There
are in fact other books too. But I am just a little bit afraid that those
of you who are experts in this matter will write for other experts and
not for people like me and that will be very unfortunate because
what we seek is to interest people generally.
Why? Well, for a variety of reasons; one is that it is an interesting
subject. It gives certain fullness to a person's life to know, to feel
intimate with, animals, birds, trees and flowers. We lack that. It is
astonishing how much we lack compared to other countries. As my
colleague the Minister said, we have lost all our capacity for interest
in them by placing some animals on pedestals and saying that they
ought to be worshipped. Anything that you worship you forget.
Now it is far better to be friendly with somebody than worship him.
I want people to be friendly with birds.
Now our Chairman said something about the balance in nature,
the equilibrium established between animals, plants and birds. I
remember his writing to me some months ago expressing his great
concern at the way we are going in for big projects, River Valley
Projects or other matters.
These great projects that we have, must necessarily interfere to
some extent with the economy of the nature there. Of course, the
increase of human population interferes very much with it and I
fear that there is little remedy for this and unless, of course, some
adequate way is found to limit the increase of human population,
because otherwise they will not only eat up all the animals but they
may sometimes eat up themselves too.
So I hope that your Board will not only study these problems
and learn much and increase your own knowledge about them but
consider yourselves responsible as well, I consider one of your duties,
to inform the people of India about these problems, to interest them.
You should come down from expert level to the level of the common
people so that they can understand and thus increase their interest
in wild life. You should contact our people and tell them to know all
the animals, to play with them, to love them and not to worship
them.
These were the first years of the Indian Board for Wildlife.
1
Yet irrespective of his limited understanding Nehru tried
and much more than the political leadership of today.
Reports of wholesale slaughter of wildlife, including the rare
great Indian bustard and chinkara gazelles, by military personnel
led the vice-president of India' s foremost natural history society
1. See Appendix III.
to write to the defence minister. A copy of the letter was sent to
the prime minister who replied on 17 April, 1961:
I received your letter of the 7
th
April some days ago. I immediately
got in touch with our Defence Minister on the subject and I
understand that he is not only enquiring into the matter, but had
forbidden the vandalism to which you refer. I am glad you wrote
and drew my attention to this.
(As a result of the report which the defence minister received from
the army headquarters on the above subject, detailed instructions
for the prevention of a recurrence of this violation of shooting
rules were issued. The defence minister also instructed naval and
air headquarters to see that similar instructions were issued to
their personnel.)
The honorary secretary of India' s foremost natural history
society forwarded a note to Jawaharlal Nehru describing most
alarming poaching and other forms of illegal ' sport' committed
by many people including government officers (sometimes high-
ranking ones) in a certain state of eastern India. He replied on 24
February, 1962:
I have received your letter of the 22
nd
February and have read the
note attached to it. I am distressed to read what you have written. I
am writing to the ... Government on the subject and shall also later
draw the attention of other Governments.
I am afraid the Central Government cannot take charge of this
matter as this would involve an amendment to the Constitution.
But I think we can do something about it.
In his letter dated 24 February, 1962 to the chief minister of
the state concerned he wrote:
I have received information that wildlife is not being protected
properly in ... and is consequently rapidly disappearing. The
Officers, far from looking after wildlife in the National Parks and
Sanctuaries, treat them as shooting reserves for themselves and V.I.Ps.
Much else has been written to me, and it has been written by a
responsible person belonging to the ... Natural History Society. I
am much distressed to learn of all this, and I think something drastic
should be done to stop this business. I hope you will do so. It may
be desirable to warn the ... Officers that any complaint of this kind
coming will entail heavy punishment and even dismissal. I am told
that a ... Commissioner judged of the efficiency of officers by the
amount of poaching they arranged for him, and recorded his
confidential remarks accordingly.
On July 1962 Nehru said:
When I see a healthy tree being cut, it pains me. It is as if the head of
a human being is been cut. Those who cut trees should be punished
and it would be better if there is a law to punish those who cut
healthy trees.
I am surprised at the ignorance generally displayed by the people
towards things of nature. We must learn to love and understand
nature and feel ourselves one with it. We have always feared nature
and even worshipped it but the important thing is to understand
nature and love it. We then find friends in the trees, flowers, birds
and stars and our circle of friends grows.
At the end of 1963, a lady in England who had been born and
brought up in India (her father was a forest officer) sent an
impassioned appeal to Jawaharlal Nehru for energetic measures
to be taken ' now, quickly, at once, before it is too lateto remind
the nation of their unique heritage and possession, the forests and
the wild animals and birds that live in them. I do beg you all to
protect these things, to patrol the areas, to enforce your excellent
laws, and to make new laws too to save the precious possession
you now have, but which is being rapidly destroyed. Save your
treasure. The last chance is now.
On 4 January, 1964 Nehru replied. 'Your letter of the 14
th
November came to me some time ago. I quite agree with you that
we should make special efforts to preserve our wildlife. I am
reminding State Governments about this.'
As a result of this, a letter dated 10 January, 1964 was addressed
by his principal private secretary to the chief secretaries to all the
state governments as follows:
I am desired by the Prime Minister to send you the enclosed copy of
a letter dated November 14
th
1963 from Mrs ... of England, in
connection with the protection of wildlife in India. With her letter
she has forwarded a cutting from the ... dated October 8
th
1963
under the caption 'Mass Murder in the Jungle' written by ... a copy
of which is also enclosed. The Prime Minister entirely agrees with
Mrs ... that the laws relating to the protection of wildlife should be
strictly enforced to avoid indiscriminate shooting resulting in the
extinction of rare specimens of wildlife. He would like the State
Governments to issue necessary instructions in this regard.
Some of the last words he uttered on wildlife was in February
1964 when he was not well and in his concluding paragraph to
E.P. Gee's book on Indian Wildlife he wrote:
I hope this book will help in furthering interest in this fascinating
subject among our young people. I agree with the author that it is
much more exciting and difficult to 'shoot' with a camera than with
a gun and wish that more and more adventurous young men would
give up the gun in favour of the camera. We must try to preserve
whatever is left of our forests and the wildlife that inhabits them.
In my opinion there was much rhetoric by Nehru but little action
resulted in the field over the seventeen years that he ruled. In
these seventeen years the loss of forest and wildlife was enormous.
In fact it was much worse than any other time in the British period.
India probably lost in this period more of her natural treasures
forever than at any other time in the last century.
It was soon after this moment that the American Zoologist
George Schaller completed his first ever study on the Indian tiger
in Kanha National Park in Madhya Pradesh. He made some
pertinent comments after the first ever scientific study on the tiger.
This was the same area that Dunbar Brander had advocated to be
made a reserve in the 1930s. This is what Schaller wrote:
Independence ushered in a period of destruction that could almost
be compared to the slaughter on the American prairies in the 1880s.
Rejecting shooting regulations as a form of colonial repression and
released from restraint, Indians shot down wildlife everywhere,
including sanctuaries and private estates. As a result of food shortages
the government initiated a national drive to protect crops from
depredation of wild animals, and guns were issued freely to farmers,
an action which literally doomed almost all animals near cultivation.
For instance, G. Singh, Conservator of Forest in Punjab, wrote to
me in 1964: 'Blackbuck was found in large number in central and
southern parts of Punjab state until 15 years ago. Then it was treated
as a crop pest and killed in large numbers. This resulted in virtual
extermination of the species.' A new type of hunter emerged, too, a
motorized one who drove jeeps along forest roads at night and shot
at any eyes that reflected the beam of his light. For about five years
the destruction continued unabated. In 1951 Bombay state passed
the Wild Animals and Wild Birds Protection Act; in 1952 the Indian
Board for Wildlife was formed and in 1958 the Wildlife Preservation
Society of India. Conditions improved slowly with each state
government making serous attempts to preserve its fauna and to
strengthen the existing shooting regulations. A number of fine but
small reserves were established. But enforcement against poaching
on the local level remained inadequate, with the result that the wildlife
continued in its decline.
Coupled with the outright destruction of wildlife by shooting
was the indirect method of eliminating the habitat. As late as the
sixteenth century, rhinoceros, elephant, buffalo, and other animals
characteristic of fairly moist conditions occurred in parts of western
India that are now covered with dry thorn scrub (Rao, 1957),
indicating a rapid destruction of the habitat undoubtedly caused by
misuse of the land by man (Puri, 1960). Chinese pilgrims in A.D.
600 talked of the dark jungles in the Gangetic basin, and even with
virgin forest (Robertson, 1936). Today, the heavily populated
Gangetic basin retains sizable patches of forest only at the base of
the Himalayas, areas that were uninhabitable earlier because of
malaria. Tremendous tracts of grass and reeds in the valley of the
Brahmaputra River were put under the plough, and Kaziranga
Sanctuary remains as one of the few remnants of a habitat that once
covered thousands of square miles. Forests were cleared throughout
India for cultivation, and the timber was cut for use in railroad
construction. After Independence the drive for more food and the
unchecked increase in the population resulted in the cultivation of
most marginal land. The natural vegetation cover of India is forest,
but less than a quarter of the country is still covered with it.
A great scourge of India's land is the vast numbers of domestic
animals which are undernourished, diseased, and unproductive, yet
are permitted to exist for religious reasons. The plains of West Bengal,
for instance, had in 1961 a human population of 1,031 per square
mile and a cattle population of 351 per square mile. The animals
received only one third of their estimated daily nutritional
requirements, and annual mortality due to disease was about 15 per
cent (Anon., 1962). India had an estimated 204 million cattle and
buffaloes and 94 million goats and sheep in 1956, of which 21
million of the former and 13 million of the latter grazed exclusively
in the forests (Venkataramany, 1961). Livestock is permitted to graze
without restrictions in virtually all forests and most sanctuaries, and
serious damage to the vegetation culminating in widespread erosion
is common particularly in the thorn and deciduous forests. The
carrying capacity of many forest areas and other uncultivated lands
is so far exceeded by livestock alone that a substantial amount of
wildlife could not support itself even if it were protected from
shooting.
Livestock diseases, especially rinderpest and foot-and-mouth
disease, also affect the wild ruminants. There are numerous records
of gaur, chital, and others contracting diseases from cattle and dying
in large numbers, whole populations having been wiped out in this
manner (Brander, 1923, Ali, 1953). The health of domestic and
wild hoofed animals is mainly a function of the quality of the range,
and animals in poor condition as a result of malnutrition become
highly susceptible to parasites and disease, making the problems of
range condition and disease inseparable.
In one hundred years the combination of land clearing,
uncontrolled slaughter, habitat destruction by livestock, and disease
have reduced one of the world's great wildlife populations to a small
remnant. Yet in spite of a realization that wildlife represents the
country's fastest vanishing asset, no detailed studies of any kind have
been attempted on the large mammals.
India's wildlife has reached a critical stage in its survival, and
the country is fortunate in possessing a sanctuary like Kanha Park,
where a remnant of the peninsular fauna still exists in fair number.
The park is large enough and ecologically varied enough to support
a considerable wildlife population on a permanent basis, especially
since the forests surrounding it provide a buffer zone between the
park and the heavily cultivated parts of the district. As a potential
tourist attraction the tiger has few equals among animals. And the
park as a whole can provide future generations with a view of how
their country once looked before the forests were overexploited for
timber and overgrazed by livestock and before much of the wildlife
fell to the poachers gun. The park can also become a study area
unaffected by man's influence where the interrelationships between
species and many other ecological problems can be investigated. A
national park represents a specialized form of land use in which,
ideally, the native flora and fauna are permitted to exist undisturbed
by man. This in particular should apply to the predators, which
have aroused the antipathy of man for centuries and have as a result
been needlessly persecuted on the slightest pretext. Certain
management practices in a park are sometimes necessary, and these
should of course be based on a thorough study of the situation and
be directed at the principal and not the superficial cause of a problem.
The evidence presented in this report, for example, indicates that
poaching and not tiger predation has been the general cause of the
decline of the wildlife in the park. The most effective means of
managing the tiger is obviously to manage the prey, which in turn
means: (1) curtailing the activity of poachers, and (2) limiting and
gradually eliminating all livestock form within the boundaries of
the park. Only after these two tasks have been accomplished, and all
forms of wildlife haven been substantially increased, will the park
be able to fulfil its unique potential as a living museum and natural
laboratory. Above all, Kanha Park is part of India's cultural heritage,
a heritage in many ways more important than the Taj Mahal and the
temples of Khajuraho, because, unlike these structures formed by
the hands of man, once destroyed it can never be replaced.
G.B. Schaller, The Deer and the Tiger.
Schaller was again using the same example as Jepson had used in
the 1930s for a comparison with the Taj Mahal. Thank god that
Kanha still remains a jewel of a national park. Schaller's work on
the wild tigers of Kanha was remarkable.
E.P. Gee reacted in those days to George Schaller's book, The
Deer and the Tiger and stated:
For the first time on this sub-continent a dedicated scientist has
remained almost continually for 14 months in what is possibly the
finest remaining habitat for wildlife found in Asia ...
Gee had even visited Schaller in the fieldhe could not believe
Schaller's ability to sit long hours waiting for tigers.
But there were many Indian forest officers who objected to
the American connection and put Schaller through a rough time
especially since Gee's review had also stated about Schaller's book:
should be read and studied by every forest officer both before and
after taking charge of a division.
Jealousies arose across the system. At the same time Juan Spillett
did a survey of Indian wildlife. Spillet was also an American who
went to India in the mid-1960s to do fieldwork. He ended up
within a period of six monthstravelling 13,500 miles across
India' s forests, 300 miles on foot and twentyone days on elephant
back. His survey of India's protected areas for the BNHS produced
a report. In 1966 the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society
was all about Spillet' s surveys. And they had strong policy
recommendations. After all, Indira Gandhi had just taken over
the realm of power. Spillet stated:
India has been richly endowed with precious natural resources. Many
of these however, already have been destroyed or lost due to
ignorance, tradition, apathy or political expediency. On every side
the remaining natural resources of this country are confronted with
what often appear to be insurmountable barriers. Unless the leaders
of India are soon able to implement definitive measures and initiate
sound conservation practices, little more than want and poverty and
the eventual weakening of this great nation can be expected.
He also discussed the abuse of overgrazing across India suggesting
that the way things were going all the desirable plants would
vanish and in the end all that would be left would be plants
animals do not usually eat. On grazing he stated:
I am almost invariably told by officials that the problem is realised,
but that it is impossible to control grazing by domestic animals in a
democracy such as India's. This is faulty reasoning. No government,
particularly a democratic one, should permit its people to destroy
the nation's most priceless possessionits land. Many feel that in a
democracy public property belongs to everyone. But this does not
mean that the people are free to destroy the public domain. For
example, a public building belongs to everyone just as much as does
a reserved forest or a wildlife sanctuary. However, no one is allowed
to destroy such buildings or to remove materials from them for
private use.
He even went on to say:
India is basically confronted with two major problems. I firmly
believe that if these two were brought under control, the numerous
other problems which are presently receiving so much attention and
publicity, such as the scarcity of food, lack of foreign exchange, poor
living standards, and so forth, would eventually resolve themselves
. . . . These two problems are: (1) too many people, and (2) too much
domestic livestock.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 36, No. 3 (1966), pp. 616-29.
The editor of the BNHS supported his findings and stated:
It is not irrelevant to refer to Spillet's conclusion, that it is not only
poaching that is the great threat to the continuance of India's wildlife
and wild places, but the disastrous effect of over-grazing by domestic
livestock all over the country. Understanding a problem clearly is
the first requirement toward its solution, and we are grateful to the
author of this report for the facts which he has uncovered.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 36, No. 3 (1966), pp. 616-29.
In my opinion both poaching and illegal grazing went hand
in hand. The 1990s would reveal the seriousness of Spillet's words.
Most social scientists would ignore the problem of grazing even
though, I believe, at least 500-600 tigers were poisoned in the 1990s
by graziers because they had attacked their livestock.
By the late 1960s a bunch of American researchers had focused
on Indiafrom Dr S. Dillon Ripley to Schaller, Spillet, Joslin, and
Berwick. Now came the moment when rumours flew about
researchers being CIA agents spying in India and all kinds of other
stuff. I remember Sarah Hardy in Ranthambhore in the late 1970s
facing enormous problems on her langur project and finally being
forced to leave the country for harassing the monkey God! The
1970s were bad times for the Americans especially after the earlier
focus during the 1950s and 1960s by American researchers on
India' s wilderness. Now came a frozen silence towards them by
the government. India was more pro-Soviet than pro-American
and many in positions of power tried their level best to attack the
American researchers. Also the system in place encouraged
jealousies. I remember when I first went to Ranthambhore in 1976
to film wild tigers, the boss of wildlife in Rajasthan made it
impossible for me to work. I had to meet the Chief Minister of the
state to solve my problems. So god help the ' foreign' scientists of
those times! Even today it is a problem for them.
Let us look back at this period between 1947-1966 before
Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister. The 1960s were the worst
time for India' s forests and wildlifethis decade revealed the
horrors of the 50s as forest after forest got cut down in the name
of development and Independent India forgot the vital importance
of its natural wealth. Shikar agencies mushroomedevery forest
officer felt he could only prove himself if he had shot a tiger and
the bloodletting reached enormous proportions. It was also
nearing the end of the Nehru era and the beginning of Indira
Gandhi'sI think this fact was vital for India' s forest and wildlife.
As much as Nehru remained superficial about the forests and
wildlife of India, Indira remained completely knowledgeable
in fact, I believe she had her own phi l osophy about their
protectionso as the forests and wildlife of India entered their
worst phase the mid-sixties also gave birth to a political leader
who in the history of India's wilderness was to be one of its greatest
saviours.
A The hunter with his day's bag.
Killing the symbol of wild India.
The Gandhi Era
1966-1989
B. Seshadri wrote a remarkable piece in 1969 in a book entitled
The Twilight Of India's Wildlife. In a way, to me it sums up where
India' s forests and wildlife were heading without Indira Gandhi' s
interventions that only started in 1968-9.1 extract from some of
his writings.
'Man has lost his capacity to foresee and to forestall.
He will end by destroying the earth.'
Albert Schweitzer
Has India's wildlife a future? One cannot truthfully say it has, and the
reasons have been discussed. One might ask, do these wild animals have
to live on? Man in India wants more and more space, the population is
increasing at an unprecedented rate, and has he not the right to clear
and occupy the forests as he pleases, killing off the wildlife in the process?
He certainly has no such right, no claim in the least to apportion to
himself all the living-space of so many creatures allotted to them from
time immemorial in the natural order of things. What is his right, the
right of might and the gun? If progressive thought believes that might
without justice is not right, how can such a theory be applied in
justification of the slaughter of the animals? Wildlife asks for so little of
man. It is this which has hit me with the force of a sledgehammer each
time I have set foot in a jungle and seen its wild residents. They ask for
nothing except to be left alone in the pathetic strips of wild tract that are
all that remain of their once populous homes. The animals have their
simple rights too on this earthto exist. In India, much too often there
is pious talk of wild animals being in the cultural traditions of the land,
as if this in itself will assure their eventual survival. On the other hand,
it merely draws attention away from the problem of saving them.
All I have said about the animals applies equally well to the country's
rich avian and reptilian life. Bird life is superbly rich. Including migrants,
over 1,500 species find homes in the subcontinent. But they need trees
and bushes, water and marshes, and protection from hunters to survive.
Today, the most affected are those limited to specific breeding and feeding
grounds through deprivation of their territory.
Devoted individuals, and the two premier natural history societies,
the Bombay Natural History Society and the Wild Life Preservation
Society of India, have worked assiduously for the cause of wildlife
conservation, and to persuade the authorities to evolve a policy by which
the objects of such conservation can be achieved through sustained
implementation of its component stages. But for such efforts, the
situation today would be far worse. But in a problem of this nature it is
increasingly difficult for single persons or non-official groups to act
effectively.
No one can now dispute that the wildlife of a country is not one of its
most interesting and valuable assets. Sanctuaries where they have been
created in India are for the ostensible purpose of conserving the natural
fauna and flora in specific and characteristic areas. I say 'ostensible'
because there is so little 'following-up' done to ensure they are adequately
staffed and managed. There are no experienced naturalists or former
hunters of big game on their staffs to advise Forest Departments on
wildlife management. Often the men whose supposed task is to look
after the wildlife in their restricted areas have very little useful knowledge
of their charges.
Conservation of wildlife should no longer be thought of, as I am sure
it is in many high circles, as a frill, an amenity that ranks low in any
THE GANDHI ERA 2 4 3
realistic scale of values. There are economic arguments for it, in addition
to the scientific, the aesthetic, and the moral.
It was once the case that wilderness and wildlife did not need human
aid to survive. Both would indeed have conserved themselves had they
been left alone. This, however, has not been the case. Both have been
rendered unstable through man's interference, and therefore now need
his aid to continue to exist. The science of ecology has thus assumed
great importance in recent years. It is the branch of biology which deals
with the habits of organism, their modes of life, and their relations to
their surroundings. Wildlife no longer exists in merely physical or climatic
environments, but in increasingly complex conditions which involve
extended relationships with man.
But the utmost care is necessary in all stages of ecological research as
applying to the wildlife of India, lest conclusions are hastily drawn and
universally applied. For example, I read recently a statement by a scientist
working on prey-predator balances that these need to be improved in
the sanctuaries. I did not understand it at all. In none of the Indian
sanctuaries do predators cause any anxiety either because of their numbers
or because of their taking too many prey animals. They are all
comparatively slow-breeding, and a spectacular increase in their numbers
can be quite ruled out. Neither are the prey animals excessive, and under
the present conditions they are unlikely to multiply hugely in the
foreseeable future. Denudation of forest grasslands is caused by domestic
livestock, not by the wild herbivores. I should have thought that no
interference whatever was necessary in the prey-predator relationship, as
the sanctuaries are populated by too few of either group, not by too
many.
In the end, wildlife in India will be conserved only if it is kept on a
national footing without reference to politics or political units. Time is
not on the side of the animals. Conservation of wildlife should continue
to aim primarily at the maintenance of its habitats. All forest, scrub,
marsh, and swamp are in charge of government departments, and the
saving of adequate areas of these to provide living space for the animals
is the responsibility of the State.
B. Seshadri, Twilight of India's Wildlife.
In a way Seshadri was closing the 1960s with a warning about the
necessity of prioritizing the wilderness. Indira Gandhi had taken
the reigns of power in 1966. Even while Gee, Stracey, and Seshadri
wrote she was being groomed as the next prime minister of India.
She was to become India' s greatest wildlife saviour. Few would
have believed it then. We had reached the worst ever crisis
concerning forests and wildlife when she took over. Hunting had
caused r api d decl i nes in wi l dl i fe and forest s wer e bei ng
mercilessly slaughtered. Indira Gandhi remained in power till 1984
except for a short gap in between. We shall later examine the
impacts of her tenure on wildlife and forests in detail. Let us just
have a quick look at what she was managing to do by 1973. By
1968 she had agreed to hold the first IUCN Conference in India
and in Delhi. The Conference took place in 1969 in Delhi, brought
the crisis in the open, and it was followed by an immediate ban
on tiger shooting in India. She enforced the ban, and in 1971
created a task force to draft the Wildlife Protection Act of India,
and in 1972 piloted it through Parliament. Soon a census of tigers
revealed that there were just about 1800 left. Indira Gandhi
spearheaded the birth of Project Tiger. It was clear to me that
India had found a Prime Minister to whom wildlife and forests
were a priority issue. She also empowered a band of people around
her to implement some of her policies. We are going to look at
some of these men in those early years of Indira Gandhi' s rule.
These were the years of serious conservation. To understand a bit
of those early years let us look at what one of the band of men,
Kailash Sankhala wrote. Sankhala was a forest officer whom Indira
Gandhi liked and in the late 1960s he was the director of the Delhi
Zoo. In fact his first experience of tigers came through a zoo tiger
called Jim. This tiger was a pet in the house of a former hunter,
V.C. Shukla whom we talked of earlier. When he joined the Union
Cabinet Indira Gandhi was changing the rules and his pet had to
be sent to the zoo and Sankhala looked after it. Sankhala was a
key participant in the 1969 IUCN Conference. By 1973 he was
plucked by Indira Gandhi to be the first director of Project Tiger.
She made him a great power of the 1970s. Let us look at how he
viewed those years that closed the 1960s.
The Skin Trade
By
Kailash Sankhala
The pace of the person-to-person campaign to stop the heavy drain on
our leopards and tigers was too slow for me, and I decided to raise the
temp. But how? I talked it over with my friend Razia, a charming lady
on one of the national newspapers, and we devised a plan. She was to
pose as a lady shortly to be married who was to be given a choice fur coat
as a present from her brother in England. A photographer would take a
picture of her in the coat in order to get it approved by her brother
before he bought it. And so we went from shop to shop, taking stock of
the pelts and having a perfect excuse to photograph them.
One shopkeeper informed us he had a regular supply of 1000 snow
leopard skins a year. Another specialized in clouded leopard skins and
his annual supply was nearly 2000. Countless leopard skins were neatly
piled up in his shop; he said he had nearly 3000 on view and double that
number in his warehouse. An interesting piece of information came to
light: most of the exports were to East Africa. I could not understand
this carrying of coals to Newcastle, for Africa has far more leopards than
we have in India. I was told that in Kenya leopard skins could be sold at
a much higher price because of the numerous tourists who went there;
also, the local traders could obtain a certificate of origin for these imports
which came in handy for smuggling Kenyan leopard skins. The illegal
killings of Indian leopards were being utilized to legalize the killing of
leopards in Kenya. The vicious circle had no end, and the leopards of
both countries were losing ground.
I counted 22 tiger heads and all seemed to be laughing at us; probably
they were mocking at our mission. There were hundreds of tiger rugs,
and I pulled out four and spread them out on the floor. The trader
immediately offered me a 30 x 40 ft carpet for $10,000. I asked if one
was readily available. 'Yes,' said he, 'but you will have to place a firm
order as I have to bring it from a palace.' I found a ready excuse to
decline the offer.
The next shop had just as many skins. 'The fur of cubs is softer,' said
the shopkeeper, adding that it required nearly 80 skins of leopard cubs
to make a coat. After taking photographs of the lady wearing various
coats and counting the stock we concluded our investigations.
The soft pelts of snow leopards, which the ladies love best and from
which the shopkeepers earn a substantial profit, came in a steady flow of
600-800 skins per year in the fashion market. Snow leopards are so rare
that even people living in the Himalayan regions hardly ever see them.
They live at an altitude of about 12,000 feet where they prey on marmots,
musk deer and snow hares. Occasionally they come down to the lower
pastures but hardly ever have a chance to attack the sheep of the ever
vigilant Gujjars. But some of the graziers, renowned as tough walkers
and climbers, who for the six summer months live above 8000 feet, are
tempted by the lucrative offers of the valleys. Equipped with firearms
and living in rugged mountainous areas where there is little chance of
the civil law being enforced, these men become poachers and soon run
amok, endangering the whole wildlife of the Himalayas. They chase the
snow leopards, leopards, lynx and martens for their pelts and musk deer
for their musk pods. Down the valley they go to the emporiums, where
they get their loans paid off quickly and even obtain the lure of extra
money.
The story of the stripped skins is equally pathetic. In the Dehra Dun
forests I heard of a tiger held in a snare for two painful days. When the
Wildlife Officer came to dispatch the beast it broke its paw and ran off
into the jungle to die an agonizing death. Another tiger was stoned to
death in the Umariya forests of Madhya Pradesh in 1912. Sometimes
villagers trap tigers and invite influential persons to shoot them at a
point-blank range.
This large-scale poaching, especially by poisoning, has proved fatal
to the big cats of India. I put most blame on the traders who purchase
the pelts and are quite unconcerned how they were obtained. The price
of a tiger skin in the late 1950s was hardly $50; ten years later it had
risen to $599. This was too much of a temptation for habitual poachers
to resist, particularly when the average annual income of a man working
in the forests is less than what he could make by selling one raw uncured
tiger skin.
The results of my investigation with my lady accomplice were
published on the front page of the Indian Express in 1967. It was followed
by numerous letters to the Editor and led to questions in Parliament. A
ban was immediately imposed on the export of all kinds of spotted skins,
and the firms concerned raised a tremendous hue and cry, presenting
their pre-ban commitments for not less than 20,000 skins. Many tigers
and leopards not yet born were destined to honour these commitments.
The case was presented to the Indian Board for Wildlife with a plea to
the Grievances Committee of the Government. The Chairman of IBWL,
a young and effective minister, Dr. Karan Singh, reacted sharply: 'In
that case we have grievances against the Grievances Committee.' The
ban on the export of skins was imposed effectively in 1968.
Kailash Sankhala, Tiger! The Story of the Indian Tiger.
Indira Gandhi and Dr Karan Singh made Kailash Sankhala a really
powerful figure of those times. Sankhala did not like foreigners
doing wildlife research in India, but was fully committed to
protecting India' s wildlife.
Like Kailash Sankhala, another forest officer of those times
and totally committed to the protection of wildlife was S.P. Shahi.
He also records a series of different events during the late 1960s
and 1970s that reveal the complexity of those times and the
extraordinary role of Indira Gandhi.
The estimates committee of the Fourth Lok Sabha (1968-9)
states in its seventy-sixth report of March 1969:
The Committee regrets to note that an area of about 11 lakh hectares
under forests has been lost since 1951 for cultivation and other
developmental projects, etc., in the country. No attempts have
simultaneously been made to bring an equivalent area under forest
as stipulated in the first plan and recommended from time to time
by the Central Board of Forestry. The Committee feels very much
concerned over these continuous inroads into the forest area which
is already below the required proportion laid down in the National
Forest Policy. In their opinion, if the trend is allowed to continue
unchecked the situation may assume alarming proportions,
particularly in the States having a small forest area.
Backs to the Wall, S.P. Shahi.
It was in this same year that the IUCN held its tenth General
Assembly in New Delhi. In her inaugural speech Indira Gandhi
declared: 'We need foreign exchange, but not at the cost of the life
and liberty of some of the most beautiful wildlife habitats of this
continent.'
Indira Gandhi had also given teeth to the Indian Board of
Wildlife and its Chairman, Karan Singh was one of the most
dynamic ever to head the board. These are great examples of
political will. Dr. Karan Singh said: 'The steady decline in the tiger
population of our country has been causing great concern. The
Prime Minister has expressed her anxiety over the situation and
has suggested a complete moratorium on the killing of tigers for
5 years.'
This problem was also subsequently discussed in the executive
committee of the Indian Board for Wildlife, and it was decided to
recommend that there should be a complete moratorium on the
shooting of this beautiful animal with effect from 1 July 1970 for
five years so that the declining trend is arrested.
Wildlife has come down to us as a priceless heritage and it is out
duty to see that it is passed on to posterity enriched. I would,
therefore, in my capacity as chairman of the Indian Board for Wildlife
strongly urge that you may issue suitable instructions for the
implementation of the recommendations of the Indian Board for
Wildlife I have quoted above.
I shall be glad to know, in due course, of the action taken by
your Government in this regard.
This was the same Dr Karan Singh who in 1968 as chairman of
Indian Board for Wildlife had successfully managed to ban the
export of skins. Indira Gandhi' s team was wildlife savvy, what
luck for India in the nick of time!
It was 1970 and according to Shahi few cared for the order,
but Indira Gandhi' s pressure mounted. One of her typical quotes
of those times were:
Forestry practices designed to squeeze the last rupee out of our
jungles, must be radically oriented at least within our National Parks.
Is it beyond our political will and administrative ingenuity to set
aside one or two per cent of our forests in their pristine glory for the
purpose?
By September 1970 the concept of a Wildlife Act was mooted. In
an informal meeting of conservationists held by the Prime Minister
in September 1970, it was resolved that the Union government
should bring forth such a uniform enactment relating to wildlife
conservation. Since wildlife was a state subject before such a
legislation coul d be enact ed in Parl i ament the Legislative
Assemblies of at least two states must adopt a resolution under
Article 252(1) of the Constitution delegating the power of passing
such a law to Parliament.
On 29 March 1972 Shri F.A. Ahmed, the then Minister of
Agriculture, wrote to the Chief Minister of Bihar, Shri Kedar Pande
and stated:
No nation has such a rich and varied fauna as India and yet of late,
the rapid decimation of India's wildlife has few parallels. Areas once
teeming with wildlife are quite devoid of them and the few sanctuaries
and parks where wildlife now seeks refuge have a tenuous state. Some
animals and birds are already extinct and certain others are on the
verge of being so . . . . It is therefore imperative that the country
should have a uniform Wildlife Conservation and Management Bill
which would make provisions for the control of not only hunting
but also of trade and traffic in wildlife produce, and for the
conservation and management of the wildlife habitats.
Indira Gandhi personally pushed the details of this bill through.
In her letter of 12 April 1972 addressed to Kedar Pande and several
other chief ministers she stated:
I have written to you in the past about wildlife conservation and
management. Although there is now greater consciousness about
this problem than a few years ago, we have not been able to
significantly arrest the continuing decline of our fauna, including
many endangered species. Poaching is on the increase, and we
continue to receive reports of a lucrative trade in the furs and pelts
of even those animals, like the tiger, whose shooting is in law
prohibited throughout the country. Regrettably some State emporia
are also involved in this business.
My colleague, the Agriculture Minister, has already written to
you about the difficulties of controlling trade and taxidermy in the
absence of uniform Central law applicable to the entire country.
Experts are unanimous that only an integrated and country-wide
policy of wildlife conservation and management can arrest the present
precipitous decline. I have also received urgent appeals from the
World Wildlife Fund.
It is for these reasons that we now seek your cooperation to
enact Central legislation on wildlife conservation and management.
A new Bill incorporating the most recent thinking on wildlife
management has been prepared. The Bill also provides specific
remedies in the Indian context which will make it possible for the
Central and State Governments to deal effectively with the more
insidious threats to our fauna.
This is not a political issue. It concerns the survival of our famous
natural heritage. It is hard to think of an India devoid of its
magnificent animals, of the hard-pressed tiger, for instance, going
the way of the now extinct Indian Cheetah. Past experience reveals
the limitations of the regional approach, with State laws frequently
at variance with one another and all the attendant difficulties of
implementation. The Centre and the States must now act in concert
on the basis of common legislation which should be strictly enforced.
I, therefore, request you to get a resolution passed in your
Legislature in accordance with Clause 1 of Article 252 of the
Constitution as early as possible.
This is a typical example of Indira Gandhi battling to save the
wildlife of the statesin this case Bihar. It was in the same month
that she appointed Dr Karan Singh as Chairman of a Tiger Task
Force to create an action plan to save the Indian tiger. Kailash
Sankhala was appointed Officer on Special Duty. It was the
proposal which was handed to Indira Gandhi in September 1972
that gave birth the following year to Project Tiger.
In June 1972 a prominent member of the Congress Legislature
Party in Bihar wrote to Indira Gandhi about the tragic release of
100 acres of land from the Madanpur forests. He stated: ' Madanpur
forests in my district of Champaran is still rich in wildlife with a
concentration of over a dozen tigers. I am distressed to write to
you that there are very disquieting reports about releasing forest
land to different persons in this forest.'
This member asked for help and he got it. On 5 July 1972 his
letter was forwarded to the Chief Minister, Kedar Pande with a
covering letter from Indira Gandhi that stated:
I enclose copy of a letter which I have received regarding the
preservation of wildlife in Bihar. You already know of my interest
and concern. The Bihar Assembly has not yet passed a Resolution in
favour of Central legislation on this subject about which I wrote to
you on 12 April 1972.1 hope you will get this expedited.
I am disturbed by what the letter says regarding the release of
forest land. Please look into this personally and stop it.
It is rather significant that this letter was written from Simla at a
time when the Prime Minister was having her historic talks with
Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan. This is a great
example of Indira Gandhi' s enormous political will in the interest
of wildlife. In the middle of the most hectic and historic summit
in Simla to take time off to send a chief minister a letter on the
Madanpur reserve forest division. Remarkable!
S.P. Shahi in the mid 1970s had his own very concerned view
on the future of wildlife and its governance. He wrote:
Much will also depend on how we go about the business of setting
up a suitable administrative machinery for wildlife management in
the country. The notion that wildlife should be looked after by an
altogether separate service and that the present forestry personnel
are ill-equipped for it, has been debated for quite some time. To
support this argument, it is often stated the East African countries
have different personnel for their reserves and their forests. But few
people realize that, in those countries, the wildlife live in open grassy
savannahs, unlike India where the bulk of wildlife lives in forests.
Wildlife and forests have to co-exist in this country.
Even if a separate wildlife service is created, I doubt if it will
attract men with the necessary aptitude and dedication. As it is, the
Indian Forest Service is less glamorous than the other two existing
All-India Services. A Wildlife Service will be still less so. The Indian
Forest Service was revived so that available talent could be dispersed
and in the hope that meritorious youngsters would join this service.
But this hope, unfortunately, has been belied. In the seven two-year
courses between 1968-70 to 1974-76, out of the 116 persons who
were selected for training at the Indian Forest College, Dehra Dun,
for the IFS, as many as forty left during the course of the training
for other services. Not only that, they left largely for the Indian
Administrative and Indian Police Services, a few of them went to
the State Bank, and the Central Engineering, Revenue, Indian
Ordinance and Railway Services. The situation in the country at
present is such that it is not only the salary but the pomp and power
that goes with a service that also influences meritorious young men
wanting to join it. As long as such a situation exists, the Wildlife
Service will continue to be unpopular, and will mostly attract the
leftovers.
Considering all the pros and cons of the matter, certain
guidelines have very recently been issued to the State Governments
by the Government of India to establish immediately a separate
Wildlife Wing under the overall charge of the Chief Conservator of
Forests. An Officer of the rank of Additional Conservator of Forests
will head this wing. An officer of the rank of Additional Inspector
General of Forests at the Centre is to coordinate and direct the
activities of the Wildlife Wings in the various States. It is envisaged
that members of the Forest Service trained or experienced in wildlife
management will join the new wing without loss of rank.
Backs to the Wall, S.P. Shahi.
The Prime Minister approved this proposal for organizing a
wildlife wing in the various states in her note dated 18 September
1974:
Training the next generation of wildlife managers is crucial. I am
not sure whether we have the necessary expertise within the country.
We should not hesitate to look abroad for the skills we may need.
Possibly UNESCO or UNDP could help in providing a small group
of foreign experts to be deployed both at the Forest Research Institute,
Dehra Dun, and the Centre to help in training and to keep a watchful
eye on our evolving wildlife programme.
In order to maintain performance standards, all persons directly
or indirectly concerned with wildlife management should be regularly
assessed in their annual reports for their performance in wildlife
conservation work.
The Unit at the Centre will have an important role to play,
especially in the early stages. It should be staffed at a high level by
specially selected officers, so that it has the means to persuade and
assist the States.
The 1970s was a really challenging time. Besides the forest officers,
there were other key players in the process of conservation. One
of these was a remarkable man called M. Krishnan, who was
outside of the government but had devoted his entire life to writing
about wildlife. In 1970 he wr ot e one of the few pieces on
conservation entitled Animals of the Dwindling Forest. He did not
know it then, but over the next two decades he would serve several
government committees to save wildlife and secure Project Tiger.
I use his piece to start the 1970s. It was written in 1970 and is
called Animals of the Dwindling Forest.
Over the past 35 years, India's wildlife has dwindled to a mere fraction
of its former strength. The decline began much earlier, but was so
insidious between 1900 and 1935 that it was hardly noticed even by
most of those concerned with the country's wildlife, the officers of
various regional forest departments, taxonomists doing stupendous
work on the flora and fauna of India, and more experienced hunters
interested in the forests and their animals.
Broadly speaking, the main factors causing depletion of wildlife
in India are: greatly increased demands on the forests by people and
governments as a consequence of the great increase in human
population, the destructive exploitation of natural forests to serve
political ends and the recognition of village rights in the forests,
sustained and poorly controlled wood and flesh poaching and (to a
lesser extent) licenced shooting, and industrialization and its
consequences. These factors have become stronger during the past
35 years, and it is in this period that the decline in the country's
wildlife has become flagrantly noticeable. Many common species
have become locally extinct and a few (the cheetah or hunting leopard
is the best known example) extinct altogether in India.
Taking 1935 as an arbitrary point of time for comparison, we
had roughly 75 million hectares of broadleaved forests then, too,
and for obvious reasons they were then much less denuded and even
quite primordial in large tracts. How much of the natural tree forest
and scrub jungle, swamps and grasslands, valleys and nullahs that
we had 35 years ago do we have left now? We do not know, and the
official statistics available cannot give us a fair idea of the extent of
loss of habitat to the wild animals over these years.
Trustworthy faunal statistics are much harder to find than figures
for flora. They involve population counts of free-ranging animals,
sometimes of shifting populations, and counting gregarious animals
in the forests of India is often an impossible undertaking. Further,
the rapid diminution of the more exposed communities has to be
taken into account. In the early 1940s I would see many herds of
blackbuck, some over a hundred strong, around the Tungabhadra
Dam (where Mysore and Andhra Pradesh meet in a hydroelectric
project); by the 1950s every last little buck in the area had been
snared or shot to death by professional meat hunters and amateur
'sportsmen'.
Currently, some faunal counts are being made in some
sanctuaries: these will yield fairly reliable figures over a course of
years. In the past, the only significant counts attempted were limited
to important species threatened with extinction, in areas where the
animals were localized, such as the lions in the Gir Forest, the great
Indian rhinoceros in Assam and north Bengal, and the hard-
grounded barasingha in Madhya Pradesh. Doubts have been
expressed over some of these figures, but it should be remembered
that what a faunal census seeks to achieve is a near approximation to
the truth and not mathematical accuracy.
In assessing the decline of India's fauna, it is customary to list
the species which are on the brink of extinction or quite extinct in
the country, such as the cheetah, the pygmy hog, the hispid hare,
the two lesser species of Asiatic rhinoceros, the pink-headed duck,
Jerdon's courser, and the great Indian bustard. A better and more
indicative way would be to point out that in most places where
familiar creatures till recently, even common animals have become
locally extinct or else quite rare.
The animals of the open plains, being most open to dispossession
and harassment by humanity, have fared much worse than the
animals of the hills. The plains forests have virtually disappeared in
the south, and in many parts of the north, and the denuded land
has been occupied, cut up, and otherwise exploited by men to such
an extent that in most areas the animals have vanished. Typical of
the plains country is the blackbuck, exclusively Indian, arrestingly
beautiful, and fastest long-distance runner on earth. A hundred years
ago, it roamed the plains in vast herds, and was the commonest wild
animal of the country even around towns and cantonments; 35 years
ago, it was still to be found in its old haunts, but in sadly depleted
number; today it is locally extinct over most of the country, and
survives in small herds in a few areas. The blackbuck is the best
example of an Indian animal whose decline is due entirely to hunting.
Even after men crowded the plains country, it was there in large
numbers, but the nets and snares (some of them horribly cruel) of
the professional meat hunters and the rifle of the 'sportsmen' finished
it off in most places.
The wolf, a plains animal in the peninsula, is now extinct in the
south and rare even in the north. Other animals of the scrub jungles
and open forest, common till recently and now uncommon or rare,
are the chinkara, the nilgai (extinct in the south) and the dinky little
Indian fox; among birds, the Great Indian Bustard and florican may
be mentioned. The seasonal slaughter of waterbirds at large waters
where they assemble in great numbers, as at Chilka Lake in Orissa
and Tada in Andhra Pradesh, goes on unchecked. Migratory duck
and geese, resident duck, flamingos, herons, even pelicans, are killed
for the table.
Among the animals of the tree forests and the hills, the dramatic
decline of the tiger in the past five or six years has attracted the most
attention. It is true that the poisoning of cattle kills by villagers has
accounted for quite a few tigers, but it is the hunter's rifle that has
been the main cause for the decline of this grandest of all cats, so
long and intimately associated with India. Till very recently, tigers
were regularly shot all over India, by licenced and unlicenced
huntersexcept for a negligible percentage, there was not even the
excuse for their destruction that they were man-eaters or confirmed
cattle-lifters. In Mysore, Hyderabad and elsewhere in Andhra
Pradesh, all over Orissa, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh,
tigers were shot for 'sport'in the Kanha National Park of MP
there is a tree from which dozens of tigers have been shot on licence.
Being a slow breeder, the tiger has not been able to cope with such
sustained shooting down.
In my opinion, the leopard is also on the decline, for the same
reason. Other forest animals which are now uncommon in their old
haunts are the sloth bear (so peculiarly the bear of India), locally
extinct in many areas where it was common a generation ago, the
fishing cat and the rusty-spotted cat over their somewhat limited
ranges, gaur in some of their long-held homes, the hard-ground
subspecies of the barasingha in Madhya Pradesh, the lion-tailed
macaque of the southern hill forests and the Nilgiri tahr in places.
Himalayan and sub-Himalayan animals, with an entity of their own,
are not specifically mentioned here.
I believe it is in sincere ignorance of the permanent damage
they are doing to the country's wildlife that the ministers and other
elected authorities in many of our States are so willing to placate the
'landless poor' (whatever that meansI find it difficult to imagine
the 'landed poor' from whom they are obviously distinguished) by
ceding rights, privileges, and even territory inside the reserved forests
and sanctuaries to them. The second highly relevant factor is that as
the Constitution of India stands each State has sovereign rights over
forests, and the Centre cannot prevail upon to adopt a more
conservationist attitude towards its wildlife.
The setting up of hydroelectric and other national projects inside
a sanctuary (as in Uttar Pradesh, where the Ramganga project will
drown the best developed area of the Corbett National Park) or on
its borders (like the Moyar project which adjoins the Mudumalai
and Bandipur sanctuaries) leads to tremendous devastation of the
natural forests and, by opening up the cover with clearings and roads,
renders the animals accessible to poaching and constant disturbance.
Industrial plants and projects in or around a preserve have much
the same effect: the dangers of population that they bring in have
not yet been studied in India.
The position, as outlined, might seem pretty bleak, but is far
from hopeless. What gives one hope is the wonderful innate richness
of the country's wildlife and the fact that we have achieved real feats
of wildlife conservation in the recent past. Making every allowance
for the decline set out above, the fact remains that even today India
is in its flora and fauna one of the richest countries of the world.
And although exotic plants have invaded, and been nurtured in the
land to the detriment of its wildlife, we have not made the mistake
that other countries have of introducing exotic animal species into
India. Compare India's faunal integrity with that of Australia, where
the English rabbit, the Asiatic camel and the domesticated Indian
water-buffalo have run wild and are major threats to life and wildlife,
or with that of England which is the only place on earth where the
Indian and Chinese muntjacs interbreed in the wild.
Consider, besides, the taxonomic richness and highly individual
character of India's fauna. We have more cats (taking the lesser and
greater cats together) than any country in the world, and more species
of deer; further, quite a few animals with a distribution over South-
east Asia attain their best development here, such as the sambar, the
gaur, and the elephant {Elephas maximus)-, furthermore, we have a
number of animals that are peculiarly our own, such as the bonnet
monkey and the lion-tailed monkey, the black langur, the Nilgiri
tahr, both subspecies of the swamp deer or barasingha, the cheetal,
the blackbuck, the chowsingha or four-horned antelope, the nilgai,
and the sloth bear (the sloth bear of Ceylon is taxonomically assigned
to a subspecies).
The feats of preservation referred to are the saving of the Asiatic
lion in the Gir Forest of Gujarat, and the great Indian rhinoceros in
Assam and north Bengal. The Asiatic lion is the lion of the Bible
and of Omar Khayyam, and had a wide range over Persia and
neighbouring countries, and north India; it was saved only in the
Gir Forest, thanks to the conservationist wisdom and zeal of princes,
and the subsequent efforts of the State Government. The saving of
the rhino in Assam in the face of heavy odds was an even greater
achievement, but the story is so well known that it need not be told
here.
The growing interest of foreign and international bodies in
India's wildlife might help, but not very much, I think, considering
that the ultimate fate of our wildlife is in the hands of diverse and
changing administrations. But if we can somehow tighten up
protection and prevent further depletion for a decade or so, I believe
public interest and pride in the country's wildlife will develop
sufficiently to assure its future. The next ten years, I think, will decide
the future of India's wildlife.
M. Krishnan, (ed.), Animals of Dwindling Forest.
Like M. Krishnan, another great character of those times who also
worked out of the system was Billy Arjan Singh, and both Krishnan
and Arjan Singh were really respected by Indira Gandhi. I think
she found Billy more fascinating and wilder in his ways. Billy
lived in the wilderness of Dudhwa on the India-Nepal border and
was obsessed with tigers. Indira Gandhi gave him her full support.
Like Kailash Sankhala, S.P. Shahi, and M. Krishnan, Billy was a
part of the band of committed protectors of wildlife, and in
different ways they all drew their powers from a close association
with Indira Gandhi. It was Indira Gandhi who made Billy famous
in the late 1970s by permitting him to import a captive tigress
f r om Europe to rei nt roduce in the wi l ds of Dudhwa. She
supported Billy's view of experimentation in this sector, something
that would be unheard of today. Billy is a great battler in his efforts
to save both forests and wildlife. In his eighties, he continues his
work in Dudhwa and is a pillar of strength for all conservationists.
I quote something he wrote in the 1970s:
Who is to blame for the cattle in the forest?
Whether it is the politician or the bureaucratI still blame the
bureaucrat for being half a politicianit is a crisis of character which
knows no other master than expediency.
The same principle operates when it comes to protecting the
animals from hunting. The various laws banning tiger-shooting, the
export of skins and so on, have been useful but collectively they
may add up to a classic case of 'too little and too late'. In my own
state shooting is still uncontrolled outside the forest; anyone can
fire at wildlife in the fields, and though it may be technically illegal
to shoot a tiger, in practice any number of excuses of the 'crop
problem' and 'defence of property' variety can be invoked to absolve
the individual of his crime. A Bill to correct this situation has been
waiting for approval since 1966 but due to changes of government,
lack of interest and political pressure from the agricultural lobby
which has little sympathy for preserving anything which might
damage the farmer's livelihood, however marginally, it still has not
reached the statute book. The Bill would make it compulsory to
report every kill outside the forest, and carcass would then become
the property of the state. Of course like many other laws it would
probably not be strictly enforced, but at least it would give
conservationists a much-needed weapon to deal with offenders.
Whether it will ever come to law is another matter.
Similarly, the skin trade continues to flourish despite the official
ban. The headquarters of the trade are in New Market in Calcutta,
and shortly after the ban had been imposed I went there to see what
effect it had had. At one time the turnover had been exceptionally
heavy, both in raw hides collected by agents working round the
country and in cured and mounted skins ready to be shipped abroad.
These lucrative days were now over, I was told. One shopkeeper
informed me regretfully that he had been able to handle only 200
skins a month since the ban compared to a thousand or so before.
Nevertheless the trade continues and even the local customs are not
averse to abetting a limited traffic. During a short tour of the dealers
in the market I was shown one collection of thirty leopard skins and
variously offered a monthly supply of fifty uncured tiger pelts at
around three thousand rupees apiece, and two hundred leopard skins
at a little over a thousand rupees each. There was also a plentiful
supply of monitor lizards, crocodiles and pythons, and whole range
of finished products openly displayed including tigers, clouded
leopards and pandas. This trade takes place under the shadow of the
monumental edifice which houses the Forest Department of Bengal.
Just across the road is the animal market, known for many years to
both residents and visitors to Calcutta as the place where you can
purchase almost any form of Indian wildlife. It is a dark, dirty
building with animals and birds of every description packed into
overcrowded cages. The smell is sickening and after a morning spent
visiting this wildlife ghetto and skin market nearby, one begins to
understand why so many of our beautiful forests are becoming silent
and deserted.
Of course the obvious way of dealing with these commercial
operations would be to enforce the existing laws more efficiently.
Perhaps some method could be found of accurately branding all
skins and then declaring that any presented for sale after a particular
date would be illegal; severe penalties could then be imposed on
those caught flouting the law. After all, if the desecrators of the Taj
Mahal can be put behind bars, why should the skin merchants, who
trade in the fur of rare animals, go free? We have our engineers, but
no alchemists.
Simple though it may appear, I think such action is too much
to hope for. The law is too weak, vested interests are too strong, and
there is always someone around to point out that human
considerations must come first; in this scheme of things
conservationists do well if they are merely relegated to a class of
amiable eccentrics. The only chance of saving our wildlife is to adopt
a completely new approach to the problem; new, at least, as far as
India is concerned. We must realize that in the survival of the animals
lies an outstanding financial investment which can be exploited by
developing the tourist industry. Kenya's second largest asset is her
wildlife while India, with potential resources not much inferior to
the African veldt, earns practically nothing from them. With no
commercial justification for their continued existence, the animals
are killed, and as they disappear, so too does the rich financial
dividend they would have paid in the future.
Once we have become aware of this undiscovered gold mine we
must establish a national service for wildlife which will coordinate
the planning of parks and sanctuaries throughout the country. At a
local level responsibility for the animals must be taken away from
the forest departments and given to a separate body; in this way
wildlife will receive the attention it deserved and not be dismissed,
as it is now, as a tiresome pest. I think we will also have to accept
that there is no longer any point in trying to protect every animal in
the land; the idea that the cattle could be excluded from all the
remaining forests along with the timber merchants and other
contractors is nothing more than a fantasy. Instead we should
concentrate on building up a few areas reserved entirely for wildlife.
There should be more land made available for sanctuaries and it
should be divided up into larger and more viable units. The total
area of all reserves in India today amounts to 4200 square miles; in
the Tanzania the Serengeti Park alone is 5700 square miles. Compare
this to the Maldhan sanctuary in northern India which is precisely
four square miles. Such places give absolutely no protection to the
animals and are created merely to pay lip service to the idea of wildlife
preservation. In my view a sanctuary must be at least 100 square
miles; anything smaller should be abandoned, for as long as we persist
with places like Maldhan we cannot be said to be taking the survival
of our animals seriously.
Most important of all, sanctuaries will have to be properly
protected. That means ending all forestry operations inside them
and excluding everyone, from the graziers to the honey collectors.
The importance of removing the cattle cannot be exaggerated; until
this is done no amount of panning will save the animals. As I have
already mentioned deer are always driven out by livestock and often
catch their diseases. The gaur of Madumalai and Bandipur were
completely destroyed a short while ago by an infection transmitted
by domestic animals. Africa has a safety valve in the tsetse fly which
carries a sleeping sickness fatal to cattle but harmless to wildlife.
India has nothing comparable and the only solution is total
segregation.
When the borders of our sanctuaries are sealed the animals will
at last be secure. In some places, of course, a whole species may have
disappeared and then they will have to be replaced either with animals
bred in captivity or from another well-stocked area. As we have seen
it is not easy to return captive predators like the tiger and the leopard
to the wild because they have lost their ability to kill and their fear
of humans; nevertheless it will have to be attempted, otherwise many
of our sanctuaries will be protecting nothing more imposing than
the mongoose.
All these proposals may sound and turn out to be no more than
quixotic daydreams in the context of what is happening in India
today. Yet I believe that they represent the only hope of saving our
wildlife. The cheetah has already been lost, and many other animals,
as we have seen, are in grave danger. The erotic sculptures of
Khajuraho and Konark are carefully preserved as part of our cultural
heritage, yet the tiger, which is our outstanding heritage, graces the
showcases and walls of tycoons thousands of miles away. We are
exchanging our birthright for foreign gold and when the inheritance
is gone no hand of man can bring back the vanished herds galloping
across the plains or revive the resonant roll of the tiger's roar which
echoes through the forest. Much has been destroyed already; this is
our last chance to save what remains.
Threefold the stride ofTime, from first to last!
Loitering slow, the Future creepeth,
Arrow-swift, the Present sweepeth,
And motionless forever stands the Past.
Schiller
Billy Arjan Singh, Tiger Haven.
Billy is one of the greatest spokespersons for an Indian Wildlife
Service. In 1979 he articulated his views eloquently for the
government in a note. Most of the Indian Forest Service did not
agree with him but I think he came very close to persuading Indira
Gandhi to create such a service. Looking back, it is really sad that
it did not happen.
The year 1969 was a vital year in the history of India' s forests
and wildlife. Indira Gandhi had come to power in 1966 and in
1967 to 1968 she had just started restructuring all the policy-
making bodies involved with forests and wildlife. She had early
associations with wildlife. She was once the President of the Delhi
Bird Watchers Society and had also loved the wildlife of Africa
when she had toured Kenya as a young member of Parliament.
She came to t he job of pr i me mi ni st er wi t h a love for the
wilderness. This fact is very clear. Till 1968 hunting was rampant,
there was a flourishing trade in skins, and there were very few
laws to check the sad state of affairs. On 8 July 1969 Indira Gandhi
made a pertinent address to the Indian Board of Wildlifegone
were the superficial comments made at such meetingsgone was
the lack of priority attached to such meetings as was the case in
the Nehru era. Indira Gandhi had made the young and dynamic
minister of tourism, Dr Karan Singh, the chairman of the Indian
Board for Wildlife in 1968, and the meetings were suddenly all
important. I reproduce her inaugural address to the 8 July meeting
which reveals Indira Gandhi' s depth and understanding of detail
on this issue in the first years of her prime ministership.
Inaugurating the Session of the Board, the prime minister said:
'I am happy to have this occasion of saying a few words to this
reconstituted Board for Wildlife. I am here not as Prime Minister
but as one who loves nature and feels the deep concern for the manner
in which it is being gradually destroyed, not intentionally but
through, perhaps, lack of knowledge on the part of public and people
who live around.
Forests and wildlife that exist in them are not only beautiful to
see but they are also of great value to us in a variety of ways. In some
countries, there is a debate going on as to what effect the extinction
of certain species of birds or insects is having on the human beings,
on crops and on many other parts of our daily life. As Jagjivan Ram/7
has said India is indeed fortunate in having a great variety of plants,
trees and animals. This should have been a source of pride and joy
to us. But, unfortunately, there is hardly any appreciation of this
bounty and beauty. We should aim at conserving what is available
to us and, if possible, to add to it, so that the coming generations do
not have less but more.
The two great enemies of wildlife, or amongst the enemies of
wildlife, are economic progress and, perhaps, greed. Also, of course,
ignorance and insensitivity. But if progress is well planned, there
need not be a danger to wildlife or natural beauty. Sometimes our
engineers or administrators or dam builders do not have any reverence
for nature. I entirely agree that if it is a question of needs of men, we
cannot sacrifice people to animals, however, beautiful or useful. But
I do not think there need be this conflict. Whenever dams and
projects are located in the midst of forests, care should be taken to
make provision for the planting of trees in such a way that the animal
life can be rehabilitated in other parts. Similarly, schemes of
afforestation can be such as would give livelihood to the people who
live there without necessarily conflicting with the animal life. We all
know how the cutting down of forests has affected the climate of
places. I am told that the landslides, which we are now having in the
Darjeeling area, are partly due to this cutting down of trees. It is
naturally important that not only engineers and administrators but
all of us should be given special instructions regarding the wildlife
preservation and conservation of trees and plants. I would like to
see that the State Governments are urged to set up bird sanctuaries
and wildlife parks near some of the new dams and reservoirs. I hope
that high priority will be given to this and that the State Governments
will seek the advice of wildlife experts.
Of course, it is not quite enough to designate some areas as
national parks and sanctuaries. We should ensure that they are really
sanctuaries. I must confess that I have not seen all our national parks
but I do not know if they are run as well as they ought to be. I have
seen several of the game sanctuaries in Africa. The atmosphere there
is entirely different to what we find in India. The first thing you
notice when you happen to be there is that the wardens have the
genuine love for animals. They know the individual animals. They
can recognize by their pug marks. The whole atmosphere is one of
convenience of the animals first and of the tourist and of the human
being second. Although cars are allowed on various roads, they are
not allowed to blow horns or to do anything that might disturb the
normal routine of the animals or to frighten them in any way and
that is important if the parks are to continue to be natural and not
have a kind of atmosphere of a zoo.
In order to preserve wild game one has also to preserve smaller
animals that have grown in the forests because it is on the smaller
animals that the larger animals live. Tigers and leopards are big
animals who, when they cannot pursue their normal hunting habits,
start attacking domestic cattle and perhaps become man-eaters.
I made some reference earlier to greed as one of the enemies of
the wildlife. Now we all know that in the last century many countries
have suffered because of the impatience of those who traded in animal
skins, furs, and so on. Even the need for foreign exchange does not
justify the killing of tigers and leopards and other such valuable
animals in a manner that become extinct.
A few months ago I received a cable from the International
Conference on Game Conservation and Wildlife Management on
this subject and I believe that this is one of the items on your agenda.
Last March I was very sorry to read about the devastating fire in
Corbett Park. A place cannot be called a national park if lorries and
jeeps are running around and timbermen and traders are swarming
and disturbing the life there. The new Chairman of the Board also
happens to be our Minister of Tourism and I hope that this
coincidence will lead to greater tourist facilities in our national parks
and sanctuaries, but as I have said, without disturbing animals.
If I may give personal experience in one of the parks in Uganda.
They have built very small cottages. From outside they look like
mud huts. I do not know what they are really made of. Very early in
the morning I heard a noise outside my door. I thought that
somebody is disturbing me with morning tea though I do not take
it and I was prepared to go out and shout at the person for waking
me up early. But when I looked out I saw a lot of small animals who
had come to lick something that was put near about. In the pre-
dawn light they were playing perfectly free from all fear of human
and other people and it was really one of the most unforgettable
sights. This is an atmosphere which we should try to build up in
our own parks.
I have been pained to see many of our archaeological centres.
The Department ofTourism has put up buildings which are entirely
out of keeping with the spirit and atmosphere of the place and often
these buildings jar with the existing archaeological or natural beauty.
We need a new approach to tourist architecture, both at
archaeological sites and in national parks. Tourist buildings should
certainly give all modern amenities, but they should blend also with
their surroundings.
Sometimes I have been grieved to receive complaints that even
forest officials and district officers have turned poachers. I do not
know whether there is any truth in it, but it certainly deserves to be
fully investigated.
I find you have proposal for an All-India Wildlife Service and
for the training of guides. There is certainly need for guides who are
well trained in the art and science of preserving wildlife and who
will be able to indicate their love for animals and their enthusiasm
to the public.
Jagjivan Ram/7 has rightly referred to education in schools on
this subject. I hope that close coordination will be kept with the
Department of Education in various States to see that while we do
not want it to be a separate subject but somehow it should come in
the language lessons or in some other context. It is very important
that our children should know to recognize our birds and animals
and plants and should know their value.
Wildlife specialists must think not only of animals, but also of
trees. I was happy to see during my recent visit to Afghanistan that
some of the young people, who are required to do national service
there, are banded together in what they call a 'Green Corps' and are
put to work to plant trees on barren hill slopes and elsewhere. Here
is an activity that might interest young people and which also
augment national wealth.
The task of this Board is not going to be easy. I think we are all
aware of the many difficulties which come sometimes from the State
Governments, sometimes from the very genuine problems of the
people who live in the area, and many other conflicting interests.
But we have somehow to project the view that this is also an interest,
something which is of value in our national life and must be kept in
view, no matter what other programme is being thought of or
implemented.
So, I would like to give my good wishes for your deliberations
and I hope that this Board will not be merely a committee which
meets when called, but will be a group of people who will be ever
vigilant in the cause of our beautiful and free-moving fellow citizens,
namely our wild animals and birds. I have great pleasure in
inaugurating this conference and I do hope that you will be far
more active and will meet more regularly than was the case earlier.'
Then came Dr Karan Singh's articulationstrong and impressive:
'Madam Prime Minister, Shri Jagjivan Ranyz and friends,
Although I have lived most of my life amidst forests and
mountains, I am by no means an expert on wildlife and, therefore, I
decline to make a long and detailed presidential address. I am very
glad, Madam, that you have in your speech covered almost all the
basic points that needed to be said on this occasion. I will only, if I
may, add one or two points for emphasis. I feel that the term 'wildlife'
itself is something of a misnomer, because what we are concerned
with is the total natural environment, which includes forests, various
species of flora and fauna and so on, and it is this natural environment
that has always been and remains the ultimate foundation of human
civilisation. Despite the progress of science and technology we are
still ultimately dependent upon Nature. In fact, the developments
have created certain new problems that threaten the very existence
of this natural environment and have thrown out of gear the delicate
balance of Nature.
As you rightly said, Madam, our generation holds our national
wealth in trust for posterity. We have no right whatsoever to ruthlessly
exploit these natural resources for immediate gain and profit, because
we have got to pass these on to generations which will follow us, not
merely intact but, if possible, in a better state than what they are
today. For example, Madam, you mentioned the question of skins.
Certainly if we kill off all tigers and panthers for their skins it will
bring in a lot of foreign exchange in one year, but the depredation
that we will be doing to our own nation will be terrible, and criminal.
In fact, I was distressed to read a note whereby two thousand tigers
and leopard skins are going to be exported.'
I think at this moment of time Karan Singh' s role was really
important. He was the maharaja of Kashmir and against hunting.
Most of the other Maharaja' s had enormous records to their name.
The Maharaja of Surguja had killed 1100 tigers by then. Cleverly,
Indira Gandhi empowered Karan Singh to protect and neutralize
some of the hunting lobbies of the royals in India. We will see
later that they both succeeded.
At the 1969 IUCN Congress later that year, Indira Gandhi gave
another hard hitting speech on saving India' s wildlife:
'I am delighted that the International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources is holding its General Assembly in
our country. May I extend a warm welcome to all the delegates on
behalf of the Government and the people of India.
I have special pleasure in coming to your Conference for, if I
may strike a personal note, as an only child whose childhood was
invaded by the turbulence of a vast national upheaval, I found
companionship and an inner peace in communion with Nature. I
grew up with love for stones, no less than trees, and for animals of
all kinds. I have always felt that closeness to Nature helps to make
one a more integrated personality. I say this especially because of the
general lack of concern or feeling for these things nowadays, at least
in my country.
India is country in the throes of change. And to be a conservative
is not popular. Nor am I one, for, our conditions demand that we
r
speed the process of social and economic transformation. Yet, there
are some things which I would not like to changewhich I would
like to conserveour beautiful craft, the rural folk's instinctive feel
for line and design and, of course, the natural beauty of our wildlife,
our forests and our mountains. This is not merely for one's aesthetic
sense, though that is important enough, but also for our future well-
being.
As one looks around at the Universe, one marvels at the order
and the balance. How beautifully everything fits in. How remarkably
well everything is organized.
All creatures must struggle against Nature to survive, and each
species has equipped itself in some special way for self-preservation.
Man developed his brain and today has transcended the limits of
sound and space. He is the professor of undreamt knowledge and
power. In the struggle for survival, he has gained the upper hand.
One should have thought that, with this knowledge at his command,
man would have learnt to live at peace with himself and with Nature.
Yet, no matter where one goes, one sees the needless and wasteful
destruction of plant and animal life for the sake of a moment's
pleasure or a temporary gain, with no heed to the balance of Nature
or the disturbance of its serenity. It is a sad commentary on our
attitude towards Nature that we still talk of'exploiting' its resources.
This is an unpleasant word, for it implies taking an unjust advantage.
Instead, we should think of the 'development' of resources, of using
resources with care. We all work for progress, but progress has its
ugly side also. The steady growth of population and the economic
needs which it imposes, have gradually encroached upon forest
resources. Mankind looks at animals, at flora and fauna, for what it
can get out of them.
In the last century, and especially during the last three or four
decades, India has been denuded of her forest wealth. The wanton
felling of trees has changed the landscape, affecting climate.
Deforestation is creating a major problem of soil erosion. A massive
campaign is necessary now to educate our people in the first
principles of natural conservation. We must teach them, from their
early school days, to become planters and protectors of trees and to
care for animals.
When forests are cut down, wildlife is naturally threatened. Some
beautiful and interesting species have become extinct. At the rate at
which secret poaching and shooting are taking place, the rhinoceros,
the famous Bengal tiger, and even the elephant might disappear unless
we take vigilant and drastic steps to preserve them. Fortunately, we
have an enlightened forest service but its strength is not adequate to
the size of our country. Thanks to pioneers, who were impelled by a
missionary zeal, we have set up several parks and wildlife sanctuaries.
We have a Wildlife Board, which has placed a ban on the export of
the skins of tigers and leopards. We do need foreign exchange, but
not at the cost of the life and liberty of some of the most beautiful
inhabitants of this continent.
Science is enabling us to find new sources for the fulfilment of
our needs. But the world's population and its wants are growing so
fast that we must evolve a more rational system of use and
conservation of natural resources everywhere. In a scramble for
exports, we in India cannot expose our iron ore and coal reserves to
ruin. Nor should countries who import these minerals from us want
us to exhaust our reserves. There should be far greater international
research and cooperative action on the conservation of the world's
mineral resources. We should learn to base our policies now on a
long-term vision rather than on considerations of immediate
economic gain. The natural resources of the world are truly
international in character. They are the common trust of mankind.
Your Union is endeavouring to arouse the conscience of
governments in regard to their responsibility to conserve the world's
resources. International scientific and technological cooperation has
already done much to develop human resources. It has an equally
important part to play in the conservation of natural resources. All
countries should encourage the interflow of scientific information
and the exchange of experts, instructors and scholars in order to
promote knowledge and techniques of conservation. Some day we
might work towards the adoption of a universal declaration on the
principles underlying the rational use and protection of natural
resources. In the meantime, we must endeavour to educate
governments and peoples.'
If only she knew then that because of enormous Japanese demand
places like Kudremukh would be mined and scarred for life as
rain forest was destroyed to mine for iron ore, and questionable
leases in the late 1990s got repeated and renewed. And all this
was taking place in the middle of a National Park.
From 1969 onwards, whether it was the ban on tiger shooting
in 1970, the creation of a tiger task force, the legislation of the
Wildlife Protection Act in 1972, and then the launch of Project
Tiger in 1973, Indira Gandhi' s words, decisions, and attitude
towards Forest India and all its denizens was strong and clear
save them and do it fast.
I extract bits of what she said to the National Committee on
Environmental Planning and Coordination in April 1972:
As one who has been deeply interested in this subject since long
before I had ever heard of the word ecology, I am naturally glad that
people have woken up to the dangers which threaten the world as
we know it.
Since man first discovered that he could use nature for his own
purposes he has been interfering with his environment. Man is a
part of nature and only one of the many species who inhabit the
earth. But he has treated it as his colony to exploit it. The scale of
his intervention has now grown to a point where it has produced
vast and disruptive changes which have already modified our
existence more profoundly than any earlier human activity. Hence,
the ecological problems with which we are now concerned embrace
diverse aspects ranging from the economic, social, psychological
problems of human settlements to the management and use of natural
resources and the conservation of natural habitats. The earlier attitude
of scorn has changed but some people still regard conservation and
concern for ecology as something of a fad. Why worry if few tigers
and rhinos and a few plant species are wiped out? Your agenda paper
gives the answer. An environment in which animals and plants become
extinct is not safe for the human being either.
Our attention cannot be diverted from the main question before
us which is to bring basic amenities within the reach of our people
and to give them better living conditions without alienating them
from nature and their environment, without despoiling nature of
its beauty and of the freshness and purity so essential to our lives.'
In June 1972 at the United Nat i ons Conference on Human
Environment in Stockholm she stated:
'I have had the good fortune of growing up with a sense of kinship
with nature in all its manifestations. Birds, plants, stones were
companions and, sleeping under the star-strewn sky, I became
familiar with the names and movements of the constellations. But
my deep interest in this our 'only earth' was not for itself but as a fit
home for man.
One cannot be truly human and civilized unless one looks upon
not only all fellow men but all creation with the eyes of a friend.
Throughout India, edicts carved on rocks and iron pillars are
reminders that 22 centuries ago Emperor Ashoka defined a king's
duty as not merely to protect citizens and punish wrongdoers but
also to preserve animal life and forest trees. Ashoka was the first and
perhaps the only monarch until very recently, to forbid the killing
of a large number of species of animals for sport or food,
foreshadowing some of the concerns of this Conference. He went
further, regretting the carnage of his military conquests and enjoining
upon his successors to find "their only pleasure in the peace that
comes through righteousness".
Along with the rest of mankind, we in Indiain spite of
Ashokahave been guilty of wanton disregard for sources of our
sustenance. We share your concern at the rapid deterioration of flora
and fauna. Some of our own wildlife has been wiped out, miles of
forests with beautiful old trees, mute witnesses of history, have been
destroyed. Even though our industrial development is in its infancy,
and at its most difficult stage, we are taking various steps to deal
with incipient environmental imbalances.
For instance, unless we are in a position to provide employment
and purchasing power for the daily necessities of the tribal people
and those who live in or around our jungles, we cannot prevent
them from combing the forest for food and livelihood; from poaching
and from despoiling the vegetation. When they themselves feel
deprived, how can we urge the preservation of animals? How can
we speak to those who live in villages and in slums about keeping
the oceans, the rivers and the air clean when their own lives are
contaminated at the source? The environment cannot be improved
in conditions of poverty. Nor can poverty be eradicated without the
use of science and technology.
It has been my experience that people who are at cross purposes
with nature are cynical about mankind and ill at ease with themselves.
Modern man must re-establish an unbroken link with nature and
with life. He must again learn to invoke the energy of growing things
and to recognize, as did the ancients in India centuries ago, that one
can take from the earth and the atmosphere only so much as one
puts back into them. In their hymn to Earth, the sages of the Atbarva
Veda chanted, I quote: "What of thee I dig out, let that quickly
grow over, Let me not hit thy vitals, or thy heart. So can man himself
be vital and of good heart and conscious of his responsibility".'
By March 1973 Indira Gandhi was delighted at the launch of
Project Tiger. In fact it was her political will over the previous
five years that had finally led to Project Tiger. In her strong
message she stated:
'Project Tiger abounds in irony. The country that has for millennia
been the most famous haunt of this great animal now finds itself
struggling to save it from extinction. The Project is comment on
our long neglect of our environment as well as our new-found, but
most welcome, concern for saving one of nature's most magnificent
endowments for posterity.
But the tiger cannot be preserved in isolation. It is at the apex of
a large and complex biotope. Its habitat, threatened by human
intrusion, commercial forestry, and cattle grazing must first be made
inviolate. Forestry practices, designed to squeeze the last rupee out
of our jungles, must be radically reoriented at least within our
National Parks and Sanctuaries, and pre-eminently in the Tiger
Reserves. The narrow outlook of the accountant must give way to a
wider vision of the recreational, educational, and ecological value of
totally undisturbed areas of wilderness. Is it beyond our political
will and administrative ingenuity to set aside about one or two per
cent of our forests in their pristine glory for this purpose?
Project Tiger is a truly national endeavour. It can succeed only
with the full cooperation of the Central and State Governments and
the support of the people. It has my very best wishes.'
At the Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, Indira
Gandhi struck a vital note at its conclusion. This was January 1976
in Madras and it was about ' consumption' which is what in 2002
wipes out more forests each year than anything else. She stated:
... living in the open, living in our own country, needs quite a
different type of consumption, or rather lack of consumption, than
perhaps people living in colder climates and in more sophisticated
societies can realize. This is the problem before India. We do not
want to raise our consumption except of course for those who lack
their basic needs. They must be given their basic requirements of
education, of development but beyond that I think that we have to
find a level and say "Thus far and no further". I do -not know whether
this will be possible surrounded as we are by the acquisitive societies
and ideals.'
She was right. It was not possible. In fact, one of her close political
associates who led the country in 1991Narsimha Raobrought
consumpt i ve practices in India to its peak by creating new
economic policies. This immediately led to devastation in Forest
India.
By the end of 1976, Indira Gandhi had put forest and wildlife
on the concurrent list of the constitution so that the Central
government could play a more active role in preservation. And it
was vital because the Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, did
not have any specific provision relating to the protection of the
environment or the conservation of nature. Indira Gandhi realized
this problem and quickly rectified it.
The forty-second amendment to the Constitution would play
a critical role in the decades ahead to provide enormous legal
relief to our beleaguered wildlife. For the first time, a specific
provision was made to protect and improve the environment and
both the state and its citizens were put under the fundamental
obligation to do so. The environment includes forests, lakes, rivers,
and wildlife.
On the 3 January 1977 Indira Gandhi addressed the Indian
Science Congress at Bhubaneshwar in Orissa and stated of trees
and forests:
'That is why we welcome and fully support the decisions of our
young people to take up tree planting as a major activity. I hope that
older people will also participate wholeheartedly. Every standing
tree is an ovation to life. It is the symbol and evidence of the earth's
fruitfulness and capacity for regeneration.
We need to involve forestry experts, landscape architects and
arboriculturists with the popular movement. But the major
responsibility will continue to rest on foresters. Great foresters have
been great conservationists. Unfortunately in the name of
contributing to revenues, some of our forest departments are more
active in felling than in planting trees. And even the planting which
is done is of fast-growing trees, whether or not they are suitable to a
region.'
Between 1977 and 1979, Indira Gandhi lost power to a united
Opposition and her focus and passion-driven concern for forests
and wildlife which drove so many decisions only came back on
her return to power late in 1979. But even in this gap Morarji Desai,
the new prime minister from the Opposition party, was forced to
continue her policies. He stopped the trade in rhesus monkeys in
1978 and tried to mount a rescue operation for three crocodilian
species. Let us not forget that from 1947 to 1977 two million rhesus
monkeys had been exported for foreign exchange. Morarji Desai
had to follow the law that Indira Gandhi made, that is, The Wildlife
Protection Act, 1972.
By 1979, on her return to power, there was much debate about
restructuring the forest and wildlife departments which thus far
had been housed in the Ministry of Agriculture. It was the
beginning of the 1980s and I let some of Indira Gandhi' s speeches
and decisions speak for this decade. This was the time when she
stopped the Silent Valley Project, in an effort to protect the rain
forests of the Western Ghats. It was a decade of more success in
conservation than failure, and again in 1979-80 she also had
drafted the Forest Conservation Act and piloted it through the
Parliament. It is this Act that has to the largest extent kept our
forests alive in 2002. Most greedy politicians hate it because it
empowers only the Ministry of Environment and Forests to release
forest land on a case by case basis. Without this Act, I doubt, we
would have had any forests left. Let us look at this decade which
in the first part was full of the strongest political will ever to be
found in the last century.
On 23 January 1980 the President of India addressed the joint
houses of Parliament and referred to the need for setting up a
specialized machinery with adequate powers to incorporate in
all planned development measures to maintain an ecological
balance. This was the beginning of a new year, a new decade, and
Indira Gandhi had just come back to power after a gap of two
years. It was a great moment for her to act on her favourite
subjectthe forests and wildlife of India. These first years of the
1980s were to be memorable in the history of our forests and
wildlife. The President had declared national commitment to the
subject and by the end of February, Indira Gandhi had set up a
high-powered committee under the chairmanship of the Deputy
Chairman of the Planning Commission. The committee would
r ecommend l egi sl at i ve measur es and t he admi ni st r at i ve
machinery necessary to ensure environmental protection. Its final
report was published in September 1980 and we shall look at it
later.
On 6 March 1980 Indi ra Gandhi l aunched t he Wor l d
Conservation Strategy of the IUCN and stated in her keynote
address:
'The need of the poor for livelihood, the greed of middlemen for
quick profits, the demands of industry, and the short-sightedness of
the administration have created ecological problems. It is sad that
even scientists, because of their collection activities, have contributed
to the disappearance of several species of orchids and other plants in
our Himalayan foothills. The manner in which we are encroaching
upon our forests and mountains and are permitting the
indiscriminate cutting of beautiful and useful old trees is alarming.
In spite of the Government of India's Forest Policy Resolution, we
have lost large areas in the last 30 years. As a result, there have been
soil erosion, floods, and the silting of reservoirs and rivers. Large
tracts of land have become saline or alkaline. One of our immediate
tasks is to restore the ecosystems of the Himalaya and other mountain
ranges. Can we ensure that by the end of the century, the Himalayas
will have the same extent of vegetable cover as prevailed at the
beginning of this century?
Nature is beautifully balanced. Each little thing has its own place,
its duty and special utility. Any disturbance creates a chain reaction
which may not be visible for some time. Taking a fragmentary view
of life has created global and national problems.
In his arrogance with his own increasing knowledge and ability,
man has ignored his dependence on the earth and has lost his
communion with it. He no longer puts his ear to the ground so that
the earth can whisper its secrets to him. He has cut his links from
the elements and has weakened resources which are the heritage of
millions of years of evolutionall those living or inanimate things
which sustained his inner energy (earth, water, air, the flora and
fauna). This loosening of his intuitive response to nature has created
a feeling of alienation in him and is destructive of his patrimony.
So, while we have to think of conservation, we must ask whether
man himself is growing into a being worth saving.'
On 20 April 1980, Indira Gandhi wrote a detailed letter to all the
chief ministers in India and the governors of the states reflecting
her concern about the state of affairs in Forest India and asking
for immediate correctives. I quote some of the important parts of
what she said:
'Since our Government took office, and even before, we have been
getting numerous reports and complaints about the denudation of
our forests and depredations on our wildlife. Felling of trees,
indiscriminate shooting of animals, poaching, smuggling of precious
wood and animal skins, and similar destructive activity have gone
unchecked for some time now. The time has come when we can no
longer look upon all this with equanimity or try to rationalise it by
treating it as part of the inexorable process of development.
The maintenance of the ecological balance should be as much a
part of the developmental process as the working of our national
resources.
I have been receiving a great deal of information from within
the country and abroad about the ravages to which our forests and
wildlife have been subjected. Many forests with precious species of
plants, green and other organisms have been thoughtlessly leased
out to forest contractors who are concerned with immediate profits
and cannot be expected to give consideration to the long-term effects
of their action. Hence the wide-scale destruction. Poachers and
smugglers of animal skins, etc., have not been far behind. Together,
they have chipped away steadily at many of our sanctuaries and
forest reserves. Much of the good work done in setting up wildlife
sanctuaries and bird sanctuaries has been nullified by their activities.
It is a matter for introspection as to how far the governments and
their machinery have acquiesced in, if they have not aided and
abetted, this whole process of steady destruction.
We cannot allow this sad state of affairs to continue and must
bring about a total reversal of these trends. It is in recognition of
this that the President in his address to Parliament called for urgent
action in the area of afforestation, flood control, soil conservation
and preservation of flora and fauna.
Efforts to preserve our environment are a joint responsibility of
the Centre and the States and, in fact, of all right-thinking people.
At the Centre, we have already set up a Committee to suggest
legislative and administrative measures to maintain ecological
balance. ... the major effort at the field level will have to come from
State Governments and I am afraid that without specific and
immediate action by State Governments to check the activities of
forest contractors and poachers, while also making determined
attempts to extend the area under forests and vegetative cover, we
shall not make headway. I suggest for your consideration some
specific measures. These are:
1. Officers with the right attitude should be posted in reserved
forests and sanctuary areas; if possible, a special corps of such
officers could be identified for duties relating to wildlife and
forest and environment conservation.
2. Forest development corporations or similar agencies should
be asked to take up plantations on steep hill sites, catchment
areas and clear-felled forest areas so that productive forestry
and protective forestry go hand in hand.
3. A massive programme of social forestry should be taken up
both under the Food for Work Programme and under other
specified schemes. The wastelands in villages, all community
lands, field bunds, canal bunds, etc., should be clothed with
fast-growing species under this useful scheme.
4. In areas where tribals depend heavily on forests for their
livelihood, they should be involved in replanting the species
that they are already exploiting. A scheme of forest farming
should be undertaken. Particular attention must be paid to
the replanting or fresh planting of fruit trees.
5. The existing regulations and security arrangements in
sanctuaries should be tightened. Poaching should be dealt with
very severely.
6. Intelligence machinery to detect smuggling of valuable species
like red sanders and sandalwood, or of animal furs and skins
must be strengthened and personal interest must be shown by
top people in administration to see that such activities are
ruthlessly suppressed.
7. The system of contracting away forest areas should be replaced
or modified to see that every tree felled should be replaced by
the planting of at least another one if not more.
8. Tree plantation programmes should be undertaken by schools
and other institutions. Some countries have initiated a
programme of a tree for every child.
9. Serious attempts must be made to change the orientation of
all persons working in the Forest Service and forest adminis-
tration with a system of rewards and incentives for those who
do better in preserving or extending the forest areas.
We should also give thought to some other measures needed to
preserve our environment. Please devote some time every week to
review the developments in this field personally or through one of
your senior colleagues. I shall be glad to have your suggestions as
also an indication what your State proposed to do or has done in
this field.'
Look how far-sighted the then Prime Minister was. I know that
no one has written or uttered these words again. The tragedy is
that in twenty-two years most of what she stated never really
happened, except for bits and pieces of social forestry and
plantation work and that also in the most haphazard of ways. I,
from the outside, am still fighting for reform in the forest service
and for a sub-cadre of forest officers to focus their work in
protected areas. There are so many vested interests in the system
at play that new ideas get buried so fast that it is unimaginable.
Suffice to say that we still fight for the same things that Indira
Gandhi wanted done twenty-two years ago.
Again on 2 May 1980 Indira Gandhi wrote to all the governors
and chief ministers of the states of India. Her follow-up was
r emar kabl e. Her f ocus was on t he i mpr ovement of t he
infrastructure that governed wildlife and forests. She wanted this
sector to be fully staffed and suggested in this letter that ' ...
Wildlife Advisory Boards in your states should meet regularly to
review the progress in the preservat i on of sanctuaries and
stopping the exploitation of game.'
She always wanted these leaders to personally ensure all the
above. She would have been shocked to realize that just in the
matter of staffing in 2002 there was a 30 per cent vacancy in the
forest staff who are the guardians of Forest India.
On 23 May 1980 Indira Gandhi reconstituted the Indian Board
for Wildlife to provide more teeth to her policies. On 23 June 1980
she lost her son Sanjay Gandhi in an air accident. But she never
stopped. On 28 July 1980 at a conference concerning the future
Indira Gandhi' s message was very clear: 'We must discover the
art of living with nature and growing with evolution. How long
can we draw upon the exhaustible resources of the earth? Many
new forms of energy await harnessing.'
On 11 August 1980 Indira Gandhi made some interventions
in Parl i ament . This was just before she pi l ot ed t he Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 in the Parliament:
'Concern with ecology in India, as Hon. Members have pointed
out, is not a new one. It has been there from time immemorial. It is
mentioned in our Vedas. It has nothing to do with religion. It is
concerned with the preservation of Man, with the preservation of
conditions on Earth which will enable Man to survive. It is our own
fault that we have not been able to live up to this. We find that a
number of projects, although they have done good and have helped
to develop an area, have also had side effects which have done a
great deal of harm. But in other places also, certain projects have
resulted in deforestation which, in time, has caused siltation of rivers,
floods and other such effects which have caused and are causing
year after year tremendous damage to people.
Basically, many of our troubles today are due to the over-
exploitation of the soil. This does not mean that fertilizer is bad. We
are for the use of fertilizers, but not overuse. We have constantly to
draw the line. We should have mixed forests with trees which enrich
the soil and can provide employment and enable the local people to
earn a livelihood. Now, we are laying stress on this aspect and we are
going to lay stress on it in our planning. Already some States, notably
Himachal, have taken steps in this direction.'
If only Indira Gandhi had known that big development projects
woul d create havoc in the 1990sthe era of big dams and
ecological damage. And wi t h all this continued the endless
monocultures in degraded areas. The wisdom of mixed forests is
so easily forgotten when there is no one at the top who cares. A
nation can turn over-exploitative within hours and that is what
happened in the 1990s.
In this same speech to Parliament she went on to say:
'I should like to pay a tribute to those, especially in UP, who have
prevented contractors from cutting down their trees and have
mounted a movement ... the Chipko Movement. We can create
this awareness amongst our people everywhere and be on the lookout
as to what is going on. Some decisions regarding projects make it
difficult to safeguard particular areas. We are determined that we
should not repeat such mistakes.'
' Chipko' means to get stuck to, and the first people who protected
trees in this manner were the Bishnois in Rajasthan. Three hundred
and fifty of them lost their lives protecting the Khejri trees. In the
Himalayas large tracts of forests were protected by the Chipko
Movement. One of the early leaders of this movement, Sundar
Lai Bahuguna, fought throughout the 1990s against the massive
ecological damage taking place there, but to a large extent this
was in vain. The political leadership of the country no longer had
the same sensitivities.
Irrespective of her son' s death a few months earlier Indira
Gandhi, as far as forests and wildlife were concerned, was like an
unstoppable steam engine. On 25 August 1980 she addressed a
meeting of the Central Board of Forestry. She stated:
'I am here not because I have anything very new to say. I know that
most of you here are experts and probably know more about the
subject than I do. But I have come in order to demonstrate the
importance which Government gives to this subject. What I have to
say is not new, but some things have to be repeated so that they sink
in, and with this repetition we are able to create the right climate.
As a child, and even now, I feel oneness with nature. I was
brought up to love forests and trees. But today this is no longer a
matter of personal taste. It is of relevance to the country's economy
and the well-being of our people.
In 1952 our National Forest Policy aimed at covering 33 per
cent of the land area with forests. What is the situation today? I am
told it is a most disturbing one. On record the forest area is only
23 per cent of the total geographical area and only 10 per cent has
good forest cover.
The reckless and indiscriminate felling of trees, especially on
our Himalayan slopes for immediate profit either of contractors or
in the name of development, has proved hazardous.
Forest personnel should consider themselves as custodians of
the future. At present their training is a rather narrow one. It must
be reviewed. We must change the attitude of conservators and others
concerned, and give them a much wider approach. They are in charge
not only of forests but of all that lives in forests, all its wildlife.
Forests can be saved and improved if the initiative for their
preservation and development comes from those who spend their
days in them and for them.
I am glad to learn that you are going to discuss some forest
legislation because there is no doubt that more comprehensive forest
legislation is needed to curb the rapacity of our poachers, smugglers,
those who break the rules with regard to the shooting of game, and
most important of all the contractors. Such laws should take note of
the forest as a whole, including the preservation of the flora and
fauna. Sometimes, there is a tendency to assume that having a law
solves the problem. But we have seen from experience that legislation
is not enough. The officials in charge, who live nearby and even
others who may not be directly concerned, must be constantly on
the lookout to see that rules and laws are not broken and greater
attention is paid to educate the public and punish the guilty. Until
recently the Andhra Pradesh Government had on its Statute Books
from as far back as 1873 a 'Wild Elephant Preservation Act' although
for many years there have been no wild elephants. This is a sombre
example of our traditional belief in mantras. The Act was preserved
but not the elephant!
The ills of the world are often attributed to materialism. Has
there ever been a time when there was no materialism? What has
gone wrong is the alienation, the moving away from one's roots,
from basic values and timeless truth. Emulating our ancient sages
with regard to respecting the earth and enriching it instead of fighting
with it or depleting it is not going to solve all our problems. But it is
a step in the right direction. I hope this Conference will help India
to take this step.'
Though she could not bring reform into the forest service and
probably because forest officers did not want it, she was, shortly
af t er t hi s speech, able to br i ng to Par l i ament t he Forest
Conservation Act. She would have been happy to know that just
below Tirupati some wild elephants did enter Andhra Pradesh!
What Indira Gandhi said in 1980 is true twenty-two years later.
There are lots of policies, lots of recommendations, lots of laws,
but little will to enforce them. Acts get preserved for posterity
but not whom the Acts were made for.
For Indira Gandhi this was the moment that started the
formulation of the Forest Conservation Actthe most compre-
hensive legislation to be enacted in 1980.
For her, it was an extraordinarily active time in relation to
Forest India. On 15 September 1980 the committee for recommend-
ing legislative measures and admi ni st rat i ve machi nery for
environmental protection submitted its report to Indira Gandhi.
N.D. Tiwari (presently Chief Minister of Uttaranchal), then Deputy
Chairman of the Planning Commission and Chairman of the
committee stated in his letter to Indira Gandhi:
'Under your leadership, the National Development Council at its
recent meeting has also, for the first time in the history of Indian
planning, approved the following major objectives for the Sixth Plan:
'Bringing about harmony between the short- and the long-term goals
of development by promoting the protection and improvement of
ecological and environmental assets'.
He went on to state:
'We need a suitable institutional arrangement in the form of a
properly structured government department for ensuring that this
objective is translated into reality. Since such a department will
require for its successful functioning the cooperation of all other
departments of government, we have proposed that you may be
good enough to keep such a department under your direct charge'.
Tiwari knew that Indira Gandhi had the political will to ensure
that the department of environment would work and therefore
he wanted it in her direct charge.
The commi t t ee asked for the i mmedi at e creat i on of a
Depart ment of Envi ronment under the charge of the Prime
Minister. The Prime Minister accepted the report. The Tiwari
Committee, as it was called, had done its work. In November 1980
the Department of Environment was set up as the focal agency in
the admi ni st rat i ve st ruct ure of the Central government for
pl anni ng, pr omot i on, and coor di nat i on of envi r onment al
programmes. At long last the subject had been separated from
the ministry of agriculture.
It was in this committee and as members of it that both M.
Krishnan and Billy Arjan Singh made their pertinent comments
on what they thought should happen. Below are some extracts
from what M. Krishnan stated:
'I suggested 5 per cent of the total land area to be preserved in
perpetuity, which would include the wildlife preserves now
designated by various names (sanctuaries, national parks, tiger
reserves) and also the 'biospheres' envisaged in this draft report, and
also the country's geomorphological features.
The Committee is reluctant to recommend any specific
percentage. The reasons for this reluctance are not clear, and are
probably rooted in an apprehension of the procedural difficulties
involved. I submit that in a matter of such national importance, a
more dynamic and constructive response should be made. Note that
in the 5 per cent of the total land area proposed by me, 2.3 per cent
which, as per the draft report, is already occupied by various kinds
of wildlife preserves. This 2.3 per cent, as clearly set out in the report,
is merely a statistic on the basis of the areas called, and 'so-called',
wildlife preserves. In most of them the most objectionable and
depletive practices are permitted and indulged in, such as diverse
kinds of forestry operations including plantations of exotics, cattle
grazing, the collection of forest produce and firewood, and even
subsidised supplies to industries. Further, many of these preserves
are of too small an area to be self-sustaining if strict protection is
accorded. Actually, on the basis of some 30 years' experience of these
preserves of all over India, I am sure only about 1.2 to 1.5 per cent
would ultimately remain within the 5 per cent contemplated by me,
leaving plenty of room for the proposed biospheres and
geomorphological featureseven purely cultural features would be
covered by the 5 per cent proposed (such as ancient ruins). To suggest
more than 5 per cent, with the terrific pressure of land by our vast
human populations, growing industries and hopefully, more
productive agriculture, would be self-defeatistone sure way of
failing in any national cause is to attempt too much, to bite off
more than we can chew.
On the contrary, it may be argued that 5 per cent is too much.
That is not a sound, well-based, realistic view. Since, as envisaged,
1.2 to 1.5 per cent would be taken up by existing wildlife preserves
only some 3.5 per cent would be left for new wildlife preserves
(including floristic preserves), biospheres (which would necessarily
be of large area) and geomorphological features.
If the Constitution needs to be changed to permanently assure
the physical identity and character of India to future generations of
Indians, it must be changedthis is no small matter, the issue of
our national integrity. For the immediate present, to save what is
left before it is too late, a thin-end-of-the-wedge strategy may be
utilised, by the Centre taking over from the States areas typically
representative of the Indianness of India (to a maximum of 5 per
cent of the total land area) on lease, on a nominal rent, for a period
of 49 or even only 20 years. The establishment of these reserves on
a permanent constitutional basis may then be taken up.'
Twenty-two years after M. Krishnan' s remarks we still only have
4.3 per cent of our land mass as protected areas and I doubt if we
shall ever reach the magical figure of 5 per cent.
Billy Arjan Singh was most vocal on the creation of an Indian
Wildlife Service. He believed that if wildlife was to be protected,
there had to be a cadre that protected it:
'I maintain with absolute conviction that the fragile status of wildlife,
which has deteriorated to crisis proportions due to abusive practices
as a State Subject, should be immediately taken over to by the
Department of Environment to be administered by a Central
Wildlife Service. Wildlife has no fear imperative to assist in its future
survival, and I feel that once the euphoria of creative effort is over,
the preservation of wildlife may once again be relegated to its pristine
state in the order of priorities.
The draft Sixth Five-Year Plan 1978-83 recommends that 25
per cent of forest area should be taken over for wildlife preservation,
and this area should be identified immediately for management by
the Wildlife Service, with the present Parks and Sanctuaries as a
working nucleus.
A moratorium should be declared on commercial operations in
all forests, and fresh priorities for the functioning of the forest
department should be laid down for wildlife management.'
To this day that cadre evades us. There is no wildlife service or
national park service in this country. The reason for this is that
the majority of forest service officers do not want it.
On 1 October 1980 Indira Gandhi gave her wildlife message
for the nation. In it she stated:
'Most people do not realize the value of wildlife for human existence.
Man survives as part of the biosphere which is made up of different
communities of living organismsplants, animals, human beings.
Everything in the world is interrelated and all are mutually
dependant. By protecting wildlife we express our concern for all life
and thus for our own.
The Government attaches high importance to the preservation
of wildlife and the education of public in this regard. As chairman
of the Indian Board for Wildlife, I urge all people to cooperate with
our efforts.'
By November 1980 Indi a had its first ever Depar t ment of
Environment. Looking at it from the perspective of today it must
have been a remarkable achievement. The subject of forests would
continue to remain in the Agricultural Ministry but wildlife would
become a part of the new Depart ment of Environment. On
22 December 1980 just before the year ended Indira Gandhi, in a
message to the Environment Forum of the Members of Parliament,
stated:
'In life, the environment should not become the enemy of the
important. What we do today ought not to prejudice what we might
have to do tomorrow. But economic man has been guided more by
greed than by wisdom. He has felled trees, destroyed forests, ripped
open the earth, wiped away many species of plants and animals,
burnt up fuel. He arrogantly regards all creation as his slave.
From the beginning of time, sages have warned human beings
not to be rapacious and to look upon all life and even non-life with
kindly eyes. Only now, when the technology of warfare and economic
exploitation has become ruthlessly efficient, have a large number of
people become suddenly aware that life itself might be extinguished
and that nature will not care for man unless he cares for it. Science,
which concerned itself preponderantly with creation and destruction,
is now turning its attention to the other task of preservation.'
It was also in 1980 that Indira Gandhi gave her full support to the
Man and Biosphere Programme and under her stewardship the
first biosphere reserves were planned. Sadly even to this day these
reserves have remained only on paper. I have given an example
of the kind of year 1980 was for Indira Gandhi. Let us also quickly
glance through the changes that had taken place from 1880. Forest
cover had reduced from 32 per cent to 20 per cent. Agriculture
had increased from 31 per cent to 45 per cent. In this one hundred-
year period at least forty-three million hectares of land turned
into fields for crops. The expansion of agriculture took place at
the cost of forest India. Of course the human population had
tripled in one hundred years from just over 200 million to nearly
700 million.
On 9 February 1981 Indira Gandhi chaired the fourteenth
meeting of the Indian Board for Wildlife. She stressed the need
for proper and effective implementation of the policies and
programmes already initiated by the government and called for
a 'multi-dimensional approach' in dealing with matters concerning
environmental protection including the conservation of wildlife
and its habitats.
This was one of the first times that Indira Gandhi referred to
the need for involving people from the villages in or near wildlife
areas into the process of conservation. It was this historic meeting
that created the first processes of eco-development in order to
involve local communities and it was at this meeting that this
approach was commended to the Central and state governments.
Again, Billy Arjan Singh fought for the decision to create a separate
wildlife service but was neutralized in his efforts by his colleagues.
Few knew t hen t hat t he Gl obal Envi r onment Facility
supported by the World Bank would put seventy million dollars
in 1996-7 into eco-developmentand it would be a project which
would have negative impacts on our protected area systems. Too
much money was pumped into too few areas. The menu of
activities to be implemented were too diverse and included all
kinds of income generation activities for the local communities.
The forest staff was already plagued with vacancies. Though this
project promised fresh recruits in its implementation, no one was
recruited. Front-line staff were brought in to do rural development
work. Village mafias made lots of money and so did many others.
I spent months fighting this project realizing that it would have
disastrous impacts, but it was in vain. International money is
seldom refused.
At the United Nations Conference on New and Renewable
Sources of Energy in Nairobi on 10 August 1981, Indira Gandhi
stated:
'We humans have regarded Earth not just as a playground but as a
place to use, despoil, and to destroy. We are too engrossed with the
immediate, too absorbed with petty individual problems, to look at
basic issues. Today's problem has taken centuries to grow into its
present threatening proportions. We are searching for new and
renewable resources because the fossil fuels on which we had grown
dependent are, fast and recklessly, being depleted, in the hands of
the few who control them.
If the laws of nature are thwarted, renewable sources will also
be exhausted. The indiscriminate felling of trees had denuded our
forests, creating disastrous ecological imbalances that affect the very
quality of life. In its sternest form, nature exacts retribution for the
treeless scars on its mountain sides; landslides, devastating floods
and silting up of reservoirs and rivers are the result. Rainfall begins
to dwindle and the desert resumes its deadly march.'
In this very conference she also stated:
'This concept of environmental protection is not new to us. Indian
tradition has taught us that all forms of life are closely interlinked.
Traditionally we have prayed for the welfare not only of all men but
of all animals and plants and even of the five elements of life
earth, water, air, fire, and space. Following this tradition, the Indian
Constitution has made specific reference to the need for ecological
safeguards, and the environment has been recognised as an issue of
national concern at the political level.'
In the Standing Committee meeting of the Indian Board for Wild-
life chaired by Indira Gandhi on 19 August 1981, she desired that
during Wildlife Week educating and entertaining programmes
on wildlife should appear every day on All India Radio and
Doordarshan and these programmes should bring out the beauty
and importance of wildlife.
It was at this meeting that S.P. Shahi, the new representative
of the eastern region for the Indian Board for Wildlife stressed
t he need for i nt r oduci ng a specific col umn in t he annual
confidential reports of IFS Officers for assessing their work in
wildlife conservation. This issue is pending to this day. Forest
officers fight between themselves about it.
On 20 September 1981 in her message for Wildlife Week she
stated:
In its unending struggle for survival; the human species sharpened
its mental and physical endowments and became master of the Earth.
Man's achievements have been truly remarkable. But somewhere
along the journey he forgot that his only one link in the chain of
existence and that without other links he may not be able to survive.
We humans are dependant on the animal and the vegetable
kingdoms and these, although blessed with incredible vitality, cannot
prosper without our consideration and cooperation. Through our
indifference and self-centredness, we have already caused severe stress
to the natural order. The responsibility on the present generation is
an onerous one.
Let us give back to Nature what we have taken from itcreativity
and capacity for renewal. Wildlife Week is only a short step towards
a distant destination. When it comes again next year, I hope we
shall be in a position to claim that our animal friends are more
secure and their environment more congenial than a year ago.'
At the centenary celebrations of forest education in Dehra Dun
on 19 December 1981 she stated: The contractors' axe and human
greed are destroying our forests, causing great ecological damage,
erosion and floods and depri vi ng many of their traditional
livelihood.' And about the Indian Forest Service she stated:
'It is sad that there is such a high rate of depletion of direct recruits
and a tendency to treat this service as less than some others. Apart
from the fact that every task is important, there is something special
about trees and closeness to nature. Surely, there do exist young
men and women who would respond to the call of this profession
which is interesting as well as emotionally and aesthetically fulfilling.
We should be able to recruit bright young men and women into
forestry. So far, very few women have been drawn to it. Perhaps
there is a mistaken belief that it is a man's job. But all over the world
women are taking on more and more such jobs in all fields of activity.
I wish more women would feel interested in forestry, particularly in
social forestry, because it involves direct interaction with village
womenfolk.'
For some reason she could never get the support of the forest
service to reform and restructure themselves and in my opinion
this was the service' s greatest failing. Because of this fact the
service has become one of the weakest all over India.
At the first National Conference of Legislators on Environment
on 30 April 1982 Indira Gandhi stated:
'The conservation of our rapidly shrinking natural resources under
commercial or population pressures has now assumed critical
importance. A report that I saw brought out by the Forest Survey of
India on the natural forest areas which still retain their primary
character reveals that only very scattered small pockets are left, most
of which are combined to existing protected areas. Viable tropical
humid forests now remain only in Kerala, Arunachal Pradesh and
the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. And I think, you, all Members
of Parliament; are specially aware of the pressures on us. Therefore
increase of plantation or putting up of industries and so on and
cutting down of these valuable forests which represent the richest
sources of genetic diversity must be fully protected and scientifically
maintained in biosphere reserves which will help us to ensure the
improvement and survival of cultivated plants and domesticated
animals as well as help the advance of many pharmaceutical
industries. Any continuation of forest felling in these areas, without
consideration of large number of other plant and animal species of
great genetic value, will destroy irretrievably a vast unknown reservoir
of biological wealth which is not merely a national but a world
resource, and needs rational protection and management.
We have a precious heritage of plants here like the neem and
the peepul which are now being largely ignored even in planting
forests, of animals like the elephant and the rhinoceros, of birds like
the peacock, the mynah and the bustard. We give winter shelter to
many beautiful birds which come from Siberia, like the Siberian
crane which also must be protected. The whole panorama of our
flora and fauna is one of extraordinary diversity and profusion and
beauty, of course. Any carelessness can easily lose us this heritage
leaving rubble, rust and pollution in its place. As responsible people,
each one of us should give serious thought to this and to the future;
and plan our work accordingly.'
On 18 May 1982 in New Delhi Indira Gandhi received the order
of the Golden Ark from Prince Bernhard of Netherlands. In her
speech she said:
'Prince Bernhards's work and concern for wildlife is well known. I
feel privileged to accept the Order of the Golden Ark. What a
beautiful thought and a beautiful name!
My own involvement with flora and fauna preceded any ideas
on conservation. As a child I felt a closeness to the earth. When I
began to read, I found an echo in D.H. Lawrence's words: "I am
part of the Sun as my eye is part of me. That I am part of the earth
my feet know perfectly, and my blood is part of the Sea . . . . My soul
is an organic part of the great human soul as my spirit is part of my
nation . . . . I am part of the great whole and, I can never escape."
In my world, animals and plants played an important part.
Human contacts are through the intermediary of the spoken work,
which is so often misconstrued. Also, they are largely governed ...
by thinking and behaviour, which are preconditioned by social or
other circumstances. With animals and plants, I could be totally
myself.
In India we are fortunate in having a long tradition of protection
of animals and of feeling for plants. In ancient times cow protection
was an economic necessity. Similarly, flowers were integral to religious
rites and plants were used not only for food but for medicinal and
other purposes. Asoka, who was emperor in the third century bc has
left edicts on rocks, enjoining upon us to treat animals with kindness
and care.'
It is clear from the above quotes how deep Indira Gandhi' s beliefs
were in the natural world. She loved it and therefore cared for it
and created an enormous political will in the country to save it.
At the second meeting of the Standing Committee of the IBWL
on 1 July 1982 chaired again by Indira Gandhi, a clear decision
was taken to prevent Arab hunters and other foreigners to kill
the bustard. This was also a meeting that pushed for the rapid
establishment of the Wildlife Institute of India. At this meeting a
decision was also taken to create a task force to elicit public support
for wildlife conservation. This task force was constituted in the
middle of September.
On 14 September 1982 she wrote to the chief ministers once
again reminding them about their priorities.
'For over a decade, I have been emphasising the need for special
attention to wildlife conservation and specialised management in
this field. This is the reason for the enactment of the Wildlife
Protection Act in 1972 and this subject was included in the
Concurrent List of the Constitution in 1976. Simultaneously, specific
guidelines for the formation of separate wildlife wings in the States
and Union Territories were circulated by the Ministry of Agriculture.
At the same time the Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms also wrote to all the States on this subject.
Thereafter, the matter has been pursued at various levels. In
1980, shortly after launching the World Conservation Strategy in
India, I wrote to you on the 20 April and again on the 2 May. More
lately, the Indian Board for Wildlife has expressed serious concern
about the lack of attention by State Governments to the formation
and working of separate wildlife wings in the States. The Board
wanted the Ministry of Agriculture to examine the position carefully
and specially review the working of wildlife wings in some bigger
States which claim to have set up such separate wings within the
Forest Departments. This exercise has been done in the last few
months and the overall picture is most disappointing. Most States
have not set up proper wildlife wings, as visualised in the guidelines
circulated by the Central Government. Where this has been done,
these are not being manned by properly selected and motivated
officials. The detailed review with regard to some bigger States has
revealed a number of deficiencies. The main points are given in the
attached summary.
The forthcoming Wildlife Week is from the 1 to 7 October,
1982. Please see that concrete action on each point contained in the
attached summary materialises by that time, and that a report on
the action taken is sent to me urgently. Please also keep in close
touch with the Department of Environment here which has been
asked to deal with the wildlife matters in a more intense manner.'
Indira Gandhi was continuously pushing the chief ministers
to act.
On 1 October 1982 the fifteenth meeting of the Indian Board
for Wildlife was held. Indira Gandhi chaired it again and the
meeting started with the release of a postage stamp on the Hangul,
and with an accompanying message from the chief minister of
Jammu and Kashmir, Farooq Abdullah.
In her opening remarks, the Prime Minister emphasized the
importance of the meeting arising from the fact that this was the
first time that a meeting of the Board was being held during the
Wildlife Week, and also because it had come up soon after the
transfer of wildlife work at the Centre to the Department of
Environment. She expressed the hope that the new arrangement
would help in giving much-needed closer attention to the subject
and lead to quicker results, which would be possible if the field-
level agencies work in harmony and with the spirit of mutual
help and cooperation.
Stressing the need for a nationwide effort based on active
public interest and involvement, Prime Minister laid down that
the strategy and action programmes for wildlife conservation in
the country should aim at:
1. The establishment of a network of protected areas such
as national parks, sanctuaries and biosphere reserves, to
cover represent at i ve sampl es of all maj or wi l dl i fe
ecosystems and with adequate geographic distribution;
2. The restoration of degraded habitats to their natural state,
within these protected areas;
3. The rehabi l i t at i on of endanger ed species and their
restoration to protected portions of their former habitats,
in a manner which provides some reflection of their
original distribution;
4. The provi si on of adequat e protection to wildlife in
mul t i pl e-use areas (such as product i on forests and
pasture) so as to form "corridors" linking up the protected
areas and providing for genetic continuity between them;
5. Support for the management of botanical and zoological
parks and garden and undertaking captive breeding
programmes for threatened species of plants and animals;
6. The development of appropriate management systems
for protected areas, including a professional cadre of
personnel fully trained in all aspects of wildlife and
sanctuary management, as well as the provision of proper
orientation to all officers concerned with wildlife;
7. The development of research and monitoring facilities
which will provide a scientific understanding of wildlife
popul at i ons and habi t at s essential to their pr oper
management;
8. Support for wildlife education and interpretation aimed
at a wider public appreciation of importance of wildlife
to human betterment;
9. The review and updat i ng of statutory provisions for
protection to wildlife and regulating all forms of trade,
so as to ensure their current effectiveness;
10. Assistance in the formulation and adoption of a National
Conservation Strategy for all living natural resources on
the lines of the World Conservation Strategy launched in
1980;
11. Participation in international conventions designed to
prevent the depletion of the wildlife resources and to
provide protection to migratory species;
12. Long-term conservation of wildlife based on the scientific
principles of evolution and genetics.'
It is tragic that twenty years later none of these twelve points
have really been fulfilled.
A detailed discussion was held at this meeting of a special
sub-cadre wi t hi n the state forest depar t ment s for wi l dl i fe
management . This was especially so because of the Prime
Minister's letter of 14 September 1982 to all the chief ministers on
this subject. The minutes of the meeting quoted in part here reflect
this vital issue:
The Board took note of the existing situation and expressed serious
concern about the lack of attention by the State Governments in
regard to this matter. It noted that the Prime Minister has again
written on 14
th
September, 1982 to all the Chief Ministers on this
subject, and hoped that the States will now initiate appropriate action
without delay. The Department of Environment was requested to
monitor closely the progress in this regard. Deputy Minister (Env.)
emphasised the need for activating the State Wildlife Advisory Boards
and stressed that these Boards should meet as often as possible as
well as coordinate with the IBWL.
At the conference of state forest ministers in New Delhi on 18
October 1982 her address was sharp and precise:
As the Minister has just said, I have been writing repeatedly to Chief
Ministers on different facets of forestry in these last three years.
This was to convey our collective anxiety on the rapid depletion of
our forests and the ill effects that this would have on our climate
it is already havingour economic development and our future
itself. Fortunately today there is greater awareness all around
regarding this problem and a few steps have been taken for the
conservation of this precious resource. However it is obvious and a
cause for distress that these steps do not go far enough. The Minister
was pleased to say that I was a saviour of forestry and wildlife, but I
will be saviour only if they are actually saved. So far, they are not
saved.
Yet when it comes to taking concrete decisions either to stop
the cutting of trees or to preserve endangered species of animals or
to put down poaching or smuggling of rare species, we waver. The
initiatives is left often enough to people who depend upon such
activities for their living. I am certain that a total change can be
brought about in our whole approach to forestry only if all those
who are responsible for decisions, whether they are politicians or
officials or non-officials, are imbued with a strong commitment to
conserve our environment. These ideas will prosper if there is a
genuine feeling for them and not merely because it happens to be
part of a programme. Perhaps you remember Gandhi/7 saying that
when any major decision is to be taken we should recall the face of
the Daridranarayan. Similarly when any decision about felling of
trees or allowing wildlife to be overrun is taken, we have to think of
the life of the tree and the lives of wild animals and how intimately
these are bound up with human living.
I know that there is tremendous pressure on our forest resources
for timber, fuel, forest produce, fodder, etc. I don't minimize the
importance of these needs but they should not result in indiscriminate
felling of forests. Some hard measures like a ban on felling in all
critically affected areas like hill slopes, catchment areas and tank
beds are inevitable. The avarice of the contractor must be recognized
and dealt with firmly. Only a few States have dispensed with the
contracting system. Even in those States, it is necessary to have
another closer look as to how the new system works, whether it has
resulted in slowing down the rate of depletion.
I have received many complaints that State forest departments
have totally clear-felled areas before starting plantation. When
degraded areas, deforested areas and other vacant government lands
are available for plantation, they should be taken up on a priority
basis.
There are also complaints about monoculture plantation. In
India, we are extremely slow in taking up an idea. Once we take it
up, we do it to the exclusion of all other ideas. Everything has to be
done in proportion. Monoculture has its value but in the overall
picture it is better to have mixed forests. That does not mean you
should not have specific forests for specific needs. Many scientists
have expressed doubts on the wisdom of monoculture plantations,
and it is the opinion of conservators and others all over the world
that it is more beneficial to have mixed plantations. Replacing species
which were already present in forest areas will give the best results.
We should pay special attention to plant indigenous species, many
of which have diverse uses either because they are fruit-bearing or
fodder-giving or of medicinal value. Many of them are also
broadleaved which suit our terrain and our climate.
So far as wildlife is concerned, recently we have decided to entrust
the subject to our Department of Environment. The objective is to
ensure that the scientific management of wildlife, which is an integral
part of the environment, gets more specialized attention. The
intention was not to divorce wildlife from forestrythat cannot be
done as the two have to go closely together. But forestry practices in
wildlife areas must change. Much more attention has to be paid to
endangered species and to wildlife outside sanctuaries. There is a
strong demand that forestry also should be removed from agriculture,
because of what is now happening, and put along with environment.
This will depend on how the forest departments function. If we
find that they are not changing their ways, we will have to review
the whole situation and if necessary change the whole concept of
the service and the way it functions. But it simply cannot continue
as it is going on now. That is one thing on which we are all quite
definite.
The feeling that wildlife is only a matter of curiosity which can
be preserved through ecological parks must go. Wildlife has to be
wild and it has to survive. I would like to say that I am quite unhappy
at the way, for instance, the Gir lions are now treated. They have
become quite tame and are no longer wild. They are fed and now
they have got no capacity to hunt for themselves. That is not
anybody's concept of wildlife nor of a sanctuary. I think that some
of our wildlife wardens have been to Africa and seen how beautifully
this is managed there and how natural the surroundings are. There
the animals come first, not the visitors, no matter how important
the visitor is. You are not allowed to make noisethere are so many
rules, not for animals, but for the human beings. I think we will
have to adopt some of them here.
There are good scientific reasons for taking special steps to
preserve wildlife. Of course, it has to be managed properly so that
no particular species overruns another because that would create
the same sort of problem which man has created by overrunning his
forests. It is distressing that many people still treat the wildlife wing
in a perfunctory manner. All posts where important work has to be
done relating to working plans on wildlife are not filled up by highly
motivated officers with good experience on the subject. There is too
high a turnover of personnel in these jobs. The Indian Board for
Wildlife has repeatedly drawn my attention to this. As I said earlier,
changes have to come from a heartfelt recognition of the importance
of the subject. Many State Boards for Wildlife have not met at all. If
State Forest Ministers and senior officers of the forest departments
devote time to wildlife management only on symbolic occasions
like the Wildlife Week, we cannot ensure survival of important
species. Our country has a rich variety of flora and fauna, the like of
which may not be found in many places. We should be proud of
this heritage and try to preserve it. Doubts have been expressed about
the preservation of species like crocodiles, elephants, tigers, etc.,
which sometimes overrun their territory and are considered inimical
to human population. It is well known that when these or any other
animals are properly managed, they do not pose any threat to human
life, and in a way they ensure the survival of the forests themselves.
I would like to suggest that in these matters you should be guided
by scientific assessment rather than lay beliefs.
The emphasis on forestry and wildlife will be translated into
concrete programmes only if the necessary resources are made
available. I entirely agree with what the minister has said, but as you
know this in not completely in his hands or in my hands. It depends
on the overall availability of funds, and today we are in an extremely
difficult economic situation. But it is true that so far the approach
has been to maximize forest revenue and release driblets for plantation
programmes. This we must change and I know it may cause some
difficulties in States where forest revenue is significant. But if such
States want a stable income over a number of years, they should pay
heed to what Rao Sahib has said and not kill the goose that lays the
golden eggs. They should ensure that forests are not cleared in an
alarming fashion as now occurs and that replantation either on a
large basis or tree plantation must take place simultaneously. We
r
have asked the Planning Commission to examine the forestry
programmes in the Annual Plans and the Five-Year Plans and I hope
there will be qualitative changes in the coming years which will
reflect our deep concern about forestry.
No discussion on forestry can be complete without dealing with
lives of tribals and others who live in or around forests. It has caused
me great unhappiness to hear about the lifestyle of tribals being
affected by forestry programmes and practices and interference of
non-tribals. The forester should be a friend of the tribals and see to
it that their requirements from the forest are completely met. Stage
by stage, they should also be educated in the use of alternative sources
so that they can depend on the trees only for fruits and other forest
produce which does not result in the destruction of the tree itself.'
It would take another two-and-a-half years for forests to be pulled
out of the Ministry of Agriculture and for the creation of a ministry
of Environment and Forests but all the discussions about it had
started. Today I fight to create a separate Ministry of Forests and
Wildlife and God knows how long that will take. One rather
startling fact is the impact of Africa on Indira Gandhi. She seemed
to love African wildlife and the rules that governed it. She always
wanted to adapt some of them to India. I would have agreed with
her entirely especially after my recent trips to Africa. Alas nothing
has ever happened. The system is immune to taking on board
good and innovative ideas.
On 19 October 1982 the task force to frame guidelines for
eliciting public support for wildlife commenced its deliberations
first under the chairmanship of K.T. Satarawala but he soon
became the lieutenant governor of Goa. So the job was entrusted
to Shri Madhavrao Scindia, a young member of Parliament from
the Congress party who was later to become a minister in Rajiv's
Cabinet. Nearly a year later a really comprehensive report on this
issue was completed. In it were included a series of inter-ministry
discussions on the issue. In his letter to Indira Gandhi on 6 October
1983 enclosing the report, Madhavrao Scindia stated: 'The task
force has at every stage in it's deliberations borne in mind the
views you have often expressed that it was only through public
support and participation that wildlife conservation could be
ensured.' He went on to say: ' Our deliberations were guided also
by your special concerns for the underprivileged communities
living in the vicinity of wildlife reserves, especially of the need to
ameliorate the difficulties they experience from the enforcement
of wildlife regulations as well as from the depredations by wild
animals.'
Is it not amazing? Indira Gandhi had all the political will yet
all these efforts were in order to raise public support. We have
come around a full circle. Today we have no political will and are
desperately trying to find it . We do not even think of public
support. The 1982 report is totally forgotten and collecting dust.
All its recommendations are pending. Indira Gandhi did not have
the time in her life to see them through.
On 18 November 1982 she sent a message to an Elephant
Workshop and stated: 'The Asian elephant is a magnificent animal,
strong yet gentle and known for its intelligence and economic
utility. Failure to manage its habitat, keeping in view the patterns
of elephant herd movements has endangered the species and
created problems for humans too.'
It was in the same year that she piloted the first amendment
to the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, in order to further strengthen
it, by further empowering chief wildlife wardens. And it was in
1983 that she gave her full support to the creation of the Wildlife
Institute of India which started its first operations in that year.
As 1984 turned there were two messages of importance that
she articulated before her assassination. In the first in early 1984
she in a message for a wildlife book stated:
'Our forests are shrinking, and many species are endangered by
growing towns and cultivation, not to speak of human greed. This
is an irreplaceable loss for the world. Now we must look ahead.
There is still hope. We have saved the tiger, the lion, the rhinoceros
and the bustard. Across the country larger numbers of people are
making it their business to come to the rescue of animals.'
And then on World Environment Day on 5 June 1984 she said:
'On World Environment Day, we in India, in partnership with people
all over the world, must rededicate ourselves to the protection and
wise management of our life-sustaining environment. Of the many
tasks that this entails, perhaps the most crucial is of revegetating
uncultivated parts.
Vegetation forms a green 'security blanket', protecting the fertile
yet fragile soil, maintaining balance in atmospheric conditions,
safeguarding supplies of fresh water and moderating their flow to
prevent flood and drought. Animal and human life is dependent on
vegetation in a myriad ways. But the green cover, especially in our
forests, is under attack by the greed of the rich and the need of the
poor. This must be corrected.
Each person, community and organisation can help. Farmers
and craftsmen in villages, managers and workers in public and private
sectors, teachers and students, parents and children must all join
hands to ensure that barren lands, denuded hill sides and eroded
watersheds are alive again with trees and plants.'
With Indira Gandhi' s assassination in 1984, India' s forests and
wildlife lost their greatest saviour and spokesperson.
Sometimes I think of what might have happened without an
Indira Gandhi at all. Horror of horrors! Some things are certain.
There would have been no ban on the export of furs in 1968 or the
subsequent ban on tiger hunting in 1970. There would have been
no Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 or the creation of Project Tiger
in 1973. It would have been a free-for-all and by 1975 the tiger
would have been nearly extinct. Hunters and timber mafias would
have taken their toll. Without the Forest Conservation Act of 1980
I doubt if any of India' s primary forests would have been alive in
the mid-1980s. Can you visualize a desertified and barren land
mass all across India? And no wildlife! We would have had critical
water problems and our river systems might have been severely
depleted. God knows what else! Rampant disease, infection, flood,
and droughtanything would have been possible. We would
probably have ended up with ten or twelve national parks and
twenty sanctuaries instead of the seventy-five parks and 475
sanctuaries that we have today. A natural treasury would have
been plundered, looted, and wiped out. Extinctions would have
been frequent.
Were there any other politicians who could have made a
difference for forests and wildlife at that moment of time in India's
history? I seriously doubt it because they did not exist. In a way
Indira Gandhi' s presence stopped the complete wipe-out of forests
and wildlife in the nick of time. The laws or amendments to the
laws that were made in her era were like checks and balances to
the total anarchy that followed. The laws were the only consistent
factor that provided safety to Forest India in the decades that were
to comeevery political party and all governments have had to
follow them. Many have tried to tinker with them and dilute them
but since they were laws we were lucky that in the absence of
political will judicial will came to the fore to interpret them
correctly and keep Forest India protected. A law is always a law
and can always be used to deter, minimize damage, and delay
destruction. The Indira Gandhi era left a solid base for future
l eaders to bui l d on. Only her son tried to st rengt hen the
environmental laws of the country when he was Prime Minister
and amended the Forest Conservation Act in 1988. After his party
lost the election in 1989, little happened except for some
controversial amendments to the Wildlife Protection Act in 1991.
In fact much has been diluted administratively and through
government orders.
We should be very clear about one thing. If we have any
ecological security left as a nation it is because of Indira Gandhi.
Her vision surpassed that of all the conservationists around her.
It is because of this vision that in the present century we have
something left to fight for. No peoples' movement could have
done the same. Public will would have come into being after the
destruction of large tracts of forest and when people would have
been severely stressed by the depletions. The laws would have
come too late. In the 1960s Indira Gandhi steered India on a course
that saved the forests and wildlife of the country at least for another
fifty years.
When Indira Gandhi was assassinated she left many things in
the pipeline. Probably the most important was the creation of a
new Ministry of Environment and Forests from what was the
Department of Environment. There was also, just before she died,
much discussion on the legislation of an Environment Protection
Act t hat could ensure controls on i ndust ri al pol l ut i on and
minimize the negative impacts of haphazard development. A fresh
general election at the end of 1984 resulted in Rajiv Gandhi coming
to power in end 1984. One of the first events of his pri me
ministership was the creation of the new Ministry of Environment
and Forests which had two departments: one for environment
and another for forests and wildlife. This was probably the most
sensible decision but sadly, in April 1985, a series of administrative
adjustments took place that merged both departments into one.
In my opinion, this was a fatal administrative mistake. As the
years rolled by envi ronment al issues became totally time-
consuming and in that process forests and wildlife got relegated
to oblivion. This ' one-department' concept was a disaster. Let us
look briefly at the years 1985-9 and Rajiv Gandhi' s role in securing
the future of Forest India. Let us look at what he said.
On 25 May 1985 he stated in his message for the World
Environment Day:
'We have only one earth. It has generously supported life through
millions of years of evolution. Its remarkable powers of regeneration
have kept it rich and bountiful even in the face of human greed.
But modern instruments for the earth's exploitation delivered
by science into mankind's possession, and the crushing weight of a
growing population, threaten now to strain the earth's environment
beyond endurance. Pollution of air and water, large-scale denudation
of forests, the extinction of ecosystems, have become the standard
bearers of apocalypse.
We must preserve and pass on to coming generations an
environment purer than that which we have inherited. It is
encouraging that large number of people across the world,
particularly the young, have dedicated themselves to restoring the
environment. This is an affirmation of faith in life.
In his message on 13 June 1985 for Van Mahotsava he stated:
'Nature has been beautiful to mankind, providing the substance
which has been the basis of all cultural and material progress. But
we have been profligate in our exploitation of nature's resources.
The denudation of our forests is an example.
Trees have sustained a wide variety of life forms and provide
food, fuel and industrial inputs. They conserve and enrich the soil
helping to maintain geological, geographical and climatic conditions.
Without them the beauty of our earth would be seriously impaired.
The regenerative capacity of forests could have made them a virtually
limitless resource, but human vanity and greed, armed with the
cunning of modern invention, have led instead to destruction. All
over the world forests have shrunk, causing widespread concern.
Our country now has only 2 per cent of the world's forests with 14
per cent of its population'"
Unlike his mother, Rajiv Gandhi' s focus was on issues concerning
t he envi r onment . Hi s addr es s and speeches wer e about
envi ronment and devel opment about climate change and
pollution. There was much less content which directly concerned
wildlife and forests. Rajiv was much more empathetic than his
mother towards the rights of tribals and forest communities over
forests. To him, the process he wanted to follow was 'humane
conservation.' There was an innocence in his speeches. He was
much more believing in the role of the international community
in conservation. He wanted to create the Planet Protection Fund
to minimize the negative impacts of devel opment . He even
believed in some of his own government schemes like the Ganga
Action Plan which he thought would clean the Ganga by the year
1989. It never did.
We must be clear that he was not in the league of his mother.
His focus was environment and he came under t remendous
influence of an environmentalist called Anil Agarwal from the
Centre of Science and Environment who I believe advised on many
of his speeches on green concerns. But forest and wildlife were
Indira Gandhi' s true domain.
At the inaugural address of the Second World Congress on
Engineering and Environment on 7 November 1985 Rajiv Gandhi
stated:
'In a developing country one has to balance the costs and benefits of
exploiting resources and protecting the environment, whether it is
in terms of destruction of certain areas to put up industry or to put
up mines or other development projects; whether it is in terms of
pollution of rivers, of air or various areas. We must bear in mind
that ultimately there is no short cut. If we do not pay a price today
we will invariably pay a much heavier price tomorrow. We must
build this into our awareness.
We have enacted many laws which do not allow certain types of
industries to come up in certain areas, and we are trying to give a
policy direction so that protected areas will get industries that do
not pollute and are clean. We have incorporated this consideration
into the very process of clearance of projects. No project can even
start unless it has full environmental clearance. We have also gone a
step further and ensured that if a particular forest has to be cut to
accommodate a project, an equivalent area is replaced at some other
location preferably near the same area. Our forest cover in India is
already much too low.'
As we all realized fifteen years down the line all these words meant
little. Compensatory afforestation was a big disaster and project
proponents paid little heed to it . Very little got planted back in
the field. Mining, oil pipelines, and industries had impacted
severely on our protected area networks. Many of the laws
remained on paper seldom being enforced.
At the twenty-first meeting of the Central Board of Forestry
on 22 January 1986 he stated:
'There can be no development. The development of our forests will
help our development. Development will be hindered by
degeneration of the forests. The question that we face today is not
just how fast we can grow but whether we will not be jeopardising
our future by further reducing our forest cover.
The national forest policy is aimed at conserving forests,
resurrecting our ecosystem, and restoring the geophysical balance
along with economic development. This is critical to any country.
But to India, in its present state, it is even more than critical. It is
vital for our survival It is estimated that one-third of forest cover is
a minimum that any country should have. We have various estimates
of the actual situation today. Shri Ansari (Minister, Environment
and Forests) mentioned 22.7 per cent, with only 10.9 per cent as
good cover. When we look at the NRAC estimates they are
somewhere around 15 per cent. I do not want to go into which
number is right and which is wrong, where the forest ends, where
the shrub lands come, or whether the aerial photographs are of the
right season or the wrong season. But I think it is fairly well
understood that much of the forest land that is shown as forest land
in our books, in fact, does not have forest on it. Many times, people
have come to me and said: "Why are you stopping construction on
that land? There is no forest on that land." But that land with no
forest on it is part of the 22.7 per cent. Forest cover appears to be
much closer to 10 to 15 per cent than to even 22 per cent, let alone
an optimal figure of close to 33 per cent. This puts us squarely in a
very dangerous position. The question today is not just of conserving
our forest. It must be of increasing the cover under forest.
Afforestation must be one of our primary aims.
Conservation must be first step, because if we do not preserve
what we have got it is pointless trying to plant new areas. It is also
cheaper, it is better, it is faster than afforestation. To conserve a forest,
we must right at the beginning look at the forests.
I should like to say that I have spent substantial time in forest
areas, have talked to foresters alone or in groups and have a very
high respect for foresters. 1 have some idea of the type of pressures
that they come under, the type of conditions they have to operate
in, the type of facilities that we give them. Perhaps the starting point,
when we look at our foresters, must be the training and education
that we give them. Much of our training and education dates back
to the British time when the primary aim of a forester was not to
conserve and to protect, but to exploit and use the forest. And unless
this basic training is changed right at the beginning we are going to
find it very difficult at a later stage to suddenly start convincing the
forester that he is going down the wrong route.
Tribals come under a lot of pressure whenever any Forest Act is
made or whenever a forest conservation measure takes place. We
start accusing the tribals of doing all sorts of things in the forests,
forgetting that they have lived in those forests for hundreds and
thousands of years. And somehow forests have survived everything
that the tribals might have done to them. Perhaps the problem is
not what the tribals do but what we ourselves do in their name.
Perhaps some of the trouble is due to a changing social system. The
answer does not lie in harsh measures. The answer can only be in
the form of explanation, understanding, working together with the
tribals to see how the forest can be protected. Wherever I have talked
with the tribals I have found that their interest in protecting forests
has been more than my own.
I look forward to a new thrust from all the States in conserving
our forests and in the matter of afforestation. You should not
succumb to the easy methods of raising revenue that some States
seem to follow. Conservation is not something that we can force on
people. It is something which we must build into our thinking right
from the early stages of education. It is only then that our children
will feel, from deep inside, that it is their duty to conserve and protect
what they have inherited and hand it down to the coming
generations. I hope that from this meeting we shall be able to give a
new, dynamic thrust to this particular programme.'
The year 1986 was a critical year. Rajiv Gandhi passed the
Environment Protection Act which is even today the pillar of all
our environmental protection policies.
The language had changed, the rhetoric had changed, so had
the fashions of the world. How could the forest satisfy the needs
of the people? What rights did forest communities have on the
forests they lived in? It was all about planting more trees than
saving primary forests, and wildlife was seldom focussed on. Rajiv
Gandhi went to national parks nearly each Christmas and New
Year in the 1980s. He enjoyed it but his feelings did not have the
depth or the passion of his mother. He even visited Ranthambhore
in 1986 and spent more than a week watching wild tigers, and
even a tiger killing a deer in the middle of the day. He took
endless pictures and loved the experience. I know that on his
Ranthambhore trip he enjoyed discussing the problems of the
forest with the forest staff but in the end little happened about
r esol vi ng t he pr obl ems of f or est er s or even pr event i ng
monoculture plantations from replacing primary forests. There
was always more talk and less action.
On the 6 February 1986 he addressed the National Land Use
and Wasteland Development Council in New Delhi and stated:
'Our wastelands are almost as extensive as our agricultural lands.
Degraded lands account for almost two-thirds of our agricultural
and forest lands. Forest cover which should be close to 30 per cent
and to maintain an ecological balance is dropping very close to ten
per cent and endangering our very survival. The prospects of an
ecological disaster, the prospects of food scarcity really threaten us if
we do not tackle this problem actively enough.
We have watched too long our forests disappearing. We are now
at the point of endangering our whole ecosystem. This cannot be
achieved by any one section but by an involvement of all the people.
It is an achievable target. It must be developed into a people's
movementdecentralisation of nurseries, tree growers' cooperatives,
tree patta schemesfarmers, youth, women, everyone must be
involved in this programme. The landless, marginal and small farmer
must be a key element in bringing about the success of this
programme. We must enthuse everyone right across the country to
participate in this programme.'
On 5 July 1986the World Environment Dayhe said about his
mother:
'IndirajV perhaps did more than any other world leader to bring
about an awareness among the people of our environment and the
dangers of depleting the environment for short-term developmental
gains. IndirayV's work for protecting the environment has brought
about a great degree of awareness in India about the dangers that we
will face if we destroy our environment.'
It was again the same year of 1986 that Rajiv Gandhi piloted
amendments in the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, that completely
restricted the trade in trophies and animal articles. This was vital
to end the illegal trade in 'old stocks'.
I think by 1987 there was a marked shift in the emphasis as
the concept of ' human needs' in forests were articulated and there
was much t al k about economi cs, devel opment , and t he
environment. I have tried to pluck quotes from his speeches that
connect to Indira Gandhi and Forest India but the process is more
difficult. The times were changing. Indira Gandhi could respond
in a flash to even a letter. I remember Peter Jackson telling me (he
was the former chairman of the Cat Specialist Group) how when
he wrote to her about the thousands of flamingos that occupied
the shoreline at Porbandar in Gujarat and that it should be
protected. Within forty-eight hours she had instituted the area as
a sanct uary. This was the level of deci si on-maki ng in the
1970s. Rajiv on the other hand, was stuck wi t h projects and
environmental clearances, and the importance of development
and environment going hand in hand. Slowly forests and wildlife
took a back seat. In fact he believed that even Parliamentarians
had, in general, become more sensitive to the environment and
no longer wished to get projects going without the necessary
clearance and environmental safeguards. If only Rajiv knew the
reality of the 'clearance game' and what the 1990s would bring.
But in the last years of the 1980s his full focus was on the
' environment' .
In a speech given while inaugurating the third governing
council meet i ng of Sout h Asia Cooper at i ve Envi r onment
Programme on 12 January 1987 he stated:
'We cannot have development today without evaluating the full cost
of every project, not just the immediate cost but the long-term cost.
We cannot leave the long-term part of that cost for future generations
to pay. We cannot leave the legacy of deficit in development. We
have to account for it during our own generation. The cost of
protecting the environment goes up higher as the environment gets
more degraded. We have seen today the firefighting that we are having
to do to protect the environment. It is a very heavy drain on our
exchequer. But if it had been during the earlier phases of our
development, the cost would have been much less.
What is needed is a holistic view of the human needs of the
area, of the poor who are living in and around the forests and the
environment that needs protection. Man and nature have lived in
harmony for centuries. The balance was not upset. The tribals who
lived in forests have not upset the balance in the forests. It is what
we call civilization and development that has encroached upon nature
and has destroyed her environment. We must develop the right tools
of development and for protection of the environment. We must
develop the human genius to give us the right answers.'
Little was devel oped. In fi ft een years of t he Envi ronment
Protection Act none of its clauses were used against its violators.
94 per cent of all mandat ory environmental conditions were
violated by all project proponents. The laws were never enforced
and no one was punished.
It is my vi ew t hat in 1987-8 Indi ra Gandhi ' s policy of
' protection' of wildlife and forests was giving way to more
environment-focused concepts and especially the focus on how
tribal and local communities could enter the arena for managing
the forests, be it by joint forest management approaches or
something else. Easier said than done. The 1990s would reveal
how some of the most damaging initiatives got disguised and
clothed in tribal ' apparel' , and such approaches led to the creation
of endless mafias in villages around Forest India and endless
armchair environmentalists fuelled the process. A great tragedy
it was!
On 6 July 1987 at the World Commission on Environment and
Development, Rajiv Gandhi describes some of the achievements
of his government including the legislation of the Environment
Protection Act of the previous year.
'Thanks to this widespread recognition of the importance of
protecting our environment, we have been able to bring about a
comprehensive new Act on protecting our environment last year.
We have set up a National Wastelands Development Board whose
target is to reclaim five million hectares per year once it get going at
full speed. We have started a major programme of cleaning our rivers
starting with the Ganga. At the last big Mela that took place in
Hardwar, the water was clean enough to be drinkable directly from
the river. Our objective is that by the time the next major fair comes
along in January 1989 in Allahabad, the Ganga there will be clean
enough to drink from.
Conservation strategies have been worked out for ecologically
fragile zones. We have 127 agro-climate zones for which we are
setting up National Agricultural Research Projects. For endangered
plants and animal species, we have established biosphere reserves
and taken many other measures. We are making the planning and
implementation agencies responsible for environmental conse-
quences of their developmental activities. It is also necessary to see
that work that has already started does not further damage the
environment. We shall, I am sure, benefit tremendously from inter-
national cooperation in protecting the environment. We ourselves
are ready to contribute what we can to international cooperation in
building a movement that will protect the environment and link
environment to development and to new economic order.'
By 2002 the EPA of 1986 had not enforced even one of the millions
of violation cases that had been filed. The Wastelands Board has
done little and the Ganga is as dirty as ever. The biosphere reserves
have not even started to function!
Probably his most famous speech on green issues was at the
UN General Assembly on 19 October 1987:
'Although they bear the brunt of environmental damage, the poor
are themselves little responsible for any of that damage. For centuries
they have lived in harmony with nature. The problem is caused by
large scale commercial exploitation, which garners the profits but
escapes the consequences. Yet, when laws are passed and rules are
made to conserve the environment, the burden falls on those who
have gained the least and suffered the most. The people of the forest
cannot suddenly be cordoned off from its bounty. Fuel and building
materials must be made available at prices they can afford. Shepherds
and cowherds must be found alternative pastures or provided fodder.
To be effective, conservation must be humane. That is the challenge
before us.
A large number of animal and plant species are seriously
threatened. Apart from the ethical and aesthetic case for protecting
these disappearing species, it is possible, answers to unsolved
problems of health and survival might be found in the yet
undiscovered secrets of these gene pool reserves.'
Of course the sad part of all these speeches was that the large-
scale commercial exploitation accelerated rapidly, following no
law at all.
When he i naugurat ed the Balphakram National Park in
Meghalaya' s West Garo Hills on 27 December 1987 he said:
'It will be one of our important national parks and it will be one
more step in the preservation of the environment and the preservation
of the natural beauty of Meghalaya.
One of the most different aspects of development is to balance
economic advancement with the problems that are caused by
economic development. Such parks help us maintain the balance
but it is very important that those people who have so kindly given
the land for this park are looked after in the best possible manner
and as speedily as possible. The Bible teaches us to preserve God's
creations and that is what we will be doing in this park.'
I think this was the first ever use of the Bible by a politician in
India in the interests of wildlife!
In 1988 at the Ninth Non-Aligned Summit in Belgrade, Rajiv
Gandhi spelt out his grand scheme for a Planet Protection Fund:
'With these ends in view, I propose the establishment of a Planet
Protection Fund (PPF), under the aegis of the United Nations. The
Fund will be used to protect the environment by developing or
purchasing conservation-compatible technologies in critical areas
which can then be brought into the public domain for the benefit
of both developing and developed countries. All technologies over
which the Fund acquires rights will be made available gratis, and
without restriction, to all constituent members of the Fund. I would
wish to stress that contributors to and beneficiaries of the Fund
would include not only developing countries but also the
industrialised countries. We would wish to work towards universal
membership of the Fund.
We propose that all constituent members of the Fund, developed
and developing, contribute a fixed percentage of their Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) to the Fund, with exemption but full
access granted to the least developed countries. The annual
contribution to the corpus of the Fund would be around $ 18 billion
at as low an average contribution as of 0.1 per cent of GDP. That is,
for environment-related work, the international community would
have at its disposal as significant a sum as eighteen billion dollars a
year, if only each country were willing to part with but a one-
thousandth part of its GDP.
Such a Fund would become the fulcrum for a truly cooperative
global endeavour to measure up to a problem of global dimensions
and global implications. Such a Fund would be proof of our
commitment to saving all creation and our planet Earth.'
Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in 1991. Even though his focus
duri ng 1984-9, the years of his prime ministership, on issues
concerning forests and wildlife were nowhere near the strength
of his mother' s, he did manage to sustain an interest and concern
in green issues especially concerning the environment. If Indira
Gandhi was responsible for the pillar on which all our forest and
wildlife policies stand then Rajiv Gandhi as responsible for the
pillar on which all our environmental policies stand. Between them
they were directly responsible for creating the laws and policies
for India' s natural resources and environmental concerns. Every
political party even today is forced to follow these policies. But
no Planet Protection Fund was ever created and by 2002 the
concerns across the globe for the environment had, in my opinion,
declined rapidly.
But let us look at the period 1991-2000 which started with
Narasimha Rao taking over as prime minister after Rajiv Gandhi' s
assassination. He was a staunch supporter over decades of the
Gandhi family. But he was totally ' ungreen' , and the beginning
of this decade signified the end of the Nehru-Gandhi era and their
legacy to the forests of India. Rao's tenure was the beginning of
the end for Forest India. I doubt if Rao even realized this. I saw
this era very closely since it was the time I got sucked into the
Ministry of Envi ronment and Forests and all the numer ous
committees that surround it. This is my story of the last decade of
the twentieth century.
The End of a Century
1990-2002
T
he year 1989 must have been a strange year in the history of
India's wildlife. I was totally preoccupied following tigers and
setting up one of the first non-governmental organizations in
Ranthambhore to integrate people and wildlife. After five years
Rajiv Gandhi had held a meeting of the Indian Board of Wildlife
but by 1991 was tragically assassinated. As the political fabric of
the country changed no one knew then that the next meeting of
the Board would take place eight years later. I was sure then that
I would never be a part of any government process and my idyllic
years with tigers would continue. Little did I know what was going
to happen.
By late 1989 the champions of both forest and wildlifethe
Gandhishad all but vanished from India's political scene. There
was a kind of silence that reigned. I was following tigers in
Ranthambhore National Park, one of the smallest of the Project
Tiger Reserves that were set up in 1973.1 had been doing that and
little else since 1975. And it was clear to me that at the end of the
1980s Ranthambhore had become one of the great success stories
of the world in tiger conservation. Tigers spilled out of
everywhere. I had, in the decade of the 1980s, written three books
about wild tigers. Looking back, these were the glorious years of
Indian wildlifeyears which had felt the concrete field impact of
Indira Gandhi' s policies and concerns.
In fact sometimes when I visit Ranthambhore today it appears
that the 1980s were a different ageanother worlda time gone
by and di ffi cul t even to explain to someone who had not
experienced it. It was a time when I could see sixteen different
tigers in one day. It was in 1988-9 that I got down to the hard
wor k of set t i ng up an NGO and t r yi ng i nvol vi ng local
communities in the protection of the parkI idealistically believed
that the future lay in this work. Many still believe that this is the
way forward. I am not so sure any more.
It was clear that Narasimha Rao's tenure as prime minister in
1991 started with a complete focus on changing the economic
policy to usher in India' s new free market economyand without
' green' concerns. In a way Rao thought he was pursuing Rajiv
Gandhi' s economic policies that had been started some years ago.
And that is trueRajiv had laid the foundation in the late 1980s
to change economic policy. But unlike Rajiv, Rao had no green
concerns. Therefore, there would be an enormous negative impact
of the new economic policy on Forest India. I thank the lucky
stars that Indira Gandhi, in the 1970s and 1980s, had created laws
to protect Forest India. What on earth woul d we have done
without them in Rao's tenure? In fact, it was in 1991 that the worst
ever amendments to the Wildlife Protection Act took place. The
1991 amendments made it much more complex to notify protected
areas, and looking back they were totally counterproductive to
our forests and wildlife.
India, by 1991, was overhauling its entire system of economic
policy to enter the international arena. It was a year of ' money'
and money talk which enveloped the country. In Ranthambhore
there were endless rumours about poaching. Few want ed to
believe them, but in 1992 the arrest of a poacher led to revelations
from which it was clear that from late 1990 poaching gangs had
wiped out 15-20 tigers and hundreds of other animals. It was a
similar state right across India. Everybody worshipped the quick-
money God. They had all climbed on the new gravy train and
forests were pulled down and animals killed to bring in the loot.
If I look back, it is clear to me that the plunder of Forest India was
THE END OF A CENTURY 3 1 9
in full swing. Law or no lawthere was no commitment of the
Prime Minister to the forest and the States were having a field
day in their plunder of Forest India and we shall see later how
ingeniously it was being done. There were lots of rhetoric but
little field action. By 1992, many wept at the absence of the Gandhis
and in the hopeless situation that existed, few believed that tigers
would survive the turn of the century or that any decent tracts of
forest woul d remain intact. It was all about greed, and the
corporate world entered the arena with a vengeance, be it for
mining, river valley projects, or anything that could fuel their
exploitative desires.
From 19921 got sucked into the Ministry of Environment and
Forests and ended up worki ng really closely wi t h the then
minister, Kamal Nath. I could not believe this was happening to
me. Ranthambhore' s poaching crisis had blown up and forced
me to enter the area of government and decision-making and all
the endless committees that go with it. A friend of my father' s
had taken me to see the minister and soon after that the ministry
gobbled me up. From the steering committee of Project Tiger to
the Indian Board for Wildlife to the Tiger Crisis Cell to the expert
committee on River Valley Projects to international conferences
on the tiger. I was doing hundreds of things in an eighteen-hour
working day. It was crisis time and much like being engaged in a
battle. I did not have time to realize where it would all lead to.
Minister Kamal Nath was on the surface all support. He made
some of usthe NGOsall-powerful in the Ministry. In a way,
without the Gandhis we were all dependant on the political will
and power of the Minister of Environment and Forests. And 1992-
3 were tough years. The seizures of skins and bones of tigers made
headlines across the world. They were enormous seizures and
the mechanisms of government were ineffectual to counter this
menace. We, as a bunch of conservationists, ran around like
headless chickens. We thought that we were making a difference.
Looking back I doubt if we did.
I remember the enormous pressure created after the expose
of the Ranthambhore poaching incident in the media. We fuelled
the process to force decisions. Finally a meeting was arranged for
me with the Chief Minister. He was very clever. He flew me to
Jaipur in his little plane. What a frightening experience. It was
during the monsoons, and I thought we would definitely crash.
When we finally arrived in Jaipur I was asked to explain to a
meeting of bureaucrats the reality of the situation. I did so in the
Chief Minister's office. Soon after I was told to go to Ranthambhore
and bring in correctives. But it was all hogwash. Even though the
then chief minister had been a good friend of my father, all his
efforts were only to neutralize my critique, and he probably
succeeded for a short while. The crisis was bigger than all of us
and the impotent institutions that existed. A brief picture of these
early years comes from a piece written by Geoffrey C. Ward
entitled 'Massacre':
'In late June 19921 received a letter and a set of newspaper clippings
from Fateh [Fateh Singh Rathore]. Several poachers had been arrested
at Ranthambhore; they had confessed to the police that they had
shot more than fifteen tigers there over the past two years. And they
were not alone. Several other poaching gangs, they said, were at
work in and around the park.
Rumours of tiger poaching had swirled around Ranthambhore
since 1990, but the Chief Wildlife Warden of the state had dismissed
them all as 'baseless', 'the products of vested interests' (by which he
seems mostly to have meant Fateh, without a job again and noisily
unhappy at what was happening to the sanctuary he still considered
his). Some 31,000 tourists, more than half of them foreigners, visited
the park during the winter of 1990-91, an all-time record, and a
good many complained that they had seen no signs of tigers, let
alone the tigers themselves. Noonthe tigress that had mastered
the technique of killing in the lakes, the animal I had watched, feeding
with her cubs, in the grass two years earlierseemed suddenly to be
missing. So was the magnificent tiger called the Bokhala male. So
were other individual animals well known to Fateh and Valmik
[Thapar] and to the guides and jeep drivers who made locating tigers
their business.
A story about the mysterious dearth of tiger sightings at
Ranthambhore appeared in the Indian Express in February 1992.
The field director claimed there was nothing to worry about; because
of an unusually heavy monsoon the previous summer, the tigers
were simply keeping to the hills. In March, the erstwhile Maharani
of Jaipur, whose hunting reserve Ranthambhore once had been, also
expressed her concern. She, too, was told nothing was wrong, and
when the census was taken that summer, sure enough, the official
total was forty-five tigers, one more than had been claimed the year
before.
Fateh made more trouble for himself by publicly denouncing
its accuracy: If there were that many tigers why weren't they being
seen? He was sure there weren't more than twenty tigers left in the
park.
The rumours persisted. During our visit to Ranthambhore that
winter, the corpse of Badhiya, a forest guard who had been one of
the most knowledgeable and dedicated members of the forest staff,
was found sprawled along the railroad tracks outside the park. There
were whispers he'd been murdered because he knew too much about
poaching.
Something was very wrong. Even the Forest Department began
to worry, and when the census was undertaken the following May,
Valmik Thapar was asked to help conduct it. The results were
devastating: he could find concrete evidence of only seventeen tigers
in the park, and tentative evidence suggesting there might be three
more. Again, the Chief Wildlife Warden denied everything. The
census was faulty, he insisted, botched by the same amateurs he
himself had asked for help.
But then came the arrests. Gopal Moghiya, a member of a
traditional hunting tribe who ordinarily worked as watchman for
local herdsmen, was seized by the Sawai Madhopur Police, along
with the skin and bones of a freshly killed tiger he had shot.
Fateh was devastated: Geoff, it is a massacre [he wrote]. When
the police chief showed me the skin, I could not control myself.
Tears were rolling down my cheeks. He had to take me away. It's
heartbreaking and sometimes I feel guilty that I taught them to have
faith in human beings. ... All the tigers were shot at point-blank
range, just innocently looking at the man with the gun.... Everyday
some bad news is coming. ... Somebody shot a tiger two years ago
and somebody else shot one three months before that. It shows that
nobody bothered about these animals.
I called Fateh. He was again in tears. 'I sometimes think it was
my fault,' he shouted over the long-distance line. 'I taught my tigers
not to fear people and see how they have been repaid.'
Gopal Moghiya's confession led to the arrests of several others,
including his own brother, a Muslim butcher, and four Meena
herdsmen who admitted killing four tigers to protect their livestock.
Again, the Forest Department's initial instinct was to cover things
up. One or two animals might have been killed, it said, but poaching
on such a large scale was impossible. (Gopal Moghiya did eventually
recant his confession, yet he had airily bragged of his poaching skills
to several disinterested journalists before doing so.)
But the facts could not be denied: eighteen tigers and leopards
were already gone from Sariska, perhaps twenty tigers missing at
Ranthambhore, and reports of more poaching were filtering in from
everywhere. In Uttar Pradesh, for example, where the Forest
Department stubbornly insisted that Dudhwa and its adjacent forest
still held one hundred and four tigers, Billy [Arjan Singh] estimated
there were now no more than twenty.
Valmik did a hasty calculation of the total number of tigers
thought to have been poached, based on just five years' worth of
official seizures of skins and skeletons. It came to one hundred and
twenty animals. And it seems reasonable to assume that several times
as many more went unreported.
At that rate, the Indian tiger is surely on its way out. (So,
evidently, is the Nepalese: Twenty-five tigers disappeared from the
Royal Chitawan Reserve between 1998 and 1990 alone, so large a
percentage of the park's resident population that it may be impossible
for it ever to recover.)
Tigers have always been poached. Villagers poison them to
protect themselves or their livestock, and some skin smuggling has
continued despite an international ban on the trade. But compared
to the twin menaces of expanding population and dwindling habitat)
poaching has been a relatively minor threat to the tiger's survival.
Now that has changed. If allowed to continue at its current pace,
poaching will swiftly undo whatever good Project Tiger has managed
to do over the past two decades.
The immediate crisis was caused by the peculiar demands of
Chinese medicine. For hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, tiger
bones and other tiger by-products have played an important part in
Chinese healing. The catalogue of physical ills which tiger bones
and the elixirs brewed from them are supposed to cure includes
rheumatism, convulsions, scabies, boils, dysentery, ulcers, typhoid,
malaria, even prolapse of the anus. Tiger remedies are also said to
alleviate fright, nervousness, and possession by devils. Ground tiger
bone scattered on the roof is believed to bar demons and end
nightmares for those who sleep beneath it. A miraculous medicine
made from tiger bone and sold in Vietnam and elsewhere promises
'6 love makings a night to give birth to 4 sons'.
The demand for these products is enormous, not only in China
and Taiwan, but in South Korea and in Chinese communities
throughout South-east Asia and some Western communities as well.
A single brewery in Taiwan imports 2,000 kg of tiger bones a year,
perhaps 150 tigers' worth, from which it brews 100,000 bottles of
tiger-bone wine.
The Chinese themselves have finally run out of tigers. Wild
populations that once ran into thousands have been reduced to fewer
than one hundred animals and so they have begun importing tiger
bones on a massive scale, ignoring the complaints of conservationists
and willing to pay prices smugglers find irresistible. From the Indian
reserves where tribal hunters are paid a pittance to take the risks and
do the actual killing shadowy middlemen, perhaps with the
connivance of some Forest Department and police officials, spirit
the bones of poached tigers northward across the Nepal border, then
on into Tibet and China.
More because of the inefficiency of this process, evidently, than
out of concern for the wildlife of other countries, the Chinese have
set up a tiger-breeding farm near Beijing. There, using Siberian tigers
obtained from North American zoos, they are now raising carnivores
whose only raison d'etre is to be disassembled, ground up, and sold
to clients at home and abroad. Its managers predict they'll have bred
some two thousand tigers in the next seven years, and they have
recently asked the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species for a permit to peddle their tiger products overseas. 'If we
don't get the permit,' one official told a visitor to the breeding farm,
'we'll just kill all the tigers.'
Sentiment aside, some urge that the Chinese breeding
programme should be encouraged since its success might relieve the
pressure on dwindling wild populations. Opponents argue that farms
will never be able to provide enough tigers to satisfy Chinese
demands, while legitimizing trade in tiger products would only make
it easier for poachers and smugglers to continue their deadly work.
The Ranthambhore scandal could not have come at a worse
time for Project Tiger. The year 1993 was to be its twentieth
anniversary, and a celebration was already planned at which a brand
new national census figure was to be announced: 4,300 animals,
almost two-and-a-half times the number there had been when the
project began.
All the old problems still persisted. The hostility of local people
had intensified: arsonists had recently set fires raging through the
hearts of Kanha and Nagarahole, where KM. Chinnappa, the ranger
responsible for defending it for so long, had been forced to flee for
his life. And there was already one disturbing new problem, a sad
side effect of the national struggle with sectional and ethnic separatists
that threatens to tear apart the Indian Union. Armed militants of
one kind or another had taken shelter in seven of the nineteen
reserves, intimidating forest staff, slaughtering animals for fun or
food or profit, making a mockery of the parks' supposed inviolability.
Now, massive poaching has been added to that already bleak
mix. A three-day International Symposium on the Tiger was to be
held in New Delhi in February 1993. Nearly two hundred and fifty
delegates were coming from every region of India and many parts of
the world, and the government's more strident critics predicted little
more than a desperate exercise in defensiveness.
They were wrong. The new all-India census figure of4,300 was
bravely announced, though almost no one believed it; 3,000 tigers
seems a far more realistic figure, according to most of those with
whom I spoke, and even that may now be far too high. And the
delegates were made to sit through an appallingly self-congratulatory
film: 'Forest cover is increasing' the narrator intoned. 'The tiger
reigns supreme'; and in the reserves, 'all is well'.
Everyone in the hall already knew that all was anything but
well, and for the first time in my experience Indian government
officials were willing to say so in front of one another and in public.
The Forest Secretary, R. Rajamani, set the tone of candour: 'The
anniversary conference,' he said, 'should be an occasion for
introspection, not celebration.'
For three full days, the tiger's champions talked and argued and
agreed to disagree. Billy had come all the way from Dudhwa, looking
out of place as he always does once he leaves his jungle. 'I don't
know which will outlast the other, the tiger or me,' he said with a
grin. I told him my money was on him.
Fateh was there, too, newly reinstated in the Forest Department
by the courts. 'I have my dignity back,' he saidbut relegated for
the moment to a desk job. He kept his trademark Stetson on inside
the assembly hall, and, while delivering a paper on the problems of
censusing tigers, mimicked in cunning pantomime a forest guard
trying to trace a pug mark when he had never before held a pencil.
Ullas Karanth, the researcher from Nagarahole, eagerly shook the
hands of Billy and Fateh and other Tiger-Wallahs he had only read
about, and lobbied hard for a more scientific approach to tiger
management. Research should be free and unfettered, he said; India
needed objective facts upon which to make its hard decisions.
ValmikThapar seemed to be everywhere, delivering a battery of
papers, demanding complete honesty about poaching and other
potential embarrassments, and vowing to defend those forest officials
willing to bring them to the public's attention.
Everyone seemed to agree that a much greater effort had to be
made to involve local people in the creation and management of
parks. The poaching crisis would never have occurred had local
people felt they had any stake in the tiger's survival. And both Central
and state governments seemed serious about undertaking ambitious
eco-development projectselectricity, water, alternative forms of
fuelto provide benefits at last to the people who live in and around
the parks. Some plans seemed so ambitious, in fact, that Ullas
Karanth gently pointed out that the government already had access
to 96 per cent of the country on which to experiment with economic
uplift, and might do better to leave alone the mere 4 per cent left
over for wildlife while one field director suggested that before
government came to the aid of the herdsmen he'd been trying to
keep out of his park, he hoped it would at least provide trousers for
his forest guards.
There was also a good deal of what seemed to me to be very
romantic talk about the importance of maintaining intact the ancient
'sustainable lifestyles' of the tribal peoples who live in and around
the besieged reserves. I couldn't help but remember the gujjars whose
herds I'd seen avidly eating up what was left of Rajaji National Park.
Their lifestyle was ancient all right, but it was no longer remotely
'sustainable'; if Rajaji is to survive, some creative alternative will
have to be found for them. If it is not found, the forest will vanish,
and so will they. And though every park is unique, it is hard for me
to see how the same won't ultimately be true for most if not all of
the people now living within India's reserves.
In any case, I left the Delhi conference in better spirits than I
had expected. The poaching crisis had brought together the tigers'
most eloquent advocates. They were talking to one another now,
working together instead of on their own, for the first time more
united than divided. Before flying home to the States, we wanted to
revisit Ranthambhore and Dudhwa once again. It had been five
years since I had sat on the roof of Valmik's farmhouse watching the
village women heading home while he tentatively outlined his plans
for the Ranthambhore Foundation. I had been sympathetic then,
but privately unconvinced that the hard scrabbly landscape around
his home could ever be coaxed back to life, let alone that the gulf
between wildlife enthusiasts and villagers might one day be breached.
I could not have been more wrong. Valmik's house is now the
heart of a green oasis, alive with birds and small animals, shaded by
some fifty species of trees, many of them native varieties grown from
seeds gathered in the forest. A lush nursery grows 500,000 seedlings
for villagers to plant during the monsoon. And a cluster of
outbuildings behind the house constitutes a full-scale demonstration
farm: a sleek, stall-fed murrah buffalo, already the father of hundreds
of handsome progeny scattered through nearby villages; a herd of
cross-bred cattle whose milk yield is ten times that of the ordinary
Indian cow; heat for cooking provided by a biogas plant powered by
the animals' dung. Just down the road, village women of all castes
and faiths meet in their own handsome, mud-walled building,
producing handicrafts which provide needed extra income to some
sixty households.
Villagers from as far as fifteen miles away are asking for seeds
with which to reforest their land. In at least two villages, the people
themselves have formed Forest Protection societies with nurseries of
their own. The people of Sherpur, Valmik's nearest neighbours, asked
for and then helped dig a cattle ditch two kilometres long so that
their approach to Ranthambhore at least can be made as green again
as it was in the time of their ancestors.
From Ranthambhore, we returned to Delhi, then made the long
drive to Dudhwa to visit Billy. The court cases against him seemed
at least momentarily forgotten, and late one afternoon, he did
something he only rarely does these days: he accompanied us into
the park.
Dudhwa seemed especially handsome as dusk approached and
as we drove through the red-brown grasstiger-stripped by the
smoke from fires deliberately set to char the undergrowth and allow
fresh green shoots to spread for the deer to eatthousands of
swallows and bee-eaters tumbled through the air in pursuit of their
evening meal.
But the few animals we sawchital, a herd of thirty swamp
deer, a lone sambar calf somehow separated from its motherseemed
frantic with fear, plunging deeper into the forest as soon as they
spotted us, evidence perhaps that they had recently been shot at
from vehicles that resembled ours. And only once, along all the miles
of dusty road we travelled, did we see a set of tiger pug marks.
Gloom seemed almost palpably to settle around Billy's shoulders
as we turned off the metalled road that leads out of the park and on
to the rutted track to Tiger Haven that runs for two kilometres
along the Neora. The sun was hanging very low in the sky now, and
as we came around a bend in the river, wisps of mist rose from the
elephant grass and its damp sweet smell filled our nostrils.
A big male tiger lay motionless atop the riverbank, fifty feet
across the river, his brassy coat burnished by the dying sun, his opaque
eye fixed upon us.
I stole a look at Billy as he watched the tiger. It seemed almost
an invasion of his privacy. Head cocked to one side, smiling, he was
rapt, adoring, his face lit up as if he had unexpectedly come upon
lover.
The tiger gazed back at him for a time, then rose slowly to his
feet andstretched out to an almost unbelievable length, belly nearly
touching the groundslipped into the underbrush and disappeared.
Under Billy's vigilant eye, this tiger, at least, still occupies his range,
still reminds us of what will be lost if the new hopes stirred at the
Delhi conference are allowed to die away.
As the Land Rover started up again. Billy beamed at me and
raised one thick thumb in silent delight.'
Geoffrey C. Ward, Tiger Wallas: Encounters with
the Men who Tried to Serve the Greatest of the Great Cats.
From 1992 to 20001 worked as hard as I humanly could. I visited,
on various missions, more than thirty protected areas in India,
wrot e 286 notes, papers, and i nt ervent i ons to the di fferent
ministers that came, and to one of the prime ministers I had known
from my chi l dhood. I even handed the pri me minister 320
signatures of members of Parliament who had all signed for radical
change in the policy to save the tiger and the forest. Of course,
Parliament dissolved a month later and little happened. But no
stone was left unt ur ned. In bet ween government missions,
committees, and endless rhetoric with ministers I directed the
NGOI had founded, Ranthambhore Foundation, and completed
three more books and over a dozen films for the BBC as a presenter
and a voice, and life was as full as it could be. I also wrote scores
of articles. I believed somewhere that good information is the
bullet for effective conservation. So books, films, articles, and the
media are vital to inform and create both public and political will.
So I went on much like a steam engine that never nans out of
steam. But success in the interventions I made, remained elusive.
I learnt a huge amount about the horrors that afflict the system.
In a way it stunned me. I wrote something about these years and
how the systems in place abused itself and distorted the objectives
of the law.
'To reveal the inability of both the Centre and state governments to
function in the interest of wildlife, I shall examine in detail the
example of one state. Madhya Pradesh is supposed to have excellent
forest cover, the maximum number of tigers in India, and, on paper,
the political will to translate policy into field action. MP had nearly
30 per cent of forest cover and 15 per cent of the world's tigers.
From the period starting 1992, I shall try and highlight specific
examples of policy- and decision-making.
In 1992, the Minister for Environment and Forests was closely
linked to the man who was to be the future chief minister of Madhya
Pradesh. They could have been the most effective duo for protecting
the natural heritage of Madhya Pradesh. Our story starts in 1992,
when a tract of forest that fell in the minister's constituency was
declared a Project Tiger reserve. One thought that the minister would
set an example and make Pench a model for our tiger reserves. I had
just been appointed to the steering committee of Project Tiger and
was beginning to learn the ways of the system that govern the natural
heritage of this country.
Fishing was prohibited in Pench as it was a national park and
therefore covered by the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The following
clause of the Act applied to the area:
'No person shall destroy, exploit, or remove any wildlife from a
National Park, or destroy or damage the habitat of any wild animal,
or deprive any wildlife animal of its habitat within such National
Park except under and in accordance with a permit granted by the
Chief Wildlife Warden and no such permit shall be granted unless
the state government, being satisfied that such destruction,
exploitation, or removal of wildlife from the National Park is
necessary for the improvement and better management of wildlife
therein, authorises the issue of such permit.'
But we have become masters of using the law and the grey areas in
it, and the above clause 35(6) of the Wildlife Protection Act has
been much abused. In this case a joint secretary in the ministry of
environment and forests initiated a process and faxed the principal
forest secretary of Madhya Pradesh, stating in relation to the rights
of fishermen:
As per information available in this ministry, the aforesaid formalities
have not been duly completed in respect of Pench National Park
and the final notification is yet to issue. If so, fishing rights of the
local people cannot be abridged without compensation and lawful
acquisition and would have to be continued till the formalities laid
down for acquisition of rights are completed.'
This fax message was like a missile for the state government and
they must have wondered if the makers of the law were turning into
the breakers of the law. After all, everyone knew that it was only ten
years ago that a dam was constructed in the area and 50 sq. km of
forest cleared for the water reservoir in the heart of the national
park. Since this was so recent, there was no question of any traditional
fisherman or traditional fishing rights in this entire expanse. But
the Central government had opened up a hornets nest as far as the
issue of rights was concerned and questioned the very basis of the
national park. It was all about the millions of dollars worth of fish
in the water reservoir and every fishing mafia in India wanted their
bite of flesh, whether through 'traditional' fishing rights or any other
way. The lobbies had begun to work, taking their cue from the
Ministry of Environment and Forests' first message.
For over two years this issue went back and forth between the
Central and state governments, since to permit fishing under the
laws of this country was not easy. Towards the end of 1993, a new
chief minister of Madhya Pradesh was in the saddle. But in the
interim period the Minister of Environment and Forests had made
all the right noises.
In September 1992 he wrote to the Chief Minister of Madhya
Pradesh:
'Madhya Pradesh can boast of the single largest population of tigers
in the world (more than 900), which constitutes one-fourth of the
country's, and one-sixth of the world's wild population of tiger.
Three-fourth of the 45 districts have substantial forest cover. Madhya
Pradesh could rightly be called the "Tiger State".
I have been discussing this with some experts, including members
of the Steering Committee of Project Tiger and other wildlife lovers.
I feel that we could develop a whole new approach for the
conservation of biological diversity and natural resources, as well as
the socio-economic development of people, particularly tribals and
forest dwellers in Madhya Pradesh by using tiger conservation as a
means.'
We have become masters of rhetoric. The chief minister accepted
the concept and created a state tiger committee, to which I was
appointed, to work out a detailed strategy paper. By 1995 the process
was well underwayMadhya Pradesh was declared the tiger state
and was to adopt all-round policies friendly to tigers, including
setting up a tiger cell which was formed at the police headquarters
to deal with poaching and illegal trade.
A lot of excellent rhetoric spewed out over the next year. Both
the Minister of Environment and Forests and the Chief Minister of
Madhya Pradesh wrote splendid responses on different issues, but it
was all paper work without any field action. To a detailed proposal
prepared by a colleague and myself on what the tiger state should be
doing, the Chief Minister responded:
'I thankfully acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 5 September
1995. The concern expressed in your letter, certainly, strengthens
our resolve to intensify the efforts in the protection and preservation
of wildlife and particularly of the tiger in Madhya Pradesh. Due to
limitations of financial resources, I understand that some of the
recommendations made by the Tiger State Committee could not be
implemented so far. However, arrangements are being made to
provide better communication facilities such as fax machine in the
office of the Addl. PCCF (Wildlife). Wireless sets have already been
provided to the National Parks. The authorisation for the use of fire
arms by the forest staff in sensitive areas are being examined, on
priority. The formation of the Tiger Cell in the PHQ and the co-
ordinated efforts being made by the police and the forest officers at
the field level have turned the heat on the poachers. We intend to
keep up this pressure without any relent. The Chief Wildlife Warden,
Madhya Pradesh informs me that the next meeting of the Tiger
State Committee is being planned in October 1995. This forum
should enable you to interact more closely with the other members
of the committee as well as officers of the forest and police
departments in giving further shape to the anti-poaching drive. I
look forward to your continued support on this noble cause and
welcome suggestions for improving our approach in this endeavour.'
We only managed to get one fax machine for the chief wildlife
warden's office!
The Union minister also gave some splendid suggestions to the
Chief Minister. In a letter in May 1995 he stated:
'Here are some immediate steps we could take.
(a) Dramatically step up intelligence, patrolling and arrests to force
the gangs to suspend operations till we have time to regroup
our efforts to stamp out the menace.
(b) Place all known and habitual wildlife poachers under arrest
and oppose their release on bail.
(c) Consult with the Chief Wildlife Warden before transfer of
any forest or police officer serving in a tiger area, or involved
with the M.P. Tiger State Committee, because sometimes, by
pure coincidence, a transfer takes place immediately after a
seizure and this conveys the wrong signal that the poaching
mafia has influence in high places.
(d) Consult the Law Department on the possibility of codification
of firearms for forest staff so that the 800 weapons lying in the
armouries can be used by them against poachers. We should
also instruct them to brief us on the feasibility of enhancing
punishment in the acts to a minimum of ten years of
imprisonment, making the offence non-bailable. I am
instructing my officers to advice me along the same lines for
central legislation.
(e) Issue instructions to all territorial DFO's and CF's about
prioritising the protection of the tiger. CWLW must be
authorised to make entries in the confidential report of these
personnel, in addition to the normal channels.
(f) Allot four HF frequencies to the Wildlife Wing for better
communication, and two DFO's and ACF's must be posted at
the CWLW office in Bhopal for anti-poaching and
strengthening tiger management.
(g) Resource mobilisation must be immediately begun, particularly
to acquire vehicles, fire-protection equipment and for reward
schemes for informers.
On my part, I have immediately instituted similar steps at the
Centre and will see to it that coordinated action is taken by the
Tiger Crisis Cell at the Centre and the Tiger Cell of Madhya Pradesh.
The back of the poaching gangs must be broken within the next
four weeks, but I would like to ensure that the focus does not fall
merely on the weakest link which happens to be the adivasis who
actually use the poison or traps. We must get to the very top, or at
least break the transport and trade links between Mandla, Jabalpur,
Balaghat and Seoni.'
Unfortunately, all of the above remained hot air. Nothing has
happened till today. Recommendations piled up but the resultant
field action was zero. Meanwhile, the 'fishing' issue resurfaced, and
against the advice of the entire steering committee of Project Tiger,
the boss of wildlife in India, the additional IGF (Wildlife) wrote a
letter to the principal forest secretary of MP in January 1995:
'We have been receiving several representations from people engaged
in fishing in theTotladoh reservoir of Pench Tiger Reserve (soon to
be declared as national park). The complaints are of two types:
On the other hand, it would not be appropriate to snatch away
certain activities of hill and poor people, which may ultimately help
in the improvement of biodiversity of the protected area so that the
traditional atmosphere of conflict between the park management
and the local residents be replaced by a more cooperative interface.
The solutions to be adopted would, of course, have to be
location-specific; in different sanctuaries and parks, the problems
would be different, the biodiversity would be different, the priorities
would be different, and therefore, the solutions too would differ.
In Pench Tiger Reserve, the Totladoh reservoir is an artificial
one created due to the completion of a dam downstream about eight
years ago. This is not an in situ lake. So if any use of bio-resource of
the pond could ultimately help in the improvement and better
management of the reserve, by reducing their dependence on illegal
felling of trees and poaching of wild animals, and also increasing
the interface of local people with the park authoritiesthis may be
explored as envisioned in Section 35(6) of the Wildlife Protection
Act.'
Note that the boss of Indian wildlife was now not even calling the
Pench Tiger Reserve a national park. He was talking of a 50 sq. km
reservoir as a pond, and in writing he was asking the state government
to explore the loopholes in Section 35(6) of the Wildlife Protection
Act of which he was a critical functionary.
Over the next six months many members of the steering
committee of Project Tiger wrote letters opposing this move. But
the then director, Project Tiger, failed to support his steering
committee. At an evening function, he went up to the minister and
remarked, 'I am glad fishing will commence in the tiger reserve
the World Bank will welcome it.' Since part of the reservoir falls in
neighbouring Maharashtra, the Government of Maharashtra took
legal opinion and wrote to the state of Madhya Pradesh objecting to
the entire happening:
'In 1975 the Government of Maharashtra vide its resolution No.
PGS-1375/121748-F1 dt. 22/11/1975 has declared its intention to
constitute an area of 257.26 sq kms as a national park to be known
as Pench National Park. The area of submergence as explained in
(1) above is included in this notification. The Law and Judiciary
Department of Government of Maharashtra has given the opinion
that all the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 apply to
the intended national park also.
The provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and The Wildlife
Protection Act 1972, in relation to fishing in the reserved forest and
national park, respectively, are as follows: As per 26(d) of the IFA,
trespassing in a reserved forest is prohibited. As per 26(i) of the IFA,
fishing in reserved forest is prohibited. As per Section 65(A) of the
IFA, offences under (i) are non-bailable. As per section 23 of the
IFA, no prescriptive rights accrue over reserved forest except by
succession etc.
As per Section 35(3) read with Section 20 of the Wildlife
Protection Act 1972, after the issue of notification of intended
national park, no fresh rights accrue over such area. As per Section
35(6) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, destruction or removal
of any wildlife or destruction or damage to habitat of any wild animal
is prohibited except the activity beneficial to wildlife management.
From the above clarifications it would become clear that the
submergence area of the reservoir is not only a reserved forest but is
also a part of intended Pench National Park. Therefore fishing in
the reservoir becomes violative of the provisions of both, the Indian
Forest Act, 1927 and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and is liable
for penal action under both the Acts.'
However, none of this was of any use, and on 30 May 1996 the
Chief Wildlife Warden of MP issued an order granting 305 fishing
permits in the heart of the Pench Tiger Reserve. In his order he
stated that he had been instructed by the Chief Minister to do so.
The Maharashtra government once again strongly opposed
this move, stating that the Madhya Pradesh government's
interpretation of the Wildlife Protection Act was different from theirs.
As a result two rules applied to the same water reservoir in which no
fishing was permitted in Maharashtra while fishing was permitted
in Madhya Pradesh. It was the perfect recipe for the mafia to force
open the entire area and stir the activists into demanding their fishing
rights. All the vested interests in exploiting the area had been perfectly
massaged into action.
From the Centre, even the office of Project Tiger bent over
backwards to use the grey areas and rationalise the 'fishing rights' of
poor people. My opposition to this move was not appreciated and a
senior official in the ministry whispered, 'District records can always
be tampered with to create fishing rights.' I could not believe it.
Suddenly the minister changed, I continued my opposition to what
had happened in Pench and on the basis of my letter, the same boss
of wildlife (now under a different minister) wrote to the Principal
Secretary of Forests, Madhya Pradesh:
'I am not sure about the authenticity of the statement made by
CWLW, Madhya Pradesh. I understand a large part of Pench Tiger
Reserve is a reserved forest; no right of any individual can exist unless
the same is recorded at the time of reservation process. Such record
or reference is normally reflected in the volume-I of the working
plan prescription in the chapter that deals with rights and concessions
of the local people. It may, thus be indicated whether any such right
was recorded in the Pench Reserved Forest at the time of constitution
of the reserved forest.
The demand for fishing in Pench is mostly coming after the
Pench dam was constructed, may be about 10 or 15 years back. I
am sure that such demands cannot be age old as the reservoir was
not in existence earlier. So even if the final notification of the national
park is pending and the process under Sections 19 to 26 of Wildlife
Protection Act is yet to be gone through, the control of rights can
easily be made with reference to the records of the working plan and
admission or inadmission of such rights at the time of constitution
of the reservation of forest, pending final notification of the national
park.
Minister, Environment and Forests has pursued the note of
CWLW dated 10 July 1996 and he has observed that the remarks
are evasive and ambiguous. I would, therefore, request you to furnish
a specific reply in this regard within 10 August 1996 after which the
case will again be placed to Minister, Environment and Forests for
his orders.'
The same officer, under a different minister, had taken a somersault,
but this time the MP government was not going to be caught with
its pants down. In a tough reply to the ministry (the first of its kind
in ministry records) the Additional Secretary (Forests) of MP wrote
to the boss of wildlife, the Additional IGF (Wildlife):
'The perusal of the above letter makes it abundantly clear that the
matter of traditional rights of fishermen was raised for the first time
by the Government of India and it was at the specific instructions
of the Government of India that the state government examined the
matter in the light of Section 35(6) of the Wildlife Protection Act,
1972. For ready reference a copy of fax dt. 15/7/92 of Joint Secretary,
Gol, Mr. S.S. Hasurkar and your letter dt. 17/1/1995 is enclosed
herewith. It is clear from the perusal of these letters that at that
point of time, the state government was in favour of stopping fishing
in Pench National Park area and was acting accordingly. But the
state was compelled to change this stand due to Gol's instructions.'
A similar letter went from the Chief Wildlife Warden to Project
Tiger, Delhi. Because of the differences between the Centre and
state, and the interstate problems over the use of the reservoir, the
matter ended up in the Supreme Court. Everybody was against
fishingthe state wildlife advisory board, the steering committee
of Project Tiger, and many other NGOs. As the Supreme Court
debated the issue, activist organisations joined hands in support of
fishing, and the poor fishermen appeared in and out of court. The
mafia lobbies, politicians, and bureaucrats were thrilled that the tribal
organisations stood on the same platform as them. I remember a
senior aide in the minister's office telling me: 'You see now how
others can be engaged to fight the battle.'
In all this confusion, the Supreme Court supported
Maharashtra's ban on fishing, but permitted 305 fishing permits to
continue in Madhya Pradesh till the final notification of the area.
They also made a long list of stringent conditions under which fishing
could be done. Now India had one large reservoir declared as a
national park, administered by two state governments, in which
fishing was banned in one half of the area and permitted in the
other half! India's Wildlife Protection Act had been interpreted in
two different ways for the same stretch of water.
The field director of Pench Tiger Reserve and his deputy were
transferred for having done their duty to control illegal fishing. The
new director of Project Tiger objected to the transfer, but now the
state government was in no mood to listen to the Central government.
And though the Supreme Court had asked for immediate final
notification of the area, two years later nothing has happened. In
fact, there is immense pressure by fishing mafias on the Maharashtra
government to open up the area to fishing, following the precedent
of Madhya Pradesh. It is one big mess.
The tiger state leads all the states in the Union in its quest for
diverting forest lands. Let us look at some of the terrible violations
that have taken place. A request was made by the state to release
3,000 hectares of forest land from the Shivpuri forest division for a
hydroelectric project. The proposal was examined and cleared by
the Ministry of Environment and Forests. After all, the original
application for this clearance from Madhya Pradesh clearly stated
that in 1994 the Chief Wildlife Warden of the state considered the
area to have no wildlife of any significance. Further, the divisional
forest officer recommended the diversion, even though Rs 5 crore
worth of trees was listed as the value. But the matter was much
more serious since all these were official comments on a national
park! The land in question also included a portion of Madhav
National Park. The MP government, instead of clarifying this in its
original application, had only stated 'Shivpuri forest division, and
legal status as 'P.F. and R.F.' (which means protected forest and
reserved forest). There was no mention of the national park!
Nearly every fact sheet from Madhya Pradesh requesting the
release of forest land states that 'wildlife is of no significance'. This
is how the Forest Department serves our natural treasury. Little did
the Central government realise that 1,500 hectares of this land had
been notified as Madhav National Park. I discovered this fact on a
visit to look at a dam site and the violations taking place in the
r
construction work. They immediately tried to stop the release when
I brought it to their notice. In a letter to me, the additional IGF
(Wildlife) wrote:
'It is revealed that the permission granted for transfer of forest land
for Sindh, Mohini Sagar Phase-II Hydro Electric Project was
obtained by the Madhya Pradesh government without informing
that the land forms part of the national park. Once it came to the
notice of the Central government that the land proposed for transfer
is within the national park, the project was rejected and the state
government was asked to fix the responsibility against the erring
official.'
But the Government of India had been totally fooled, and in the
intervening period the irrigation project had spent more than Rs. 80
crore, damaging the forest land in question which had just under
5,00,000 trees. Even today the state government is least bothered
about the Central government ban on the Sindh Phase-II project,
and continues its work in the national park and on forest land. One
of the most serious violations of the laws that govern our natural
heritage had been detected, but how many go undetected?
In the same Shivpuri forest division, other violations resulting
from the permission to mine inside the national park have added
fuel to the fire and degraded both forest and wildlife in the area. I
strongly objected to the permission given by the ministry to operate
seven mines in 930 hectares of park area inside the Madhav National
Park. Please note that in a clever usage of words, both the state
government and the Ministry of Environment and Forests referred
to the land as the 'proposed extension area of Madhav National
Park'. Someone in the corridors of power had ingeniously coined a
new phrase to describe a national park. There is no such thing as a
proposed extension area of a national park. When it is convenient
the same government that notifies a national park can end up calling
the park 'a proposed extension area'.
My objection to the mining was based on a letter dated
December 1995 from the ministry:
'Sub: (i) Renewal of mining lease over an area of 930.734 ha. of
forest land in district of Shivpuri. (ii) Permission for removal of
existing material and completion of mining operations in the forest
areas already broken up in respect of 7 mines within the proposed
extension area of Madhav National Park.
Sir, I am directed to refer to the Chief Minister, Madhya Pradesh
D.O. letter No.4337/CMS/95 dated 1.11.95 addressed to the
Minister (Environment and Forests) regarding above mentioned
subject and to say that as a very special case this Ministry has decided
to grant permission up 31
st
March 1996 only for removal of existing
material and completion of mining operations in already broken up
area in respect of 7 mines located in the proposed extension area of
Madhav National Park subject to the condition that the state
government will relocate the mines outside the national park in the
alternate areas within the period of this temporary permission.
It is requested that during the period of temporary permission,
the concerned officials may be directed to keep a strict vigil so that
no fresh forest area is broken up during this period. It will be pertinent
to mention here that regional office, Bhopal vide letter addressed to
Chief Conservator of Forests (Land Management and F.C.),
government of Madhya Pradesh has pointed out that mining
activities were being continued in some fresh forest areas which were
not broken up earlier. This should not have been allowed to re-
occur.
It is also clarified that no further extension of temporary working
permission from the state government will be entertained in future.'
Under no law in this country could the above clearance be given. It
was obvious that there was a strong connection between the lessees
of the mines and powerful politicians. And believe it or not, the
'special permissions' continued. This is indicated by a letter dated
14
th
May 1996, 'As a very special case this Ministry had decided to
grant permission up to 30
th
June 1996...'. Only in 1997 did the
mining stop after the area was totally devastated. How could the
Central government issue such orders and under which law?
To my objection, the Inspector General (Forests) in the ministry
replied:
'The decision to grant temporary working permission up to June,
1996 in respect of 7 mines located in proposed extension area of
Madhav National Park has been taken after careful examination of
all the issues including hardships to local labourers engaged in the
mines. It will be pertinent to mention that this permission is only
for removal of existing material and completion of mining operations
over already broken up forest area and more importantly subject to
the condition of relocation of these mines outside the national park
within this period, so that the interest of the wildlife and labourers
employed in these quarries can be safeguarded simultaneously.'
I could not believe it and hence in a letter to the IG (Forests) it was
clarified that the area was reserved forest, national park land, and
that it was illegal for the ministry to allow mining or removal of
materials irrespective of the feelings of the labourers. Also, if the
feelings of the labourers working in illegal mines were so important
to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, they should have found
alternative employment schemes for them. I never got another reply.
In other cases, land from protected areas was being palmed off
for irrigation projects which were totally in violation of the law.
Forty hectares of land were given from Pachmarhi Sanctuary and a
similar amount from Noradehi Sanctuary. I asked under which law
was land from protected areas being given to irrigation projects. I
knew that under the Wildlife Protection Act the only way this was
possible was by denotification through a majority vote in the state
legislative assembly. The reply:
'As regards the Amadehi Tank project in Pachmarhi forests, the Chief
Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh has given a categorical certificate
that the proposed transfer of land would not affect the wildlife of
Pachmarhi Sanctuary and accordingly the proposal was approved
vide this Ministry's letter dated 17.7.92.
Now the letter dated 13.8.96 of CWLW, M.P. objecting the
release of land 4 years after the land has already been released, was
sent to the Government of M.P. for their comments. You are also
apprised of the situation in the matter earlier.
The CWLW has certified that the area proposed does not form
habitat of any migrating fauna or breeding ground and has
recommended the proposal. Area approved in the case is 30.76 ha
forest land which as per the CWLW, M.P. falls outside the boundary
of Noradehi Wildlife Sanctuary.'
How many cases exist where land from protected areas is given away
without having any legal basis? It is a nightmare of violations that
pile up in the files while our forests vanish each year. Political will to
protect wildlife was absent, and when the Central government did
not accept the 'proposed diversion', the MP legislative assembly
denotified the area. One hundred sixty hectares of Ghatigaon Great
Indian Bustard Sanctuary were denotified by the legislative assembly
for a railway line in 1993. Today this area has few signs of any wildlife.
So much for the tiger state.
There are many ways to lose forest cover legally, but probably
the most ingenious one was exemplified by the sal borer episode
which ravaged the only viable tiger corridor link between Kanha
National Park and eastern Madhya Pradesh. The sal borer is an insect
that lives and breeds in the sal trees. Some sal trees die when there is
a profusion of this insect. For over a century, reports of this insect
and its life cycle revealed that weather cycles are responsible for its
profusion and the negative impact on the sal tree is contained by
changes in the weather. But the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department,
believing that it is the master of nature, declared an epidemic of sal
borer in 1997. Meetings and conferences were held and the experts
agreed that the only way to save the sal forests was to cut the infected
trees so as to minimise the infection in the following years.
Thus began a massive operation involving tens and thousands
of labourers and thousands of trucks in the most pristine tiger forests
around Kanha National Park. Before anyone could object 600,000
trees had been cut down. I was asked to assess the situation from the
wildlife point of view, and when our sub-committee carried out its
field visit, we were shocked to discover that scores of healthy sal
trees had been cut down using the excuse of an insect. Depots of
wood were brimming full and the largest economic exploitation of
the sal forests was underway with an estimated 30 lakh trees ready
for the axe. It would have been one of the biggest timber operations
in independent India.
Fortunately, a quickly produced and a sharply critical report on
this entire operation resulted in an intervening application in a
Supreme Court case which ordered an end to the cutting of any live
sal tree. We had lost 600,000 trees but hopefully saved some. It was
amazing to see an entire system crawl into the life cycle of an insect,
not to deal with the disease, but to work out the commercial
exploitation of the forest. On the 50
th
anniversary of India's
independence and on the 25
th
anniversary of Project Tiger, the tiger
state was showing its true colours in what I consider as one of the
most shocking episodes of tree felling.'
Valmik Thapar, 'Fatal Links', Seminar, No. 466, June 1998.
I did much writing about the horrors that afflicted the system.
The systems of governance seemed exhausted and wi t hout
political will to direct them like the case of Jamua Ramgarh in
Rajasthan:
'Let us now move into Rajasthan and the fate of the Jamua Ramgarh
wildlife sanctuary. Way back in May 1982, it was notified that all
forest land was reserved forest, yet both state and Central
governments, in total violation of the law, continue to renew mining
leases. The two more recent renewals are by the MoEF. In a letter
dated 21 January 1998 the ministry wrote about the 'Diversion of
401.812 ha of forest land for mining in favour of 37 mine owners
in Jaipur West District. After careful consideration of the proposal
of the state government the Central government hereby gives approval
for a diversion of 390.524 ha in favour of 34 mine owners for a
period of two years only. The state government must ensure the
closure of the mining operation in the area within two years and an
interim report on the action taken to ensure this may be sent after
one year.'
Not stated in the letter is the fact that the leases are part of the
sanctuary. It only mentions the area as 'Jaipur West District' and
cleverly states that operations should cease by 21.1.2000, as if the
sanctioning authority was aware of having broken the law.
Large sections of Jamua Ramgarh are completely devastated by
mining with at least 12 sq km wiped out and another 10 sq km
seriously affected. At least Rs 500 crore of minerals are plundered
and sold each year. Mining has pillaged the beauty of this area,
including inside the water body, contravening all laws of the land.
Leases for soapstone mining have blocked vital wildlife migratory
routes. Nobody really cares. There is a grey area regarding the
boundary, few know what is in or out, and most would prefer to
believe that this is not a sanctuary.
Jamua Ramgarh is reflective of the state of the unknown and
unvisited sanctuaries of India. Violated, plundered, and bombed-
out by mines in contravention of the laws; worse, the Central and
state governments are a party to these violations. It is a shocking
story of wildlife governance where the well-known parks become
showpieces while the rest are neglected and violated. Does the mining
of our forests and protected areas pay for elections? Does it line the
pockets of politicians and bureaucrats? Is it such a powerful lobby
that no court or law dare stand in its way?
Today, around 2000 mining leases and quarry licences are
destroying more than 75,000 hectares of Rajasthan's tiny forest cover.
Add to that 5,300 sawmills that account for 468,503 cu metres each
year. Rajasthan has only around 3 per cent of forest cover left
dense forest accounts for 3,500 sq kms and open forest about 9,000
sq kms. That even this tiny area is plundered is indeed a tragedy.
What does the Wildlife Protection Act say about sanctuaries like
Jamua Ramgarh? According to Section 29: 'No person shall destroy,
exploit or remove any wildlife from a sanctuary or destroy or damage
the habitat of any wild animal or its habitat within a sanctuary.
And what are we doing?
The wild ass sanctuary in the Little Rann of Kutch is a fascinating
wilderness area. It is unique and more than a mere world heritage
site. Every monsoon the desert welcomes the sea and large portions
become breeding grounds for crustaceans and millions of flamingos
and other migratory birds who come to feast and breed. It is also the
only home of the wild ass. In 1973, 4,953 sq km of this vast, flat
salt-cracked area was declared a sanctuary, one of the largest in Asia.
It is estimated to have 2,000 wild asses endemic to this area and a
host of other species of wildlife, at least 253 species of flowering
plants, 167 species of algae, 93 species of invertebrates including 27
species of spiders, 4 species of amphibians, 29 species of reptiles, 22
species of fish, 81 species of terrestrial birds, 97 species of water
birds, and 61 species of mammals. But tragically, given its unique
nature, it is a vast repository of salt as well.
A local NGO, the Dhrangadhra Prakriti Mandal, approached
the court in 1996 to save the region from excessive exploitation.
They stated:
'In the last few months some powerful vested interests in the salt
industry as well as in the government are demanding and actively
pressurising the government to denotify the sanctuary. Demand for
new land for salt manufacturing increases day by day and because of
the encroachments the wild ass enters the crop lands. The Little
Rann of Kutch is unique and the most complete desert on earth and
it is now feared that this last abode of the Indian wild ass will fall
prey in the hands of short-sighted politicians and industrialists. The
whole sanctuary with its delicate ecosystem stands degraded, more
so as the days go by. With every norm violated, the sanctuary is
falling apart and is likely to become crematorium for wildlife.'
The petitioners further stated that between 1985 and 1990, the salt
pan area in the sanctuary increased from 2,479 hectares to 39,955
hectares. The 1990 figure has now tripled! And they are not wrong.
The sanctuary accounts for 20 per cent of the total salt production
of India and 50,000 people illegally work inside the sanctuary. At
least 2,500 trucks ply back and forth every day taking out salt. Every
rule of the Wildlife Protection Act has been violated; more than
1,000 sq km of the sanctuary area is being mined for salt.
Before the sanctuary was notified there were only 203 licenced
mines over 166 sq km. After the entire area was notified as a sanctuary
another 1448 mining licences were given over 294 sq km of the
sanctuary, and today nearly 1,700 mines operate legally on 460 sq
km inside the sanctuary. The new leases were given by the revenue
department flouting the Wildlife Protection Act.
Let us look at what else afflicts this unique ecosystem. When
the sea comes into the sanctuary, an army of shrimp catchers illegally
enter and exploit the area. Nearly 1,800 boats with 9,000 fishermen
use the area between July and September and catch at least 5,000
tonnes of fish which retail at a minimum price of Rs 60100 crore
each year. It is not unusual to see refrigerated trucks parked at the
edge of the sanctuary waiting to transport the catch. Eleven species
of prawn and 22 species of fish are caught, 95 per cent of it prawns.
A total population of 70,000 fisherfolk live around the sanctuary.
Chemical factories are bunched in a 20 km radius of the
sanctuary, pumping out an enormous amount of untreated hazardous
effluents and toxic waste. A soda ash chemical factory in the area
pipes its effluents into an open gutter on the edge of the Falku river,
2.8 km from the sanctuary's boundary. In 1987, villages from the
area went to the high court which ordered the company to shift the
pipeline since it had severely damaged vegetation and the
underground water table causing serious health hazards. Finally, the
pipeline was reportedly located 0.6 km from the boundary of the
sanctuary and everyone rushed to give their 'no objection' to this.
On a visit to the site of the discharge, I found that it was still
clearly inside the sanctuary. A small 'lake of effluents' had been created
destroying vegetation and making it uninhabitable to wildlife. It
had become a dumping ground for toxic wastes.
Repeated attempts have been made by district collectors and
the revenue departments to lease out sanctuary land for salt mining,
thereby violating the Forest Conservation Act and Wildlife Protection
Act of India. Clearly, the revenue department plays games with land
records in order to provide leases. If this is not bad enough, the
Indian Army has leased out an area of nearly 250 sq km of this
sanctuary for field-firing exercises under the Army's Field Firing and
Artillery Practice Act, 1939. The area for the army was notified by
the Gujarat government in December 1969 for a period of 30 years.
Once the sanctuary came into being, the land was notified in 1979.
In 1985 the chief wildlife warden of Gujarat noted in a letter to the
secretary of forests:
'As this area is situated in the little Rann of Kuch and is within the
wild ass sanctuary area, the disturbances and the detrimental effects
to the rare species are being noticed. It is seen that at times the firing
kills the asses or maims them. In many instances the wild asses die
due to noise and fear and run away ...' . He tried hard to persuade
the Defence Ministry to move the firing range outside the sanctuary
but in vain. The firing goes on.'
Valmik Thapar, 'Violating India's Natural Treasures',
Seminar,, No. 485, Jan. 2000.
The 1990s were full of events, encounters, and controversies. My
attempt is to illustrate some of them to give a feel of those times.
I think one of the first things that comes to my mind was in 1993
when a fully blown tiger crisis enveloped us. It was late in the
year and I had taken members of the Cat Specialist Group of the
IUCN to meet the minister. There were eight of us and the minister.
He looked around and said, 'Valmik, I need to talk to you after
the meeting'. He said then in all innocence, 'It's OK, I will tell you
all about it.'
He then recounted how he had been given a gift in his
constituency (that was also a tiger reserve) and on coming to Delhi
he unwrapped it to find a fresh tiger skin. My mouth fell open. I
could not believe that the Minister of Environment and Forests
had unknowingly accepted a gift of a tiger skin! My members
were silenced. He asked us in all innocence, 'Advice.' Few knew
what to say. In the end I think someone whom he was close to just
picked up the skin from him and it may have been used to catch a
poacher some years later!
What a system existed! I think as non-officials some of us got
really used by the system. We were good for the overall credibility
of the politician. The politician always looks for the support of
the NGOs. But we all were probably pawns in a much larger game
and this for most of the time kept us ignorant of the reality we
were up against.
A friend in Bombay told me once that politicians love us
because we say no so often to projects on environmental grounds
that it often pushes the price up for the ultimate deal.
Who knows? Maybe.
Following the tail of the tiger I learnt more about scams, the
dirt, and the politics that plague India. I learnt all the ' things' I
never knew about. It was like living a nightmare. The peace had
been shattered. Ministers came and went. The horrors continued.
The tiger walked on the richest part of India, Forest India.
Everyone wanted a bit of it. Mines, minerals, minor forest produce,
timber, large river valley projectsit was all about taking and
not givingand land was in short supply and the land mafia had
become experts at using forest communities to encroach on forest
land that years later would be legalized in the so-called interest
of the ' poor' .
Missions for the Ministry of Environment and Forests were
always full of surprises. I remember once going to Tadoba Tiger
Reserve and driving around with the field director and discussing
the menace of poaching when suddenly from the bush came
running six dogs and two men and they pounced on what we
discovered was a wild boar. It was the first time on inspection I
had witnessed a hunt in progress. On another occasion I was on
an inspection of Ranthambhore with the Inspector General of
Forests from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. We both
had woken up early and therefore decided to drive around the
park before all the paraphernalia woke up. Within twenty minutes
we were confronted with hundreds of cows and buffalos and a
threatening bunch of graziers that abused and tried to intimidate.
The IG was shockedit was a moment of great mismanagement
in Ranthambhore' s history. On another occasion, on an inspection
of Nagarahole, somebody whispered in my ear that there was a
big illegal timber camp operating from the heart of the National
Park. We went to the site and saw the horrific remnants of the
slaughter of trees that man does so well. A sawmill-like situation
had been created in the forest and the local forest officers had
preferred not to inform us.
On anot her occasion while on an inspection of both an
irrigation project and some mines around Madhav National Park
in Shivpuri I realized looking at the map that something was
wrong. I asked a young forest officer near me about the location
of the dam. He whispered, 'Yes, it is in the national park.' Enquiries
were ordered on my return but there were violations of the laws
everywhere. Everyone at the end of the 1990s was trying to get
away with the murder of nature. None of the big projects followed
their mandat ory conditions. They violated the Environment
Prot ect i on Act of 1986 and endl essl y vi ol at ed t he Forest
Conservation Act of 1980. There was little will to enforce. Chief
ministers were not in fear of the prime minister like in Indira
Gandhi' s time. The states were busy dismantling the systems that
existedthey were tinkering with the law. In fact, in a letter dated
June 2001, Sonia Gandhi had to ask her party' s chief ministers not
to ' tinker' with the laws that Indira Gandhi had made. Such was
the state of affairs. The makers of the law had become the breakers
of the law. In the 1990s dozens of protected areas had been
denotified without following any course of law. My missions to
the field were enormously revealing.
There were endless encounters all adding to an understanding
of the problem, and building deep within me the experience of
' non- gover nance' . And t hen of course t here wer e super b
encounters with wildlife. There were endless days and nights
spent with a diverse array of forest officers and staff that, for me,
were a great experience in learning the ways and language of
Forest India. You build through such a process a wisdom to act
never in haste but always strategically. I also had to realize at the
end of t he cent ury t hat in 1992 I knew not hi ng about the
functioning of the system and today some of my colleagues call
me an expert on it. If there is some expertise, in many ways I
regret it because it opened my mind to the horrors of governance
and kept me tense with endless sleepless nights and nightmares.
The peace had gone. Indira Gandhi' s absence was felt desperately.
Out of the 1800 odd ministers at the Centre and in the states there
were few that cared or inspired decision making. Probably the
only former minister who engaged and carried some political will
on this issue was Maneka GandhiSanjay Gandhi' s wife and
Indira Gandhi' s daughter-in-law. She was, in the 1990s, the only
one who cared enough to 'get things done' . How I wished her
major passion was wild tigers and not domestic animals. Sadly,
Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee never gave her the ministry of her
choice and she was forced to move to several different portfolios
but not the Ministry of Environment and Forests which was her
great desire. He was probably worried that the corporate world
would frown at such a move. The big business interests of India
had in the 1990s been at their exploitative best taking what they
could from the forest without putting anything back. They had
been fuelled by the new economic policies of the decade and their
love affair with the politicians of these times had scarred the
natural world. They had taken every short cut they could find
and fully exploited the loopholes in the laws. In fact, the biggest
players had sunk vast oil pipelines into one of the very few marine
national parks against the objectives of all the laws that govern
our national parksbut with total support of some of our critical
functionaries of the law. The chief wildlife warden in this case
had stated that the land along the alignment of the pipelines was
degraded and in fact such pipelines would benefit the marine area
and therefore a ' no objection' was provided. Such was the hopeless
state of affairs that we tried to work in. At the turn of the century
the wheelchair politicians of India and their business escorts had
snared Forest India in the most vicious of jaw traps just like the
tiger was in Nagarahole. Their greed and inaction on this front
was totally demoralizing. Where would we go from here?
If you were too critical of what was happening you ended up
being warned off. The system wanted their back scratchers. I had
over the years fought endless battles and some individuals in the
government were weary of what they thought was my ' power' .
They tried desperately to harass me by pushing at questions about
the organization I founded so that it could be enquired into and
through that process effectively paralysed. They also tried to
harass me by trying to say I was a ' poacher' and therefore needed
to be investigated by one of their agencies. I could not believe it
a poacher! How the system could be twisted around. On another
occasion the chief wildlife warden of Rajasthan rang me up at
11 p.m. to say that the police chief of Sawai Madhopur had rung
him to say that I would be served an arrest warrant for kidnapping,
etc. I was asked to keep away from my house for a few days so
that they could not find me. I could not believe it and was really
frightened. I consulted my lawyers in the middle of the night. We
were to realize later that a local judicial official had intentionally
or otherwise made a 'clerical error' . Luckily none of their efforts
succeeded. If you make enemies while fighting for what is just
and right you also make friends and the experience of the 1990s
was a great lesson about how to function, how to find a path in
the complex maze of 'conservation'. But I knew that when you
battle, you must watch your back and protect it; otherwise you
get knifed.
There was much wheeling and dealing in the corridors of
powerthe politics of conservation. I have kept a record of it but
most of it for the moment must remain unwritten, and off the
record. Suffice it to say that ideas, committees, strategies, cells,
i nt ervent i ons, etc., t ravel l ed t hr ough a series of mi ni st ers
representing different political parties in our efforts to find
correctives to the problems of both forest and wildlife. Everything
in our command was usedevery contact triggered. We were a
group of four or five and without people like Indira Gandhi in
command we were deeply involved in our efforts to strengthen
conservation and lobby. There was no other choice. But it changed
us and definitely me. From the pure joy and innocence of following
tigers you turn manipulative and political, matching your wits
against a system that is all-powerful and that can choose to do
not hi ng but pl ay games wi t h you. We knew t hat for t he
government the best way to neutralize criticism was to create
committees and our small group either participated or helped in
the creation of more than thirty such committees, cells, forums,
and such like in those years between 1992-2000. What a waste of
time it was! But it took us some years to learn this.
Life and work are about triumphs and failures. But in my case
there were more failures. If I was able to collect 320 signatures of
members of Parliament to save wild tigers and hand them to then
Prime Minister, I.K. Gujral. It was a disaster to see how that
Parliament dissolved wi t hi n mont hs of handi ng over those
signatures. I had known I.K. Gujral since I was a boy and he was
a great friend of my father. From 1989 the Indian Board for
Wildlife had met only oncein 1997chaired by Deve Gowda
who sadly dozed through parts of the meeting. I participated in
this meeting, my first as a member of the Board. I thought, in
1998, that we could create new policy in the sector of forest and
wildlife and managed to persuade I.K. Gujral, the then prime
minister, to convene a meeting. I briefed him a bit and he asked
me to spend t hi rt y mi nut es wi t h hi m before t he meet i ng
commenced for a more detailed briefing. I sat in the pri me
minister's office for what seemed like hours. He was seventy-five
minutes late for the meeting and I then went to wait for him at the
gate below to try and ' brief' him from the time he left the car and
walked up to the meeting room. Really, a brief two minutes is all
I had before we entered the meeting room. And then to my total
shock I.K. Gujral also dozed through parts of the meeting! Oh, I
wonderedwhere was Indira Gandhi?I.K. Gujral had been one
of her trusted Cabinet ministers but he had no deep-rooted passion
for the wilderness. Tragic! I had watched two consecutive prime
ministers of India take their forty winks during meetings of what
was the most important policy-making body for forests and
wildlife. They were both tired men who took time off during what
I considered were critical meetings. I had missed my moment and
I.K. Gujral, with all his good intentions, barely had one year in
power before t he politics of t he t i me forced a change in
government.
I tried everything in the late 1990s and another of my father' s
old friends, Jaswant Singh, presently the Finance Minister of India,
had to receive endl ess letters f r om me about r ef or m and
governance and what was needed. I always got some response
but it was never what was needed. To a large extent my efforts
were failing. I was more and more disillusioned with the state of
affairs. Prime ministers came and went; so did endless other
ministerseveryone endlessly shifting around. For most, the issue
of forest and wildlife was to be snored at and ignored. Governance
had reached its lowest ebb. This was probably why the courts
were more active.
I spent much time between 1995 and 1998 attempting to
activate NGO movements both in India and abroad in the interest
of both forest and tigers. In that period there was unlimited zeal
for the objective and I must have networked more than sixty jeeps,
trucks, and motorcycles for different areas in order to strengthen
protection. There were lots of excitement, lots of meeting, and a
belief that anyone can trigger effective action. Those were hectic
years but I was to realize later that such efforts only minimize
damage, if you are lucky. Otherwise most of the time they do not
result in effective action. One of the great realizations of the 1990s
was that for any kind of conservation good information is essential
and through a fifty-page newsletter detailed information on the
state of the tiger was transmitted to over 1,000 people every four
months. I think this was useful. In a way it must have minimized
damage. That is why it continues to come out. Good information
is a bul l et for effect i ve conservat i on bot h for officials in
government and out of government. But never more did I realize
that those that really make a difference are forest officials
committed to the job. These handful of government officials have
the field power to act and, if supported, can deliver magical results.
The conservation strategies of jeeps, trucks, etc., do not work so
well. Innovative ideas deliver better results. Working closely with
good committed officials can do wonders for both forest and
wildlife. NGOs on their own in India cannot make a difference.
They can keep flying the flag about a crisis and collect funds but
without a committed forest officer they achieve little. For most of
the time the mushrooming of NGOs took place but little was
achieved; money was wasted. Few created strategies that were
practical and effective. That was the tragedy of the NGOs as we
entered the twenty-first century.
How do you develop a small band of forest officers as the
committed bunch for protection? How do you prevent their
unnecessary transfers? How do you create political will for them
and the area they govern? How do you build the infrastructures
they want? These were vital questions that faced all of us and if
you could find some answers to them we would be a few steps
closer towards effective action.
We limped into the end of the decade. I wrote something about
the end of a century and the beginning of another. It provides a
glimpse of those very difficult and torturous times. I reproduce
an edited version of my article ' The Big Cat Massacre' first
published in Saving Wild Tigers: 1900-2000Essential Writings.
'I thought I would end this century feasting on the extraordinary
recovery of the wild tigers of Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve in the
state of Rajasthan and in a way I did. I spent nearly thirty minutes
reversing my jeep some 4 km in the face of a tigress that at 3 p.m.
decided to move from one end of the valley to another and it was a
day to remember as I quietly clicked my camera and loved every
minute of it. It was also a moment when it was confirmed that after
forty years a male wild dog had been sighted in Ranthambhore.
What a recovery!
But I was rudely awakened on 19 December 2000 to the grim
horrors of what is happening to the wilderness when purely by
accident the sales tax inspectors in Ghaziabad, a small town in north
India intercepted a truck and found, instead of illegal garments,
fifty leopard skins, three tiger skins, and a handful of other skins.
The story came in the newspapers as most things do these days and
for some of us in and out of government we remained in shock for
a couple of days. After all it was probably the second largest seizure
of big cat skins since independence and brought home the fact that
our precious wilderness was vanishing. Something must have needled
me and finally gathering the courage to face the slaughter I went
with some of the senior officers of the Ministry of Environment
and Forests to the city of Ghaziabad.
It was 7 a.m. and the smog and mist of the filth of both Delhi
and all its satellite towns were only just lifting. We drove for over an
hour and then into the sprawling mess of Ghaziabad's by-lanes until
we arrived at the DFO's residence. I was with the Inspector General
of Forests and as we stepped out of the car and walked a few yards
around a corner, there in front of us were laid out the skins of so
many dead leopards that the first sight of it took the breath away
and stunned all of us into silence. In a numb state we moved looking
slowly at what must be only the tip of an iceberg in the ongoing
massacre of India's wildlifehow may thousands of mornings I have
waited even for the faintest sign of a leopard in India's forest! I have
craved to see even a glimpse of them. I have probably seen about
twenty-eight 28 leopards over the last twenty-five years and here I
was surrounded by fifty dead ones.
Some were enormous in size, the skins shining in the early
morning sun. There were hardly any marks in them. Probably they
were all poisoned or electrocuted. A couple appeared to have been
caught in foot traps and then smashed on the head to kill them as
the congealed blood suggested. They all looked freshly killedin
the last six months. They had been cured somewhere and waxed
and even had the signature of the 'artist' at the back. They were
perfectly folded like table clothsit was a blood-curdling sight. I
could imagine the horrors that these animals must have been
throughtheir agony, their death howls. Standing silently in the
midst of the skins, my head, my heart, my every pore seemed fading
into oblivion. I realized that the recovery of Ranthambhore was
probably only an illusion.
I touched, looked, and turned over some of the skins. My
colleagues from the ministry were shocked. In a way, we were as
close to tears as anyone could be. I moved to an enormous tiger
skin. Its foot looked punctured in a foot trap, its flank had spear or
knife marks, suggesting the tiger had roared in fury and pain and
the poaching gang had come by and speared it down. My vision of
the end of the century had been ripped apart, torn in pieces; it was
covered in blood. There was no doubt that hundreds of leopards
and tigers were being decimated by the coordinated working of
poaching gangs right across India. Were skins being ordered like
garments? Why were there exactly fifty leopard skins booked from
Delhi to Siliguri, a small town close to the border of Nepal? Are
there other such consignments of fifty? How many gangs are out
there engaged in this horrific slaughter?
One century has just ended, another has started, but as a
conservation community we have totally failed. The government,
the ministry, the states, the NGOs, and people like myselfwe have
entered the twenty-first century with no intelligence, no information.
We are totally impotent because there is hardly any effective
mechanism of wildlife governance and enforcement. All our laws
are violated with impunity. We are mute spectators to a massive
slaughter in every forest of India. If big business has ripped apart
India's wilderness for mining, illegal traders have picked out our
precious wildlife for commerce and none of us has worked out a
way to counter either. Our natural treasury is being devastated. The
twentieth century could not have ended on an uglier or more hideous
note.
Now, in this disastrous dawn of a new century, the wildlife of
India is dying. It is a national shame, an unmitigated disaster that
our country has not been able to take on the challenge to save its
superb natural heritage. There is no room for lip service any more,
no room for complacency. There is only one goal ahead. Those who
care must engage in the battle to save some of India's natural treasures
and secure their future. So far we have failed.
In the core of my head I carry into the new millennium only a
vision of skin and bone, of congealed blood, of a mass of skins, of
the horrors of what man does. This is my 'new millennium', my
utter, utter shame, at our total impotence to save the wilderness of a
great nation, my devastation at the global indifference to protecting
our wilderness across the planet.
I did not realize that the beginning of the twenty-first century
would get even worse. On 12 January 2000, a day I will never forget,
acting on a tip that must have resulted from the 19 December seizure,
a police party with wildlife inspectors raided three premises in Khaga,
Fatehpur, in the north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, and seized
seventy leopard skins, four tiger skins, 221 blackbuck skins, 18,000
leopard claws, 132 tiger claws. It appears that both seizures are linked.
The three premises were illegal factories that were tanning and curing
skins. By 15 January, from around these premises more than 185 kg
of tiger and leopard bones were recovered, revealing the horrifying
state of affairs. Wildlife governance was in a complete state of collapse
and clearly 'operation wipe-out' was on. As if it was not enough, by
May two more seizures in Haldwani resulted in a recovery of eighty
more leopard skins and endless other skins.
The twenty-first century had dawned with a nightmare. The
biggest haul of large cat skins had taken place over a few weeks at
the end of one century and the beginning of another. Never before
had there been a haul of this magnitude and scale in the history of
India. Skins, bones, and derivatives of 1,400 leopards and fifty
tigersall in one place! Imagine what has been processed in these
factories over the last decade.
We are already loosing at least 10,000 sq km of dense forest
each year to timber mafias and so-called developers. We believe that
at least twelve billion dollars worth of forest is exploited from India's
natural treasury each year, and I am convinced that hundreds of
tigers and leopards are trapped, poisoned, and poached so that their
skin, claws, and other derivatives feed the international market. The
skin market across the world is booming with demand and the planet
is loosing the best of its natural treasure. This is not just India's
failure. We have failed globally. Much of the responsibility must fall
on our international organizations, both inter-governmental and
non-governmental.
The last two seizures are the tip of an iceberg. India's wilderness
heads for disaster. To prevent it requires global will and urgent reform
in the enforcement mechanisms that prevent illegal trade across the
world. Can we hope for a global political will that brings effective
international cooperation and not lip service? Can we hope that
innovative mechanisms for enforcement do not get lost in endless
rhetoric and diplomacy? Can we even begin to hope that human
beings everywhere will act before it is too late to reverse the horrors
that envelope us all, across the planet? Can we greet the new century
with effective global field action?
I have followed the trail of the tiger for twenty-five years and it
has led me over the richest part of IndiaForest India. In this forest
land there is a vast amount of timber, marble, gems, manganese,
iron ore, bauxite, and so many minerals that everyone's mouth waters.
Minor forest produce abounds and everyone wants a bit of the land.
Big dams, infrastructural projects, and land mafias want their piece
too. It is India's natural treasury and this natural wealth is under so
much pressure that its very survival is threatened.
This is 20 per cent of India, and the most neglected sector of
governance, probably by the explicit preference of our ignorant or
mischievous political leadership. In this country we do not create
mechanisms for protection but we excel at creating mechanisms for
exploitation. We must work out ways to stop it and put public
pressure on our political leadership to restructure existing
mechanisms and focus on real issues. For instance, take the federal
arm involved with saving tigers in the ministry of environment and
forests: 95 per cent of its time, effort, and money are spent on clearing
public and private sector projects and dealing with city pollution.
The 20 per cent of India which is Forest India has been allocated a
tiny insignificant 'wing' to deal with its issues. Can you imagine the
richest part of India having only a 'wildlife wing'? The richest part
of India never has a decent allocation of money from the Planning
Commission. The richest part of India has no ministry to protect it.
No one cares. Everyone lives by rhetoric. The problems of the
forest get only lip service and countless recommendations gather
dust in different offices. What a tragedy of governance! What a
mockery of administration!
How do you save tigers in the twenty-first century? We must
start from scratch and restructure all our mechanisms for wildlife
and forest administration. To start with we need:
(a) A new federal ministry for the protection of forests and wildlife;
(b) A review of the Indian Forest Service for encouraging
specialization in the protection of biological resources;
(c) A national armed force for the forest officer, on call like a
Forest Police Force, to minimize the enormous damage to our
natural treasury;
(d) Rapid financial mechanisms to disburse money from the federal
structure to the field for better management;
(e) A declaration of this sector as essential so that the huge vacancies
that plague forest staff are filled and the gates to looting are
closed; and
(f) Disbanding Project Tiger. The time has come in the twenty-
first century to disband Project Tiger that over the decades has
become only a disburser of money and has no power to govern.
Instead, under this new ministry a 'Tiger Protection Authority
of India must be created that is empowered under the law to
appoint, recruit, transfer, and assess all officers in tiger reserves
from the rank of ranger upwards. This 'Authority' must also
be able to disburse money directly to the field and have the
final say in the management of all our twenty-seven Project
Tiger Reserves.
Only when these mechanisms are actually and effectively put in
place can we even begin to start tackling the details of the most vital
and most seriously neglected area of our planet-the forests. Land-
use policy, community conservation schemes, joint forest
management, and so much more require innovative brainstorming.
The first priority is to set into motion the six measures outlined
above. The rest will follow. Only then will we be on the path of
saving wild
(
tigers in the new millennium.'
Valmik Thapar, 'The Big Cat Massacre', in Saving Wild Tigers:
1900-2000 Essential Writings, Valmik Thapar (ed.), 2001.
The century t urned but little changeda stream of endless
meetings and little field impact. It was clear that little of what we
had fought for was ever going to see the light of day. Few wanted
to change and reform the system of governance. In January 2002
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, chaired a rare meeting of
the Indian Board for Wildlife. It was a good meeting. I had worked
closely with the ministry for it. We had an excellent secretary in
the ministry at this point and it was a pleasure working with him.
Our minister was also a no-nonsense person and efficient at his
job. Probably what turned the tables for this meeting was a bunch
of children who a couple of days before had gone to meet the
prime minister and ask him to save the tiger. I was also present
and I watched him squirm away from answering the children's
questions. He did not know the answers. This was not the deep-
rooted wilderness-loving Indira Gandhi. It must have been an
embarrassing experience and probably led to the positive energy
in the subsequent meeting. Vajpayee promised forests to be
declared a priority sector and a forest commission to look at reform
of the forest sector and a series of other exciting interventions. I
was able to articulate at this meeting the urgent need for a separate
ministry. Again, we concluded the meeting in a moment of
excitement but till this book went to press only a forest commission
had been set up under the chairmanship of a dynamic former
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Our biggest problem of the
last decade had been follow-up. There were lots of rhetoric,
paperwork, promises, recommendations, and endless shouts and
barks but the action at the field level was missing. Follow-ups
were dismal. There was no Indira Gandhi wielding the whip from
above. Persistent political will was absent and the resultant
frustration with the state of affairs enormous.
One of t he bi ggest sagas of these crisis years was the
functioning of one of the largest NGOs. In a way, as the crisis
became severe they functioned least effectively. The NGO was
basically run by one of the larger corporate families in India and
I remember the day in 2001 when I was asked to join the board of
trustees. This process was accompanied by top-level changes in
this organization since all its chapters across the world were
complaining about its inefficiency. I believed somewhere that
things would change for the better but I was surprised at the
discussions that were held with me over lunch by the chairman
and some of the trustees. This was before I got my formal invitation
to join. It was li ke a businessman' s club clueless about conservation
but trying very hard to preach to me. My lesson was that I should
now control my critique on government since I woul d be a
' prestigious' trustee of a large organization. I realized that the
chairman had no spunk and lived in fear of the system that
governed. But the letter sent to me was even funnier. He stated:
'The Trustees would expect you to work together and speak in one
voice on all joint and common endeavours.... cannot be made into
a forum for individuals to express their own personal views which
may be in divergence with the views of... . Any public statement
made by a Trustee must essentially express the view of... and the
majority of Trustees.
I do hope that you will accept our invitation bearing in mind
that our strength arises from our common endeavour and unanimity
on issues of national and international importance.'
I replied: 'I hope that my public statement not only touch the heart
and soul of conservation and naturally therefore the views of ...
but also inspire the team at. . . our common endeavour to protect
and save the natural world.'
Finally, I joined but lasted only a few weeks since the then
CEO, a lady whom I had given my support to for the last few
months, was just so rude in her behaviour that after a phone
conversation I decided that this was not for me. I would end up
'eating her alive'. A year later, in 2002, in response to a letter to
me from her asking about what the organization should do, I
replied: ' ... all those without experience in conservation on the
Board of Trustees and herself included should step down ...'. The
poor giantit failed to per f or m in t he i nt erest of Indi a' s
wilderness. It suffered from a complete lack of guts, knowledge,
and action and though it tried to fly the flag in the crisis it just did
not know what to do. It was a giant in hibernation waiting to be
woken up and while it slept the world around it vanished. And
how the staff fought with each otherit was a nightmare! What
politics, what intrigue!
It was 2002. There was no forest and wildlife brain in the
political leadership. There was no Indira Gandhi. There was a
snowballing crisis. What provided some relief was the will of the
judiciary and especially the Supreme Court of India. In the absence
of good governance and political will in the forest sector they had
stepped in with a series of radical decisions to save India' s forests.
In fact, Case No. 202 as it is known would go down in the history
of the country as a case that gave the forests of India at their most
critical juncture some ' breathing space'. God knows what would
have happened without Case No. 202 and all the decisions that
emanated from it. While the courts, at least the Supreme Court of
India, moved in the interest of forests and wildlife, many forest
ministers of state governments showed their total insensitivity to
the problems at hand. Rajasthan and Karnataka during 2001-2
had forest ministers who lacked deep-rooted commitment to the
natural heritage of the country. The one in Rajasthan had made
life miserable for a bunch of good and honest forest officers. The
Director of Ranthambhore had to face endless false enquiries
against him. For me most of 2001-2 went in meetings with either
leaders of political parties or chief ministers in order to ensure
that the damage to good individuals within the forest service and
some of the institutions were kept minimal. Because of absent
political will, conservation meant lobbying and forcing political
will. This had become a totally time-consumirig process. You woke
and slept thinking about it! Work was a series of phone calls and
meeting endless political leaders and bureaucrats.
My friend Ullas Karanth in Karnataka, known for his amazing
scientific work with tigers, had all his permissions for research
withdrawn. The whims of ministers and the disasters they trigger!
As I write this there is a big male tiger in Nagarahole walking
around with a foot trap on its front pawa few days to liveand
like him there must be many more all over India. And who is to
blame? I am clear about this fact. Ignorant politicians, forest
ministers who can not see beyond their nose, and key bureaucrats
who could not care less, were to blame; and none of these key
deci si on maker s had an I ndi r a Gandhi wat chi ng t hem.
Controversies, violations of the law, scams, maladministration,
and the horrors of consultancies had neutralized field action,
integrity, and commitment. Our academic institutes that teach
wildlife had been plagued by a wave of money-making. The
institutions that govern forest and wildlife were being eroded,
and eaten into. In a way both at the Centre and the states there
was apathy. You were lucky only if you find the right man in the
right job who believed in battling the system. These men (forest
officers) were few and far between but it was people like them
that gave hope. Forest tracts that have done well in the last decade
have done so because such men survive and the best conservation
work has to be to 'lobby' for their survival and ensure their correct
postings. This is vital. Some of the best conservation work, as far
as I am concerned was done by individuals who quietly and
invisibly ensured that good people either stayed in their posts or
got posted to the right place. Meetings, telephone calls, and
intensive lobbying wi t hout any ' grand' project or donor-led
initiative did the trick. And this quiet work is still vitalthe right
man in the right place at the right time. The NGO movement has
failed in the last years to deal with the issues. Most of them have
got richer as the crisis ballooned. Few had the wisdom to do the
right thing at the right time. It is strange how the apathy of
government and the apat hy of the NGOs go hand in hand.
Organi zat i ons can mushroom, but if they do not have any
understanding of the crisis, their role is counterproductive and
can have negative impacts on the problems. I think this has
happened in India.
In all this mess the Supreme Court came out with a ray of
light. In June 2002 it came to the aid of Forest India by creating a
Cent ral Empower ed Commi t t eeI had al ways dr eamt of
something like this where a small group of people or even an
individual could be empowered by the Supreme Court of India
to resolve some of the all-enveloping problems. On 3 June 2002 it
came true with the constitution of an empowered committee and
I was also on it. Maybe a small window of light had been created
on the horizon. I grabbed at it. Looking back, it was clear that
from 1996 when we were at the lowest ebb the Supreme Court
had played a vital role to protect the nation' s natural treasures.
Two writ petitions had triggered the Supreme Court Case No.
202 of 1995 and Case No. 171 of 1996. The first dealt wi t h
deforestation in the Nilgiri's and the second with deforestation in
Jammu and Kashmir. During these two hearings the Supreme
Court realized that deforestation was a critical national problem
and notices were issued to all the states in India. In the last six
years at least 150 interim orders have been passed beginning with
the well-known order of 1996 wherein forests were redefined to
prevent any loopholes in the law that permitted for felling trees
or indulging in other exploitative activities. Felling was stopped
throughout India except in accordance to a working plan approved
by the central government and in this case it was the Ministry of
Environment and Forests. In many ways, in the absence of an
Indira Gandhi, the Court was empowering the ministry to act.
All non-forest activities on forest land such as mining, sawmills,
and wood-based industries were stopped pending approval of
t he Cent r al gover nment and cl earance under t he Forest
Conservation Act. Felling of trees was totally banned in the tropical
evergreen forest in the Tirap and Changlang areas of Arunachal
Pradesh. All sawmills 100 km on either side of the border between
Assam and Arunachal Pradesh were ordered shut down. The
movement of timber from the north-eastern states was also
stopped. In subsequent orders the removal of trees, grasses, etc.,
were stopped from national parks and sanctuaries. The definition
of forest land covered all wildlife habitats of the country, be they
pri vat e, prot ect ed, or not. The Supreme Court had done a
remarkable job. God knows what the state of chaos forest and
wildlife would have been in without these earth-shaking orders.
I have to say that from 1996-2002 I was ignorant of the kind of
credible orders that were emanating from the Supreme Court. It
was these orders that saved the wilderness of India in the last
decade when political will was so invisible. Though the ministry
had a larger role because of the court orders, few of us were certain
that it could play its part in the new role of the enforcer of all this.
Did the right people exist in it who had the courage to act? To
save Forest India and all the wildlife that exists in it the Court
had, in 2002, created the Central Empowered Committee to ensure
that there was compliance by all the parties to its orders and it
empowered the Committee to act much like a court.
By 9 September 2002 the Supreme Court in a judgment made
this Committee statutory. I quote the judgment issued from the
court of the Chief Justice of India:
A draft of the proposed notification under Section 3(3) of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 of constituting the Central
Empowered Committee has been shown to the Court. According
to the draft, the Committee is being constituted for a period of five
years. The constitution of the Committee would be: (i) Shri P.V.
Jayakrishnan, Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Environment and Forests as Chairman; (ii) Shri N.K. Joshi,
Additional Director General of Forests, Ministry of Environment
and Forests as Member; (iii) Shri Valmik Thapar, Ranthambhore
Foundation as Member; (iv) Shri Mahendra Vyas, Advocate, Supreme
Court of India as Member and (v) Shri M.K. Jiwrajka, Inspector
General of Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forests as Member
Secretary. They all are appointed in their personal capacity. A formal
notification will be issued within a week. As and when this
notification is issued, whatever functions and responsibilities had
been given to the Empowered Committee will now be exercised by
this Statutory Committee.'
At this time as the Committee gave me hope when I despaired
about the state of both forest and tiger in India, I wrote a piece
about this in September 2002.1 reproduce the same here:
The State of the Indian Tiger 2002
(The Status)
It is the eve of the thirtieth anniversary of Project Tiger. When Project
Tiger started in 1973 the population of India was about 780 million;
today it is nearly 1.1 billion. From nine tiger reserves in 1973 it has
come to twenty-nine in 2002. When Project Tiger began there were
an estimated 1,800 wild tigers. I believe today nearly thirty years
later there are about the same number alivemaybe a few hundred
more. So is it success or failure? This is the really difficult question
that faces us. In 1992 when poaching scandals swept across India I
did not believe the tiger would survive the turn of the century. It
did. So at some level the tigers' present state is a sign of success.
Let us quickly glance across to where these 1,8002,000 tigers
live:
1. I think, one of the best populations of wild tigers live off the
western coast of India where the forests of Karnataka, Kerala,
and Tamil Nadu meet in the protected areas of Nagarahole,
Bandipur, Madhumalai, and endless tracts of connecting
reserve forests. Somewhere between 4,000 to 5,000 sq km of
superb forest could house more than 300 tigers. This is the
best tiger turf in India today.
2. Another large chunk of more than 3,000 sq km of forest,
bordering the states of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra in
central India right from the Satpura and Betul forest to
Melghat, could house more than 150 tigers. This is a lovely
forest but densities of both tiger and prey are on the low side.
3. The Sundarbans right across eastern India and Bangladesh on
the edge of the sea and covering nearly 5,000 sq km of fantastic
mangrove forests could have more than 300 tigers. These are
the only three largest chunks left in India with living tigers.
Single large protected areas like Kanha, Corbett, Kaziranga, and
a few others and their surrounding forests could have 100 each.
And then there are some tiny gems, little islands of tigers like
Ranthambhore, Panna, Bandhavgarh, and Tadoba that keep smaller
tiger populations alive. At some level the overall situation is bleak.
The larger populations of tigers over contiguous forests are declining.
Keeping them alive is one of the biggest challenges for the government
since they have to deal with complex issues across states and countries.
The forests are fragmented to a much greater extent than ever before
and connectivity from one to another has nearly vanished. The levels
of illegal encroachments have been enormous eroding the corridors.
In the last five years local extinctions of tigers have started to take
place and in my opinion the population declines by 150-200 each
year.
Some of India's premier national parks have isolated populations
that if well protected, will continue to survive. Besides the few large
chunks left, the future is in keeping alive small populations in very
well-protected belts of forests that will probably have no connectivity
with other areas; genetic health will always be a question mark in
the future. Tigers in these small pockets will always be under pressure.
Today to develop any pragmatic strategy we must look at this
very complex scenario ahead of us and not wrap ourselves in any
false illusion of saving vast tracts of forest and tigers.
Effective Strategiesa Blueprint for Action
I have spent twenty-seven years of my life working with and for
wild tigers. Over the last two years I have tried to assess what really
works and what does not work in saving tigers. It is clear to me that
whether it is non-governmental organizations or indeed the
government itself spending large sums of money is not the answer.
In fact money does not in itself solve the problem or save wild tigers.
So what does?
1. In India one of the most vital strategies for individuals, NGOs
or others to follow is to get the right man posted to the right
job, be it the director of the protected area or even the ranger.
The team that governs an area must be handpicked. This is
the toughest job because it does not come with a 'fancy' project
proposal. It comes with advocacy, persuasion, and good
contacts and when all these factors effectively place people in
the right position there is rapid success. No amount of jeeps,
trucks, rural work, or other funding can help if the right team
is not in place. So this process involves lobbying and creating
political and administrative will to select the right team. And,
then the right teams need to be inspired by recognition and
awards.
2. When and only when such a team is in place, should
international NGOs come to assist, be it for any bit of
infrastructure that is necessary. The Indian counterparts should
only focus on ensuring that the team remains in place without
its personnel being transferred. Ensure a long tenure of
serviceit saves tigers. This can be done by advocacy and
lobbying. Support the good forest officer and his team.
3. Equally important is to fund and support good scientific and
field research in protected areas where the team in place is
good. Field research not only provides clues to better
management but also monitors the health of the park. This is
a vital strategy to save tigers and forests in the future. This is
what international organizations should focus on, in terms of
maximum funding.
4. Legal efforts, public interest litigations, interlocutory
applications have all played a vital part to save the tigers' habitat
in the last decade. The Supreme Court of India and some of
the High Courts have played critical roles to keep tigers and
forests alive. There are nearly 200 positive court judgments in
this connection just in the last decade. What on earth would
the tiger have done without our judiciary!
5. Records, films, books, the media, good information, and its
dissemination are all vital in the above strategies. Legal
judgments need to be distributed across Forest India so that
the orders are not only given the widest publicity but also
implemented. Each area needs a documentation centre.
Information is the bullet for conservation. It is through an
information cell that you can increase awareness and engage
more and more people in the battle ahead. Good authentic
information and documentation are vital for the law courts.
Information and documentation centres are essential for saving
wild tiger. This area has been much ignored by international
organizations. Sadly they do not realize its significance.
6. Encourage individuals (not NGOs) to deal with all these issues
as stated above. Individuals should firstly have a special interest
in wildlife watching and commitment to the cause of the
wilderness. It is these people that could make a difference and
determine if tigers live or die. They need small sums of money
to keep them going. It is time to provide 3-5 year grants or
stipends to individuals more like a tiger fellowship or monthly
wage that allows the person to focus fully on the issues at hand.
They could also run and update the information centres. This
will be vital to strengthen networking across the region.
Conclusion
For the moment nothing else should be considered by all those in
and outside India who wish to save tigers. Wind up the other
projects. The reason why many large international NGOs have
had little impact in the last decade is that they chose the wrong
things to do and both their Indian counterparts and themselves
gave little time to assessing the impact of their work or evaluating
their interventionsfew of them turned tiger literate, be it in India
or outside. The larger movement to save tigers suffered. It has
become too diverse and unfocussed and ridden with political
intrigue. Most of India' s success stories with tigers in the last
decade came because good forest officers and their t eams
performed. And our courts pronounced the right judgments. Most
others, especially the large organizations, came in to ride the
bandwagon and fly the ' donors' flag of success even when they
have no role in a success story. Only a few small organizations
played effective and useful roles. For me it has been tragic to watch
this process.
The f ut ur e is goi ng to be real l y t ough. I nt er nat i onal
organizationsdonors and their Indian count erpart smust
change course and strategy picking carefully on what to do and
funding small strategic amounts in the right target area. Ask if
you do not know. There are always people who will advise you
without charging a consultancy fee for it. Do not walk in blindly
it does more harm than good. So many well-intentioned strategies
have turned counterproductive. So much money has gone waste.
On the eve of the thirtieth anniversary let us change course
effectively. If we do not find a way to change course and with a
collective conscience, the tiger's process to virtual extinction will
be accelerated. So let us be realistic, let us save what we can, let us
keep tiny fortresses of the tiger like Ranthambhore secure. Let us
work with small isolated populationsthere is not very much
else to work with. Our government strategies will focus fully on
the large chunks that run across states and countries. We on our
own must target the smaller areas before it is too late.
No mor e s t ampi ng l ogos of success on di f f er ent
interventionslet us enjoy the silence for a while and work hard.
Success will come without us shouting about it.'
It is remarkable, but as the year 2002 draws to a close there is
both hope and despair. They cling together over the fate of both
forest and wildlife.
Late in 2002 the Supreme Court did the forests and wildlife of
India a supreme service and a series of landmark j udgment s/
or der s wer e gi ven based on t he r ecommendat i on of our
Committee.
1
As far as I am concerned, I learnt a lot about the legal system
and its impact on our wilderness in 2002. I also realized that
without legal intervention nothing is safe. If there is a fear in the
enforcer of law or even the violator of law it comes from the courts.
My work with the Central Empowered Committee has been a
great learning experience. By November 2002 and after the
Kudr emukh j udgment
2
t here wer e effort s to di sband t he
committee. It is typical of India that when important work is being
done someone somewhere wants to neutralize it. But we carry on.
1. See Appendix IV.
2. See Appendix V.
In December 2002 just before the year turned I received the
awful news of the snaring of a radio collared tigress in Panna,
Madhya Pradesh. I Knew her well and watched her closely with
my friend Dr R.S. Chundawat. Poachers had killed her and left
her two seven month cubs orphaned. The ability of man to destroy
is amazing. As the year closed I mourned her death. Only weeks
before a tigress had been poisoned in Ranthambhore also leaving
behind two helpless cubs. The battles for securing the wilderness
of India in the twenty-first century woul d be enormousmy
fingers are crossed that a younger generation of both forest officer
and those outside government will find ways to work together
strategically. This is the only hope for the future. The right team
t hat enforces new l aws and court orders, wi t h a spirit of
togetherness.
Appendix I
B
urton never stopped writing his missiles and by 1950 was
repeatedly reminding the government of the state of affairs
and its failures. His memorandum was minutely detailed. The
memorandum is reproduced here from The Preservation of Wildlife
in India, a compi l at i on by R. W. Burton (1953), Bangalore:
Bangalore Press, pp. 14-51:
A Memorandum
Memorandum submitted by Lieut. Colonel R. W. Burton on 16 October
1950 to the Under Secretary to the Government of India in the
department of scientific research, New Delhi, for use by the sub-
committee constituted by the Advisory Committee for Coordinating
Scientific Work to examine and suggest ways and means for setting up
national parks and sanctuaries in India.
The sub-committee met at New Delhi on 23 and 24 July 1951.
1. Preliminary(a) It is suggested that the Sub-Committee consider
this Memorandum para by para and make suitable suggestions to the
Advisory Committee.
(b) It is also suggested that the Sub-Committee Members refresh their
memories by reading through the original pamphlet, J.B.N.H.S,
Vol. 47, No. 4, August 1948 and the Supplement to it Vol. 48, No. 2 of
April 1949.
(c) Some of the Members may not possess these. Suggest the references
may be made available to them on loan from the Office concerned; also
other references mentioned in this Memorandum.
2. LegislationNational ParksThe several National Parks Acts enacted
in India are not available to me. So far as I know, these Acts have not
provided for the Board of Trustees system of control which has been
considered in other countries (U.K. and Kenya) as giving the greatest
security.
'Government and policies change, demands based on economic needs
or political expediency arise which, though they may be of a temporary
nature only, it may be difficult for the Government to resist, and a Park
established by an Ordinance could with moderate ease be modified or
abolished by another.' ...' The areas chosen can be leased by the Crown
(The State) to the Trustees for a period of 999 years, the Trustees being
empowered to carry out their duties in accordance with the condition
laid down in the Deed of Trust... lease is harder to break (than an
Ordinance) and, in our opinion, gives the greatest security, which is the
goal at which we aim.'
3. I suggest that a National Edifice designed to last a thousand years
should have the best possible foundation. Perhaps, in India, Trustee
System is not necessary. The Law Officers will know. Whatever is the
more secure may be adopted.
4. Two Kinds of ParksThe Sub-Committee will doubtless have in
mind two kinds of National Parks. No. 1 Wildlife purposes only. No. 2
Dual purposes, viz., for both wildlife and monuments. .
5. Definitions. No. 1An area dedicated by Statute for all time to and
for the people for the preservation of the flora and fauna of the selected
area in all its aspects. No. 2'An area dedicated by Statute for all time
to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the
wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
APPENDIX III 3 7 3
enjoyment of future generations.' (p. 565, Proceedings and Papers,
International Technical Conference for the Protection of Nature, Lake
Success, 22-29, VIII, 1949).
6. Number and LocationNo. 1. Suggest there may be as far as possible
one in each State and Union.
(a) ASSAMSuggest that the lately Gazetted Tirap Frontier National
Park be not further proceeded with as regards Tourists. It may be tried
out as a sanctuary for the species that are now in it.
As to Frontier National Parks reference may be had to the before-
mentioned Lake Success Proceedings and Papers. Suggest that at the
present time it is not expedient to form any National Park or Sanctuary
having any part of the area contiguous to any of the Frontiers of the
Republic of India.
(b) ASSAMSuggest possibility of a National Park along Dimapur,
Nichuguard, Kohima, Mao, Karong and Imphal to the Loktak Lake of
Manipur State as suggested by Mr. E.P. Gee, see Vol. 49, p. 87.
(c) Of No. 2 suggest Mount Abu and such area around the Hill as
may be available for a dual-purpose National Park. The Sub-Committee
will have other places in mind for similar purposes (Mandu, Parasnath
and others).
7. Zoological ParksThese, on the lines of Whipsnade Park in England,
are suggested as show places attractive to tourists of other countries, and
for the instruction and enjoyment of the people of cities and large towns:
Bombay, Calcutta, Allahabad, Jaipur, Delhi, Nagpur, Jubbulpur, Indore,
Gwalior, Hyderabad, Mysore, Bangalore, Madras may be mentioned;
there are others also.
(a) Area of such Zoo Parks may approximate 500 acres or one square
mile. They will require secure and permanent fencing all round the
perimeter.
(b) It is in mind that in these Parks, birds and animals should not be
confined in cages but afforded the greatest possible libertycarnivore
included. For the two articles descriptive of Whipsnade, see Vol. 36,
p. 378 and Vol. 39, p. 321.
(c) It is envisaged that these Zoo Parks would become completely
self-supporting, enhance the wildlife prestige of India, and be much
appreciated by all classes of the people in the several States and Unions.
(d) AmenitiesFor each of these parks there would need to be
provided a small, well-designed township of strictly enclosed and limited
extent with suitable Hotels, Restaurants, Garages and other
accommodation for the visitors of all classes; also a Bazar, Market, etc.
Rail communication is desirable; otherwise good and sufficient approach
roads. Near the entrance gates would be motor vehicle and cycle-parking
places.
(f) WaterWhere at all possible, sites selected for Zoo Parks and
Peoples' Parks (see below) should have running streams or canals passing
through or near them.
8. Peoples' Parks(a) Nearly all that is in mind as to these is in para 12
of the Wildlife Supplement.
(b) To that is now added that all these Parks should contain sheets of
water to attract wildfowl and waders. In New Zealand, small Municipal
Parks on the above lines are a great asset to the towns, especially in the
South Island.
Establishments for both the above Parks would be arranged by the
cities and towns with which they are linked. The Staff designations might
be Park Superintendent, Officer, Assistant, Attendant and the uniforms
designed accordingly.
9. National Parks: EstablishmentsSuggest these should necessarily be
separate from the Forest Department establishments.
(a) Personnel in all grades may, at the commencement, be obtained
from the forest department by nomination and by selection from among
applicants from the forest department cadres.
(b) In some of the grades ex-military men might be employed.
(c) It is in mind, based on observation in India, Burma, Ceylon that
guards and watchers had best not be from among neighbouring
populations.
(d) DesignationsSuggest Warden, Deputy Warden, Assistant
Warden, Park Superintendent, Ranger, Guard, Watcher, Fire-Watcher,
Attendant for the several grades.
APPENDIX III 3 7 5
(e) Dress: As may be designed. In case of ranks below Ranger suggest
'National Park' on headdress with designation on chest. From Warden
to Ranger inclusive shoulder strap indications of status.
10. TrainingAs may be arranged, (a) Suggest three Officers may be
deputed soon as may be, to America, Europe, United Kingdom to acquire
knowledge of principles, methods, and all useful details regarding
National Parks, game control, conservation and management.
(b) Suggest these three Officers should possess B.Sc. Degree, have
wildlife preservation at heart, and have force of character.
(c) They would have much to learn, and much would depend upon
them in regard to success of National Parks and Sanctuaries in India.
(d) In due course compilation of Manual would be necessary.
(e) SalariesThese would be suggested by the Sub-Committee and
the Advisory Council and be decided by the governments. They might
approximate those of the forest department in the corresponding grades.
11. General RemarksSuggest that at the present time there is urgency
in selecting, demarcating and providing for the layout and administration
of the areas to be devoted to the purpose of wildlife national parks where
such are contemplated.
12. Selection of AreaA long-term view, fifty years and more, with
much forethought and mature consideration is necessary. Every aspect
has to be weighed and considered; for it can be anticipated that within
the stated number of years all usable land will be required for the ever-
advancing claims of agriculture, forestry and other human activities.
Therefore, so far as can be foreseen, none such should now be taken up
for a National Wildlife Park.
13. Suggest the Selection Committee should be composed of
representatives of all departments concerned, together with two or three
co-opted non-official members.
14. Points to Consider(a) The area should comprise natural game
country having abundant water, food and cover for all the creatures in
it.
(b) Size should be large enough to prevent overcrowding of species
and permit of overflow into contiguous Reserved Forests which should
be on at least three sides of the park.
(c) It may be eventually necessary to have much of the park protected
by fences.
(d) The area should contain no human habitations other than those
required for essential Warden and Park Control Establishments.
(e) Forest OperationsThere can be no extraction of timber and
other forest products other than providing essential needs of the park;
also no mining, quarrying, or water-supply project other than for essential
need of the park area.
(0 Type of Forest should be such as to allow animals being seen by
visitorsin some parts from the roads and others from elephant back.
(g) The park should be not too far from considerable areas of
population.
(h) Should be served by roads existing, or to be improved or made,
and have motorable roads within it for visitors and paths for the riding
elephants on hire for the visitors.
(i) WaterFor this a very long view is necessary. There must be an
ample and perennial supply for all species; and for the park establishments
and the visitors. Tanks, or sheets of water, or marshes are a very great
asset.
(j) Food and GrazingNeeds of all the creatures have to be thought
of and provided. In fact, the vital question of food has to be considered
in all its aspects and for all seasons of the year.
(k) EnvironmentAll animals depend for their existence upon
suitable environment, and this should be preserved as near as may be,
intact.
(1) Size of the park has to vary according to availability of land and
requirements.
(m) Natural Salt licks are essential to every park and are of vital
importance to the conservation of wildlife. Because of their attraction
to the animals they should be improved if necessary and safeguarded
from poachers in every possible way.
15. Lay-out(a) There should be a system of broader and narrower fire
lines and communication paths as obtains in well-managed reserved
forests.
APPENDIX III 3 7 7
(b) There would be suitably sited Quarters with water supply, by well
if necessary, for Guards and Fire-Watchers at outlying parts.
(c) Telephone communication would be established to connect these
with the Park H.Q. Establishment Office near the Main Entrance. Along
some of the paths tree machans for benighted patrolling staff may be
necessary.
16. Management(a) Basic to all success is need for trustworthy staff,
Wardens have to be trained observers; able to train, discipline and educate
their Establishments in all their duties; to inspire them with enthusiasm
and real pride in the condition of their park and the well-being of the
creatures under their charge.
(b) SelectionFrom this it is obvious that all members of the staff
have to be most carefully selected. They must be keen on the work before
them; lovers of wildlife; of sound health and good physique; amenable
to discipline; trustworthy, honest and as far as possible unrelated to
neighbouring population.
(c) In the upper grades they should be able to read and understand
the wildlife literature, which should be provided.
(d) A Manual would be compiled for their general guidance.
(e) All Establishments should be well paid, housed and cared for at all
times and all seasons.
(f) There should be cordial relations and close cooperation between
the Establishments of the National Park, the Forest Department, the
Police, and Establishments of the Civil Administration in all essential
grades.
17. Forestry(a) It may be necessary to deforest selected patches of
jungle to augment grazing. In these, and in jungle valleys, and along the
wider fire lines annual grass burning is a necessity; for neglect in this
allows of excessive growth of bush and thorny scrub which comes up
with great rapidity, blocks the glades, and through increasing denseness
of vegetation causes migration from the area of species such as sambar
and spotted deer.
(b) The narrower fire lines and the footpaths should be annually cleared
by hand implements.
(c) Where exotic fodder plants, such as clover, have been safely
introduced in the not far distant parts of the same tract of country, the
cultivation of them could be added with advantage to the local grazing
supplies. Advice of scientists could be obtained.
(d) To promote prosperous breeding seasons there has to be plenty of
grazing and water. Where there are elephants, rhinoceros, buffalos, bison
their needs have also to be thought of.
(e) For some animalsbears, monkeys, squirrels and for birds, fruit-
bearing trees and shrubs should be planted.
(f) Near selected salt licks there could be suitably constructed tree-
platforms to enable approved visitors (on payment) enjoy the sight of
wild animals in a state of natural environment.
18. Census(a) Basic to any management measures is as accurate as
possible knowledge of the size of the population, and the yearly changes
in its size.
(b) To the above end repeated censuses should be the basis of intelligent
management of game resources. The reduction of stock, if necessary,
should include the culling of female animals, and of males also should
that be indicated.
(c) Habitat improvement through modification of timber and grazing
arrangement can be made to increase game-carrying capacity.
19. CarnivoraIt would be necessary to maintain the right balance
between carnivore and herbivore.
19A. Park Management includes encouragement of the deer, pig and
monkey population to provide food for the larger carnivore and so lessen
depredations on domestic stock outside the area. Wild dogs would have
to be destroyed as interfering with food supply of tigers and panthers.
20. CrocodilesThe Park staff would take any measures found necessary
in respect to these animals.
21. ElephantsControl as regards these and all other animals so that
they do not unduly conflict with the use of land for production purposes
is the duty of the Park Warden and his Establishments. It is the duty of
the Warden to keep the population of game and wild fauna within
reasonable bounds.
APPENDIX III 3 7 9
22. Education of PublicResearch by scientists, and management by
Warden and Staff should be complemented by education of the public
in general, and in the neighbourhood of the Park in particular so that
they may support the programme.
23. SanctuariesSelection of areas to be declared as sanctuaries within
reserved forests has always been decided by the forest department, and
this excellent arrangement should continue.
24. Special SanctuariesConditions governing what may be termed
'special sanctuaries' which may be used as show places for tourists, and
may perhaps in some cases eventually attain the status of National Park,
are contained in para 19 of Wildlife Supplement. To that para should
now be added para I4(m) above as to salt licks.
Some of the other paragraphs in 14 are also applicable to formation
of'special sanctuaries'.
25. Preservation and GuardingIt has been remarked in several places
by others as well as myself that laws, rules and orders in respect to guarding
the forests and shooting within them are excellent in themselves, but the
difficulty lies in enforcement. That applies to both inside and outside
the forests.
26. LegislationGame Act, Bombay StateIn the Bombay State at the
present time a New Game Act is at the stage of being enacted. It is
suggested that this Act may be taken by the other States and Unions as a
model on which to frame their own Acts and Rules.
I have had something to do with the drafting but have not seen the
final draft so might have some suggestions to make.
The text of the Act, 'The Bombay Wild Birds and Wild Animals
Protection Act, 1951'together with Statement of Objects and Reasons,
is at pp. 818-852 ofVol. 49, No. 4 (1949).
Provision is made in the Act for confiscation of firearms by the
convicting Court, but not of 'vehicles' as I urged should be done in
conformity with the Excise Act (see under Poaching).
Definition of 'animal' is omitted. It might be:
'"animal" means any animal alive or dead whether vertebrate or
invertebrate or any portion thereof and includes a bird, fish or reptile.'
'Vegetation' is not defined: it might be:
'vegetation includes any form of vegetable matter alive or dead'
'trap' needs definition:
'"trap" includes any contrivance or device by means of which any
animal can be captured, injured or killed.'
Schedule I. VerminThis is defective in that neither all species of
Bats nor all Birds of Prey are harmful to the interests of man or of wildlife
conservation; indeed, some of each of these species are directly beneficial
to man's interests.
In the above respects the Bombay Act is not yet, as was hoped it
would be, wholly satisfactory as a model to be used as a guide to similar
Acts in other States and Unions.
The Rules under the Act are not yet to hand.R. W. B., November
1952.
27. Trapping and SnaringAgain it is urged that the time has long
gone by for Nomadic Tribes and other persons who gain their living by
trapping and snaring of game birds, antelope, gazelle and other creatures
to be turned to other pursuits.
Thousands of people have been deprived of their hereditary
occupations and turned to other pursuits in the interests of the
prohibition campaign. These harmful trappers and snarers could be dealt
with in a similar mannerand with good reason, for they are
exterminating birds and animals which are the inherited asset of the
people and the State.
Notices could be issued to all such who are licensed that these are
terminated from a stated date. Alternative to that is the disappearance of
some species and the eventual extermination of others.
28. Poaching(a) In two respects the Laws and Rules need important
amendment: Poaching through use of the motor vehicle and Poaching
through use of the electric torch.
Unless these two forces of destruction are halted, the larger wildlife of
India is doomed to extermination. That is my contention.
(b) An essential of game preservation is the prevention of the
'commercialization' of game. Much of the poaching donein South
APPENDIX III 3 8 1
India at any rateis for gain by sale of the meat or other products of
animal.
(c) It is necessary, I submit, that the Laws and Rules be amended to
provide that in case of conviction, the Court may order confiscation of
the motor vehicle, cycle, wheeled vehicle, firearm, torch or other gear
used in the commission of the offence, in addition to any other penalty
provided by the law. There is ample precedent in the Indian Excise Act
and Rules; and now there is support from the United Kingdom:
Editorial, The English Field newspaper, 6
th
May 1950:
Salmon poaching penaltiesAfter nearly two years of deliberation
and taking of evidence the Government's Committee on poaching and
illegal fishing for salmon and trout in Scotland has made its report.
'The Committee's recommendations for dealing with the situation
may be briefly summarized as: adequate penalties upon conviction; the
introduction of licences for the sale of salmon and trout; the obligation
to mark packages of salmon and trout when dispatching by post or rail;
the forfeiture of all gear including motor cars on conviction. There are,
of course, other suggestions for greater efficiency in detail.
The Tweed (England) has already provision whereby carts for
transporting the illegal fish are subject to forfeiture. This provision, which
should include motor cars, quite definitely, ought to be made applicable
to the whole country. It would be best to make the provision compulsory
on conviction, and not leave it to the discretion of the lower Court' (my
italics).
This is good precedent for my proposal that provision needs to be
made, in India, for the confiscation of motor vehicle in case of a
conviction for poaching.
(d) My contention is that the preservation of game animals, which
are the property of the State and a National Asset, is of at least equal
importance to the prevention of smuggling of opium, liquor and other
things penalized under the Excise Act (Recently1950in the Madras
State, in a liquor smuggling case, the order of the Court confiscating the
motor vehicle was upheld on appeal to the High Court).
(e) It naturally at once jumps to the mind that, from one point of
view, some of the subordinate staffs entrusted with the enforcement of
the game laws will joyfully welcome this new idea; while others who are
loyal to the necessity of preserving the animals from destruction, will
acclaim the extra power given for the suppression of offences.
(f) The new Bombay Act has accepted the idea as to firearms, but not
as to motor vehicles. Half measures are seldom effective.
(g) The Sub-Committee may carefully consider all the above and make
recommendation to the Advisory Committee.
(h) A recent Amendment to the Ceylon Ordinance gives power to
halt and examine motor vehicles passing along certain roads. Such
provision might with advantage be adopted in India.
29. Royalties(a) The Sub-Committee may recommend that the system
of Royalties provided in the Assam Rules should be introduced into
Reserve Forest Shooting Rules of all States and Unions.
(b) I can see no objection to this system. Sportsmen who can afford
the many expenses entailed by shooting big game can be reasonably
asked to make this further contribution towards the expenses incurred
by the State in conserving the animals for their sport.
30. Rewards for CarnivoraWithin Reserved Forests there should be
no rewards for killing tiger or panther, except in case of those which
have to be proclaimed. Rewards for wild dogs should remain and be
sufficiently attractive.
31. Bird Sanctuaries(a) In Ceylon there are upwards of 20 bird
sanctuaries, in India almost none. There are indications that the people
in rural areas would give good support to bird protection, except perhaps
where the species is desired for food.
(b) Bird Sanctuaries are desirable all over the country, and the Sub-
Committee may so recommend through the Advisory Committee to all
States and Unions.
(c) Wild fowlAt the Lake Success International Conference for the
Protection of Nature in August 1949 it was shown that the decreasing
number of migratory duck had become a matter of concern among
Western nations.
(d) It was considered that much could be done by prohibiting netting
of wild fowl on lakes and smaller waters, and that every nation should
APPENDIX III 3 8 3
be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices towards that end. Something
on those line could be done by the governments and people of India.
(e) In the Madras State indigenous duck and teal are afforded a close
season from 1
st
June to 30
th
September. The period might be from 1
st
April and apply to all species of wild fowl and water birds. Under the
guise of netting, both migratory and indigenous birds will be taken;
also, at present, the people are taking the eggs and fledglings of indigenous
duck, and that should be stopped. The Sub-Committee may recommend
as above.
32. The Great Indian Bustard(a) It is now a vanishing species and will
surely be exterminated unless effective measures are taken to preserve it
for the country.
(b) The bird lays only one egg, is large and conspicuous, and is
slaughtered for food by nomadic tribes and others.
(c) The only remedy is to apply provisions of Act VIII of 1912 by
Notification under Rules provided by the Act and give whole-year
protection. At the same time all district officers in all States and Unions
where the bustard is found should be directed to ensure by all means in
their power that the Notification is obeyed.
The Sub-Committee may recommend as above to the Advisory
Committee.
(d) The Lesser Florican is exceedingly scarce and needs whole-year
protection.
33. Close SeasonsGame Birds(a) The biological conditions of bird
life strictly govern reproduction. Not only must birds be undisturbed
during the breeding season, but equally during the preceding phases,
and subsequently, until the young are able to fend for themselves.
(b) Existing Schedules are all too complicated through attempting to
give precise close seasons for this, that and other bird. For this reason
they are confusing to even educated sportsmen and not understandable
by many of the ordinary people (Vol. 47, pp. 778-80 may be seen in
this regard).
(c) Schedules might provide for all game, and some other birds, form
15
th
February to 30
th
September as a common-sense close season.
34. Outside Reserved ForestsParagraphs 27, 31, 32, 33 refer to these
areas.
35. Within Reserved ForestsNational Parks and Sanctuaries(a) Some
aspects of wildlife in these appear to be in considerable danger.
(i) 'Forests can themselves become a menace to cultivation.' Deputy
Prime Minister, Dehra Dun, 2
nd
April 1950.
(ii) 'It is vital that the sentiment of the farmer must be raised against
all animals that destroy his crop. It is only when the farmer
cooperates with us in destroying wild animals, that we can hope
to reduce the great loss incurred,' p. 10, Madras Information,
June 1950.
(iii) 'The biologists must give lists of harmful and useful birds and
animals. While the friends of the cultivator should be encouraged
in the National Parks the enemies must be exterminated. The
biologists should give a finding whether campaigns should be
started for the destruction of wild boars, porcupines, monkeys,
bats and parrots who cause enormous damage to crops and
gardens.
Before any such campaigns are started it should be ascertained
whether harmful repercussion ... upsetting balance of power
... An action which prima facie may appear sensible and
desirable may have far-reaching and most unpleasant and
unforeseen consequences 50 years hence.' Address by M.S.
Randhawa, I.C.S., 36
th
Indian Science Congress, Allahabad, 6-
4-1949, p. 4 of reprint in this Volume,
(b) It is suggested the Sub-Committee may read all of Mr. Randhawa's
Address and bear it in mind; also the above (i), (ii), (iii) when making
recommendations to the Advisory Committee.
36. National Parks and SanctuariesIt seems that many people have
the idea that once these are created in large numbers, the game in the
rest of the country can go, and the sooner the better.
As regards game birds it is very wrong idea. Even now, partridges and
jungle fowl are fast disappearing, and all the game birds are in need of
protection.
APPENDIX III 3 8 5
It is possible that, at certain seasons, partridges and other game birds
may eat grain if given a chance. But it may be regarded as certain that
the damage done to crops is small, and is balanced by the good they do
by destroying insect pests and seeds of harmful weeds. Partridges in
particular are almost wholly beneficial, and he who would try to make
out a case against them would be an ignorant man.
The Sub-Committee may keep in mind that much as will be the
good resulting from well-cared-for and well-guarded national parks and
sanctuaries, there is need for game preservation throughout the rest of
the country [see Vol. 48, No. 4, p. 293, para 13 (iii)]
37. Funds for Wildlife(a) The Sub-Committee may see the List at p.
617, Vol. 47, No. 4, August 1948 and consider that revenue should aid
the source from which derived, and make suitable recommendations.
(b) In France there is a Special Contribution towards game
conservation automatically levied at same time as licence fees. This is
earmarked and cannot be used for any other purpose.
It is suggested this logical item may be added as item 18 of the List
and apply to items 4, 6, 7.
38. Obiter DictaThe following are taken from various papers
contributed by experts to the International Congress, Lake Success,
August 1949 and presented as useful to keep in mind.
(a) 'Game' should include Mammals, Birds, Reptiles.
'Animal' means any vertebrate animal other than a domestic animal.
(b) The management of wildlife resources both animals and birds,
can only be established on a scientific basis.
(c) Any wild animal population must not only be undisturbed during
its breeding season but equally during the preceding phases.
(d) In respect to all projects and measures concerning wildlife there
should be a wholly accurate background of scientific knowledge and
research.
(e) Conservation and Control must be combined into a common
policy. There should be a balanced picture of control, as well as
conservation; that is, conservation means preservation plus control.
(f) Conservation implies the preservation in perpetuity of a reasonable
quantity of game and wild fauna on account of their educational,
scientific, economic, recreational and aesthetic value. 'An important
principle of conservation is the utilization of natural resources for the
benefit of mankind' (Hubback).
'Conservation means the management of plant and animal life' (D.E.
Wade, p. 33,1U.P.N. Proceedings and Papers, Lake Success Conference).
(g) Control implies the need, which is growing fast, as human
population increases, to keep the population of game and wild fauna
within reasonable bounds, so that the animals do not unduly conflict
with the use of land for production purposes.
(h) Game Control may be defined as the sum total of the measures
that must be taken in the interests of man's crop, lands, cattle, etc.
(j) Game Control has a hundred aspects and a thousand facets; on its
successful prosecution depends the survival of much of the larger
indigenous fauna of any country, and of the game also.
(k) Game Control needs exact knowledge and experience and cannot
be left to casual effort.
(1) Game Conservation means the management of game in the interests
of the animals and the people using the land. And there are the troubles
from the upset of the balance of nature.
(m) Game Preservation means the shielding of game from man and
his instinct to kill.
(n) Once disregard of the law is allowed to start, there is not stopping
it.
(o) There should be no kind of admission that a man may hunt to
provide himself and his dependents with food.
(p) Game Reserves and other areas which cannot be properly
administered become the happy hunting ground of poachers.
(q) National Parks, Sanctuaries, Reserves must be adequately guarded.
'"Adequate" means a staff, well-trained, loyal, trustworthy and having
enthusiasm and real pride in the well-being of the flora and fauna under
their charge' (Keith Caldwell) ('clarification' of that is a Wildlife
Department, or similar organization within the forest department).
39. International Forestry Conference, Mysore, April 1949.
APPENDIX III 3 8 7
The closing Resolution:
'It is recommended that forests be zoned into Strict Natural Reserves,
National Parks and Intermediate Areas, and a system of Sanctuaries,
close seasons and rest periods within open seasons.
Effective steps should be taken to check unlicensed and unrestricted
forms of killing and capture, and that protective measures be adopted
for the preservation of threatened species by declaring them to be partially
or absolutely protected, and a rigorous control and prevention of the
sale and export of both live animals and skins, and, if necessary, by a
complete embargo.'
40. Close Season for Big GameIn a Note published in Vol 39, No. 3,
p. 621, 'Close Seasons for Big GameAre they beneficial?' Colonel R.
C. Morris states the various breeding seasons and shows that, in the
majority of cases, the protection a close season is supposed to afford is
not, in fact, beneficial to the animals.
The argument is:
'In view of the fact that during the close season a very large number
of animals are slaughtered by poachers who cannot then be disturbed by
sportsmen in the jungles, consider that a general close season in respect
of big game should be abolished in South India.'
I am in full agreement with that. The same argument would apply all
over India. So far as law-abiding sportsmen are concerned no close season
is necessary, and what he may, or may not shoot at is entered on his
licence.
41. LandsMultipurpose ProjectsApart from the Reserved Forests,
National Parks and Sanctuaries now in existence or to be established in
the future there are, in many parts of India, lands which have been or
will be taken up by governments in connection with water-control
projects, irrigation works and canals.
All these are capable of more or less afforestation and wildlife
development. There will be in the current records of the department of
Scientific Research representations by the Director of Zoological Survey
of India in this respect, and no doubt they are being considered by the
Advisory Committee.
42. It is only the backward state of Indian Fisheries and the ineffective
methods of fishing which have so far saved the river fisheries of India
from utter ruin.
It was this incredibly detailed work that was done in the early 1950s
to redraft the wildlife laws for Bombay that was later to become the core
of the 1972 Wildlife Protection Act.
Appendix II
Reproduced from The Preservation of Wildlife in India, a compilation
by R. W. Burton (1953), Bangalore: Bangalore Press, pp. 165-73.
Resolutions adopted by the central board for
Wildlife at its first session held in Mysore from
25 November to 1 December 1952
1. Name:
The central board for wildlife recommends that its name be changed
to 'Indian Board for Wildlife', so as to specify its precise territorial limits
for international purpose.
2. Declaration of the Central Board for Wildlife as an Institution of
National Importance:
Whereas India's heritage of wildlife is fast becoming a vanishing asset
in respect of some of the country's notable animals, such as, lion,
rhinoceros, tragopan, cheetah, etc.
Whereas the preservation of the fauna of India and the prevention of
the extinction of any species are a matter of great national importance,
and
Whereas protection and balance with natural and human environment
are also matters of urgent national importance,
The Central Board for Wildlife
Recommends to the Government of India that, despite the existence
of entry 20 'Protection of Wild Animals and Birds' in List II (State List)
of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Central Board
for Wildlife, with the marginally noted functions assigned to it under
the Ministry of Food and Agriculture Resolution f. 7-110/51 -R, of the
4
th
April 1952, be declared by Parliament by Law to be an institution of
national importance as envisaged in Items 62 and 64 of List IUnion
Listof the VII Schedule to the Constitution more specifically as the
proper exercise of the functions of the Board will involve recourse to
action under one or more of the following entries in the Union and
concurrent Legislative Lists:
List IItem 5Arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives.
List IItem 13Participation in the International Conferences,
Associations and other bodies and implementing of decisions made
thereat, e.g., the International Union for the Protection of Nature.
List IItem 41Trade and Commerce with foreign countries; import
and export across customs frontiersin so far as living animals, trophies,
skins, furs, feathers and other wildlife products are concerned.
List IItem 42Inter-State Trade and Commerce with respect to
matters specified against the preceding entry (No. 41).
List IItem 81(Union List)Inter-State migration (of wildlife).
List IIIItem 17 (Concurrent List)Prevention of the extension
from one State to another of infectious or contagious diseases or pests
affecting men, animals or plants.
List IIIItem 33 (Concurrent List)Trade and Commerce in and
the production, supply and distribution of the products of industries
where the control of such industries by the Union is declared by
Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.
[Sub-Section (2) of Article 246 enables Parliament to make laws with
reference to any of the matters enumerated in List III]
(i) to devise ways and means for the conservation and control of
wildlife through coordinated legislative and practical measures,
with particular reference to seasonal and regional closures and
APPENDIX III 3 9 1
declaration of certain species of animals as 'protected' animals
and prevention of indiscriminate killing;
(ii) to sponsor the setting up of National Parks, Sanctuaries and
Zoological Gardens;
(iii) to promote public interest in wildlife and the need for its
preservation in harmony with natural and human environment;
(iv) to advise Government of policy in respect of export of living
animals, trophies, skins, furs, feathers and other wildlife
products;
(v) to prevent such other functions as are germane to the purpose
for which the Board has been constituted.
3. Amendment of the Constitution of the Central Board for Wildlife
Whereas the Constitution of the Central Board for Wildlife set up by
the Government of India requires elaboration and amplification with a
view to devising ways and means for the proper fulfilment of its aims
and objects,
The central board for wildlife recommends
(a) that each State Government should be requested to set up a State
Wildlife Board consisting of representatives of various organizations and
interests to deal with the day-to-day administration of local wildlife
problems.
Note: The coordination of the activities of the State Boards will be
effected through the Central Board for Wildlife.
(b) That Honorary Regional Secretaries should be appointed as the
Board's representatives to cover on its behalf the various regions in India.
Note: Appointment of Honorary Regional Secretaries will be made
by the Government of India and duly notified in the Gazette of India.
Each Regional Secretary will maintain liaison between the Central Board
and the State Boards. It will be necessary to make provision for the
travelling allowance of the Regional Secretaries for the journeys performed
by them in their respective regions in the discharge of their duties assigned
to them by the Board.
(c) That Dr. S. L. Hora, Director, Zoological Survey of India and
President, National Institute of Sciences, India should be appointed as
the Honorary Secretary-General of the Board.
(d) That for the day-to-day administration, an Executive Committee
consisting of the following be constituted:
The Non-Official Vice-Chairman (Chairman)
The Regional Secretaries
The Secretary General
The Secretary of the Central Board (Secretary)
Note: The Executive Committee will be vested by the Board with
authority to function on its behalf in the disposal of day-to-day business.
(e) that the Constitution of the Board should be so amended as to
cover the above recommendation.
4. Executive Committee:
Whereas it is necessary to provide the Executive Committee of the
Board with authority to carry on the day-to-day business of the Board
and to take action on its behalf while the Board is not in session.
The central board for wildlife resolves
(a) that the Executive Committee is vested with full powers to take
necessary action in pursuance of the objects of the Board to deal with
the day-to-day business of the Board and to address the Central
Government and other authorities on various matters concerning the
business of the Board;
(b) that the Executive Committee will transact its business by
circulation as far as possible and will meet at least once in 6 months;
(c) that the Executive Committee will frame bye-laws for the disposal
of its own business of the Board subject to the ratification of the Board;
(d) that the proceedings of the Executive Committee shall be circulated
to the members of the Board in the form of periodical Bulletins;
(e) that in the event of a decision to be taken in respect of a State, the
representative of the State concerned on the Board shall be co-opted;
and
(f) that the Executive Committee is authorized to make verbal
alterations in the language of the Resolution to be presented to
Government.
5. Thanks to Mysore Government.
The central board for wildlife resolves
APPENDIX III 3 9 3
That its grateful appreciation of the generous arrangements made for
holding its Inaugural Session at Mysore should be conveyed to the
Government of Mysore.
In particular, the Board would like to convey its gratitude to His
Highness the Rajpramukh for his unstinted hospitality and for the interest
he has taken in the Proceedings of the Session.
The Board also acknowledges with thanks the assistance rendered by
the Chief Conservator of Forests, Mysore and his Staff in organizing
visits to various institutions and making arrangements for the delegates.
6. Protection of Nature and Wildlife.
Whereas the preservation of Nature in its unspoiled state is deemed
essential for its educative and aesthetic value,
Whereas wildlife in India is progressively diminishing,
Whereas some of the wild animals have already become extinct or are
on the verge of extinction,
And Whereas the maintenance of an equilibrium between the vegetable
kingdom and the animal kingdom and among the animals themselves is
of importance to mankind.
The central board for wildlife recommends that the attention of the
state governments should be drawn to the need for:
(a) The creation of National parks in conformity with the general
objectives laid down by the International Union for the Protection of
Nature and affiliated bodies, provided that should a State create a National
Park, the advice of the Central Board for Wildlife will be taken to ensure
its national character.
Note: The term 'National Park' for this purpose would generally denote
an area dedicated by statute for all time, to conserve the scenery and
natural and historical objects of national significance, to conserve wildlife
therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner
and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of
future generations, with such modifications as local conditions may
demand.
(b) The creation of Wildlife Sanctuaries (or Wildlife Refuges) of such
size and in such numbers which the needs for the preservation of wildlife,
more particularly of the species which have become scarce or which are
threatened with extinction, may demand.
Note: 1 The expression 'Wildlife Sanctuary' shall denote an area
constituted by the competent authority in which killing, hunting,
shooting or capturing of any species of bird or animal is prohibited
except by or under the control of the highest authority in the department
responsible for the management of the Sanctuary. The boundaries and
character of such a sanctuary will be kept sacrosanct as far as possible.
Such sanctuaries should be made accessible to visitors.
2. While the management of sanctuaries does not involve suspension
or restriction of normal forest operations, it would be generally desirable
to set apart an area of 1 to about 25 square miles within a sanctuary
where such operations may not be carried out, to ensure the nursing up
of wildlife undisturbed by human activities. Such sacrosanct areas may
be declared as 'Abhayaranya, i.e., a forest where animals could roam
about without fear of man. Such a sanctuary within a sanctuary would
also ensure the preservation of plant life unspoiled and undisturbed.
3. In the management of sanctuaries, control should be exercised over
elements adverse to the maintenance of wildlife, including destruction
of vermin and predators. In the case of any difficulty, expert advice may
be obtained from the Central Board for Wildlife.
4. In the event of a sanctuary being located in one State contiguous to
a sanctuary in another State, the desirable co-ordination may be affected
through the Central Board for Wildlife.
(c) Imposing restrictions on the issue of shooting permits and by the
prohibition of shooting in State Forests of a particular species for such
periods as may be deemed necessary in order to attain the objectives in
regard to the preservation of wildlife.
Note: Special 'preservation plots' may be constituted where plants of
medicinal value or species of special botanical interest may need to be
preserved along with or without wildlife.
(d) Encouraging members of the public interested in wildlife to assist
in the preservation of wildlife by appointing them as Honorary Wildlife
Officers who will perform the duties and enjoy the powers and privileges
of Forest Officers in respect of preservation of wildlife delegated to them.
APPENDIX III 3 9 5
Note: All the Members of the Central and the State Wildlife Boards
as well as Honorary Wildlife Officers should be issued with a badge of
office and an identity card in consultation with the Central Board for
Wildlife.
(e) The setting up of Zoological Parks for the purpose of entertainment,
recreation and study of animal life.
Note: 1. These parks should provide ideal conditions for rescuing
and multiplying any species on the verge of extinction.
2. A Zoological Park is different from a zoological garden, in as much
as it provides space and secures conditions similar to those in the natural
habitats for the housing of animals, which are not possible in zoological
gardens.
(f) Modelling the administration of zoological gardens of the various
States along the lines of Alipore Zoo, Calcutta.
Note: the maintenance of zoos at a high standard of efficiency is
desirable, and advice in this respect may be obtained from the Honorary
Secretary-General of the Central Board for Wildlife.
(g) Declaring the following species as protected animals:
(i)
Indian Lion (viii) Musk deer
(ii)
Snow Leopard
(ix)
Brow-antlered deer
(iii)
Clouded Leopard
(x)
Pigmy Hog
(iv)
Cheetah
(xi)
Great Indian Bustard
(v)
Rhinoceros
(xii)
Pink-headed Duck.
(vi)
The Indian Wild Ass (xiii) White-winged Wood Duck.
(vii)
Kashmir Stag
Note: This list is illustrative and not exhaustive and may have to be
added to from time to time to suit local conditions. Legislation should
be enacted where necessary to secure complete protection of these animals
and birds which are on the verge of extinction.
7. Protection of the Lion
Whereas the Indian lion, which not long ago was distributed
throughout North-West India,
Whereas the Indian lion has now receded to the confines of Gir Forest
in Kathiawar Peninsula, and whereas the Indian lion is an animal of
national importance requiring rigorous protection,
The central board for wildlife
Views with great alarm the dangers attendant upon concentrating
the remnant lions in a single locality and not immune from epidemic
and other unforeseen calamities;
Recommends that an additional locality as a Sanctuary for the lions
in a suitable area should be developed. In the selection of this locality,
the original range and environment of the lion shall be taken into
consideration.
And Requests that the attention of the Government of Saurashtra
should be invited to the need for associating the Central Board for
Wildlife in the management of the lions of the Gir Forest.
8. Trading in Trophies, Skins, Furs, Feathers and Flesh;
Whereas unrestricted trading in trophies, skins, furs, feathers and
flesh is detrimental to the wildlife resources of the country,
(a) that the export of trophies, as defined in the Bombay Protection
of Wild Animals and Wild Birds Act 1951 (XXIV of 1951) should be
prohibited except in cases which are covered by a Certificate of Ownership
issued by the prescribed authority of the Central or State Governments
such as Forest or Revenue Officers, etc., or whose ownership is otherwise
established.
Note: This provision will not apply to the re-export of trophies sent
to India for finishing on the production of a certificate of the owner.
(b) that legislative control of internal trade in trophies should, for the
present, await the experience to be gained in the Bombay State where
legislation in this respect is being brought into force shortly.
(c) that, in the meanwhile, in order to discourage trading in trophies
inside the country and to prohibit (a) the netting of birds and animals
during 'close' periods, (b) their sale, (c) the sale of venison, (d) the sale of
fish and parts of other wild animals, the Government of India should
invite the attention of the State Governments to the advisability of
enforcing the provisions of Act VIII of 1912, as amended from time to
APPENDIX III 3 9 7
time, or such other legislation as might have been enacted or extended
for the purpose.
9. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Whereas in the interests of wildlife, and for humane reasons, it is
necessary to prevent cruelty to animals and birds during captivity and
transit,
that the cooperation of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (S.P.C.A.) should be sought in this connection and that
Honorary Wildlife Officers in every centre be requested to report all
cases of cruelty to animals and birds in captivity and during transit.
10. Netting of Wild Birds and Animals.
Whereas extensive netting of wild animals and birds is prejudicial to
the maintenance of the balance of nature and is detrimental to the wildlife
of the country, the Central Board of Wildlife recommends
that the netting of wild animals and birds should be stopped during
'close' seasons and that no exemptions should be permitted on grounds
of tribal or caste customs, livelihood, profession or usage.
11. Export and Import of Living Animals and Birds.
Whereas the unrestricted export of living animals and birds tends to
deplete the fauna of the country,
And Whereas the unrestricted import of animals and birds is not in
the interests of local fauna,
(a) that the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports be requested to
fix the annual limits for the export of each valuable species of wildlife to
zoos, scientific institutions and circuses outside India on the
recommendation of the Secretary General of the Board,
(b) that all requests for imports of living specimens of wild life by
zoos, scientific institutions and circuses in India should be routed through
the Honorary Secretary General of the Board,
(c) that the excise duty to be levied on the export of animals for circuses
should be double the duty levied on animals intended for bona fide zoos
and scientific institutions, provided that gifts and exchanges between
bona fide zoos be exempt from such duties.
(d) that the State Governments be requested to give priority to the
requirements of zoos in India in respect of species of wildlife over the
requirements of foreign zoos, provided that the restrictions contemplated
in the aforesaid clauses shall not apply to exports of species classified as
'vermin'.
Note: The phrase 'vermin' is defined in the Bombay Wild Animals
and Wild Birds Protection Act (XXIV of 1951) as 'any animal or bird
declared to be vermin under Section 18'.
12. 'Close' Season.
Whereas owing to lack of uniformity in the periods prescribed by
different State governments as 'close' seasons, it is difficult for the
Transport Authorities to keep a check on 'close' season offenders,
that movements of living birds be prohibited from 1
st
April to 30
th
September which, for all practical purposes, will be treated as 'close'
season for purposes of transport.
Note: This restriction will not apply to movement for bona fide
purposes, e.g., exchange of specimens by zoos and transport of birds by
circuses, etc.
13. Statistics
Whereas it is essential for the Central Board to maintain statistics of
species of wildlife,
that all State Governments be requested to furnish information on
the following points to its Secretary-General:
(a) urplus species held by their zoos for disposal,
(b) species required by their zoos and
(c) animals that can be captured in their forests.
14. Symposium.
Whereas it is necessary to focus attention on problems of educating
the public on the value of wildlife,
APPENDIX III 3 9 9
And Whereas Zoos and National Parks are institutions for such
education,
that symposium should be held at an early date on the
(a) Indian Zoos, and
(b) Management of National Parks and Sanctuaries so as to assist in
the formulation of policies in regard to the maintenance of wildlife
exhibits in the zoos and the management of National Parks and
Sanctuaries.
15. Cooperation of Public in Enforcement of Measures for the Protection
of Wildlife.
Whereas it is necessary to secure public cooperation in the enforcement
of measures or the protection of wildlife,
(a) that members of the public interested in Nature should be invited
to become Honorary Correspondents to the Board in matters relating
to wildlife; and
(b) that members of the Board should be appointed as Honorary
Wildlife Officers on behalf of the Board in respect of the Resolutions
and Recommendations passed and such instructions as may be issued
from time to time by the Board.
16. Wildlife Legislation.
Whereas it is necessary to preserve wildlife in the country as a whole,
Whereas the existing machinery for the protection of wildlife in areas
outside the purview of the Indian Forest Act XVI of 1927 or adaptations
thereof, is inadequate, and
Whereas the protection afforded to wildlife in areas within the purview
of the Indian Forests Act XVI of 1927, or adaptations thereof, requires
strengthening,
(a) that necessary legislation be enacted at an early date by the Centre
or the State Governments as the case may be.
Note: The attention of State Governments is invited to the existing
legislation for the protection of wildlife in various States and, in particular,
to the 'Bombay Wild Animals and Wild Birds Protection Act No. XXIV
of 1951' and the Rules framed thereunder.
17. 'Close' Seasons, Illicit Shooting, etc.
Whereas there is reason to believe that there is need for the amendment
of existing 'close' seasons observed in respect of birds and animals,
Whereas the list of animals and birds now treated as vermin needs re-
examination with a view to limiting it to only those animals and birds
which should be kept in check,
Whereas in some parts of the country there is wholesale destruction
of wildlife with the help of dogs,
Whereas shooting from vehicles, with or without blinding spot or
headlights, shooting with torches, shooting over salt licks and waterholes,
destroying animals by using poisons, explosives and poisoned weapons,
catching animals and birds by nets, traps, pits, snares, etc., and killing
animals by driving them in snow or by fire require to be discouraged in
the interests of the preservation of wildlife,
And Whereas the use of buckshot wounds rather than kills animals,
(a) that States do review, in consultation with the Central Board for
Wildlife, and, if possible with their contiguous States, their 'close' seasons
for the various animals and birds to be protected,
(b) that States should re-examine their lists of 'vermin' from time to
time to ensure that only harmful species are so classified, and
(c) that the attention of State Governments be invited to the urgent
need for devising ways and means and of adopting such measures,
including enactment of legislation, to discourage if not to prohibit, these
practices in the interests of wildlife.
18. Crop Protection Guns.
Whereas indiscriminate slaughter of wildlife is often indulged in with
the aid of guns ostensibly held for crop protection,
(a) that ways and means be devised to ensure that guns issued for
crop protection are used only for the protection of standing crops and
APPENDIX III 4 0 1
that the use of such guns for hunting or shooting should be prohibited
unless the licensee secures such other licences as are prescribed,
(b) that the quantity and type of ammunition available to the holders
of such guns should be restricted by the licensing authorities to such as
is required for protection of crops only.
Note: Licences should be generally issued for single-barrel guns only.
19. Buffer Belts Around Sanctuaries.
Whereas much destruction of wildlife goes on in areas contiguous to
sanctuaries, and
Whereas cattle-borne diseases are spread in such sanctuaries by
domestic cattle from surrounding areas,
that buffer belts of sufficient width be declared around all sanctuaries
within which no shooting, other than required for legitimate crop
protection, will be permitted and within which no professional graziers
will be allowed to establish their cattle pens.
20. Inoculation against Cattle-borne Diseases.
Whereas many preventable cattle-borne diseases among herbivorous
wild animals result from contact with infected domestic cattle in the
neighbourhood of 'forests',
that State Governments be requested to inoculate systematically and
periodically domestic cattle in the neighbourhood of National Parks,
Sanctuaries and Reserves where and when necessary.
21. Publicity.
Whereas insufficient use is being made at present of the existing
facilities of publicity afforded by the Press, Screen and Radio, for wildlife
protection,
(a) that adequate publicity material be issued form time to time by
the respective Central and State Publicity Departments in close
collaboration with Forest Departments and other organizations,
(b) that enthusiasts be approached to give publicity to wildlife,
(c) that documentary films dealing with various aspects of wildlife be
produced by Governments in consultation with the Central or State
Boards for Wildlife for exhibition in both urban and rural areas,
(d) that amateur cinema-photography of wildlife be encouraged, and
(e) that the All India Radio be requested to afford special facilities for
wildlife broadcasts.
22. Education.
Whereas there is general lack of knowledge regarding conservation of
nature and the value of wildlife, and
Whereas it is essential to educate public opinion in matters of wildlife,
that special steps be taken to popularize wildlife by introducing stories
in school textbooks, by producing attractive charts, by organizing special
lectures and through the establishment of Zoos and Zoological Parks in
the neighbourhood of large cities.
23. Liaison.
Whereas for the purposes of education and publicity coordination of
such Departments as Forest, Agriculture, Horticulture, Scientific
Research, Transportation (Tourist), and Information and Broadcasting
is essential,
that steps be taken through the Central and State Wildlife Boards to
coordinate the activities of all connected Departments in matters of
management, publicity and education concerning wildlife.
1
Appendix III
Recommendations of the Indian Board for
Wildlife on Wildlife Sanctuaries: The Early Days
Various resolutions relating to wildlife sanctuaries and national
parks have been passed by the Indian Board for Wildlife and its
executive committee at successive meetings from 1952 to 1961.
These are to be found scattered here and there among resolutions
on other subjects in the proceedings of the nine meetings, and it
has been considered advisable to extract them and publish them
in a compact form in the order in which they were passed. The
relevant resolutions on wildlife sanctuaries are as follows:
The creation of wildlife sanctuaries (or wildlife refuges) of such size and
in such numbers where the needs for the preservation of wildlife, more
particularly of the species which have become scarce or which are
threatened with extinction, may demand.
The expression 'wildlife sanctuary' shall denote an area constituted
by the competent authority in which killing, hunting, shooting, or
capturing of any species of bird or animal is prohibited except by or
under the control of the highest authority in the department responsible
for the management of the sanctuary. The boundaries and character of
such a sanctuary should be made accessible to visitors.
While the management of sanctuaries does not involve suspension or
restriction of normal forest operations, it would be generally desirable
to set apart an area of one to about twenty-five square miles within a
sanctuary where such operations may not be carried out, to ensure the
nursing up of wildlife undisturbed by human activities. Such sacrosanct
areas may be declared as abhayaranya, i.e., a forest where animals could
roam without fear of man. Such a sanctuary within a sanctuary would
also ensure the preservation of plant life unspoiled and undisturbed.
In the management of sanctuaries, control should be exercised over
elements adverse to the maintenance of wildlife including destruction
of vermin and predators. In case of any difficulty, expert advice may be
obtained from the Indian Board for Wildlife.
In the event of a sanctuary being located in one State contiguous to a
sanctuary in another State, the desirable co-ordination may be effected
through the Indian Board for Wildlife.
That buffer belts of sufficient width be declared around all sanctuaries
within which no shooting, other than that required for legitimate crop
protection, will be permitted and within which no professional graziers
will be allowed to establish their cattle pens... and that State Governments
be requested to inoculate systematically and periodically domestic cattle
in the neighbourhood of national parks, sanctuaries and reserves where
and when necessary.
Inaugural Session, Mysore, 1952
Wildlife sanctuaries are areas ordinarily set apart by an Order of the
State Government for the purpose of preserving wildlife. The
management of such sanctuaries is adequately dealt with under Resolution
6: 'Protection of Nature and Wildlife' of the Mysore Session of the Board
held in 1952. The Board recommends that sanctuaries conforming to
the standards laid down under Resolution 6(b) of the Mysore Conference
may be constituted as such.
In many States there may be areas where it may be considered
expedient:
(i) to afford special protection to wildlife, in order to enable species
of wildlife which are on the verge of extinction to re-establish themselves,
APPENDIX III 4 0 5
(ii) to afford protection to wildlife attracted to water impounded in
river valley projects and to other irrigation work, and
(iii) to afford protection to wildlife in and around large towns and
sacred places.
Such areas may be constituted by an Order of the Government which
may also lay down the degree of protection.
Second Session, Calcutta, 1955
That the State Governments take suitable steps for providing sufficient
food and cover to wildlife in the sanctuaries.
Fourth Session, Ootacamund, 1961
Recommendations of the Indian Board
for Wildlife on National Parks
There has been a slight but significant evolutionary change in the
policy concerning legislation to be adopted for national parks in
India. In 1952 and 1953 it was hoped that by a slight revision of
Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution it would be possible to
get national parks placed on List III (the Concurrent List). Later it
was found that this was not possible, and so the anomaly became
apparent that national parks, essentially an all-India affair, were
a state subject and would have to be created by Acts of the state
legislatures.
In order to ensure the national character of such parks and
uniformity in the various States, it was then decided to draw up a
model bill which would serve as a basis on which states could
frame their own legislation for national parks. This model bill
was ci rcul at ed to all st at es for comment s and suggest ed
amendments and was then vetted by the law ministry. In its
finalized form it was sent to all states in February 1957.
The relevant resolutions on national parks in the proceedings
of the successive meetings of the Indian Board for Wildlife and its
executive committee are as follows:
The creation of national parks in conformity with the general objectives
laid down by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and affiliated bodies.
Provided that should a State create a national park, the advice of the
Indian Board for Wildlife will be taken to ensure its national character.
The term 'national park' for this purpose would generally denote 'an
area dedicated by statute for all time, to conserve the scenery and natural
and historical objects of national significance, to conserve wildlife therein
and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by
such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations, with such modifications as local conditions may demand'.
Inaugural Session, Mysore, 1952
It is essential that there should be uniformity in the management of
national parks and the standards to be maintained should be of a high
order. The main reason for the non-establishment of national parks in
the country is that the State Governments are not in a position to finance
wholly by themselves the establishment of national parks. National parks,
the establishment of which has been recommended separately, may not
come into being without central advice and assistance from the centre.
In the United States 'national parks' is a federal subject and such parks
are entirely financed and controlled by the Federal Government. The
Central Government was contemplating amendment of the 7
th
Schedule
of the Constitution (List of Union, State, and Concurrent Subjects) on
the recommendation of the Commodity Controls Committee. Advantage
of this fact should be taken and, therefore, Indian Board for Wild Life
(IBWL) recommends to the Central Government that the subject of
'national parks' be added to List III (Concurrent List) in Schedule VII
of the Constitution.
Executive Committee, Kanha, 1953
National parks are areas set apart by an Act of the competent
Legislature for permanent preservation. Such areas may have for their
objective the preservation of one or more of the following features:
geological, pre-historical, historical, archaeological, scenic, faunal, and
floral.
APPENDIX III 4 0 7
It is not an essential condition of national parks that there should be
no human intervention. Where it is desired to exclude human
intervention altogether, it may be possible to set apart a suitable part
within the national parksanctum sanctorumwhich may receive
absolute protection.
Such parks are not to be created lightly.
In framing proposals for the constitution of national parks, the Board
considers it desirable that State Governments should consult it and avail
themselves of the technical knowledge and experience at its disposal.
The Board recommends further that legislation to be enacted in various
States for the creation and management of national parks should follow
a common pattern. In order to facilitate this the Board will prepare and
circulate a model draft bill.
In order to ensure the national character of such parks, the Board
recommends that in the authority set up under the legislation the Central
Government and the Board be represented through the Inspector General
of Forests or his nominee.
Second Session, Calcutta, 1955
The Executive Committee resolved to advise the State Governments
that pending the constitution of any sanctuaries into national parks, any
attempt that might be made to change their existing character or whittle
away their resources in any way should be guarded against.
The Committee also authorised the Secretary to examine the feasibility
of suggesting to the State Governments the desirability of referring their
National Parks Bills to the Centre before presentation to the State
Legislatures.
The Committee examined the draft Model Bill clause by clause and
made a number of suggestions in the Bill and requested the Inspector
General of Forests to take into consideration the suggestions made and
redraft the bill, also incorporating any suggestions that might be received
from the members within the next 10 days. Thereafter, the bill was to be
vetted by the Ministry of Law and circulated to State Governments.
(Regarding the point whether it would be desirable to call these parks
'national' as these parks were to be constituted by State Governments)
the whole idea was to give a national character to the park. Some standards
on a national level were to be laid down for all parks even though they
were to be constituted by the State Governments in different States. A
national character could be secured by having the Central Governments
representation on the Board of Management. Furthermore, there was a
proposal to give some financial aid to the parks by the Government of
India. It would therefore be in the fitness of things to call them national
parks.
Executive Committee, Ootacamund, 1955
Model Bill for constitution of national parks which may be suitably
adapted or added to, to provide for any special or local requirements.
This Model Bill aims only at ensuring that the technical requirements
will be fully covered in any State legislation regarding 'state parks'. As
will be seen, it is considered best that each park in a State should be so
constituted by a separate Act of the State Legislature. It would follow
that any alteration or alienation of the area of the park would also require
sanction of the Legislature.
As the bill provides exclusively for action by the State in respect of an
area entirely within the State, these parks, it is considered, may be
designated as 'state parks'. Where a State would elect to dedicate any
park so constituted for use for national purposes and agree to the
management and control of the park to be put on a national basis, such
dedicated parks could be adopted as 'national parks'.
Central Government letter with model bill, February 1957
In keeping with international practice, the Committee decided that the
national parks and sanctuaries should be kept open to visitors only dawn
to dusk.
Executive Committee, Shivpuri, 1959
The Board recommended that national parks may also be set up under
the Acts of the State Legislatures, but before naming them as national
parks the approval of the Board may be obtained. The Board will grant
such approval only to such parks that will fulfil certain minimum
requirements.
Fourth Session, Ootacamund, 1961
APPENDIX III 4 0 9
Standards for National Parks in India:
A Statement of National Park Policy
I. Definition
National Parks are areas 'dedicated by statute for all time, to conserve
the scenery and natural and historical objects of national significance, to
conserve wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same
in such manner and by such means as will have them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations, with such modifications as local
conditions may demand'.
From this definition, passed at the Inaugural Session of the Indian
Board for Wildlife in 1952, it follows:
1. That national parks must be areas of national significance to India
as a whole, and of importance to the rest of the world, and not areas of
mere local significance.
2. That the natural scenic beauty of the area must be carefully preserved
so that it will remain unspoilt and unimpaired for the enjoyment of
future generations. This means that there should be no forest operations
such as the extraction of timber and planting of plantations in a national
parks, unless they can be justified on the basis of the very pressing
economic needs of the country. In areas of outstanding beauty or holding
valuable fauna, where it may not be possible to forego such forest
operations (where they are already being done), the natural scenic beauty
should be preserved as far as possible, and certain areas should be left
strictly protected as 'inner sanctuaries' or abhayaranya.
3. That the existing and indigenous wildlife of the area must be strictly
preserved for the enjoyment of future generations. This implies that no
'foreign' or exotic species of fauna or flora should be introduced, though
a species which once existed in the area and has within historical times
become extinct can be re-introduced if an expert ecological study of the
area favours such a step. A national park may preserve either rare and
valuable species of fauna in danger of extinction, or typical fauna
representative of the region, or a combination of both.
4. That development of the area must be carefully planned and
executed so as to provide for its enjoyment by the public and by foreign
visitors in such a way as to leave the natural scenic beauty and wildlife
unimpaired for future generations. This means that access roads should
be made, and roads and paths inside the park for the use of visitors. And
that rest houses and suitable accommodation should be provided. And
that motor transport, riding elephants, boats and so forth be provided
as local conditions may demand.
5. That national parks, wherever possible, must be of such size as to
make them viable and ecological units, and comprehensive units
embracing the amount of territory required for effective administration
and the continuance of the representative fauna and flora.
II. Legislation
As wildlife is a State subject, the legislation for the creation of parks will
be enacted by the State Legislature concerned. It is considered advisable
that there should be a separate Act of the State Legislature for each park,
and not a general Act or an enabling Act for several parks. It is
recommended that the model bill, as drawn up by the Indian Board for
Wildlife and approved of by the Law Ministry, should be used as a basis
for any State Legislation, in order to ensure unanimity and all-India
character in the parks of the country.
As the term 'national' has a country-wide, all-India significance, it is
recommended to State Governments that the standards as laid down
should be strictly adhered to, and that the approval of the Indian Board
for Wildlife be obtained before designating a park as a national park. A
park in a State can then be dedicated to the nation, and become a national
park. Existing national parks in the country which are up to the standards
laid down should remain as originally constituted.
III. Administration
In administering national parks it is recommended:
1. That for each national park, or for the national parks of each State,
there should be a Management or Advisory Board or Committee
consisting of members of the Government and Forest Department,
eminent conservationists, representatives of public interests and so on.
At any time considered desirable, the advice of the Indian Board for
Wildlife should be sought.
APPENDIX III 4 1 1
2. That national parks be administered with the primary objective of
conserving the scenic beauty and wildlife in their natural state, and of
preserving and safeguarding all objects within them. And that
management, control, modifications and other such human intervention
be done only under expert advice and in conformity with the standards
as laid down.
3. That, wherever possible, buffer belts or buffer zones of sufficient
width be constituted outside the boundaries of national parks, in order
to ensure their inviolabilityespecially against poaching, grazing by
domestic cattle, cattle-borne diseases, cutting of vegetation and so on.
4. That undesirable commercial activities and non-conforming
recreational activities be avoided, as violations of the standards as laid
down. Fishing with rod and line for sport, subject to local regulations, is
permissible in national parks.
5. That carefully planned and restricted forest operations be permitted
only when there are overriding reasons to justify them, such as the pressing
economic need for timber and the revenue derived from it. In such cases
steps must be taken to preserve the scenic beauty and to set aside
preservation plots, inner sanctuaries or abhayaranya.
6. That roads and paths be constructed to enable visitors to see and
enjoy the scenic beauty and wildlife and for the purpose of administering
and protecting the area, with the least interference with the natural
scenery.
7. That buildings for accommodation of visitors and staff be
constructed, but that they be as unobstructive as possible and in harmony
with their surroundings. While luxury for visitors is not recommended
or desirable, there should be a high standard of the basic requirements
of the present-day traveller.
8. That appropriate steps be taken to provide publicity to attract
visitors from within the country and tourists from abroad. In addition,
full information on each park should be available in the form of a well-
illustrated booklet, which will be of use not only to visitors but also for
educational purposes. The services of guides should be available, if
required by foreign visitors. Picture postcards and other mementoes
should be available for sale, if there is a demand for them.
9. That every step taken in the development and use of national parks
conforms to the standards, so that the area may be left unimpaired for
the enjoyment of future generations. If ever any doubt may arise, the
ultimate interests of the people of the whole country and of future
generations should be taken into account.
What a difficult moment of time this was for India' s forests and
wildlife. Endless monocultures were promoted in forest areas and
some superb primary forests were lost forever. Few Indians used
the camera or t he pen for wildlife. M. Kri shnan and M.K.
Dharmakumarsinhji were the only two who had been writing for
more than a decade. The Corbetts and Champions were gone and
there was an army out there destroying Indian forests.
Appendix IV
Kudremukh Judgment of the
Supreme Court on 30 October, 2002
In a landmark judgment of forty-six pages the Supreme Court of
India endorsed the decision of the Forest Advisory Committee, a
commi t t ee t hat is a st at ut or y aut hor i t y under t he Forest
Conservation Act to wind up the Kudremukh Iron Ore Company
mining within Kudremukh National Park by 2005. They also
endorsed the recommendat i ons of the Central Empower ed
Committee, also a statutory authority under the Environment
Protection Act. These issues were of vital importance to our
protected area system. Quoted below are details of the case and
extracts from the judgment.
Civil Original Jurisdiction I.A.No.670 of 2001
In
Writ Petition (C) No.202/1995
[K.M. Chinnappa (Applicant) in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
(Petitioner)VersusUnion of India and Others (Respondents)]
Extracts
(1) 'By destroying nature, environment, man is committing matricide,
having in a way killed Mother Earth. Technological excellence, growth
of industries, economical gains have led to depletion of natural resources
irreversibly. Indifference to the grave consequences, lack of concern and
foresight have contributed in large measures to the alarming position.
In the case at hand, the alleged victim is the flora and fauna in and
around Kudremukh National Park, a part of the Western Ghats. The
forests in the area are among 18 internationally recognized "Hotspots"
for bio-diversity conservation in the world.'
(2) 'The seminal issue involved is whether the approach should be
"dollar friendly" or 'eco friendly'.
'Environment' is a difficult word to define. Its normal meaning relates
to the surroundings, but obviously that is a concept which is relatable to
whatever object it is which is surrounded. Einstein had once observed,
'The environment is everything that isn't me.' About one and half century
ago, in 1854, as the famous story goes, the wise Indian Chief of Seattle
replied to the offer of the great White Chief in Washington to buy their
land. The reply is profound. It is beautiful. It is timeless. It contains the
wisdom of the ages. It is the first ever and the most understanding
statement on environment. The whole of it is worth quoting as any
extract from it is to destroy its beauty.
How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is
strange to us.
If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water,
how can you buy them?
Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine
needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing
and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people.
The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red
man ...' .
It would be hard to find out such dawn to earth description of nature.
'Nature hates monopolies and knows no exception.'
(3) The Stockholm Declaration of United Nations on Human
Environment, 1972, reads its Principle No.3, inter alia, thus:
'Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality, and adequate
conditions of life. In an environment of equality that permits a life of
APPENDIX III 4 1 5
dignity and well-being and bears a solemn responsibility to protect and
improve the environment for present and future generations.'
It is necessary to avoid massive and irreversible harm to the earthly
environment and strife for achieving present generation and the posterity
a better life in an environment more in keeping with the needs and
hopes. In this context immediately comes to mind the words of
Pythagoras who said:
'For so long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower
living beings, he will never know health or peace. For so long as men
massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, they who sow the
seeds of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.'
(4) Article 48-A in Part IV (Directive Principles) of the Constitution
of India, 1950 brought by the Constitution (42
nd
Amendment) Act,
1976, enjoins that 'State shall endeavour to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.'
Article 47 further imposes the duty on the State to improve public health
as its primary duty. Article 51-A(g) imposes 'a fundamental duty' on
every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural 'environment'
including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for
living creatures.
(5) Industrialisation, urbanisation, explosion of population, over-
exploitation of resources, depletion of traditional sources of energy and
raw materials, and the search for new sources of energy and raw materials,
the disruption of natural ecological balances, the destruction of multitude
of animal and plant species for economic reasons and sometimes for no
good reason at all are factors which have contributed to environmental
deterioration. While the scientific and technological progress of man
has invested him with immense power of nature, it has also resulted in
the unthinking use of the power, encroaching endlessly on nature. If
man is able to transform deserts into oasis, he is also leaving behind
deserts in the place of oasis. In the last century, a great German materialist
philosopher warned mankind: 'Let us not, however, flatter ourselves over
much on account of our human victories over nature. For each such
victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first
place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third
places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often
cancel the first.'
(6) To protect and improve the environment is a constitutional
mandate. It is a commitment for a country wedded to the ideas of a
Welfare State. The world is under an impenetrable cloud. In view of
enormous challenges thrown by the Industrial revolution the legislatures
throughout the world are busy in their exercise to find out means to
protect the world. Every individual in the society has a duty to protect
the nature. People worship the objects of nature. The trees, water, land
and animals had gained important positions in the ancient times. As
Manu VIII, page 282 says different punishments were prescribed for
causing injuries to plants. Kautilya went a step further and fixed the
punishment on the basis of importance of the part of the tree. (See
Kautilya III, XIX, 197).
(7) The Academy Law Review at pages 137-8 says that a recent survey
reveals that everyday millions of gallons of trade wastes and effluents are
discharged into the rivers, steams, lake and sea, etc. Indiscriminate water
pollution is a problem all over the world but is now acute in densely
populated industrial cities. Our country is no exception to this. Air
pollution has further added to the intensity and extent of the problem.
Every year millions of tons of gaseous and particulate pollutants are
injected into the atmosphere, both through natural processes and as a
direct result of human activity. Scientists have pointed out that earth's
atmosphere cannot absorb such unlimited amount of pollutant materials
without undergoing changes which may be of adverse nature with respect
to human welfare. Man in order to survive in his planetary home will
have to strike the harmonious balance with nature. There may be
boundless progress scientifically which may ultimately lead to destruction
of man's valued position in life. The Constitution has laid the foundation
of Articles 48-A and 51-A for a jurisprudence of environmental
protection. Today, the State and citizen are under a fundamental
obligation to protect and improve the environment, including forests,
lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.
(8) A learned Jurist has said, the Rig Veda praises the beauty of the
dawn (usha) and worships Nature in all its glory. And yet today a bath in
the Yamuna and Ganga is a sin against bodily health, not a salvation for
APPENDIX III 4 1 7
the soulso polluted and noxious are these 'Holy' waters now. 'One
hospital bed out of four in the world is occupied by a patient who is ill
because of polluted water ... Provision of a safe and convenient water
supply is the most important activity that could be undertaken to improve
the health of people living in rural areas of the developing world'
(W.H.O.). ' Nature never did betray. That heart that loves her'
(Wordsworth). The anxiety to save the environment manifested in the
Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 by the introduction
of a specific provision for the first time to 'protect and improve' the
environment.
(9) The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature
meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of
the seashore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands.
The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources.
These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private
ownership.
(10) The aesthetic use and the pristine glory cannot be permitted to
be eroded for private, commercial or any use unless the courts find it
necessary, in good faith, for public good and in public interest to encroach
upon the said resources.
(11) Sustainable development is essentially a policy and strategy for
continued economic and social development without detriment to the
environment and natural resources on the quality of which continued
activity and further development depend. Therefore, while thinking of
the developmental measures the needs of the present and the ability of
the future to meet its own needs and requirements have to be kept in
view. While thinking the present, the future should not be forgotten.
We owe a duty to future generations and for a bright today, bleak
tomorrow cannot be countenanced. We must learn from our experiences
of past to make both the present and the future brighter. We learn from
our experiences, mistakes from the past, so that they can be rectified for
a better present and the future. It cannot be lost sight of that while today
is yesterday's tomorrow, it is tomorrow's yesterday.
(12) The greenery of India should not be allowed to be perished, to
be replaced by deserts. Ethiopia which at a point of time was considered
to be one of the greenest countries, is virtually a vast desert today.
(13) It is, therefore, necessary for the Government to keep in view the
international obligations while exercising discretionary powers under
the Conservation Act unless there are compelling reasons to depart there
from.
(14) The United Nations Conference on Human Environment held
in Stockholm during June 1972 brought into focus several alarming
situations and highlighted the immediate need to take steps to control
menace of pollution to the Mother Earth, air and of space failing which,
the Conference cautioned the mankind, it should be ready to face the
disastrous consequences. The suggestions noted in this Conference were
reaffirmed in successive Conference followed by Earth Summit held at
Rio-de Janeiro (Brazil) in 1992.
(15) Before we part with the case, we note with concern that the State
and the Central Government were not very consistent in their approach
about the period for which the activities can be permitted. Reasons have
been highlighted to justify the somersault. Whatever be the justification,
it was but imperative that due application of mind should have been
made before taking a particular stand and not to change colour like a
Chameleon, and that too not infrequently.
This for me is one of the most philosophical judgments ever given
on the issue of wildlife. It reveals the thinking of the apex court
about economies versus ecology and I believe it will remain a
landmark judgment in the decades to come.
Appendix V
Making a Difference: Some Supreme Court
Orders Based on Recommendations of the
Central Empowered Committee
These are l andmar k j udgment s t hat create a new pat h for
r ef or m and r est r uct ur i ng of forest i nst i t ut i ons. A sum of
fi ft een billion r upees is spent each year on compensat or y
afforestation. Now the processes to use this money have been
changed forever.
Mining all across the Aravallis has been totally banned for
the present in Haryana and Rajasthan. This is an earth-shaking
order in the environmental interest of the nation. The eviction of
one of the senior politicians in the state of Karnataka from
encroached forest lands of the Chimagalur area reveals the full
support the apex court gives to the protection of forests. It will set
an i mport ant precedent for the future, the issue in question
involves the alleged encroachment and large-scale deforestation
of the Tatkola Forest in Karnataka. Let us look at some of the
extracts.
LA.No. 566 of 2001
In
Writ Petition (C) No. 202/1995
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (Petitioner) Versus
Union of India and Others (Respondents).
Extracts
1. We accept the Report of the Central Empowered Committee of
September, 2002 Result of this is that the Report of Shri Sahay regarding
encroachment in Tatkola Reserve Forest as confirmed by the Survey of
India Report shall be treated as final and all encroachments reported
therein shall be removed.
In conclusion:
(a) Shri R.M.N. Sahay, Court Commissioner's Report about the
forest area under encroachment in Tatkola Reserve Forest as
confirmed by Survey of India Report shall be treated as final
and all encroachments reported therein shall be removed
forthwith.
(b) A notice shall be published in the local/vernacular newspapers
at least seven days before the actual removal of encroachments
is undertaken specifying to the extent feasible, the name of the
encroacher, area under encroachment, the compartment
number/survey number and the Forest form where the
encroachments are to be removed in compliance of this order.
(c) Chief Secretary, Karnataka shall be personally responsible to
ensure removal of such encroachments. Director General of
Police, Karnataka shall be responsible to ensure that police
protection and help needed for removal of encroachments is
provided as and when required.
(d) The encroachers are liable to compensate for the losses caused
due to the encroachments especially when the land encroached
upon has been utilised for commercial purposes. We, however,
take a lenient view and direct that if the encroachers voluntarily
APPENDIX III 4 2 1
vacated the encroached land and hand over the same to the
Chief Conservator of Forest within three months from today
i.e. on or before 31st January, 2003, they will not be liable to
pay any compensation but if they continue to remain in
occupation then they will have to pay Rs 5 lakhs per hectare per
month to the State Government. Money so recovered shall be
kept in a separate account and shall be used exclusively for forest
protection and rehabilitation of the encroached area with the
concurrence of the Central Empowered Committee.
(e) Action taken Report shall be filed by the Chief Secretary,
Karnataka before the Central Empowered Committee every
month till the encroachments are completely removed and all
the compensation payable by the encroachers has been deposited.
Copy of the Action Taken Report also be filed in this Court.
On Compensatory Afforestation
As recommended by the Central Empowered Committee we direct as
follows:
(a) The Union of India shall within eight weeks today frame
comprehensive rules with regard to the Constitution of a body
and management of the compensatory afforestation funds in
concurrence with the Central Empowered Committee. These
rules shall be filed in this court within eight weeks form today.
Necessary notification constituting this body will be issued
simultaneously.
(b) Compensatory Afforestation Funds which have not yet been
realised as well as the unspent funds already realised by the States
shall be transferred to the said body within six moths of its
constitution by the respective states and the user-agencies.
(c) In addition to above, while according transfer under Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 for change in user-agency from all non-
forest purposes, the user agency shall also pay into the said fund
the net value of the forest land diverted for non-forest purposes.
The present value is to be recovered at the rate of Rs 5.80 lakhs
per hectare to Rs 9.20 lakhs per hectare of forest land depending
upon the quantity and density of the land in question converted
for non-forest use. This will be subject to upward revision by
the Ministry of Environment & Forests in consultation with
Central Empowered Committee as and when necessary.
(d) A 'Compensatory Afforestation Fund' shall be created in which
all the monies received from the user-agencies towards
compensatory afforestation, additional compensatory
afforestation, penal compensatory afforestation, net present value
of forest land, Catchment Area Treatment Plan Funds, etc. shall
be deposited. The rules, procedure and composition of the body
for management of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund shall
be finalised by the Ministry of Environment & Forests with the
concurrence of Central Empowered Committee within one
month.
(e) The funds received form the user-agencies in cases where forest
land diverted falls within protected Areas i.e. area notified under
Section 18, 26A or 35 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972,
for undertaking activities related to protection of biodiversity,
wildlife, etc., shall also be deposited in this Fund. Such monies
shall be used exclusively for undertaking protection and
conservation activities in protected areas of the respective States/
Union Territories.
(f) The amount received on account of compensatory afforestation
but not spent or any balance amount with the States/Union
Territories or any amount that is yet to be recovered from the
user-agency shall also be deposited in this fund.
(g) Besides artificial regeneration (plantations), the fund shall also
be utilised for undertaking assisted natural regeneration,
protection of forests and other related activities. For this purpose,
site specific plans should be prepared and implemented in a
time bound manner.
(h) The user agencies especially the large public sector undertaking
such as Power Grid Corporation, N.T.PC., etc. which frequently
require forest land for their projects should also be involved in
APPENDIX III 4 2 3
undertaking compensatory afforestation by establishing Special
Purpose Vehicle. Whereas the private sector used agencies may
be involved in monitoring and most importantly, in protection
of compensatory afforestation. Necessary procedure for this
purpose would be laid down by the Ministry of Environment
& Forests with the concurrence of the Central Empowered
Committee,
(i) Add.
(j) An independent system of concurrent monitoring and evaluation
shall be evolved and implemented through the Compensatory
Afforestation Fund to ensure effective and proper utilisation of
funds.
On Transmission Lines in Rajaji National Park
Taking all circumstances into consideration, these applications are
allowed, permission in granted to the Power Grid Corporation to erect
the transmission lines through the Rajaji National Park. Aforesaid 14739
trees will be cut be the Forest Department of the State of Uttaranchal
under the supervision of the Central Empowered Committee. Trees so
cut shall be sold by the Forest Department under the supervision of the
Central Empowered Committee by public auction. The amount so
realised as well as the sums payable by Power Grid Corporation for
afforestation etc. will be kept by the Central Empowered Committee in
a fixed deposit initially for a period of three months and with the
constitution of the body for the management of the Compensatory
Afforestation Funds, the principal amount so realised by the Central
Empowered Committee shall be transferred to the said body. This
permission which is granted will be operational on Rs 50 crores being
deposited with the Central Empowered Committee who shall deposit
the same in fixed deposit and after twelve weeks transfer the same to the
body constituted for the purpose of managing the Compensatory
Afforestation Funds.
Monitoring Report (First) of the
Central Empowered Committee
We have perused the First Monitoring Report of the Central Empowered
Committee. Three suggestions have been made in the said Report ....
We, accordingly, direct as follows:
(1) The ban imposed with regard to the opening of the new saw-
mills and other wood-based industries by this Court's order dated
15th January, 1998 in the State of Nagaland is extended by a
further period of five years.
(2) The High Powered Committee is allowed to dispose of the assets
on such defaulting units, including plants, machinery, land, shed,
timber and timber products who have not paid the penalty
imposed by the High Powered Committee of the wood-based
units of north-eastern states. This will be subject to such orders
which may be passed by the Central Empowered Committee.
No State or Union Territory shall permit any unlicensed saw-
mills, veneer, plywood industry to operate and they are directed
to close all such unlicensed unit forthwith. No State Government
or Union Territory will permit the opening of any saw-mills,
veneer or plywood industry without prior permission of the
Central Empowered Committee. The Chief Secretary of each
State will ensure strict compliance of this direction. There shall
also be no relaxation of rule with regard to the grant of license
without previous concurrence of the Central Empowered
Committee.
It shall be open to apply to this Court for relaxation and or
appropriate modification or orders qua plantations or grant of
licenses.
Illegal Mining in Aravallis
Second Monitoring Report of the Central Empowered Committee dated
28 October, 2002, has been received from the Central Empowered
Committee. This Report deals with the mining which is termed as illegal
APPENDIX III 4 2 5
in the Aravalli hills. It is stated in this Report that the members of the
Central Empowered Committee visited the affected areas on 27th
October, 2002, namely the forest area in the Aravalli Hills-Kote and
Alampur Village. Report states that mining operations are being carried
out in this area which is a forest area which was being recreated by
plantations under the Aravalli Mining Programme funded by the Japanese
Government in the early 90s. We, prohibit and ban all mining activity
in the entire Aravalli hills. This ban is not limited only to the hills
encircling Kote and Alampur villages but extends to the entire hill range
of Aravalli from Dholput to Rajasthan. The Chief Secretary, State of
Haryana of Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan are directed to ensure
that no mining activity in the Aravalli hills is carried out, especially, in
the part which has been regarded as forest area or protected under the
Environment (Protection) Act.
This order was modified on 16 December 2002 permitting mining
in certain areas as long as proper legal clearances were followed.
The importance of our rich natural heritage has never had such
priority as far as the apex court is concerned.
In the same month of December 2002 the Wildlife Protection
Act was amended once again being passed by both houses of
Parliament. Mostly it was felt that this effort would plug most of
the loopholes that plague the effective enforcement of the Act.
But who knows what 2003 will bring?
: Bibliography
Aflalo, F.G.A. (1926). The Sportsman's Book for IndiaA Book of the
Wilderness and the Jungle: London.
Agarwal, Anil and Sunita Narain. (1992). Towards a Green World,
New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.
Agarwal Anil, et al., (eds)(1982). The First Citizens' Report on the
State of the Environment in India, New Delhi: Centre for Science
and Environment.
(1999). The Fifth Ci t i zens' Report on the State of the
Environment in India, Vols. I and II, New Delhi: Centre for
Science and Environment.
Ahmad, Yusuf S. (1981). With the Wild Animals of Bengal, Dhaka:
Y.S Ahmad.
Alavi, M and Jahangir A Rahman (1968). The Naturalist, Delhi:
National Institute of Sciences.
Alfred, J.R.B. et al., (1994). The Red Data Book of Indian Animals,
Part 1, Vertebrata, Calcutta: ZSI.
Ali, S. (1927). 'The Mogul Emperors of India as Naturalists and
Sportsmen' , Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 31(4),
pp. 833-61.
(1953). 'The Keoladeo Ghana, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)', JBNHS,
Vol.51, pp. 531-6.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 4 2 7
(1935-36). 'Economics Ornithology in India', Current Science,
Vol.4, pp. 472-8.
(1941). The Book of Indian Birds, Bombay: Oxford University
Press, Delhi: Reprint, 1979.
(1953). The Birds of Kerala, Delhi: Oxford University Press,
Reprint, 1984.
(1987). The Fall of a Sparrow, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
' Pardhis' , Hog Hunters Annual, Vol. 4 (1931) pp. 59-60.
Tiger Link, Vol. 6 (1999).
Alvares, Claude (1993). Fish, Curry, and Rice: A Citizen's Report on
the State of the Goan Environment, Mapusa, India: The Other India
Press.
Alvi and Rahman, Jahangir (1968). The Naturalist, Delhi: Institute
of Sciences of India.
Anderson, K. (1957). Nine Man-eaters and One Rogue, Allen &
Unwin.
(1961). The Call of the Man-eaters, Allen & Unwin.
(1962). The Tiger Roars, Allen & Unwin.
(1967). This is the Jungle, Allen & Unwin.
Anderson, D.M and R.H. Grove (eds) (1987). Conservation in Africa:
People, Problems, Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Baikov, N.A. (1925). The Manchurian Tiger, London: Hutchinson.
Baillie, W.W. (1921). Days and Nights of Shikar, London: Arnold
and Co.
Baker, E.B.B. (1886). Sports in Bengal, London: Ledger Smith &
Co.
Baker E.C.S. (1913). Indian Ducks and their Allies, Bombay: BHNS.
(1994). The Gamebirds for India, Burma and Ceylon, 3 vols.
Bombay, William, Pheasant Jungles, Lower Basildon, World
Pheasant Association.
Baker, S. (1890). Wild Beasts and Their Ways, London: Macmillan
and Co.
Baldwin, J.H. (1877). The Large and Small Game of Bengal and the
North-western Provinces of India, Routledge.
Barras, J. (1885). India and Tiger Hunting, London: Edward Llyod
Ltd.
Baskaran, S.T. (1999). Dance of the Sarus: Essays of a Wandering
Naturalist, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Bates, R.S.P. (1984). Bird Life in India, Delhi: Daya Publishing.
Baviskar, A. (1999). ' Nature at Stake', Seminar No. 466, pp. 74-9.
Baxter, E.H. (1931). From Shikar and Safari London: John Murray.
Baze, W. (1957). Tiger, Tiger, London: Elek Books.
Beach Milo, Ebba Koch and W Thackston. (1997). The King of the
World, The Padshah Namah, New York: Arthur M Seckler Library.
Beatson, A.A. (1800). View of the Origin and Conduct of War with
Tippoo Sultan, London: Nicol.
Beebe, Williams. (1994). Pheasant Jungles, Lower Basildon: World
Pheasant Association.
Best, J.W. (1931). Tiger Days, London: John Murray.
(1931). Indian Shikar Notes, London: John Murray.
(1934). The Marked Man-eater, London: John Murray.
(1935). Forest Life in India, London: John Murray.
Beinart, W. (1991). 'Empire, Hunting and Ecological Changes in
Southern and Central Africa', Past and Present, No. 128, pp. 162-
86.
Bernier, F. (1934). Travels in the Mogol Empire, 1656-68, trans, and
ed. A. Constable, 2nd edition, revised by V A Smith, Delhi:
Oriental, Reprint, 1970.
Beveridge, A. S., trans and ed., The Babur Namah, Delhi: Oriental,
Reprint, 1970.
Bhadran, C. P. (1934). 'The Manas Game Sanctuary, Assam', Indian
Forester, Vol. 40, pp. 44-56.
Bhattacharya, A. (1947). 'The Tiger Cult and its Literature in Lower
Bengal', Man in India, Vol. 27, pp. 44-56.
Biscoe, W.A. (1895). 'Tiger killing a Panther' . Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society, 9 (4), pp. 490.
Blandford, W.T. (1891). Fauna of British India, London: Routledge.
Bonner, Nigel. (1989). Whales of the World, London: Blandford.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 4 2 9
Boomgaard, Peter. (2001). Frontiers of Fear: Tigers and People in the
Malay World, 1600-1950, (Yale Agrarian Studies Series), New
Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Booth, M. (1987). Carpet Sahib: A life of Jim Corbett, Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Boswell, K. (1957). "'Scent Trails" and "Poking" in Tigers', Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society, 54(2), pp. 452-4.
Braddon, E. (1930). Thirty Years of Shikar, London: William
Blackwood & Son.
Bradley, M.H. (1930). Trailing in the Tiger, London: D. Appleton &
Co.
Brander, A.A. Dunbar. (1923). Wild Animals in Central India,
London: Edward Arnold.
Breeden. Stanley and Belinda Wright, Thoughts of Tiger's Eyes:
Chronicle of India's Vanishing Wildlife, USA: Ten Speed Press.
Brooke, V. (1894). Big Game in India, London: H.F. and G. Witherby.
Brown, J.M. (1887). Shikar Sketches: With Notes on Indian Field
Sports, London: Routledge.
Burke, R.G. (1935). Jungle Days, London: John Murray.
Burke, W.S. (1920). The Indian Shikar Book, London: Edward
Arnold.
Burton, E.F. (1885). Reminiscences of Sports in India, London: J. Hale.
Burton, R.G. (1928). Sports and Wildlife in the Deccan, London:
Jonathan Cape.
(1933). The Book of the Tiger, London: Hutchison & Co.
(1936). A Book of Man-eaters, London: Hutchison & Co.
(1936). The Tiger Hunters, London: Hutchison & Co.
(1934), 'The tiger's method of making a kill' Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society, 49 (3), pp. 538-41.
Bush, Mark. (1997). Ecology of a Changing Planet, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Butt, K.S.J. (1968). Shikar, London: Jaico Books.
Campbell, T. (1894). 'A Tiger Eating a Bear', Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society, 9(1), p. 101.
Campbell, Major W. (1842). The Old Forest Ranger, London:
Routledge.
Centre for Science and Environment. (1992). The State of India's
Environment 1992-93, New Delhi, CSE Publishers.
Chadha, S.K. (ed). (1992). Environmental Crisis in India, Dehradun,
India: International Book Distributors.
Champion F.W. (1927). With Camera in Tiger Land, London: Chatto
& Windus.
(1933). The Jungle in Sunlight and Shadow, London: Chatto
and Windus.
(1934). The Preservation of Wildlife in India, No. 4, The
United Provinces', Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society,
Vol. 37, pp. 104-11.
(1939). ' Correspondence, The Protection of Wildlife', Indian
Forester, Vol. 55, pp. 501-4.
Champion, Sir H.G. and S.K. Seth. (1968). A Revised Survey of the
Forest Types of India, GOI Press.
Chaturvedi, M.D. (1931). 'Deer Damage to Shorea Robusta, Sal
Planattion', United Provinces Forest Bidletin, Vol. 7.
Chellam, Ravi. (1993). 'Ecology of the Asiatic Lion, panthera leo
persica', Meyer 1826. Ph.D. Thesis, Saurashtra University, Rajkot,
India.
Chellam, Ravi, and A.J.T. Johnsingh. (1993). ' Management of
Asiatic Lions in the Gir Forests, India'. Proceedings of the Symposia
of the Zoological Society of London 65, pp. 409-24.
Choudhury, Anwaruddin. (1990). Checklist of the Birds of Assam,
Guwahati: Sophia Press.
Chundawat, R.S., W.A. Rodgers and H.S. Panwar. (1991). 'Status
report on snow leopard in India' . In: Proceedings of the fifth
international symposium organized by the International Snow
Leopard Trust and Wildlife Institute of India (ed. by H. Freeman).
Clegg, Michael et al., (eds) (1995). Science and the Endangered Species
Act. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Coates, P. (1995). and Wo Beinart Environment and History: The
Taming of Nature in the US and South Africa, London: Routledge.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 4 3 1
Corbett, G.B. and J.E. Hill. (1992). The Mammals of the Indo-Malayan
Region: A Systematic Review, London: Oxford University Press.
Corbett, J. (1892). A tiger attacking elephants Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society, 1(7), p. 192.
(1944). Man-eaters of Kumaon, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Courtney, N. (1980). The Tiger, Symbol of Freedom, London: Quartet
Books.
Cronin E.W. (1979). The Arun: a Natural History of the World's
Deepest Valley, Boston: Houghton Miffiin.
Cubitt,Gerald and Guy, Mountfort, Wild India, London: Collins.
D' Mont e, Darryl. (1985). Temples or Tombs: Industry versus
Environment, Three Controversies, New Delhi: Centre for Science
and Environment.
Daniels, R.J. (1997). A Field Guide to the Birds of South-western India,
New Delhi: OUP.
Daniel. J.C. (1983). The Book Of Indian Reptiles, Bombay: Bombay
Natural History Society.
(1983). A Century of Natural History. Bombay Natural History
Society.
(1996). A Week with Elephants, Bombay: Bombay Natural
History Society.
(1996). The Leopard in IndiaA Natural History, Dehradun:
Natraj.
Davidar, E.R.C. (1997). Cheetal Walk: Living in the Wilderness,
Delhi:Oxford University Press.
Denton Scott, J. (1959). Forests of the Night, Bombay: Jaico, Reprint
1977.
Dharmakumarsinhji, R.S., Birds of Saurashtra, Bombay: privately
published by the author.
Dick, John Henry. (1983). A Pictorial Guide to the Birds of the Indian
Subcontinent, Bombay: OUP/BNHS.
Divyabhanusinh. (1996). The End of a Trail: The Cheetah in India,
New Delhi: Banyan Books.
(1998). 'A Princely Request', Seminar, No. 466 pp. 41-6.
Dryad. (1901). ' Destruction of Game' , Indian Forester, Vol. 27,
pp. 549-50.
Dunbar Brander, A.A. (1923). The Wild Animals of Central India,
London: Edward Arnold.
Eisenberg, John E, George Mckay and John Seidensticker. (1990).
Asian ElephantsStudies in Sri Lanka, Washington: Smithsonian.
Ellerman, J.R. and T.C.S. Morrisson-Scott. (1966). Checklist of
Palaeoarctic and Indian Mammals, 1958 to 1964. 2nd edition,
London: Trustess of the British Museum (Natural History).
Ewans, Martin, et al. (1989). Bharatpur: Bird Paradise. London: H.F.
& G. Witherby Ltd.
Fayrer, J. (1878). The Destruction of Life by Wild Animals and Poisonous
Snakes in India, London: The Royal Society of Arts.
Fend, Werner. (1972). Die Tiger Von Abutschmar, Vienna: Verlag
Fritz Molden.
Flemming, Robert L. (Jr.) (1977). The Ecology, Flora and Fauna of
Midland Nepal, Kathmandu, Tribhuvan University.
Fletcher. F.W.F. (1911). Sport on the Nilgiris and in Wynaad, London:
Macmillan.
Forsyth, J. (1971). The Highlands of Central India. London: Chapman
& Hall.
Foster, W. (1927). Early Travels in India, 1583-1619, London: Oxford
University Press.
Fox, Michael, and A.J.T. Johnsingh. (1974). ' Hunting and Feeding
in Wild Dogs', Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 72,
no. 2, pp. 321-6.
Futehally, Zafar. (1967). 'Misuse of Nature: Some Ecological Facts',
The Times of India, 11 June.
Gadgil, Madhav and Ramchandra Guha. (1992). This fissured Land:
An Ecological History of India, New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
(1989). 'State Forestry and Social Conflict in British India',
Past and Present, Vol. 123, pp. 141-77.
(1995). Ecology and Equity: The Use and Abuse of Nature in
Contemporary India, New Delhi: Penguin Books.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 4 3 3
Gadgil, M. and R. Thapar. (1990). ' Human Ecology in IndiaSome
Ecological Perspectives' , Interdisciplinary Review, Vol. 15,
pp. 209-23.
Gadgil, M. and V.D. Vartak. (1973). ' Groves Dedicated to the
Gods' , Illustrated Weekly of India, 2 September, pp. 20-1.
Gamekeeper. (1887). ' Dest ruct i on of Game in Government
Reserves during the Rains', Indian Forester, Vol. 13, pp. 188-9.
Ganguli, Usha. (1975). A Guide to the Birds of the Delhi Area, New
Delhi: Indian Council for Agricultural Research.
Gee, E.P. (1964). The Wildlife of India, London: Collins.
(1961). ' History of Rhino Area in Nepal' , Cheetal, Vol. 2,
pp. 16-28.
(1954). ' The Management of India' s National Parks and
Wildlife Sanctuaries, Part II', Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society, Vol. 52, pp. 453-86.
(1968). The Management of India' s National Parks and
Wildlife Sanctuaries, Part V, Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society, Vol. 65, pp. 717-31.
Ghorpade, M.Y. (1983). Sunlight and Shadows, London: Gollanez.
Gorri e, M. (1980). ' Hol y Groves' , Indian Forester, Vol. 62,
pp. 150-1.
Green, M.J.B. (1990). International Union for the Conservation
of Nature Directory of South Asian Protected Areas, Cambridge:
IUCN.
Grove, Richard. (1995). Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion,
Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Enviornmentalism, 1600-
1860. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grove, Richard, Vinita Damodaran, and Satpal Sangwan (eds).
Nature and the Orient: Environmental History of South and South-
east Asia. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Guggisberg, C.A. (1977). Early Wildlife Photographers, London:
David and Charles.
Guha, R. (1989). The Uncjuiet Woods: The Ecological Bases of Peasant
Resistance in the Himalaya, Delhi: Oxford University Press,
Revised Edition, 1999.
Gurung, K.K. (1983). Heart of the Jungle: The Wildlife of Chitwan,
Nepal, London: Andre Deutsch.
(1996). Mammals of Indian Subcontinent and Where to Watch
Them, Oxford: Indian Experience.
Habib, I. (1990). An Atlas of the Mughal Empire, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hanley, P. (1961). Tiger Trails in Assam, London: Robert Hale.
Hardy, Sarah B. (1977). The Langurs of Abu, Cambridge, USA:
Harvard University Press.
Hewett J. (1938). Jungle Trails in Northern India, London: Methuen.
High Court of Delhi. (1996). Recommendations of the Committee
appointed by the High Court of Delhi on wildlife protection,
preservation and the law, Delhi.
Hillard, Darla. (1989). Vanishing TracksFour Years Among the
Snow Leopards of Nepal, London: Elm Tree.
Hooker, J.D. (1855). Himalayan Journals, 2 vols., London: John
Murray.
Insight Guide to Indian Wildlife, (1992), Singapore: Apa Publications.
Insight Guide to Sri Lanka, (1995), Singapore: Apa Publications.
Imam, S.H.A.A. (1979). Brown Hunter, Delhi: Allied Publishers.
Indian Board for Wildlife (1970), Report of the Expert Committee,
New Delhi: IBWL, September.
Inskipp, Carol. (1998). A Birdwatchers' Guide to Nepal, Huntington:
Prion.
International Council for Bird Preservation. (1989). Nepal's Forest
Birds, Their Status and Conservation, Cambridge.
(1989). The Birds and Mammals of the Annapurna Conservation
Area, Katmandu: Annapurna Conservation Area Project.
Israel, S. and Sinclair, Toby. (1987). Indian Wildlife, Singapore: Apa
Publications.
Ives, Richard. (1995). Of Tigers and Men, New York: Doubleday.
Jackson, P. (1997). Tigers, Apple Press.
Jackson, R.M. and D. Hillard. (1986). 'Tracking the Elusive Snow
Leopard' National Geographic, 169, pp. 792-809.
Jerdon, T.C. (1991). The Birds of India, 3 vols., 1862-64.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 4 3 5
Jeffries, Margaret. (1986). Sagarmatha, The Story of Mount Everest,
Auckland: Hope Press.
(1991). Royal Chitwan National Park: Wild Heritage of Nepal,
Seattle: The Mountaineers.
Joslin, P. (1973). The Asiatic Lion: A Study of Ecology and
Behaviour, Ph.D. Thesis. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,
pp. 249.
Kala, D.C. (1979). A Life of Jim Corbett, Revised ed. Delhi: Ravi
Dayal Publisher, 1999.
Karanth, K. Ullas, (2002). The Way of the Tiger: Natural History and
Conservation of the Endangered Big Cat, Bangalore: Centre for
Wildlife Studies.
Karanth, K. Ullas and James D. Nichols, (eds) Monitoring Tigers
and their Prey: A Manual for Researchers, Managers and
Conservationists in Tropical Asia, Bangalore: Centre for Wildlife
Studies.
Karisson, B.G. (1998). ' Eco-development in Practice: The Buxa
Tiger Reserve and Forest People', Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. 34, pp. 2087-92.
Khan, M.A.R. (1985). Mammals of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Nazima Reza.
Koch, Ebba, and Dara Shukoh, (1997). Shooting Nilgais: Hunt and
Landscape in Mughal Painting, Smithsonian Occasional Paper,
no. 1, Washington: Smithsonian.
Kothari, A., N. Singh and S. Suri. (1996). 'Conservation in India:
A New Direction' , Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 31,
pp. 2755-76.
Krishan M. (1985). Nights and Days, New Delhi: Vikas.
(1938). 'Flying Foxes', The Hindu, Madras, 7 August.
(1956). 'The Vanishing Cheetah' , The Statesman, Calcutta, 22
July.
(1957). ' A Lament for Lost Wood' , The Statesman, Calcutta,
21 July.
(1958). "The Sloth Bear' The Statesman, Calcutta, 28 September.
(1968). 'The Tiger: A Domiciled Alien in India', The Statesman,
Calcutta, 4 March.
(1961). Jungle and Backyard, Delhi: National Book Trust.
(1985). Nights and Days: My Book of Indian Wildlife, Delhi:
Vikas.
(1975). India's Wildlife in 1959-70, Bombay: Bombay Natural
History Society.
Lahiri Choudhury, D.K. (1999), (ed.), The Great Indian Elephant
Book: An Anthology of Writings on Elephants in the Raj, Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Lai, Makhan. (1986). ' Iron Tools, Forest Cl earance and
Urbanization in the Gangetic Plains', Man and Environment,
Vol. 10, pp. 83-90.
Lall, J.S. (1995). (ed). The Himalayas: Aspects of Change. A Selection,
Oxford University Press.
Lele, S. (1995). ' Environmental Governance', Seminar, No.438, pp.
17-23.
Lewis, Michael. (2003). Inventing Global Ecology: Tracking the
Biodiversity Ideal in India 1945-1997, New Delhi: Orient Longman
Private Limited.
Leyhausen, P., C. Hol l oway and M.K. Ranj i t si nh. (1976).
Conservation of the Tiger in IndiaA Report to the Chairman of the
Project Tiger Steering Committee on a Mid-term Study of Project
Tiger, Delhi: WWF-IUCN.
Littledale, H. (1889). 'Bears being eaten up by tigers', Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society, 4 (4), p. 316.
Locke, A. (1954). The Tigers ofTrengganu, London: Museum Press.
Mackenzie, John. (1988). The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation
and the British Imperialism. New York: Manchester University
Press.
Madhusudan, M.D. and K. Ullas Karanth. (1998). 'Bringing Home
the Bacon: Local Hunting and Large Mammal Conservation in
India' , Paper presented at the National Seminar on Wildlife
Conservation, Research and Management, Wildlife Institute of
India, Dehra Dun, August 10-13.
Maharaja of Cooch Behar. (1985). Big Game Shooting in Eastern and
Northern India, Delhi: Mittal Publications.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 4 3 7
Manfredi, P. (1997). (ed.), In Danger: Habitats, Species, Peoples, Delhi:
Ranthambhore Foundation.
McDougal, C. (1977). The Face of the Tiger, London: Rivington
Books.
McNeely, Jeffrey and Davi d Pitt. (1985). (eds) Culture and
Conservation: The Human Dimension in Environmental Planning.
Dover, New Hampshire: Croom Helm (for International Union
for the Conservation of Nature).
Menon, V. (1996). Under Siege: Poaching and Protection of the Greater
One-horned Rhinoceros in India, Delhi: Traffic India.
Milroy, A.J.W. (1934). 'Game Preservation in India-Assam' , Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 37, pp. 97-105.
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. (1993).
A Review of Project Tiger, Delhi.
Montgomery, Sy. (1995). Spell of the Tiger, Boston: Hought on
Miffiin.
Morris, R. (1927). ' A tigress with five cubs', Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society, 31(3), pp. 810-11.
Mountfort, G. (1978). Back from the Brink, London: Hutchinson.
(1973). Tigers, London: David & Charles.
(1981). Saving the Tiger, London: Michael Joseph.
Mukherjee, Ajit. (1966). Extinct and Vanishing Birds and Mammals,
Calcutta: Indian Museum.
Mundy, G.C. (1858). ' Pen and Pencil Sketches in India' , London:
John Murray, pp. 201-2.
Musselwhite, A. (1933). Behind the Lens in Tigerland, London.
Myers, Norman. (1979). The Sinking Ark: A New Look at the Problem
of Disappearing Species, New York: Pergamon Press.
Niyogi, Tushar K. (1996). Tiger Cult of the Sundarbans, Calcutta:
Anthropological Survey of India.
Oliver, William. (1980). The Pigmy Hog, Jersey: Jersey Wildlife
Preservation Trust.
Panwar , H.S. (1991). Kanha National ParkA Handbook,
Ahmadabad: CEE.
Parashar Sen, Aloka. (1998). 'Of Hunters, Tribes and Barbarians',
Studies in History, Vol. 14, pp. 173-92.
Perry, Richard. (1964). The World of the Tiger, London: Cassell.
Prater, S. (1988). The Book of Indian Animals, Bombay: BNHS.
Rangarajan, M. (1996). Fencing the Forest: Conservation and Ecological
Change in India's Central Provinces, 1860-1914, Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
(1998). ' From Princely Symbol to Conservation Icon: A
Political History of the Lion in India', Occasional Paper No. 54,
Delhi: Nehru Memorial Museum and Library.
(1998). 'The Raj and the Natural World: The War against
"Dangerous Beasts" in Colonial India', Studies in History, Vol. I.
14, pp. 265-300.
(1999). ' Troubl ed Legacy: A Brief Hi st ory of Wildlife
Preservation in India' , Occasional Paper No. 44, Delhi: Nehru
Memorial Museum and Library.
_ _ _ (ed.). (1999). The Oxford Anthology of Indian Wildlife, Volume
I, Hunting and Shooting, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
(ed.). (1999). The Oxford Anthology of Indian Wildlife, Volume
II, Watching and Conserving, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Ranjit Singh, M.K. (1990). The Indian Blackbuck, Dehra Dun: Natraj.
(1997). Beyond the Tiger: Portraits of South Asian Wildlife, New
Delhi: Brijbasi.
Rat hore, Fateh Si ngh, (1996). ' Guj ar at and Raj ast han' , in
Recommendations of the Committee appointed by the High
Court of Delhi on wildlife protection, preservation and the law,
Delhi, pp. 152-3.
Rice, William. (1857). Tiger Shooting in India. London: Vintage
Books.
Richardson, W. (1890). 'Tiger Cubs' , Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society, 5(2); p. 191.
Ripley, S. Dillon, (1952). Search for the Spiny Babbler, Boston:
Houghton Miffiin.
(1961). A Synopsis of the Birds of India and Pakistan, Bombay:
(BNHS revised 1982).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 4 3 9
Roberts, T.J. (1977). The Mammals of Pakistan, London: Benn.
Rodgers, W. A., H. S. Panwar and V. B. Mathur, (2000). Wildlife
Protected Area Network in India: A Review, Dehra Dun: Wildlife
Institute of India.
Rogers, A. and H. Beveridge, (1909). The Tuzuk I Jahangiri, London:
Royal Asiatic Society.
Roonwul, M.L. and S.M. Mohnot, (1977). The Primates of South Asia,
Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.
Roonwal, M.L., S.M. Mohnot, and N.S. Rathore (eds). (1984).
Current Primate Researches. Jodhpur: Dept. of Zoology, Jodhpur
University.
Russell, C.E.M. (1900). Bullet and Shot in Indian Forest, Plain and
Hill, London: W. Thacker.
Saberwal , V., J. Gi bbs, R. Chel l am and A.J.T. Johnsi ngh.
(1994). ' Li on-human Confl i ct in t he Gir Forest , I ndi a' ,
Conservation Biology, Vol. 8, pp. 501-7.
Saberwal, V., Mahesh Rangarajan and Ashish Kothari. (2001).
People, Parks and Wildlife: Towards Coexistence. London: Sangam
Books Limited.
Saharia, V.B. (1982). Wildlife in India, Delhi: Natraj.
Sanderson, G.P. (1982). Thirteen Years among the Wild Beast in India,
London: W.H. Allen & Co.
Sankhala, K. (1978). Tiger, London: Collins.
Sarkar, J. (1969). ' A Description of Bengal in AD 1609', Bengal
Past and Present, Vol. 35, pp. 1-7.
Schaller, G.B. (1967). The Deer and the Tiger, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
(1977). Mountain Monarchs; Wild Sheep and Goats of the
Himalaya, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
(1980). Stones of Silence; journeys in the Himalaya, London:
Andre Deutsch.
Scott, Jonathan. (1985). The Leopard's Tale London: Elm Tree Book.
Seidensticker, J., S. Christie and P. Jackson, (1999). (eds), Riding
the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-dominated Landscapes,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Server, Lee, (1991). Tigers, New York: Todtri.
Seshadhri, B. (1969). The Twilight of India's Wildlife, London: John
Baker.
Shah, Anup and Manoj. (1996). A Tiger's Tale, London: Fountain
Press.
Shahi, S.P. (1977). Backs to the Wall: Saga of Wildlife in BiharIndia,
Delhi: Affiliated East-West Press.
Sharma, B.D. (1994). High Altitude Wildlife in India, New Delhi:
Oxford and India Book House.
Shastri, M.M. (1910). The Syainikasastra ofRudra Deva of Kumaon,
(trans, and ed. Haraprasad, 1982), Delhi: Reprint Publishers.
(1986). India's Wildlife and Reserves, New Delhi: Sterling.
(1994). 'Consserve Biodiversity', Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. 29, pp. 2108-17.
Shiva, Vandana. (1993). Monocultures of the Mind: Perspectives on
Biodiversity and Biotechnology. Dehradun: Natraj Publishers.
Singh, A. (1973). Tiger Haven, London: Macmillan.
(1981). Tara, A Tigress, London: Quartet.
(1984). Tiger, London: Jonathan Cape.
Singh, K. (1959). The Tiger of Rajasthan, London: Robert Hale Ltd.
(1965). Hints on Tiger Shooting, Delhi: The Hindustan Times
Ltd.
Singh, Sadul (of Bikaner). (1925). ' 3 cheetahs shot dead' , entry for
11 April in 'Big Game Diary' (personal diary).
Stebbing, E.P. (1920). Jungle By-Ways in India, London: John Lane
Co.
Stracey, P.D. (1968). Tigers, London: Barker.
Sukumar , Raman. (1989). The Asian Elephant: Ecology and
Management. Cambri dge Studies in Applied Ecology and
Resource Management Series, New York: Cambr i dge
University Press.
(1994). Elephant Days and Nights, New Delhi: OUP.
Sunquist, Fiona and Mel. (1988). Tiger Moon, Chicago: University
Of Chicago Press.
Tigress, London, Quartet Books, 1981;
BIBLIOGRAPHY 4 4 1
The Legend of the Man Eater; New Delhi, Ravidayal,1993;
Tiger Tiger, London, Jonathan Cape, 1984
Thapar, Valmik. (2002). Cult of the Tiger. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
(ed.). (2001). Saving Wild Tigers, New Delhi, Permanent Black.
(2001). Bridge of God20 Days in the Masai Mara. New
Delhi: Valmik Thapar.
(2000). Wild Tigers of Ranthambhore. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
(1999). Tiger, Sussex: Wayland Press.
(1999). The Secret Life of Tigers. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press (a new reprint of Tigers, the Secret Life).
(1997). Land of the Tiger. London: BBC Books.
(1992). The Tiger's Destiny. London: Kyle Cathie.
(1989). The Secret Life. London: Hamish Hamilton.
(1986). TigerPortrait of a Predator. London: Collins.
(1982). With Tigers in the Wild. New Delhi: Vikas.
Thapar, Valmik, Jim Corbett, Billy Arjan Singh and G. Ward.
(2002). Tigers and Tigerwallahs, New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Tikader, B.K. (1993). Threatened Animals of India, Calcutta: ZSI.
Tilson, R.L. and Seal, V. (1987). Tigers of the World: The biology, bio
politics, management and conservation of an endangered species, New
Jersey: Noyes Publications.
Toogood, C. (1936). ' Number of cubs in a Tigress' litter', Journal of
the Bombay Natural History Society, 39 (1), p. 158.
Toovey, J. (1987). Tigers of the Raj, London: Alan Sutton.
(1995). The Handbook of Wetland Management, compiled by
B.Gopal, New Delhi: WWF-India.
(1992). The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, 2nd edition (as
amended up to 1991), Dehra Dun: Natraj.
Tyabj i , Hashi m, (1994). Bandhavgarh National Park, New
Delhi.
Ward, Geoffrey C. (1993). Tiger Wallahs, New York: Harper Collins.
Whitaker, R. (1974). Gharial Survey Report, Madras: Madras Snake
Park Trust.
Wildlife Preservation Society of India. (1995). Tiger Poaching
Statistics of India, Delhi: Wildlife Preservation Society of India,
December.
Zebrowski , M. (1983). Deccani Paintings, Delhi: Roli Books
International.
Zimmerman, F. (1987). The Jungle and the Aroma of Meats: An
Ecological Theme in Hindu Medicine, Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Zwaenepoel, Jean-Pierre, (1992). Tigers, San Francisco: Chronicle
Books.
Name Index
Abdulali, Humayun 175 Dillon Ripley, S. 239
Abdullah, Farooq 295 Dodsworth, P.T.L. 41
Agarwal, Anil 306 Dorai Rajan, D. 149
Ahmed, F.A. 249
Ali, Salim 121
Eardley-Wilmot, Santhill 53
Arthur, George 4
Elliot, J.G. 5
Bahuguna, Sundar Lai 282
Farish 5
Bernhard 293
Forsyth, J. 9
Berwick, S. 239
Bhutto, Z A. 251
Gandhi, Indira 263
Brander, AA. Dunbar 82
Gandhi, M.K. 169
Burton, R.G. 123
Gandhi, Maneka 349
Burton, R.W. 124
Gandhi, Rajiv 305
Gandhi, Sanjay 280
Cadell, Patrick 105
Gandhi, Sonia 349
Champion, F.W. 96
Gee, E.P. 275
Chaturvedi, M.D. 169
Gerrard, M. 31
Chinnappa, K.M. 324
Ghorpade, Y.R. 191
Chundawat, R.S. 370
Gibson, Alexander 4
Corbett, J. 136
Gilbert, Reginald 35
Desai, Morarji 2 75
Gowda, Deve 351
Dharmakumarsinhji, K.S. 198
Gujral, I.K. 351
4 4 4 NAME INDEX
Hardy, Sarah 2 39
Jackson, Peter 311
Jafry, Hasan Abid 136
Jepson, Stanley 134
Joslin, P. 239
Karanth, Ullas 325
Khan, M.A. 210
Kipling, J.L. 19
Krishnan, M. 208
Littledale, H. 23
Millard, W.S. 39
Milroy, A.J.W. 92
Mitchell, P. Chalmers 63
Monteath, G. 242
Morris, R.C. 112
Nath, Kamal 319
Nehru, Jawaharlal 227
Nightingale 121
Noltie, H.J. 5
Padmanabh Pillai, E.V. 141
Pande, Kedar 249
Phipson, H.M. 17
Phythian-Adams, E.G. 70
Prater, S.H. 89
Rainey, John Rudd 12
Rajamani, R. 325
Ram, Jagjivan 263
Rangarajan, Mahesh 67
Rao, Narsimha 274
Rathore, Fateh Singh 320
Richmond, R.D. 108
Russell, C.E.M. 27
Sanderson, G.P. 9
Sankhala, Kailash 245
Satarawala, K.T. 301
Schaller, George 233
Scindia, Madhavrao 301
Seshadri, B. 241
Shahi, S.P. 247
Shukla, V.C. 214
Shuttleworth, A.T. 17
Singh, Billy Arjan 258
Singh, G. 234
Singh, J. A. 175
Singh, Jaswant 352
Singh, Karan 247
Singh, Sadul 107
Spillet, Juan 237
Stebbing, E.P. 57
Sterndale, Robert A. 9
Stracey, P.D. 175
Tiwari, N.D. 284
Vajpayee, A.B. 349
Vidal, G.W. 24
Ward, Geoffrey C. 320
Watson 3
Wavell 141
Williamson, T. 1
Yule, George 31
' A tigress stands over her massive crocodi l e kill. It was such
encount ers in t he wilderness t hat r ef l ect ed t he richness of
India's natural worl d. This in my opi ni on is one of the f ew uni que
pictures ever t aken of t he t wo powerf ul predators t hat wal k
pl anet earth.' -Val mi k Thapar
OXFORD
UNI VERSI TY PRESS
www.oup.com

Battling For Survival

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Battling For Survival

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

BATTLING

Você também pode gostar