Customs, traditions and the conundrum of environment (wildlife) conservation in Manipur
- Part 1 -

Rajesh AM *

Sangai (Cervus eldi eldi Mclelland) - the endemic, rare and endangered Manipur Brow-antlered deer ( Photo taken in 2009)

Every time there is a debate on environment (wildlife) conservation, the issue of Human- environment (wildlife) conflict always barges into focus. There is a lackadaisical approach to environment (wildlife) conservation in some regions within Union of India owing to complex socio-economic and cultural issues. While the dilemma as to protect the rights of the indigenous people over environment (wildlife) conservation seems immortal, the dilemma of customs versus environment (wildlife) conservation vanishes as customs that are against environment (wildlife) conservation, currently, score over environment (wildlife) conservation. One cannot deny the fact that the customs and traditions are bedrock of a society and govern social, cultural, environmental and economic ties.

The pedigree of few, anti-environment (wildlife) conservation customs and traditions continue to affect the biodiversity. In some parts of northeastern India, central India, and Andaman and Nicobar islands, under the garb of customs and traditions, wildlife is hunted every year for food, trade, entertainment, traditional medicine etc. In many parts of the country, among many indigenous communities, wildlife and its products form an integral part of livelihood. In many communities hunting is a sign of masculinity.

One who does not hunt may be viewed with poor pixels and less zoom through the social lens. Adjoining international border has fuelled illegal trade in wildlife and its products. Various products of wildlife from across the country are smuggled into neighbouring countries despite efforts of state and union agencies to prevent it.

There are different views as regard to environment conservation. Eco-centric or bio-centric approach (Preservationist ethic) prescribes that environmental goods possess superior, ingrained value to nature irrespective of their usefulness to human beings. In a given society if an environmental good like hunted wildlife satisfies some use, may be in the form of food or unproved medicinal properties, must not be used as a tool to justify hunting. The proper rule must be to sacrifice human needs to protect wildlife or any other environmental good.

There is anthropocentric approach (a conservationist ethic) which prescribes that value of environmental goods depends on the value they have to Homo sapiens. Much of our experience points to the anthropocentric approach (a conservationist ethic) because of which environment (wildlife) conservation has been put on back foot. With globalization bio-centric approach has come into conflict with the age old customs among indigenous communities. There is globalization and commercialization and trade in wildlife and its products.

Consumption and medicine habits should not be an excuse for hunting of wildlife. China and other south East Asian countries are typical examples where globalization has aggravated such conflict between customs/traditions and environment values which in turn have affected wildlife in Asia. One must not be negligent to the fact that the wildlife, which is an important indicator of environmental health,   also provides important ecosystem services. 

To cite few, Wild boars, described as “Farmers of the Forests” play an important role in the productivity of the forest Ecosystems. Similarly Birds (including Migratory Birds) help humanity as pollinators, scavengers and have inspired many scientific inventions. There is also health risks associated with handling of wildlife meat. Few migratory birds may carry bird flu virus which can mutate to human infecting virus.

Handling of diseased animals and its products may lead to zoonotic diseases. One cannot deny the fact that both indigenous people and Conservationists strive for more diverse and healthy ecosystem. But on occasions both differ in their approach and the objects they strive to conserve. In this struggle neither is a bad group. But together can achieve much more compared to individual channel of efforts.

Most of the indigenous people confuse conservation as imperial ideas imposed on them as a tool to restrict them from accessing surrounding natural resources without respect for their customs, traditions and cultural values. But it is otherwise. With growing population and globalization the demand for wildlife and its products has increased and led to commercialization.

The focus of environment (wildlife) conservation is to prevent unsustainable commercialization. If there is dichotomy between conservation of cultural diversity and biological diversity it must be defeated. Conservation of both must be priority as each compliment and supplements each other’s efforts. When it comes to environment (wildlife) conservation, there must not be exceptions to enforcement of policies, Acts, rules and regulations.

The most obvious fact that government respects the sentiments of the indigenous people is that it has allowed the indigenous communities in many north east Indian states and in few islands of Andaman & Nicobar Islands Union Territory, to live in close proximity with the nature unlike in other parts of India where the concept of wildlife sanctuaries, National Parks and Tiger Reserves, the so called “The Yosemite model” of conservation, has kept many indigenous communities away from their original lands by relocating them outside the forests.

It is for us to decide this as a privilege or just as an inalienable right. Only few national and international organizations are working in the field of environment (wildlife) conservation in Manipur . Reasons, may be, there are not many flagship species like Tiger, Leopard, Elephant etc (courtesy- rampant hunting) in Manipur and complex socio-economic, cultural and security situation in Manipur and neighbouring states. In the past owing to improper habitat management, many of the migratory birds have already made their last visit to Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, in Rajasthan.

The tigers were poached from Sariska, in Rajasthan by professional poachers with the connivance of some villagers in and around the Tiger Reserve. The history would have repeated in Manipur had there been no intervention by the concerned stakeholders to protect Amur Falcon and Sangai. If this unsustainable hunting of wildlife persists, there comes a time when there will be no birds to migrate through our villages, no animals to sight (forget hunting) and only us trying to research the cause behind such ecological chaos.

The Sangai, pride of Manipur, was on the verge of extinction. Due to efforts of forest department of Manipur with support from union government and civil society organizations, its number is growing healthy. But the irony is that most of the stakeholders who take pride in it and those who derive commercial benefits just by using its name, hardly contribute to protect it.

Much of the focus in Manipur is on human rights (including cultural rights) and socio-economic development and it should be. But without the component of Environment (Wildlife) conservation the goal of sustainable development cannot be achieved. Environment (Wildlife) conservation is hardly an agenda in election manifesto of most political parties. Forget during intervening years.

It is high time political parties put environment (Wildlife) conservation as one of the top priority in a state whose conservation efforts are reflected in the recent publication of India State of Forest Report, 2015 by the FSI where Manipur is the only state in North East India where there is a gain in forest cover.

To be continued....