Exactly 20 years ago, forest rangers in Chitwan National Park in Nepal nabbed a farmer, Shikharam Chaudhary, who they believed helped his son bury, in his own backyard, a stolen rhino horn. The rangers interrogated him and waterboarded him in prison.
Days later, Chaudhary died. No horn was found. But the large and wealthy global conservation organisation World Wildlife Fund (WWF) curiously campaigned for the charges filed against the rangers to be dropped, and won. The story came to light in an investigation by BuzzFeed News in 2019.
But two decades after this murder, the colonial legacy in the world of conservation, of privileging individual wildlife over human well-being, endures in the Global South. One article in the latest edition of Nature suggests the marginalisation and “othering” –the treatment of people as ‘different’, or creating an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ narrative – continues to affect indigenous people when conservation projects are concerned.
The discourse on racism in conservation was renewed by the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. The authors of the paper, many of whom are Indian scientists, instead propose a framework for more “inclusive” conservation that supports the human rights of black, indigenous and people of colour (BIPOC) communities, and nature, by countering exclusion.
A great othering
The history of conservation has always been steeped in marginalisation, injustice and racism, said the paper: “‘Othering’ in conservation has primarily occurred against BIPOC communities, and is exacerbated in the global south, where governance systems and the rule of law and protection of both individual and collective rights are often weaker.”
The main players in this form of discrimination are the wealthy elite, multi-national corporations, and the inheritance of the colonial penchant for a ‘pristine’ wilderness devoid of people.
Colonial rulers routinely forced indigenous peoples and communities out of protected areas. However, the paper said, although conservation “has evolved substantially to be more inclusive,” the racist European colonial past has created a roadmap for continued marginalisation.
The scientists elaborate that the modern conservation movement began during the European colonial era in 1800s, when indigenous people were portrayed as ‘uncivilised’ and racially inferior. They rationalised the latter’s extermination and the appropriation of their territories especially in India and in African colonies. Today, “conservation campaigns and initiatives, particularly through campaigns aimed at the Western public, often value wild animals over BIPOC people,” the paper added.
Games in India
In India, the British colonial administration created exploitative public works projects such as perennial irrigation and railways. But they also instituted mechanisms to displace local communities (for forestry, plantations, development and conservation) and created game reserves where the elite could hunt wildlife for sport.
The authors use the recent example of the tiger Avni, killed in 2018, to illustrate urban-rural divisions in conservation. There was intense public outrage. “Notably, little mention was made of the number, names or ages of the children left parentless following Avni’s killing of at least 13 rural villagers,” the authors added. Mumbai’s animal lovers demanded ‘justice’ for the tigress and her cubs, chanting “Avni’s kids, nation’s kids”.
“Along with that, when these animals, elephants, wild pigs, crocodiles, have left forest areas or sanctuaries to raid crops or kill people, either little has been done or compensation has been limited,” the paper’s co-author Kartik Shanker, a professor at the Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, told The Hindu.
Wildlife conservation in India is still dominated by the urban elite, by certain castes, with their privileged and often Western views of what conservation is, he added. This brings with it a combination of outdated notions of “pristine nature” and neoliberal views of monetising conservation, e.g. ecotourism for the rich, as well as animal-rights-centric opposition to traditional forms of use that can benefit local communities.
In a 2014 report in The Hindu, this reporter found that between 2001 and 2011, 192 cases were registered against tribal communities living in and around Nagarahole National Park, violating the Forest Rights Act. The tribal people’s “offenses” were “trespassing forest land” in which they had lived for generations, collecting honey and cultivating ginger in the forest.
Gadgil’s paradigm shift
The new work argues for greater rights, agency, and education among communities. As the late peoples’ conservationist and scholar Madhav Gadgil put it in his autobiography, “Talk of many things, not just air and water and the bird that sings, but of men and money and economic reforms…”
There have been many movements to make conservation more people-centric in India. Ashish Kothari’s Kalpavriksh, Madhav Gadgil’s work on People’s Biodiversity Registers, and Keystone’s work in the Nilgiris are some.
Most of the progress has been at the level of “ideas”, another co-author, Tarsh Thekaekara, trustee of The Shola Trust, told The Hindu: “The concept of coexistence has become mainstream, even in India. Forest departments everywhere now use the language of coexistence, and there’s a broad recognition that the old fortress conservation model is no longer viable.”
But the prevailing notion of “a pristine wilderness without human occupation” casts local people “as enemies, rather than custodians of nature.” Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs), on the contrary can be “very effective stewards of nature.” “Dehumanisation” is not limited to extreme events but is a “common everyday occurrence,” present in many societies even today, the paper continued.
In Nagarhole, there are ongoing protests by the Jenu Kurubas. The Van Gujjars in the Himalayas continue to be dispossessed of their livelihoods and ways of life, Dr. Thekaekara said. “Almost everywhere you look, there are stories of dispossession.”
The Nilgiris is a particularly stark example, he added: “Barely 200 years ago, this landscape was completely managed by indigenous communities who today have almost no voice at all. They are marginalised on virtually every count.”
The historical legacy of conservation “cannot be easily undone,” said the paper. Instead it proposes a four-step framework to address the disparity: engaging and supporting human rights, advocating for and making space for the agency of IPLCs, challenging the accepted norms of how we engage with people from BIPOC communities, and seeking out new educational opportunities for and from BIPOC communities.
