By Vidushi Mehrotra
Caught in the crossfire of human-animal conflict, both the progress of villagers and the welfare of animals living inside the wildlife sanctuary is at stake
Animals have a primal instinct which makes them fiercely possessive about their territorial domain. Any infringement or intrusion by people in the wilds results in a tug-of-war for space and dangerous incidents of recurring conflict between humans and animals. Broadly speaking, the right of ‘ownership’ or living in the forests / jungles first belongs to the animals that live in it. The only exception of course are those places inhabited by tribals. However, creation of parks / reserves near or within villages by the government, for the sake of wildlife conservation, jungle safaris or ecotourism have caused severe imbalances and problems on both sides.
As one of India’s largest and most popular wildlife sanctuaries, Ranthambore Tiger Reserve in the north-western state of Rajasthan stands as a befitting example of how everything has gone so terribly wrong on account of this humans-animals conflict.
The reserve lies in the south-eastern part of Rajasthan in Sawai Madhopur district, nestling amid the Aravali and Vindhya hill ranges.
Just 130 kms away from the capital city of Jaipur, this tiger reserve is one of the most visited in the entire nation, and it contributes a good amount of money to the local economy.
The ruins of havelis and mosques that dot the landscape and the 10 th century Ranthambore fort that sits atop a hill give the park a curious blend of nature, history, wildlife and adventure.
The tiger distribution in the Ranthambhore Wildlife sanctuary – with an area of 1334 square kilometres – varies from one area to another and is an excellent example of Project Tiger’s efforts for conservation within the country. Side by side, farmers, pastoralists and daily labourers that live around the Tiger Reserve depend upon the natural resources of the reserve.
However, the reserve has had its negative impact too. The presence of protected space in the middle of the human population affects the lives of the villages in various ways. People and livestock living in adjoining settlements are constantly exposed to the ever-present dangers of predatory attacks by wild animals, a threat to livestock life, etc, and crops are always at risk of raids by wild ungulates.
Additionally, no major trade is allowed to develop within the space. Restriction on entry into reserves for grazing and other purposes has resulted in a loss of earnings for the local people. These factors probably result in the deterioration of the national reserve, neither fulfilling the forest requirements nor resolving the problems of the locals.
The presence of protected space in the middle of human population affects the lives of the villages in various ways. People and livestock living in adjoining settlements are constantly exposed to the ever-present dangers of predatory attacks by wild animals
More importantly, development is at a standstill because construction of roads, dams, electricity is not allowed within the reserve area. There is a general feeling among locals here that the outside developed world holds a negative view of the reserve. This particularly applies to the Zone of Influence (ZI) an area 10 kms in radius around of the reserve. The ZI is a technical term used among developers, architects, and environmentalists. It refers to areas likely to be affected by factors like engineering or building development.
So what steps is the government taking to sort things out? Arguably the most viable option before the authorities is relocation of the villagers to new settlements with its improved quality of life, especially in terms of education of children, better livelihood and earning opportunities and access to hospitals and other facilities.
At some places the relocation exercise has met with good results. In the Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary in the Western Ghats, 11 out of the 13 villages inside the santuary were moved to alternative locations with good results in 2002. Similarly in the Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala, the local residents petitioned the government to be relocated. Subsequently in 2013 around 346 families from 10 settlements have been relocated.
However, relocation doesn’t appeal to everyone. Studies by social scientists show that relocation leads to greater economic pressures and insecurity, loss of agricultural productivity and cultural alienation. But no matter how you look at this problem, one thing is clear that animals must be given precedence in matters of territorial rights for the simple reason that animals cannot be relocated. Where will they go? Wild animals have been living in forests since the beginning of time.
Studies show that tigers as well as other wild animals require immensely large territorial areas absolutely free of human presence for breeding and long term survival.
What happened in the Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, is a testimony to this fact. Tigers had completely disappeared from here following rampant poaching because of the close proximity between humans and animals. It was only after the intervention, by the Tiger Task Force in 2015 and relocation of villagers living inside the sanctuary that the problem could be resolved. And now Sariska breathes new life with the roar of relocated tigers.
According to statistics given out by the National Wildlife Database (NWD), national parks, reserves and wildlife sanctuaries, collectively termed as Protected Areas (PA) are densely populated with approximately 4.3 million people. Only 2 per cent have been successfully relocated. The total area of PAs is around 1,71, 921 square kilometres or 5.03 per cent of India’s land area.
A Project Tiger census figure of 2014 shows that the number of tigers in Ranthambore stands at 62.
Perhaps in conclusion, we ought to dwell on what George Bernard Shaw says: “When a man wants to murder a tiger he calls it sport; when a tiger wants to murder him he calls it ferocity”