This time I would like to concentrate on the lesser-known but very serious threats to the tiger. But before I draw attention to the policy changes that will hit the tiger hard, I must comment—with much anguish—about a horrifying episode in Chhattisgarh: A young tigress, beaten and bludgeoned for over six hours by a mob numbering over ten thousand... till agonisingly, mercifully, finally death ended her torment. But the horror doesn’t end here, the villagers then took out a victory procession —holding the bleeding, mangled body of our national animal aloft while dancing, shouting, singing in a joyous expression of triumph.
I can only hang my head in shame.
I can only imagine the sheer horror of the moment, the terror of the cornered tiger, as she sought, in vain, to flee her tormentors.
I can only wonder at the ‘beast’ in men.
It’s a national shame. Yet, the episode has fizzled out our conscience… if it made an impression at all. Though the shocking images were flashed on national television, and made their rounds on the internet, it barely created an uproar, let alone a sense of outrage. You can find out more about this incident inside, but I would like to emphasise on some pertinent points again: Why did we let this matter — the tigress was regularly killing cattle, creating animosity — reach this horrifying climax? Will anyone be held accountable? Will we put measures in place to ensure we do not see such a tragedy again?
Conflict, as I have stressed often enough, is one of our most worrying threats. Conflict occurs across tiger country, taking a terrible toll on both people, and tiger. Its impact goes beyond the immediate loss of life and livelihood. It leads to loss of support for the tiger and fuels poaching.
We must take on board the gravity of the issue. Isn’t a tiger's murder, being celebrated in a victory procession, a strong enough message? A body blow?
But beyond the obvious, there are other insidious threats to the tiger: weakening protectionist laws and policies. At a recent lecture, former MEF Jairam Ramesh highlighted five initiatives that were taken during his stint in the MoEF. Three among these are of particular note. The first is that state government-executed infrastructure works requiring less than five hectares each of forest land were exempted from the approval processes of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The FCA is the single most effective tool to conserve forests, especially outside protected areas. Most tiger corridors and sink habitats fall outside PAs, and taking these forests outside of the purview of the law will see rapid fragmentation and degradation of crucial links in tiger habitats. It is worth noting here that approximately about a third of the tiger population is likely found outside the tiger reserves.
The second move was an amendment that was approved in the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which ensures that local forest officials can lodge cases only after they obtain the written consent of the gram sabha, or local village level governing bodies. One need not really elaborate on the dire implications of this amendment, which will only encourage forest offences. By whom, and how, will an offence be registered if it entails written permissions?
Another initiative, launched with much fanfare in April 2011, is “freeing” bamboo, which has been redefined as non-timber forest produce. This basically means that bamboo can now be collected by the local people just like other forest products including tendu or sal leaves — freeing it from any control by the forest management. This can have disastrous impacts on the habitat, given that bamboo is good carnivore cover and much favoured by elephants. The disturbance caused by the influx for bamboo (and other Minor Forest Produce) collection, in our already fragmented habitats are another worry. Add to this the fact that there is a move by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj and Tribal Affairs, to ‘amend that MFP be allowed to carry in appropriate means of transport, as against headloads and cycles as specified now. Some other means of transport can only imply trucks, tractors, etc. which needs roads. I need not say more.
No one will dispute the fact that we need community support to protect forests, but as Vivek Deshpande asked in an article titled “Giving up governance is no governance”, published in The Indian Express: “does that mean simply give away forests to forest-dwellers (including non-tribals) under the fond belief that they have the wherewithal to do it responsibly for all time to come, with no checks and balances needed? Is giving unregulated, unfettered forest control in the hands of village communities a step in the right direction?”
No, I am not denying the bad governance, corruption that plagues the forest department (covered extensively within this issue), indeed most departments. But is doing away with governance the answer? Can we do away with the police or defence forces because of human rights violations and corruption? No, we dare not due to its impact on our safety and security as a nation. Can we not grant the same importance to our eco-systems? Aren’t we romanticising, the gramsabha, the symbol of the pulsating village republic? Isn’t it as susceptible to vested interests, corruption, caste conflicts, etc., as has been seen often enough? The story of villagers managing their own forests simply isn’t practical, especially when our forests contain large mega-fauna, where fatal conflict is a real possibility, and which carry huge commercial value.
The repercussions of this laissez-faire forest economy do not bode well for the tiger — the need of the hour is to improve our protection system, and implementation of laws, not dilution of existing ones.
India has achieved the near-impossible task of saving tigers amidst a population of over one billion people and at the same time, preserving its growth aspirations. We are now embarking on intensive monitoring of tigers, an exercise which will indicate the health of our tiger population on an annual basis, and have also initiated, with much caution, the process to relocate villages in a fair and voluntary manner to create inviolate space for tigers. Such an effort is unmatched in other tiger range countries. Is it wise then, to derail the process by retrograde policies and weakening legal protection?
