Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | Friday Review | Cinema Plus | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |

IN CONVERSATION

One would expect attitudes to become more liberal when a newer generation takes over. That does not seem to happen, by and large.

Photo: G. Ananthakrishnan

Cause of Conservation: Ullas Karanth has studied tigers in India for two decades.

Wildlife biologist, K. Ullas Karanth, heads the Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, and is a Senior Scientist with Wildlife Conservation Society, New York. He pioneered prey-predator research by radio-collaring tigers and the use of innovative methods such as camera-trapping for census purposes and also to mitigate human-animal conflicts. His book The Way of the Tiger has been translated into Indian languages. He is a Scientific Fellow of the Zoological Society of London. Excerpts from an interview:

First, while we ask why there is less wildlife, we also have to ask how there can be more. To deal with issues like human-wildlife conflict and competition for resources between wildlife and humans, you need a huge input of knowledge. Given the biodiversity and richness of wildlife in India, what we know is very little. Just imagine …25 per cent of world’s carnivore species are in India; we have, maybe, 50 practising field biologists, a pathetically low figure. Secondly, even though we now have good young biologists in this field, they find it difficult to work because of the administrative constraints imposed on them by the institutional structures and mind-sets.

I think the reasons are two-fold. First, the forest department is a law enforcement agency. Their primary aim is to protect their turf. It is a hierarchical system that does not tolerate any questioning. Such a mindset is not conducive to any intellectual enquiry.

Secondly, the need for wildlife studies and its application can be appreciated only if there is an understanding of wildlife ecology. Unfortunately we do not have a cadre of professionally trained people taking care of wildlife. When I say professionally, I have in mind the kind of training a doctor or an engineer receives. There are of course, certain individuals in the forest department who are pro-research and very helpful. The Chief Wildlife Warden of Maharashtra, Mr. Majumdar, recently permitted a student to radio-collar 20 Indian foxes, resulting in a fine study of this virtually unstudied species! Earlier generations of field-oriented stalwarts like late Mr. Deb Roy (former DG wildlife) and Mr. P.K. Sen (former Directors of Project Tiger) encouraged wildlife research. They gave permission to radio-collar tigers and for field studies. One would expect attitudes to become more liberal when a newer generation takes over. That does not seem to happen, by and large. On the whole it is a discouraging situation for wildlife research.

In the 1970s, wildlife NGOS and Government had a reasonably good synergistic relationship. Many good conservation laws were initiated at the instance of NGOs. But, in the last five to 10 years, the Ministry of Environment has taken systematic steps to dilute conservation laws. In some cases, the Supreme Court had to intervene. The establishment’s focus has shifted away from its core mission of conservation; it supports industrial interests and corporate forces and their entry into the forest. So genuine NGOs and the wildlife establishment have drifted apart.

There is a dichotomy here. Conservationists like Valmik Thapar, Chinnappa or Wildlife First have always stood up and fought for conservation. But a majority of our wildlife scientists do not speak out much. One reason is the traditional hesitancy of a scientist, an innate need to qualify everything with caveats and conditions. Unlike social scientists, wildlife biologists seem to worry too much about the consequences of alienating the government or someone powerful. The second reason, which is a real threat to academic freedom, is that many work in institutions that are heavily funded by the Government. They are assured of steady funding with little competition or peer review of their proposals or results. When their survival is linked so strongly with government funding, they are naturally hesitant to speak out.

The way out is that no institution should be guaranteed government funding. For funding, proposals should compete on merit through the process of peer reviewing. The Department of Science and Technology and Biotechnology routinely do this: why can’t the Ministry of Environment adopt a similar approach?

This is a problem, but it has no easy solutions. While poor people struggle for occupation and user rights, it’s difficult to expect them to fight to save the dangerous species that lives next to them. For any movement to be widespread, the regional cultures, the local language and the articulate middle-class have to play an important part. Conservation in India began more as a preoccupation of the more affluent sections, largely the English-speaking section. It has remained confined to that. This is beginning to change but not fast enough. The movement has to percolate to small towns like Chikmagalur and Tirunelveli or Seoni… It has to enter the typical Indian middle class household. But this has not happened. One reason is that there is no material in local language for young people. Regional language television, unfortunately, plays no role in conservation ...

Jim Corbett had predicted in the 1930s that the Indian tiger will be extinct by 1950. People have been making such doomsday prophesies since then. In the 1990s, they said it will be 2000; now they say by 2020 the tiger will be gone. I do not believe in such predictions because it involves two unpredictable factors: one is how technology and society change.

Second is how people respond to a given situation. It depends upon what we do now. Where people are doing the right things on the ground, tigers will survive and can even recover. But the number of such places will depend on what we do now and where. I know that there will be wild tiger populations in the next century also. But how many is the big question.

I am sure of one thing: such doomsday scenarios do not help the cause of the tiger.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail