Towards a just society where people and wildlife matter

A member of the statutory Karnataka Board for Wildlife is required to make public comments in a measured and carefully considered manner. This is because anything said in association with this official position could be, and should be, considered as though it were the voice of the official body itself. Viewed in this context, the article by the Board's member Sanjay Gubbi in Deccan Herald, 14 December 2011, entitled “In a just society, no justice for wildlife” falls way short of such expectations, and in fact promotes a deliberately skewed view of the idea of justice as promoted in law. This is not writing in naivete, but is part of a carefully constructed strategy to distort fact and create myth as the title of the article suggests.

Gubbi begins by making a claim: “Any move under the banner of wildlife conservation is today vehemently opposed, though not always from genuinely affected groups”. If this were taken at face value, and believed in, the presumption would be that anyone raising concerns over creation of protected or ecologically sensitive areas are implicitly opposed to the cause of protecting wildlife and their habitats. A charge that Gubbi buttresses by making another unqualified allegation: “Some politicians have even taken this as a subject to rabblerouse to gain political mileage”. He does not stop there, but follows it up with: “The forest department which is the sole authority to manage and implement law enforcement activities in Protected Areas (PAs) is already opposed in their day-to-day affairs”.

The finger pointing at “some” politicians interfering in general with all bureaucrats of the department, is probably an effort at feeding off current discontents that flippantly demonises politicians while valorising bureaucracy. This apart, it is gross misrepresentation of fact to claim that the forest department is the sole law enforcement agency in protected areas. There are others, such as Biodiversity Boards, who also have powers to carve out biodiversity rich areas as “heritage zones”, and thus protect them for posterity.

In addition, Gubbi promotes wildlife conservation as being engaged in by only a few: “Those seriously interested in conservation are also minority in voice and gain little mileage with people who could change things on ground. They are even looked as untouchables from the vast majority, even in the eyes of those who are in the vanguard of environmentalism.” Such reactions emerging out of a self imposed persecution complex speaks poorly of the belief the Board member has in democratic processes of negotiating contestations. Whats more, it is unfactual.

There are tens of instances across Karnataka where communities have challenged the dominant destructive pattern of development, with little or no support at all from groups exclusively focussed on wildlife protection. This is evident in the successful challenge against the siting of mega coal fired thermal power project in Chamalapura ensconced between the Bandipur and Nagarhole National Parks and the Wyanad Wildlife sanctuary, against illegal mining in Bellary, and in ongoing struggles to protect Karnataka's ecologically sensitive coastline of Karnataka from several illadvised investments promoting thermal power production, establishment of large refineries and industries, and unnecessary ports. Each of these activities will reduce the chances of survival of highly vulnerable wildlife (both terrestrial and aquatic) while also significantly eroding livelihood choices of natural resource dependent communities. The State Board for Wildlife is duty bound to support such just struggles, but is consistently shying away from taking position on such real issues.

The scheme presented by Gubbi to protect ecologically sensitive areas is based on a provision in the Environment Protection Act that allows the Centre to declare such zones. But he has done so in a skewed manner, making references to rights of forest dwelling communities rather pejoratively: “However (sic) rumours have been floated that livelihood practices of communities living on the edge of PAs would be literally halted...” This when he is aware, or ought to be, of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 enacted to set right historical injustices caused to tribals and other traditional forest dwelling communities and settling of their due rights to land and livelihood. The Parliament of India passed this law after substantial debate and also based on several public consultations it organised through a Joint Parliamentary Committee. When passing the law, the august body was well aware of the existence of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act and to ensure they were harmoniously implemented, brought the Forest Rights Act under the joint supervision of Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. As reports reveal, Karnataka state is one with a poor record compliance with the mandatory provisions of this Act.

All things considered, it is imprudent for a representative of the Karnataka State Wildlife Board to misrepresent the Constitutional scheme of things based on sweeping accusatory statements. Such opinion makers must realise that biodiversity conservation and sustenance of livelihoods are not mutually exclusive.