Editorial for TigerLink, May 2010

There are many ways to skin a cat.
There’s the obvious one—the gun and the trap. A fairly
common method, witnessed repeatedly, but the image that
flashes in the mind is of Arunachal. The cat—the tiger—
shot, tied to the stake, skinned ,eaten, sold.
The other way is lacing the food with poison, like in
Ranthambhore, where two young unsuspecting tigers did
not survive their supper—goats from a village inside their
‘sanctuary’.
The last is slow poison, pulling the rug under the tiger’s
feet, or simply slashing and cutting it at will, so the ‘forest
rug’ is rendered useless. It’s an insidious method usually
orchestrated in the corridors of power. The execution—the
destruction of the tiger’s home may be intentional spurred
by the lure of money, or it may simply be ignorance, or
indifference.
All across its range countries, tigers face these threats. As
does India, home to, and responsible for, the maximum number
of tigers. All threats are a worry: Poaching, conflict, habitat
degradation and devastation, and all are interlinked, feeding
off, and fueling each other. Habitat degradation will lead to
more conflict, which will instigate poaching.
At the risk of being politically incorrect, and given all our
failures, I would say we are better than most tiger range
countries. The legal framework for conservation is strictly
protectionist, even if execution poor. We have not allowed
for tiger farming unlike a Thailand or China, or come out with
inane policies which advocate keeping tigers as pets in
backyards to save them like Indonesia (details inside). We
fight like a tiger for our tigers in international fora, and have
dug our heels and not allowed the World Bank with its
destructive footprint on tiger habitat to seduce us to partner
them in their ‘save tiger’ initiative.
Yet, we have allowed for a Sariska and a Panna to happen.
We continue to sign away tiger habitats for highways, power
projects, mines. The battle for forest clearances hit the
headlines this season. It was not unlike war: Ministry of
Roads vs Ministry of Environment & Forest, Ministry of
Coal vs Ministry of Environment & forest, Power vs
Environment & Forest... and so on. In an earlier interview
Jairam told me "At times I feel I am fighting a lonely battle.
Ecological security should be the overriding concern of
everyone not just my ministry, but unfortunately, it’s not.
The odds are tremendous against anyone trying to do
anything right and rational when it comes to the environment
and forests."
The bitter debate was not for some obscure forest, but
objections are being raised to a firm refusal to allow a highway
expansion on a critical tiger corridor (Kanha-Pench), or a
mine that ate into Tadoba, a crucial source population of
tigers.
Why are we still fighting for every inch of the tiger’s habitat?
In April this year, the Prime Minister of India wrote to
Chief Ministers of three key tiger states, Madhya Pradesh,
Uttarakhand and Maharashtra urging them to protect tigers,
regulate commercial and tourism interests impinging on tiger
habitat and to notify buffers. Yet on the other hand his
government is on this relentless path of growth, which has
little room for green or tiger concerns. There is simply no
sync between the different arms of the government—while
one vows to save the tiger, the other uses fair means or foul
to open up vital wild habitats for mines, highways, hydroprojects
etc.
At a press conference, the Minister for Environment and
Forest Jairam Ramesh said that currently more than 95 per
cent of projects get environment clearances and 85 per cent
sail through forest clearance. Then, what is all the fuss
about? I was intrigued to note that Gaurav Sharma writes in
d-sector.org that in the first six months of the current
minister’s tenure (May 22-December 31) 13,642.99 hectares
of forest were cleared—the maximum share going to roads
ministry, which protests the loudest. In comparison, between
January and June 2009 clearances amounted to about 7,500
hectares. I wonder what that tells us.
To his credit, even in the face of such massive opposition,
Jairam maintained that his job was to reduce the rejection
rate and be more stringent to protect critical wildlife and
tiger habitats.
We hope. For the sake of the tiger…
Another raging debate of the moment: Is tourism killing
tigers? As author of the story and report on impact of tourism
in Corbett that triggered the debate, I would like to point out
that a mad mushrooming of resorts is destroying vital tiger
corridors not just in Corbett but also in Mudumalai, Kanha,
Kaziranga, Bandhavgarh. Tourism infrastructure has taken
up crucial meadows inside core areas ie Kanha, Corbett.
Another issue: It has been scientifically established that tigers
need inviolate habitats to survive. To facilitate this, there is
a major effort to rehabilitate villagers living inside core critical
tiger habitats. It isn't an easy task, made all the more difficult
when locals perceive that they are being moved out, but the
'rich' aka tourists move in. As for tourism saving tigers, in an
ideal world yes, it can play a tremendous role in garnering
support for the tiger, but in its current form it is intrusive and
counter-productive, and must be regulated. Tourism has to
have a broader base, not madly centred on the tiger. Is
converging of 30-40 noisy cars & their hysterical occupants
on a tiger indicate respect for the animal? Where is the
wilderness tourists have come to seek or have I missed the
point here? Is paying Rs 10,000 & above for a ‘guaranteed’
tiger sighting a way to show your love for the tiger?
Yes, tourists do keep a vigilant third eye, but that has a
limited, if important role. There must be a balance somewhere.
The huge influx of tourists in Sariska could not save the
tiger...and yes, surprise, surprise, tigers have survived--
against the worst odds—in Similipal’s core where no tourist
will venture, or non-tourism areas of Corbett.
It hurts me to say this, but sadly, for most (there are
always exceptions-thank God) the tiger has become a cash
cow. Are we milking it dry?
Think about it.