INDIAN TIGER TASK FORCE CHAIRPERSON EXPLAINS HER STANCE

[Guest guest]

*Editor's Page*

[image: E-Mail]

Email<javascript:mailtosomeone('mailform.asp?foldername=20060115 & filename=Editor\

& sid=1 & sec_id=2 & path=http://www.downtoearth.org.in/editor.asp');>

| [image: Print]

Print<javascript:printstory('print.asp?foldername=20060115 & filename=Editor & sid=1\

& sec_id=2');>

| [image: Comment]

Comment <javascript:newwin('editormail.asp?foldername=20060115')>

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/editor.asp?foldername=20060115 & filename=Editor & sec\

_id=2 & sid=1

*2006: the tiger re-appears*

 

2005 was definitely the year of the Indian tiger. The year began with the

tragic news of this magnificent animal's disappearance from the Sariska

tiger reserve, a protected space. This news became, appropriately, the

nation's obsession. I was asked to chair a Task Force, and in three months

we put out a report in the public domain. The report drew attention.

 

When I introspect on what has happened in the name of the tiger this year, I

feel bereft. Not only because we continue to lose tigers, but also because

we continue to lose extremely precious time in holding on to such entrenched

positions regarding the tiger — and conservation in general — that the

statement " something has to be done about the tiger and conservation " holds

no meaning at all. We are losing ground because we care: we care too much

about our own stated positions that we simply cannot agree to move on what

needs to be done. The plight of the tiger has become the country's biggest

soap opera. It has drowned, again, in its own cacophony.

 

Saving the tiger in 2006 will need us to change the terms of debate.

 

Let me explain. When I was asked to chair the Task Force — to examine not

only why tigers had disappeared in Sariska but also what needed to be done

in the future to safeguard the tiger — I returned with renewed interest to

an issue I was once deeply involved in. I had learnt after years of seeing

and listening, that conservation in a poor and populated country like India

could not afford to discount its greatest asset, its people. Here, then, was

an opportunity to test my belief against reality, the situation on the

ground.

 

What a test it turned out to be. I still do not know how to thank the many

people — wildlife researchers, conservation scientists, forest bureaucrats

(retired and in the field), activists — who told me what needed to be done,

in the short term and in the long term, to protect the tiger and other wild

creatures. We can never do justice to all the voices of this complicated

country. But the dots that exist must be joined.

 

After 30 years of 'practical' conservation, people continue to live in tiger

reserves. India's track record of relocation is pathetic — barely 80 of

1,500 villages in protected areas have been relocated. Worse, this

relocation has been done mindlessly in many cases, leading to greater

hostility between people and animals. This is definitely not good for

conservation, or the tiger.

 

So, can relocation remain a strong plank in the policy of the future? It is

clear we must work towards inviolate spaces — areas for the tiger only — by

identifying the villages that need to be relocated as quickly as possible.

Two caveats need to kept in mind here: one, such relocation must be mindful

of people's needs; and two, if all villages cannot be relocated, we must

work towards reducing the obviously destructive hostility between people and

tigers by learning to practice better coexistence. Since pressure from

neighbouring (fringe) villages can often be great, so — even as we begin to

relocate the ones within — we must also repair the relationship with the

people outside.

 

The issue clearly now is to move the boundaries of 'debate' into action. Can

we identify habitations with maximum impacts on core tiger habitats? Most

importantly, how do we begin to do something we haven't done in the last 30

years — relocate many more families, with speed and sensitivity, in the next

few years? Can we finally ensure benefits of conservation to poor people,

who will then agree to coexist with the tiger?

 

Tough issues. Tough, because they have to be engaged with, and resolved. And

this is where I begin to feel bereft: instead of engaging with these

realities, the effort is still to keep the positions polarised in the

simplistic manner of a schoolboy debate: those 'for the tiger only' against

those who believe 'people and tigers will coexist'. I can understand that a

few conservationists need to keep positions entrenched as they derive

negative strength from it. They need the 'enemy camp' to constantly deride

and condemn. But I cannot understand why the rest of the community of tiger

lovers — and there is a large but silent group out there — prefers to keep

the dogma, not the debate, alive.

 

It is equally clear that poaching is a real and deadly threat to the tiger.

The question is what needs to be done to contain (and eliminate) this

criminal activity. Here, the answer lies in re-writing the Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1972, amendments and all. It is today so weak that even if

a poacher is caught, he cannot be convicted. We need to pressurise global

institutions to take cognisance of evidence that international trade in

tiger parts is alive and kicking — under their concerned noses. We need

domestic institutions to investigate, and stymie, poaching. We definitely

need strengthened efforts to protect the tiger by implementing carefully

designed protection strategies and by working not against, but with local

people.

 

Here again, the agenda for reform is in danger of being lost to emotion and

destructive intent: I speak of the renewed cry for guns and guards. The

'send-in-the-commandos' approach has been seriously tried and has seriously

failed. It is no surprise that Sariska had the highest number of guards per

square kilometre, Ranthambhore has armed police to guard its beleaguered

tigers and Panna tiger reserve (where it is feared tigers are threatened) is

one of the top spenders on conservation. Clearly, the answers will lie in

doing more, but differently.

 

Epitaph: If 2005 was the year of the disappearing tiger, it was because we

allowed the tiger to become less important than the personalities that

desire its survival. In 2006, this must change. Only then can the survival

of the tiger be secured.

 

*— Sunita Narain *