WHEN ONE
considers the large number of NGO’s and individuals who are ostensibly
engaged in the wildlife conservation movement in India, it should be
both logical and safe for one to assume that either singularly or
collectively, they would surely be achieving major victories in their
ongoing battle against the combination of powerful commercial interests
like mining, timber extraction, tourism and transport etc, which seem
all too eager to rip through whatever little is still left of our
wilderness.
Unfortunately, most of the feedback coming from the field seems to
indicate that it is not so. With regular reports of destruction of
wildlife at the hands of poachers, and denudation of forests by
large-scale infrastructure development projects, it is increasingly
becoming clear that the most frustrating aspects which the proponents of
the conservation movement have to contend with, is the lack of any
worthwhile victories – victories that are not just temporary, but which
could withstand the passage of time, and still be tangible enough to be
savoured as success.
It is
probably a combination of two of the most clichéd reasons that is
responsible for this state of affairs. Firstly, our country continues to
have an uncontrolled population, which has bourgeoned out of all
proportions even near and around the Protected Areas (PA’s), thereby
bringing a huge pressure to bear upon the natural resources therein.
Secondly, lured by profit, commercial projects like mining, timber,
tourism and transport consistently make a beeline for these areas, and
are equally responsible for creating destructive inroads into PA’s.
The
conservation organisations try to battle it out with these government or
corporate bodies in courts of law. They sometimes do achieve euphoric
victories, like the ones achieved in Corbett national park where a
proposed highway through its southern periphery was halted, or the one
in Bihar, where local activists secured realignment of a proposed
railway line from Hazaribagh to Koderma so that it did not pass through
the Hazaribagh National Park. But it is another matter however, that
subsequent reversal of rulings, amendments in law, or simply
non-execution of judicial orders, takes the sheen away soon enough,
veritably turning these temporary victories into permanent defeats.
In order to
outline how ephemeral these conservation victories can prove to be with
the passage of time, it may be pertinent to recall that in 1999, the
Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI), a Delhi-based conservation
organisation had sought intervention in an ongoing legal case between
the state Irrigation and the Forest department, and had been able to
secure a favourable order from the Lucknow High Court on the basis of
the wildlife conservation issue raised in its intervention petition.
The judicial
conflict involved the non-return of about 802.3 hectares of land
belonging to the Corbett National Park (CNP) by the Irrigation
department, which it was under agreement to do, subsequent to the
completion of the Kalagarh dam on the Ramganga river within CNP.
Although the Irrigation Department completed work on the dam in 1971,
the land in excess of its requirement for maintenance and upkeep of the
dam was not transferred back to the forest department. Gradually this
chunk of land was reportedly colonised illegally by people who had
nothing to do with the Irrigation department. Based on research it had
conducted, the WPSI apprised the court that this bustling human colony
was responsible for blocking the principal migratory route of the
westernmost population of Asian elephants, between Corbett and Rajaji
national parks.
Taking
cognizance of this contention, the appropriate directives were issued by
the court so as to facilitate the removal of the colony and restoration
of this migration corridor to the wild elephants. But where human beings
are concerned, human rights can’t be far behind. Quick on the uptake,
the adversaries of these orders brought into play the argument that
ejecting the residents would be against their basic human rights, as
well as against natural justice. Since then, this has been the
convenient smokescreen that has prevented the authorities from executing
the court orders.
This is
definitely not to aver that human rights are less paramount in
comparison to those of wildlife, but one only wishes that those
espousing the cause of human rights should also be aware that there is
an equally vital need for wildlife conservation too. It is for them to
realise that wildlife itself looks towards humans to manage it, and
thereby is deserving of their sympathy in making concessions that
contribute to its survival in whatever few areas that still remain.
It is for the
amalgamation of this essential ingredient in our characters that the
knowledge of ecological principles, and the concepts of ecological
fragility, should be strictly made part of learning for our present and
future generations.