AAPN interview of M K Ranjitsinh makes it to reputed scientific publication

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

It is always a matter of great significance when material

posted on AAPN makes it to a wider international platform. We have seen it

happen before, eg., items on elephant polo making worldwide waves, Giant

Panda artificial insemination, Gadhimai Slaughter, etc.

 

Now there is one more. My interview of Dr M K Ranjitsinh, Chairman of the

Wildlife Trust of India and UNEP Global 500 Award winner that was posted on

AAPN last year has now been hosted by Nature India, an affiliate of Nature

Publishing Group, one of the world's most respected scientific publishers.

Apart from publishing the Nature journal and Scientific American, NPG is

also associated with MacMillan Publishers and operates with offices in

cities worldwide including Boston, Buenos Aires, Delhi, Hong Kong, Madrid,

Barcelona, Munich, Heidelberg, Basingstoke, Melbourne, Paris, San Francisco,

Seoul and Washington DC.

 

After the publication of Dr Ranjitsinh's interview in AAPN, it was noticed

by the editor of Nature India who expressed a desire to use it. The AAPN

interview has thus been republished in an edited version on the Nature India

website in their 'Latest News and Features' section. Here :

 

http://www.nature.com/nindia/index.html

 

It is a restricted website and you have to register to access

material.(Free). But transcript attached with an additional question on Dr

Ranjitsinh's views on the proposed amendments to the Wildlife Protection

Act. Dr Ranjitsinh reviewed the content and gave written permission for

making the information public, an example of how information can be utilised

for the benefit of all if there is a spirit of mutual cooperation and

understanding.

 

Nature India has also covered the latest book release of TRAFFIC India on

wildlife law enforcement.

 

Thank you AAPN. Thank you Dr Ranjitsinh. And thank you Nature India.

 

Best wishes and kind regards,

 

http://www.nature.com/nindia/2010/100217/full/nindia.2010.14.html

 

doi:10.1038/nindia.2010.14; Published online 17 February 2010

 

Interview

Conservation must reverse ecological holocaust

 

Wildlife Trust of India Chairman and conservation expert M. K. Ranjitsinh, a

scion of a former royal family of Gujarat, talks about exploitation of

animals by erstwhile royalty, the Wildlife (Preservation) Act of 1972, which

he helped draft, and the morality of animal conservation in poor countries.

Interview by Subhobroto Ghosh.

 

M K Ranjitsinh.

 

*Q. *Royal families have traditionally been accused of exploiting animals.

How do you defend your royal connections, especially when you relate it to

your work for wildlife conservation?

 

*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.

 

Nature Publishing Group (NPG) is a publisher of high impact scientific and

medical information in print and online. NPG publishes journals, online

databases, and services across the life, physical, chemical and applied

sciences and clinical medicine.

 

Focusing on the needs of scientists, Nature (founded in 1869) is the leading

weekly, international scientific journal. In addition, for this audience,

NPG publishes the Nature research journals and Nature Reviews journals, plus

a range of prestigious academic journals including society-owned

publications. Online, nature.com provides over 5 million visitors per month

with access to NPG publications and online databases and services, including

Nature News and NatureJobs plus access to Nature Network and Nature

Education's Scitable.com . For information on NPG publications, online

databases and services, visit the A-Z index or go to the catalog.

 

Scientific American is at the heart of NPG's newly-formed consumer media

division, meeting the needs of the general public. Founded in 1845, Scientific

American is the oldest continuously published magazine in the US and the

leading authoritative publication for science in the general media. Together

with scientificamerican.com and 16 local language editions around the world

it reaches over 3 million consumers and scientists. Other titles

include Scientific

American Mind and Spektrum der Wissenschaft in Germany. Scientific

Americanis available for site license access on the

nature.com platform.

 

Throughout all its businesses NPG is dedicated to serving the scientific and

medical communities and the wider scientifically interested general public.

Part of Macmillan Publishers Limited, NPG is a global company with principal

offices in London, New York and Tokyo, and offices in cities worldwide

including Boston, Buenos Aires, Delhi, Hong Kong, Madrid, Barcelona, Munich,

Heidelberg, Basingstoke, Melbourne, Paris, San Francisco, Seoul and

Washington DC. Read our history for a timeline of NPG and the scientific

events which have helped shape the direction of the business.

 

NPG is a subsidiary of Macmillan Publishers Ltd, a global publishing group

founded in the United Kingdom in 1843. Macmillan is itself owned by

German-based, family run company Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH.

About the editor

 

Subhra Priyadarshini joined Nature India after a decade-long stint with

mainstream Indian media. She took to writing science when in journalism

school. Though she chased deadlines to cover politics and sports, fashion

and films, crime and natural disasters as a journalist, she kept coming back

to her first love — science. Subhra has a bachelor’s degree in zoology. She

dabbled in law after majoring in Personnel Management and Industrial

Relations from Utkal University, Bhubaneswar, India. A post graduate from

the Indian Institute of Mass Communication, she also studied print

journalism at the University of Westminster, London. She was a correspondent

with major Indian dailies The Times of India, The Indian Express, The Asian

Age, The Telegraph, news agency Press Trust of India and Down To

Earthmagazine. Nature

India is her first online venture.

About the site

 

It is boom time for Indian science. The country’s scientific stock has grown

in leaps and bounds over the last decade — perhaps one of the few positive

spin-offs of its burgeoning population. Riding high on an enviable

scientific demography (India produces over 0.1 million science post

doctorates annually), she is making a mark worldwide as a knowledge

superpower. Today, India is one of the best outsourcing hubs for the

information and technology industry. The country has emerged a major global

production centre with hundreds of multinational companies in the

manufacturing and pharmaceutical sectors setting up research and development

centres here.

 

Reverse brain drain is a happy reality for India. Its best scientists are

returning home as institutes and laboratories get equipped with

state-of-the-art R & D facilities and the country’s science policy becomes

innovation-friendly. While India basks in this global attention, the Nature

Publishing Group (NPG) has launched Nature India in an attempt to capture

the region’s rapidly changing scientific and economic scenario as also

India’s urgent efforts to embrace globalization.

 

Nature India is a one-stop site for information on Indian science. The

website, serving the scientific community of the world’s largest democracy,

provides information on jobs, events, the best research and science news

from India. Through in-depth features and commentaries, leading members of

the scientific community, scientists and journalists reflect on contemporary

issues affecting Indian science. It also provides free access to some

handpicked premium content from various NPG journals.