M K Ranjitsinh
A. I have to admit that some princes of royal families were inveterate hunters and slaughtered animals indiscriminately. Such wanton killing was and remains indefensible. But at the same time there were hunters such as Dharmakumarsinhji. He was a keen observer of fauna and an ardent ornithologist. There was more wildlife in princely states where princes were interested in hunting.
When I started as the Director of Wildlife, about 80% of the existing wildlife reserves were former hunting reserves of the British and of the princes. If one family hunted many animals, in Northern Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh there were still more tigers in this country then than now after the Project Tiger initiatives. Hunting was not a free for all during the colonial rule.
Q. What about sport hunting? The morality of taking a life for pleasure?
A. I do not advocate sport hunting. It militates against the current ethos of animal protection in India. But again 50 years ago, there was more wildlife in India than now. The Maharaja of Dholpur in Rajasthan was a former hunter and called every sambar by name!
On the moral issue, there is no more or and no less morality in taking a life by hunting than eating a chicken. There is no morality in taking a life per se. But there are different kinds of hunting — for possession (a selfish affair) or for eating.
Many hunters have turned into conservationists, for example, Jim Corbett and Billy Arjan Singh. So you have to take into account different perspectives of the issue. For example, does it help the cause of the tiger by saving man-eaters? I don't think so. I would rather have a man-eater shot than captured since an animal in captivity is as good as dead as far as conservation goes.
Q. What are your views on keeping wild animals in zoos?
A. I am not in favour of keeping animals in captivity. I support ex situ conservation as a last resort for saving animals. But I am opposed to keeping animals in captivity for enjoyment. I believe that the best way to appreciate the beauty of an animal is by viewing it in the wild. In India, people ogle at animals in zoos and National Parks. It is our fault.
The whole conservation effort is too tiger-centric. People do not appreciate other forms of wildlife. I was in Corbett recently when I spotted a leopard on a tree. Some tourists were causing a ruckus so I asked them to stop making noise. "This is just a leopard, not a tiger," I told them sarcastically. And believe it or not some of them left the spot immediately murmuring, "Only a leopard, not a tiger, not a tiger." This mindset has to change.
Q. What are your views on the reintroduction of animals ?
A. Reintroduction of animals should be done the right way. It could bring focus on the area which is very important. Take for example the Rhinos of Dudhwa that were brought there in 1979 from Assam. They are still in an enclosure. They should have been released.
Q. How do you justify spending money and resources on animals when there are people dying out of hunger and starvation and poverty in India ?
A. If you are a welfare state, you have to give attention to poverty alleviation. Is the solution to this the destruction of forests? Saving animals means saving forests and ecosystems, the natural heritage of the country. Land diverted for demographic use cannot be brought back for any other use. How many people will you help by destroying forests? Saving habitat of animals is the primary issue here, the animals come second.
And to what extent is the reclaimed land cultivable? Marginal land should be forested. In Western Satpura in Southern Aravallis, in Bhil tribal areas in Madhya Pradesh there is an ecological holocaust. Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh have lost 32,000 square kilometers of forest areas in the last 60 years. If everything in a democracy should be put to vote, then why not put the future of the entire country to vote on every issue including the fate of our religious shrines? And does a democracy necessarily mean a free for all?
In this country, there is a religious sentiment to save forests and wildlife. There is also a fear of retribution, a hangover from the colonial past. In some places, people do not encroach on forests because they fear dacoits. Wildlife also survives in demilitarised war zones.
There is no single overriding common denominator regarding protection of animals and wildlife in India. Some communities are more conducive to conservation principles than others. And the survival of forests in India is inextricably linked to the survival of animals. If the tigers are not there in Sariska, how will the forest survive? You have to have certain choices. If we are prepared to protect our religious sites considering them to be sacred, why are we not prepared to save our forests that are also part and parcel of God's land?
Q. What is your stance on the burning debate on 'Tigers versus Tribals'?
A. Tigers cannot roam free as man eaters. But there is a distinction between tigers as a threat to human life and as a threat to human property. In a protected park, people should be moved out. In other areas, tigers will have to coexist with humans and they will not survive. We have to look into ways to resolve this man-animal conflict. The aim should be to lessen damage to human property without destroying the animals.
Q. What are your views on sustainable use of wildlife?
A. I am uncomfortable with the concept of sustainable use of wildlife. Sustainable use is never the only way to save animals. Killing wild animals would go against the grain of ethics in India. Ethically, it would be counterproductive. It would imply animals should have monetary value in order to be preserved. I know some countries accept sustainable use of animals but India is different in that we believe in sanctity of life. There should be no lethal usage of animals. But some sustainable use that does not harm animals such as using shed peacock feathers is alright. We have to be careful though that this allowance is not misused.
Q. What are your views on corporates funding wildlife protection causes?
A. If there are no unwarranted strings attached, I don't have a problem with accepting money from them. It is a moral judgment one has to make. As long as it is not anti-conservation, it is OK in my opinion to accept money from industrial groups.
Q. What is your assessment of the Wildlife Protection Act that is now up for Amendment? Where do you think the Act has succeeded and where has it failed ? What are your expectations from the new amendments as someone who was involved in framing the original Act?
A. According to the proposed amendments, some protected areas may actually be subject to less protection until the final notification of their status takes place. For the first time since inception of the Act in 1972, I am not involved in the current proposed amendments to the Act. I saw the proposed amendments only recently when somebody sent them to me! I am currently looking at them in detail but the effort seems to be to dilute the Act and make it more pliable. Once I am ready I will take it up with the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Subhobroto Ghosh is a wildlife and animal welfare activist.
