Colonialism and Wildlife [1 ed.] 1032513829, 9781032513829

Citation preview

Colonialism and Wildlife

This book delves into the history of the commercialisation of wildlife in India. It examines the colonial strategies that were employed in the commodifcation of wildlife resources specifcally for lucrative domestic and international trade during the early nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century. It looks at how and why the colonial administration paid special emphasis on hunting and game sports which largely contributed to commodity capitalism in the form of taxidermy and wildlife exports. The author also critically analyses the wildlife laws and regulations promulgated by the colonial administration, such as the elephant protection act, birds and fsheries act and forest acts and studies how they have systematically brought wildlife under state control with a commercial motive. An important contribution to the environmental history of India, this book is an essential interdisciplinary resource for scholars and researchers of history, colonialism, wildlife studies, economic history, ecological studies, environmental history, Indian history, South Asian studies and development studies. Velayutham Saravanan is Professor, Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia (Central University), New Delhi, India. Earlier, he had a short stint at Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), New Delhi, as Director of the School of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Studies (SOITS). He was also associated with the Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS), Hyderabad, and Giri Institute of Development Studies (GIDS), Lucknow. He is the author of Colonialism, Environment and Tribals in South India, 1792-1947 (2017); Environmental History and Tribals in Modern India (2018); Water and Environmental History of Modern India (2020); Environmental History of Modern India: Land, Population, Technology and Development (2022); Political Economy of Development and Environment in Modern India (2023) and Political Economy of Modern South India (forthcoming). He was also the editor of History and Sociology of South Asia and had published several articles and presented papers at both national and international academic fora.

Colonialism and Wildlife

An Environmental History of Modern India

Velayutham Saravanan

First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Velayutham Saravanan The right of Velayutham Saravanan to be identifed as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifcation and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-032-51382-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-54771-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-42745-2 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003427452 Typeset in Sabon by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

Contents

List of Tables Preface Acknowledgements Acronyms

vi viii x xiv

1

Introduction

1

2

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

56

3

Confict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

77

4

Law for Wildlife Protection or Game

108

5

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

120

6

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

153

7

Conclusion

194

Bibliography Index

197 205

Tables

2.1 2.2 2.3

Trends of Population in India, 1871–1941 Area under Plantations in Different Provinces, 1877–1878 The Area of the Demarcated Reserves in Different Provinces as of March 31, 1877 2.4 Trends of Geographical Area in India: 1880–1947 (in Acres) 3.1 Number of Persons Killed by Wild Beasts, 1875–1927 3.2 Number of Persons Killed by Different Wild Beasts, 1875–1912 (37 Years) 3.3 Persons Killed by Wild Animals in Madras Presidency, 1879–1883 3.4 Number of Persons Killed by Wild Animals in Different Parts of the Indian Subcontinent, 1875–1912 3.5 Number of Cattle Killed by Wild Animals, 1876–1913 (38 years) 3.6 Number of Cattle Killed by Different Wild Animals, 1875–1912 3.7 Number of Cattle Killed by Wildlife in Different Parts of Indian Subcontinent, 1876–1912 3.8 Number of Wild Animals Destroyed, Amount Rewarded and Gun Permitted, 1875–1926 3.9 Wild Animals killed and Brought for Reward in Madras Presidency, 1879–1883 3.10 Number of Tigers Shot by Licence-holders in GovernmentControlled Forests in the British Provinces and the Indian States in India during the Years 1937–1938 5.1 Quantity of Elephant Teeth Imported from the Territory of East India Company to the United Kingdom, 1828–1838 5.2 Value of Ivory Manufactured in the Husur Cutcherry (1880– 1881/1888–1889) and School of Arts (1889–1890/1898–1899) 5.3 Number of Tusks, Weights, Exported and Average Price in Travancore, 1890–1891 to 1899–1900 5.4 Quantity of Export of Cattle and Wildlife Products Exported from British India

61 64 64 73 82 84 88 90 94 96 98 102 103 104 125 127 128 141

Tables

5.5 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Export Value of Cattle and Wildlife Related Products from India, 1849–1895 No. of Licenses Issued Season and Monthly, 1912–1913/ 1946–1947 Number of Big Game Killed by the Nilgiris Game Association, 1912–1913/1946–1947 Number of Small Game Killed by the Nilgiris Game Association, 1939–1940/1946–1947 Amount Paid for the Destruction of Vermin, 1912–1913/ 1937–1938

vii

144 174 175 177 178

Preface

Since antiquity, both humans and wildlife are interdependent on each other for their survival and sustenance. But, ironically enough, despite the coexistence, the confict between man and animals of the wild is also as old as human civilisation. For, in the survival for existence, confict becomes but inevitable. Since the early stages of human civilisation, hunting wildlife for livelihood and the wild beasts preying on others was the normal order. In the early phases of human history, space was not demarcated either for human beings or for the wildlife. Both were nomadic in nature, constantly engaged in hunting expeditions for survival. Once human settlements started mushrooming, cultivation of crops, domestication of certain animals for farming, lifting of water, transportation, etc. made advancements in further explorations for settled life. As a consequence of the emergence of permanent settlements, conficts became a common phenomenon among humans and the wild animals. While human settlements got fortifed in certain areas for secure residence and to carry out cultivation, the rest was for the free movement of wildlife. Even now, one can see from the tribal belts how human settlements are fortifed and protected from wild animals through several means. However, even after the advent of settled agriculture, hunting continued to be an integral part of human/societal activity. For, it had a twin purpose: one was necessitated by the need to guard settled life and extend protection to the domesticated animals and crops; the other was to serve livelihood during the off season. Following growth in population, more and more areas were brought under settlement, cultivation and development of other infrastructure facilities resulting in the shrinking of the space for wildlife, ringing alarm signals since the early nineteenth century across the Indian subcontinent. That trend had continued till the mid-twentieth century across the globe. To put it in perspective, India’s population which was about 12–15 crore at the beginning of the nineteenth century had gone up to 22 crores at the start of the twentieth century and further to 36 crores by the mid-twentieth century. We should not lose sight of the fact that the subcontinent then under the British

Preface

ix

comprised present-day Burma, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The same period also witnessed expansion of agriculture with an increase in the area under cultivation. Another development marking this period was commodifcation and commercialisation of wildlife as well as forests. For example, elephant tusks were one of the most favoured exports to other countries even prior to the nineteenth century. Even earlier, from the early sixteenth century, the rulers of India, particularly the Mughals, were very fond of hunting. Indeed, the Hindu rulers too had hunted down a large number of wildlife and, in fact, hunting was an integral part of royal lifestyle and a passionate pastime, irrespective of Hindu or Muslim lineage or even with the Prince of Wales. Consequently, wildlife started to show a decline since the Mughal period, i.e., from the early sixteenth to the mid-eighteenth century. Further, since the early nineteenth century, hunting was encouraged by the colonial administration which granted exemptions for gaming and hunting from whatever regulations and statutes were promulgated in different parts of the country. In addition, bounty was given as incentives to hunt the wild animals which became a property of the state and then converted into a commodity and commercialised much more in a systematic manner during the colonial period (1800–1947). The hunted animals landed at the taxidermist and turned into exotic trophies sold to a global clientele besides being showcased as a gorgeous memento at the houses/bungalows of the elite, rich, royals of India. Van Ingen, a taxidermy factory in Mysore and Ooty, had a roaring business from the late nineteenth century to the end of the twentieth century. Commercialisation of wildlife was integral to the colonial project and hence any mechanism proposed for forest and wildlife protection had an exemption for game sports. This book, while attempting to capture the confict between humans and wildlife, discusses how the colonial project destroyed a wide range of wild animals and converted them into a commodity for a thriving commercial enterprise.

Acknowledgements

It is customary to write an acknowledgement for a manuscript to thank a large number of people, who helped either directly or indirectly to complete the task. However, here, it became an extremely tough task to write an acknowledgement when you are not engaged nor interacted with the any of the scholars, friends and others while writing the manuscript. Since early December 2019, Jamia Millia Islamia was under protest against Central Government enactments and the university was shut down for about two months. As a Director of the Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, I felt that what is the point in holding the position when there is little happening? Hence, I requested the administration to relieve me from the responsibilities. So that I need not go to the university on a regular basis. I have to point out that I took over charge as Director of the Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, on November 14, 2015, and I have never availed either winter or summer vacation or even casual leave over more than four years, until January 28, 2020. Thankfully, Jamia Millia Islamia administration gracefully relieved me from the position of Director of the Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies and also from the editorial responsibilities of the History and Sociology of South Asia, an in-house journal of the Centre published by SAGE Publications. Once relieved from the directorship and also editor’s responsibilities, I started exploring a new area of research interest and began to work on certain aspects of the wildlife that was found to be not yet explored from the environmental history point of view, particularly for the colonial period. I must recollect that for the last seven months, I had locked down myself and kept working on this manuscript that has emerged in the present book form. As a father of the three kids, I taught them the importance of the lockdown and educate them to follow certain best behaviour practices to keep the coronavirus at bay. I must say, my kids are so young but sincerely followed the directions and consequently I could complete the manuscript. Not only could I complete the manuscript but also made them aware how to survive during the outbreak of a pandemic that affected the whole world. More than sixty-eight lakh lives were lost across the world, predominantly in the developed countries, which is unprecedented in human history and hence the

Acknowledgements

xi

standard of developed countries paradigm has to be revisited. When you are not able to protect human lives, then the inevitable question arises, whether the nation is developed or not! One’s claim serves no purpose! Covid-19 has laid bare the fact that the working class has always been exploited by the capitalist class across the globe, invariably, both in developed and developing countries. The working class not only lost their lives but were also treated badly or rather worse than animals. The myth of development stands as an illusion in contrast to the parameters of development when a large number of lives were lost in the pandemic in the developed countries. Covid-19 has exposed the exploitative nature of the states of the world nations irrespective of their developed or developing country status. In other words, the fatalities that have occurred due to the spread of coronavirus have mainly affected the working class than the others. For instance, in the US more blacks were affected than white people. Even in India, a large number of people were infected in the slums in most of the urban areas than in other, better-off human settlements. In other words, the poor and weaker sections continue remaining the victims of such situations like they were during the epidemics that happened during the nineteenth century and early twenty-frst century. As far as the Covid-19 pandemic tenure is concerned, the workers were not even treated like animals but even far worse than animals. They were deprived of their regular work. As a result, their earnings fell short even to continue with the life of hand-to-mouth existence, and hence how long they could survive in the lockdown was a serious question. Continuing with such a dismal survival appeared bleak for them. It may be one week, if not one month and say two months, then what they will do? The apprehension was that the workers are responsible for the spread of the coronavirus and hence they were not allowed to work in domestic households or gated communities in the unorganised sectors that constitute more than 90 per cent who were compelled to move out in large numbers from the cities. A number of unorganised or informal workers are living in the slums or not–so-health-conducive environment in developing countries. Obviously, they were the major victims of the coronavirus. So, in the Indian context, mass spread of Covid-19 is not because of anything but because of development of more slums than that of the properly upkept residential areas adding upon to poverty and inequalities. Not only that, with the cities, being developed everywhere, the slums too got developed much faster than that of the planned residential areas. I wish to recollect the experiences during the epidemic situations, similar to Covid-19, by Henry Bevan in 1838, that too in my own hometown Salem district, in the erstwhile Madras Presidency, in present-day Tamil Nadu. According to him: I had proceeded only one stage from Salem, when one of my children was seized with cholera, and died in a few hours. Before the preparations for carrying the body back to Salem were completed, the other two children

xii

Acknowledgements

were attacked; they were brought to Salem for medical advice, but they were beyond the reach of human aid. The mother was next seized, and she too fell the victim of the destroyer. Sunday dawned on as happy a husband and father as India contained. The sun of the following Tuesday set on a widower, bereft in the short interval, of a beloved wife and three amiable children, having nothing left but a baby of two months old. I cannot dwell upon the harrowing scene. In the grave-yard of Salem, ‘my pretty ones’, snatched off ‘at one fell swoop’, repose side by side, and the following lines, the tribute of a friend, are inscribed on their honoured tomb:— Pause, friendly traveller, drop a kindly tear, Four lovely fowers lie serenely here; A cherished wife, in bloom of beauty blest, With three sweet babes encircled, sleeps in rest. The scourge of India seized upon them all, A few short hours saw their funeral pall. Husband and father, friends bewail their fate, while they like cherubs, enter Mercy’s gate. Near this sad spot the desolation came, A grieving parent fies from Salem’s name. I have little more to relate, ambition was dead within me, I had no longer any objects for which I need continue the struggle of active life, and I made preparations to retire from the service. Kind friends hoped to alleviate my anguish by change of scene; I spent a month with Capt. H., at Ossoore, and about the same time with Major S., at Mysore. These worthy men, and excellent friends, did all that men could do to alleviate my sorrows, but the wound had struck too deep, and my only anxiety was to remove my surviving darling from a land that had proved so fatal to her mother and sisters. On the 1st of February 1838, I took my fnal leave of India, but while life remains, I shall feel a sincere interest in its fortunes, and a deep anxiety for the welfare of all classes of its inhabitants.1 This happened almost 18 decades back, but the question arises, are we better off now? Covid-19 exposed that the set standards of developed or developing countries are not that wide and are rather fimsy when they are not able to protect the human lives. One cannot claim that one is developed if one is not able to save the lives of their own people. The blatant claim of development stands to challenge openly for an answer! The coronavirus has exposed the exploitative nature of the developed or underdeveloped world nations invariably across the world. The state, in any form such as capitalism, socialism, or any other form of ideology, is meaningless when it is not able to protect human lives. As I indicated at the beginning, this manuscript emerged not has a result of the interactions with the scholars, academics or even friends but solely on my own conditioned existence of being locked down during the pandemic situation. Hence, writing the formal acknowledgements has become very diffcult to me. Consequently, my acknowledgements remain confned to Covid-19 victims and only to my family members such as my wife Ajitha Saravanan,

Acknowledgements

xiii

my daughter Soumya Saravanan and sons Gautham Saravanan and Manish Saravanan. I must say, their immense support during the pandemic situation and equally my dedication to explore the issues related to environmental history have resulted in the present book. Saravanan Note 1 Henry Bevan, Thirty Years in India: Or, A Soldier’s Reminiscences of Native and European Life in the Presidencies, from 1808 to 1838, Vol. II, London: Pelham Richardson, 1839, pp. 356–357.

Acronyms

CPR Cwt IOPN IPC IUPN Lb Mound

Common property resources It is a unit of measurement for weight used in certain commodities trading contracts. It is equal to 112 pounds in England. International Ofce for the Protection of Nature Indian Penal Code International Union for the Protection of Nature Pound Equal to 82.2857 lb

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Environmental History Debate Environmental history as a subject has emerged as a discipline only during the last quarter of the twentieth century, focusing mainly on forestry and its infuence on the tribals and other forest-dwelling communities.1 Again, the subject extends its debate beginning around the second half of the nineteenth century, particularly after the enactment of the Indian Forest Act 1878 and its consequences on the forest-dwelling communities.2 Broadly, there are two kinds of arguments, i.e., one is arguing for the conservation of the forest resources and the other is largely centred around the impact on livelihood of the forest-dwelling communities. The former argues that the destruction of the forest resources was not colonial project alone and that it was in practice even since the pre-colonial period. The latter argues that colonialism restricted the livelihood of the tribals and other forest-dwelling communities, particularly from the last quarter of the nineteenth century or precisely after the enactment of the Indian Forest Act of 1878.3 In other words, the former is not concerned about the late nineteenth century and the later one is not concerned about the pre-colonial and early colonial period or at least until the last quarter of the nineteenth century.4 In other words, the former is largely confned to the early phase of the colonial period or until early nineteenth century and the latter largely focused on the last quarter of the nineteenth century onwards. Unfortunately, these debates have not engaged the commercialisation aspect since the late nineteenth century except a few exceptions. Only a few scholars have addressed the colonial strategy in exploiting the forest resources even after the conservation initiatives, i.e., after the enactment of the Indian Forest Act 1878.5 At the same time, such initiatives imposed restrictions on the tribals and forest-dwelling communities to access the forest resources. In other words, the restrictions were imposed on the tribals and other forest-dwelling communities and systematically exploited the forest resources.6 Precisely, the colonial strategy was a predesigned one to exclude the locals/natives to have access to the resources and continue to extract for their commercial interests. In other words, frst exclude the locals

DOI: 10.4324/9781003427452-1

2

Introduction

to access the resources and then exploit the resources and export those for the commercial purposes, which was the simple strategy of colonial rule not only in India but across the colonies of the world. Prakash argues that ‘a colonial state is essentially an exploitative state, which only looks the shortterm interest of the metropolis and its protagonists and generally overlooks the interest of the subjugated region, its people and environment.’7 1.2 Wildlife History Debate Though India’s environmental history mainly focuses on forestry, the other components such as wildlife, water, etc. were also been fgured though only to a limited extent. Of course, the issues pertaining to wildlife and problems have gained momentum in the environmental history literature not only from the Indian subcontinent but also across the world during the same period. One of the pioneering works to be noted is John Mackenzie’s on the different continents at the global level more than three decades back and another important work is by Mahesh Rangarajan, almost two decades back, as far as the issues of the Indian subcontinent are concerned.8 Mahesh Rangarajan has recounted the wildlife history and its related issues for the last 20 centuries, i.e., from the ancient era to the end of the twentieth century.9 Of course, his comprehension is also largely confned to the north, east and west and almost completely neglected the southern peninsula of the Indian subcontinent or beyond the Vindhya–Satpura region. In other words, his derivations and observations were largely centred around north India and his observation hardly reached the peripherals of the southern peninsula while recounting the comprehensive environmental history of the Indian subcontinent, except for a sporadic observation. According to Chakrabarti, ‘The signifcance of hunting in the imperialism of the 19th and 20th centuries remains the least explored area in history.’10 In addition to the macro-picture of the wildlife history, several other scholars have studied the wildlife but were largely confned to any one of the specifc wildlife, region or time period. In other words, the wildlife literature for the pre-colonial and colonial period by and large remains confned to how many wild lives were killed in different regions and in different time periods of the Indian subcontinent. Interestingly, again, within the wildlife literature of the Indian subcontinent, the scope is largely confned to the post-independence period rather than beginning from the colonial period. Interestingly, some studies have focused on specifc regions, particularly for the princely states, and others on a specifc wild animal like elephant or tiger. For example, hunting in the princely states was also analysed in a detailed manner by Hughes, who examines the history of hunting in the Rajputana princely states of north-western India, and she argues that the princely hunting was a natural outcome of sociopolitical and cultural legacy of the region.11 Other studies have focused mainly on a particular animal

Introduction

3

like elephant, tiger, etc. For example, Trautmann analyses the relationship between elephant and kings in different parts of the world, such as Africa, Europe and South Asia, from the early period.12 Vijaya Ramadas Mandala analyses the colonial policy on tiger-hunting and conservation initiatives being practised in India during the colonial period.13 It is an amazing observation that was brought out during the last quarter of the nineteenth century by Brown, regarding the importance of contribution of the artist in wildlife history. J.M. Brown (1887) indicates that ‘it will, I believe, be more due to the clever pencils of the artists than to the unskilled pen of the author, who is but a novice in the felds of literature, and whose hand has been more accustomed to the use of rife, spear, and gun than of the pen.’14 The wildlife literature in India can be broadly classifed into three categories during the pre-colonial and colonial period, viz., hunting the wildlife in general, issues related to man-eating tigers and conservation of wildlife. The frst category belonged to the pre-colonial and colonial period, which describes the hunting practice from the Hindu rulers to the Mughal era and also for the colonial period. This era showed how those rulers hunted animals and their stipulative strategies and due interests involved, and how the hunting was a part of the state formations, etc. The second category belonged to hunting and man-eating tigers of the colonial period until the early twentieth century. This period depicts how the Britishers emerged as one of the greatest hunter communities across the world, although hunting communities were found in every country and region; they have portrayed themselves as protectors of humans from the wildlife though in reality it was done in association of their recreation, expansion strategy and commercialisation of the wildlife resources. The third category belonged to the hunting, conservation and denouncing the traditional hunters for the game and sports. In other words, the wildlife resources were hunted and commercialised for the British interests until the early twentieth century; following this, conservation was promulgated not only to preserve the wildlife but also to sustain the gaming interest. Precisely, the colonial strategy was to extract the resources for the British commercial interest and once the resources started depleting at an alarming rate, they portrayed themselves as the saviours of the natural resources. Since the late eighteenth century, hunting was an integral part of the British administration in India and continued till the end of the nineteenth century, during which the wildlife resources were extracted and exploited to the fullest and thereafter the Britishers themselves started raising hue and cry over the protection and conservation measures to be initiated. Chakrabarti rightly pointed out that ‘The Britishers were the real “poachers” but they used the game law to brand the indigenous shikaris as “poachers.”’15 In other words, the colonial strategy was frst and foremost to extract and exploit as much as possible and then to promulgate the importance of protection of the natural resources and wildlife like tiger.

4

Introduction

Thaddeus McBride claims that: African elephants have no natural enemies other than man. It is humans alone, therefore, who will decide the fate of these remarkable creatures. Unfortunately, in recent years though, we have not done an effective job of protecting elephants from ourselves. As a result, elephant population has declined, a drop mainly attributable to poaching.16 Until the last quarter of the twentieth century, there were no initiatives for protection at the global level. For instance, the United Nations adopted the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora in July 1975.17 The CITES Convention’s preamble declares that ‘peoples and states are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and fora.’18 McBride further raised the issue of ‘how to establish an environment in which elephants, agriculture and human beings can co-exist peacefully.’19 McBride claims that ‘The re-introduction of the ivory trade is a positive step forward in the attempt to create an environment in which elephants and humans can co-exist peacefully.’20 Unfortunately, many liberals have acted irresponsibly in the elephant ivory debate. This is a dangerous precedent to set. As global development continues, it becomes more likely that conficts about sovereignty over the world’s fnite resources will escalate. The CITES debate portends increasingly imperialistic measures whenever the developing world deviates from Western recommendations.21 Mandala’s arguments are largely confned to the last quarter of the nineteenth century and fawed on the several following grounds. For instance, Mandala argued that ‘The British adopted the dual role of hunters and conservers in colonial India. Protection and decimation of forests and wildlife simultaneously shaped ecological landscapes on the margins of arable lands, impacting local environments throughout the Indian sub-continent.’22 He further claims that ‘hunting and conservation within a single paradigm, demonstrating their joint signifcance for colonial governance, trade, and economy apart from serving the symbolic purpose of displaying imperial power.’23 He further argues that ‘Hunting and conservation went hand-inhand as an essential part of the British colonial economy in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in India.’24 The fact of the matter is that hunting had been an integral part of the Britishers’ lives in general and army staff, administrators in particular since the late eighteenth century, and the conservation initiatives emerged only during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, particularly after the enactment of the Indian Forest Act 1878 in general and different wildlife acts in particular. The scholar’s claim that the dual role of hunting and conservation shaped the ecological landscape

Introduction

5

should be revisited, at least given the existing evidence of wildlife and environment history literature’s points of view. Interestingly, the existing literature on environmental history and wildlife history suggests that hunting was an integral part of the British administrators from the mid-eighteenth century or even before the East India Company offcers, whereas the conservation measures emerged only from the last quarter of the nineteenth century, particularly after the enactment of the Indian Forest Act 1878 or Madras Forest Act 1882. In fact, the claims made by Mandala: ‘Between the latter half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century in India, colonial administrators, forest offcers, planters, and sportsmen launched comprehensive efforts to protect the endangered species.’25 But the matter of the fact is that the Britishers, particularly the British hunters project has started from the late eighteenth century itself and the project of planters have started from the second quarter of the nineteenth century both in the north-eastern regions and southern peninsula.26 Whereas protecting the endangered animals started only during the early twentieth century after the British hunters hunting them extensively. It is also to be pointed out that the broad environmental history debate on whether commercialisation and conservation, which started from the last quarters of the twentieth century, based on the late nineteenth century and early nineteenth century, respectively. Likewise, the wildlife literature also discusses two different time periods for their own convenience. For instance, hunting was an integral part of colonialism from the late eighteenth century and conservation emerged only during the last quarter of the nineteenth century but was mostly confned to selected wildlife. The conservation of wildlife emerged mainly from the early twentieth century once the Britishers had hunted the wildlife over a century from the late eighteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century, and they insisted to preserve the wildlife not to protect them but to sustain for the game. Further, Mandala analysed how the Britishers identifed the Nilgiris, established British settlements, summer capital and hunting practices mainly based on the British hunters’ narratives and some specifc hunters’ hunting experiences in particular in his Chapter 2, titled ‘A History of Neglected Histories.’ But the ‘Neglected History’ of Mandala actually neglects the history of how the Britishers occupied a huge area for the hunting purpose, how they excluded the natives/tribals to access the wildlife for their livelihood and how they made use of the locals for their hunting exercises and how they used or misused the native’s traditional knowledge, which is more important than describing the hunter’s account.27 In other words, relying only on the British hunters’ account is only one part of the story in the wildlife history, whereas I am giving the other parts of the colonial project pertaining to hunting of the wildlife and how that remain unexplored, the natives being systematically excluded and made subordinates or subaltern and how they have commercialised the wildlife and its products from the late eighteenth century onwards. Mandala failed to address how the Nilgiris

6

Introduction

Game Association killed a large number of big games between 1912–1913 and 1946–1947. And how this Association managed to exclude the natives but also at the same time made use of them to extract the other vermin for the interest of the Britishers. Hence, Mandala’s account is only a partial narration of the entire story from British hunters’ points of view and he undermined the other aspects of the natives, which was quite the same as the practice of the scholars from Europe or those who studied from England/ Europe. And hence, from the understanding of a native’s perspective, I argue that the British hunters’ writings and their interpretations were only of evidential value to analyse the wildlife history! Of course, and certainly, there are other sources and their experiences also need to be taken into account. In other words, the wildlife history cannot be accessed based solely on the hunters’ narrative accounts but also consider the other sources from the subaltern point of view. 1.3 Unexplored Wildlife History For more than one and half a century, viz., from the early nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, a vast amount of research was been carried out on games, hunting and shooting pertaining to India and the East. Of course, a majority of such research was confned to the period from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century.28 In 1950, Burton’s bibliographical account detailed about 291 books relating to the big game, of which 4 books are about other animals, and 45 articles published in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, concerning different wild animals during the colonial period, 1800–1947.29 Though the bibliography includes the East, it is largely focused on the Indian subcontinent. Invariably most of the game-hunting accounts are a narration of hunting of different wild animals across the country at different points of time. Interestingly, the narratives have emphasised the importance of game to eliminate man-eating wildlife, particularly tigers from the early nineteenth century till the end of the colonial rule. It is unfortunate that the Britishers were portrayed as though they were the only brave enough to hunt the wildlife and only their account is worthy of being narrated than that of the Indians. Slaughtering man-eating tigers was also encouraged by providing bounties from the early nineteenth century onwards and almost till the end of the colonial regime, though its importance got reduced since the second quarter of the twentieth century. Interestingly, but unfortunately, none of the studies on the wildlife history have addressed how that wildlife was duly commodifed and commercialised at the global level by the colonial administration. In other words, how the colonial project was designed to commercialise the wildlife resources during the colonial period, is the centre of the argument. In fact, hunting in India was not that an easy venture in comparison to that in England. Brown rightly pointed out that

Introduction

7

British feld sports have the charm, and that no slight one, of being pursued with greater ease and less personal discomfort to their votary, whilst the Indian sportsman must prepare himself for both exposure to sun and storm, to discomforts of all kinds, to constant failures and disappointments, to trials of temper and health, and to wear and tear of constitution.30 However, majority of the wildlife literatures described that certain animals have destroyed human beings and cattle more than others. Of course, most of the descriptions were made by the British administrators from the late eighteenth century onwards in different parts of the Indian subcontinent and also different points of time. Unfortunately, none of the studies have dealt with the human and wildlife relations and their outcomes due to the population explosion, agricultural expansion and other infrastructural facilities for over more than one-and-a-half centuries of the colonial period from the late eighteenth century to mid-twentieth century. Rangarajan clearly pointed out that ‘This is only a step in the direction of a history, being one possible interpretation of the past.’31 Amazingly, Rangarajan offers a scope to proceed further to understand the wildlife history not only of the past and present but also that of the future from the ecological history point of view.32 Knight has also brought out the human and wildlife conficts based on specifc animals from the experience of different continents, viz., Africa, Asia, Europe and America, and not only with a wide range of different animals but also from the social and cultural points of view.33 Given the scenario, how the colonialism has designed the strategy towards commercialisation of the wildlife than that of the protection of the wildlife per say. One of the referees of this manuscript has rightly pointed out that the innovative part of the manuscript is its rich analysis on the history of vermin eradication with extensive statistical data, demographic trends of Indian populace in relation to wildlife confict and its shrinking natural habitat, and the commodifcation of wildlife during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In other words, the present manuscript makes an attempt to locate the wildlife history of hunting in relation to the commodifcation and commercialisation wildlife in the British colonisation process from the environmental history perspective from the late eighteenth to the mid-twentieth century of the Indian subcontinent. Precisely, this manuscript attempts to explore the changing the land-use pattern, viz., establishment of plantations in the highlands and agricultural expansion in the plains resulting in the shrinking of the space for the wildlife, besides commodifcation and commercialisation of the

8

Introduction

wildlife resources by the colonial project from the late eighteenth century to the mid-twentieth century or for the colonial period. 1.4 Pre-colonial Wildlife History 1.4.1 Hindu Rulers Historically, hunting wildlife for livelihood is a fact. Until recently, hunting was an integral part of the livelihood and sustenance for the tribals and other nomadic groups though cultivators too were engaged in this to protect their crops as well as domestic animals. Hunting was also a royal passion of the native rulers across the country since the early period. From the ancient period until the seventeenth century, only a limited account is available regarding the wildlife history.34 During this period, there were no well-defned occupational categories, in terms of occupation. Rangarajan observed that ‘There was no water-tight division between hunter-gatherer, herder and cultivator.’35 Rangarajan rightly pointed out that ‘Cultivated sites were still small islands in a sea of forest’ during the ancient period.36 Since the ancient period, elephants were protected by the rulers for warfare and the tusks belonged to the state. To protect elephants, separate forests were maintained by the rulers during the Mauryan era.37 He further pointed out that ‘protected many birds and animals, even giving up the royal hunt.’38 Indeed, to protect the wildlife fne or penalty was imposed during the Mauryan era itself. It indicates that a vast amount of forest was there, several forest reserves were maintained to protect the elephant, and even a penalty system was introduced to protect the wildlife since the ancient period or till before the Muslim invaders came during the early seventeenth century. In other words, until the early seventeenth century, the Hindu rulers protected wildlife as the Hindu belief system has praised prayers being offered to the different types of animals as divine vehicles for the different deities. Consequently, a vast amount of forest area and wildlife species were found in the Indian subcontinent till the early seventeenth century. 1.4.2 Muslim Rulers Since the early seventeenth century, wildlife was indiscriminately hunted by the Muslim rulers. For instance, Jahangir, the fourth Mughal emperor who ruled about 22 years from 1605 until he died in 1627, killed a large number of animals in the frst 12 years of his rule (1605–1617). According to Rangarajan, ‘Jahangir killed over 17,000 animals. These included as many as 889 nilgais, 86 tigers and lions, and 1,670 gazelle and antelope.’39 Whereas, Akbar (1556–1605) killed the man-eating tigers Ajmer in 1572.40 During the late eighteenth century, the Lucknow Nawab made a hunting excursion with a large number of people for about four months. Johnson

Introduction

9

described Nawab Usuf-ad Dowlah’s method of sporting in the following manner: The excursion was talked of, and preparations made during many preceding months. All the court, great part of his army, and seraglio, accompanied him; a guard only being left for the protection of his capital. About ten thousand Cavalry, nearly the same number of Infantry, thirty or forty pieces of Artillery, and from seven to eight hundred elephants, attended. The number of bullocks, camels, carts &c. for the tents and baggage were innumerable. For himself, his women, Ministers, European Gentlemen of his suit, and visitors, double sets of tents were sent off, of large dimensions. Some with extensive enclosures, made of cloth and bamboos, about seven feet high, forming a kind of wall around each tent, of a hundred yards or more in circumference.41 ‘I believe that I am within bounds when I say that he took with him from forty to ffty double-barrel guns, besides a number of single barrel long guns, rifes, and pistols.’42 A large number of narratives regarding man-eating tigers by the colonial hunters can be found during the colonial period. On October 4, 1793, Nawab Usuf-ad Dowlah left Lucknow to Nanpara and Gorakhpur hills via Baraech. Adien states that: ‘About 500 coolies, or porters, were employed to carry his shooting apparatus, guns, powder, shot, and etceteras; he had above one thousand double-barrel guns, the fnest that Manton and Nock could make; single barrels, pistols, swords and spears in large numbers.’43 Adien further stated, Buckra Jeel, a large lake at the foot of the Goarrakpoor hills, was ‘full of wild elephants, rhinoceroses, tigers, leopards, wild buffaloes, deer, and every spice of aerial game.’44 In this excursion, he had killed eight tigers, six elephants, and caught twenty-one. To enumerate the other kind of games would require a sheet as ample as the petition which was presented to Jungaze Khan, and might perhaps be treated by you in the manner that Asiatic conqueror treated the petition.45 It seems that the rulers had killed wild animals indiscriminately. Of course, before the colonial period, hunting was a royal game and others were barred from it. ‘It must be remembered that the old-time rulers in India were the de facto owners of all the forests and wastelands of the country, including all the animal inhabitants thereof.’46 During Akbar’s rule, except the rulers, others were prohibited from hunting or shikar. Indeed, the Muslim rulers were fond of hunting wildlife, resulting in the decline of various species since the Mughal period, i.e., from the early sixteenth century to mid-eighteenth century. It was pointed out by the Maharaja of Mysore in 1952. In his inaugural address at the frst meeting of the Central Board for Wild Life on November 25, 1952, Jaya Chama Rajendra Wadiyar Bahadur, Maharaja

10

Introduction

of Mysore and Chairman of the Wildlife Board, made it clear that ‘it was the Kings, the Nawabs and the Rulers of this country who were responsible for maintaining large tracts of forests where many of the wild animals were preserved for their hunting and shooting expeditions.’47 In other words, until colonial intervention and even after that, the rulers, elites and administrators were responsible for destroying wildlife for their game.48 While engaging in hunting, the rulers not only killed wild animals but also caused the death of several people as well. In his hunting excursion, the Lucknow Nawab killed several people and animals. In 1793, during a fourmonth excursion of Nawab Usuf-ad Dowlah, a large number of people and horses lost their lives in the process of hunting. According to Adien, ‘about twenty men were killed and wounded and nearly a half dozen horses were lost.’49 In Mysore, several soldiers of Tipu Sultan were killed by the tigers. Providing a peep into it, Bevan says: He requested me not to expose myself to such frequent perils in the wild jungles, for that the tigers of Wynaud were proverbially treacherous, and had destroyed many of Tippoo’s soldiers, while he was on service with them in that country.50 The animals, particularly elephants, were trained in such a way to follow the directions of the Mahouts or the elephant-driver.51 ‘As a rule, the elephant is inoffensive as far as human beings are concerned, but a rogue elephant will frequently terrorize a whole countryside, chasing anyone whom it sees and killing any one whom it can catch.’52 In general, the elephants are trained to follow directions, particularly thirty-one commands, perfectly, according to Bevan.53 Trained elephants were also used by the rulers for executing death punishment as was the case with Mysore Hyder’s Court. Bevan narrates a heart-wrenching account: An old man who had witnessed the scene at Hyder’s court, thus described the process: — The criminal, who expected merely some trivial punishment, was brought out into an open space, and did not suspect his danger, as the animal was caparisoned apparently for the prince’s use. Hyder addressed his victim in a calm, steady tone, which tended still more to calm the apprehensions of the wretched man. At a moment when it was totally unexpected, Hyder gave a signal with his fnger, the elephant seizing the criminal with his trunk, threw him on the ground, and placing the forefoot on his breast, crushed him to death in an instant.54 In fact, in the wildlife literature, which was brought out the meat of the different wildlife on the dining table was recorded at least from the Mughal era.55 Of course, that was no different during the colonial era. However, until the colonial period, there was no state policy to wipe out any specifc wildlife

Introduction

11

species in particular or wildlife in general. According to Rangarajan, wildlife was wiped-out due to expansion of cultivation and human settlement.56 1.5 Wildlife Resources in Colonial India India is known not only for its wide diversity and varying geographical features but also for its vast wildlife resources at the time of colonial annexation, i.e., late eighteenth century onwards. Forsyth points out that ‘There is no country in the world that can show such a list of large game as we can in India.’57 In Hurdwar, Ramiah, the local shikari, stated that ‘sambur, cheetal, hog-deer, swamp-deer, and muntják were in swarms, whilst pea-fowl, hares, jungle-fowl, and black partridge were, like the Irishman's snipe, “simply jostling one another for a room.” There were also tigers, bears, and panthers, ad-lib., and some elephants.’58 Johnson says that: ‘Elephants are numerous on the north side of the river Ganges near the mountains from Chittagong to Hardwar. The principal Keeldah for catching them is in the district of Tipperah.’59 Certain areas of the Indian subcontinent endowed with diverse wild animals proved to be a treasure house for hunters. For instance, Leveson noted that: I have never yet met with any hunting-grounds to be compared with the great Wynaad Jungle for diversity of game, which includes elephants, bison, elk, spotted-deer, jungle-sheep, hogdeer, tigers, panthers, leopards, cheetahs, bears, hyenas, tiger — cats, boars, wolves, jackals, wild dogs, porcupines, hares, peafowl, junglefowl, spur-fowl, partridges, quail, and snipe, whilst on the hills are found ibex and woodcock, which are never seen in the low country.60 Sanderson observed that the following game-list comprised animals largely found in Mysore, viz., elephant, bison, leopard, bear, wild hog, hyena, deer, wild hog, sambar, jackal, jungle cat, otter, porcupine, mouse-deer, spotted deer and hare.61 While referring to Coimbatore and the surrounding region, Levenson observed that in Bowani Jungle, so I go there with him, and all over the Combei Jungle, where I see plenty janwars (wild beasts). There got tigers, panthers, bears, bison, elk, spotted deer, and antelopes, and near the Hassanoor Pass I saw plenty of old marks of elephant and some neilghau (literally blue cow).62 While referring to the Yercaud hills in 1838, Bevan says that ‘The forests abound with elephants, bisons, deer, elk, and hogs. Tigers and leopards are also numerous, as might be expected in a place containing such an abundance of food to gratify their rapacity.’63 Precisely, south India abounds with

12

Introduction

the principal game animals which the sportsman may hope to meet within the jungles. Within this area is to be found a large variety of wildlife, from the elephant down to the tiny mouse-deer. In fact, with the exception of the hog-deer, the rhinoceros, and the lion, every species of big game which is found anywhere in the continent of India, excluding, of course, those peculiar to the great hill ranges of the north, maybe met with in greater or less numbers in the Southern Provinces. One species, the Nilgiri ibex, is found nowhere outside the Madras Presidency.64 Precisely, south India abounds with a large variety of wildlife. According to Hamilton: ‘The game animals found on these hills are tigers, panthers, bears, bison, sambur, spotted-deer, munt jack, or barking-deer, mouse-deer, wild hog, jungle fowl, spur fowl, hares, partridges, quails, also wood load and snipe in the season.’65 It indicates that each region of the subcontinent is endowed with fauna distinctive to the geographical terrain with some rare animals being confned to certain pockets. 1.6 Princely States and Wildlife The Rajas and princes had killed a large amount of wildlife in different parts of the country. For instance, in the early nineteenth century, rulers used to killed tigers. According to Johnson, ‘Rajah Futty Narrain resided at Norungabad and was the keenest native sportsman.’66 He further added that ‘I saw the skin of one that had been killed by Rajah Futty Narrain. Its exact size I do not recollect, but I well remember that it astonished me, having never seen the skin of any animal so large.’67 Since the late nineteenth century, the Prince of Bikaner had hunted down a large variety of wildlife. For instance, in 27 years, from 1880 to 1907, the Maharaja of Cooch Behar had killed 295 tigers: 90 between 1880 and 1890; 102 between 1891 and 1900; and 103 between 1901 and 1907.68 Between 1910 and 1936, Sadul Singh, the last Prince of Bikaner (1902–1950), had gone on a killing spree: ‘Nearly 50,000 heads of animals and a further 46,000 game birds fell to his gun. Among these were 33 tigers, 30 Great Indian Bustards, over 21,000 sand grouse, and a lone Asiatic lion.’69 The Nawab of Tonk had shot a total of 600 tigers! Ramanuj Saran Singh Deo of Sarguja was to hold an all-time record of over 11,000 tigers in his lifetime. By the time he stopped shooting in 1950s, he had another less known record against his name: Killing over 2000 panthers or leopards.70 Until independence, a large number of wildlife was killed in the princely states. For example, in the princely state of Mysore, 69 tigers, 18 elephants, 26 bisons, 20 bears, 13 panthers, 14 spotted deer, 4 crocodiles and 1 antelope

Introduction

13

were hunted between 1940 and 1945.71 Besides, a large number of jumbos were captured. For instance, ‘About 1500 to 2000 elephants were captured from the wild every year around the late nineteenth century.’72 Hughes examines the history of hunting in the Rajputana princely states of north-western India, and she argues that the princely hunting is a natural outcome of the sociopolitical and cultural legacy of the region. She argues that: Tigers were the most emblematic of the princely game and the most prized, but they were not the only important prey. Princes also pursued wildfowl, wild boar, and blackbuck antelope, in addition to sambar deer, crocodiles, and numerous other species large and small.73 It indicates that even princely game has also intertwined hunting like in the colonial regime. It means that hunting is not the only just a royal game but also culminated into a grand feast like that of the Company Raj and the Empire. The Rajputana princely states even questioned the empire hierarchy and boycotted them. According to Hughes: Most famously he avoided participating in the 1903 and 1911 Delhi durbars, which were displays of British imperial power held to celebrate the coronations of Edward VII and George V, because he objected to his placement below the rulers of Hyderabad, Mysore, Kashmir, and Baroda in the planned processions and offcial rankings.74 In other words, the Rajputana princely states questioned the empire strategy from the late nineteenth century about their hierarchy. In other words, she further argues that ‘Mewar abounded in royal game and Orchha at least had some, but Bikaner was a land without tigers.’75 Maharana  Sir  Fateh Singh (16 December 1849–24 May 1930) ruled Mewar for about 46 years (from 1884 to 1930), with Udaipur as capital, and resided in the City Palace, Udaipur. In his reign, he reportedly killed 375 tigers and 991 leopards while also shooting 990 boar and spearing another 275 from horseback. He concentrated on these species, which were widely viewed as among the best game in India, to keep his actions commensurate with his high status. In contrast, he shot only paltry numbers of the wide variety of other game animals available to him in Mewar State.76 General Maharaja Sir Ganga Singh (October 3, 1880–February 2, 1943) was the ruling Maharaja of the princely state of Bikaner. ‘Indeed, among the 825 animals that the prince killed in 1895, there were 120 duck, 59 snipe, 189 common and 389 imperial sandgrouses, besides a dozen demoiselle crane, a

14

Introduction

couple of houbara, and a bustard, etc.’77 ‘In contrast, Maharaja Ganga Singh accounted for close to 25,000 imperial sandgrouse, nearly 23,000 duck, and over 3,000 kūñj.’78 Hughes further reiterated that Ganga Singh had hunted a large number of big games. According to Hughes: ‘By 1921, he already had shot 107 tigers and 33 leopards at various locations out-of-state, in addition to one Asiatic lion. By 1942, he would bag an additional 159 tigers, 28 leopards, and 6 lions.’79 ‘The Maharaja of Gwalior and the Maharaja of Vizianagaram shot hundreds of tigers in the early 1900’s.’80 Mandala maintains how the mutual alliance in the hunting felds of the princely states helped the British to sustain despite the mutiny and other nationalist movements in India till the end of colonial rule.81 The princely state rulers also had dual roles in hunting the big game. One is for ascertaining their power and the other was equally to taste the feast of different wildlife like did the European hunters. In other words, if the princely state rulers hunted the wildlife only for their big game, a large proportion of wildlife would not have been destroyed. Since they were hunting the large animals to showcase their bravery while the small ones for the taste of their dinning, their practices were no different from that of the colonial hunters/gamers or even the shikaris of the Indian subcontinent. In other words, the rulers of the princely states also behaved like British hunters. Wildlife, particularly animals like elephants, was under the state or princely states.82 For example, the elephant was under the State of Travancore. Even if captured or hunted, the elephants have to be handed over to the state for a reward.83 ‘Elephants have become numerous in places, but within the last six or seven years nearly seven hundred are known to have been captured in Mysore, Coorg, Malabar, Wynaad, and the Anamalais, and their numbers have been considerably reduced.’84 Not only were the royal places decorated with various types of trophies, but wild animals were also kept in cages to provide a different ambience to the bars and recreation places. For example, in 1837, A fne royal tiger, kept in a cage in the stable-yard, which some of the ladies were admiring, suddenly, with a tremendous growl, seized a bullock by the forehead, that had incautiously approached too near the bars. The tiger, springing upon his prey, stuck his claws in the animal’s head to such a depth as to cause its death. A considerable time elapsed before the tiger could be compelled to relinquish his grasp of the unfortunate bullock. The fright of the ladies at this scene may be better imagined than described; as the roaring of the tiger and bellowing of the poor bullock were truly terrifc, and enough to shake the nerves of the stoutest among the spectators.85 1.7 Colonialism and Wildlife Colonialism and hunting wildlife were an integral part of the colonial strategy from the late eighteenth century. This section describes how the colonial

Introduction

15

ideology towards hunting emerged, how the colonial administrators were encouraged to engage in hunting, how the royal visits integrated with hunting, the colonial approach towards man-eating tigers, the colonial reward system and destruction of wildlife, hunting for the feast and the colonial policy towards wildlife. 1.7.1 Colonial Policy and Hunting It is very important to understand how the colonial ideology shaped the bureaucracy in Briton and how that was transferred to the colonial world and what were the factors behind the adoption of the colonial strategy in general and hunting strategies in particular. A vast body of literature has dealt with how British imperialism has risen and how it met its fall. While the political entity of British has developed the law, governance and constitutional evolutions across the colonial countries. Cannadine has rightly pointed out that: These grand narratives furnished competing accounts and explanation of imperial rise and fall. But in between, and it was very long in between, the British empire was formerly constituted political entity, and from that perspective its history was for the most part concerned with law, governance and constitutional evolution.86 However, those initiatives were also confned to limited principles and practices based on the British experiences within their own country, over the period. Cannadine further has pointed out that ‘In governing themselves and much of the rest of the world, the English (and subsequently the British) addressed to a limited number of principles, practices and perceptions that were long-standing and deeply rooted.’87 Consequently, When Wales, Scotland and Ireland were subsequently brought into a greater British realm, they too were administered through the social leaders of their respective communities, from whom power and authority descended, and who were in contact and alliance with Westminster and Whitehall.88 He further added that ‘And when Britons turned their attention to those wider worlds that they colonized and conquered, it was with these views of how society was, and of how it should be administered, very frmly embedded in their minds.’89 Going further, he notes that: In India and the crown colonies of conquest, there were also two discrepant views of the societies and politics thus acquired. The frst was that the native regimes and hierarchies were backward, ineffcient, despotic

16

Introduction

and corrupt, and had be overthrown and reconstructed according to the more advanced model of western society and politics. The second was that they were traditional and organic, an authentic world of ordered, harmonious, time-hallowed social relations of the kind that the Industrial Revolution was threatening (or destroying) in Briton, and that therefore had to be cherished, preserved, and nurtured overseas as a more wholesome version of society than could now be found in the metropolis.90 He further pointed out that the options behind the British were either anti- or pro-hierarchical system. Accordingly: ‘In other words, and notwithstanding their many differences of politics, government and constitutional evolution, the emigrant societies established in the colonies of settlement, and the indigenous societies discovered in the colonies of conquest, were both regarded from perspectives that might be anti-hierarchical (reject the British system, over through the native system) or, alternatively, from perspectives that might be pro-hierarchical (transplant the British system, preserve the native system).’91 With this background, the British initiated measures to strengthen the relationship with the colony countries including India. According to Cohn: The relationship between the crown and India was beginning to be marked by tours of India by members of the royal family, the frst of these being the Duke of Edinburgh in 1869. The Prince of Wales went on a six-month tour of India in 1875-6. The royal tours were not only signifcant in India in terms of the representation of the bond between the princes and peoples of India and their monarch, but were extensively reported in the British press. On the return of the Prince of Wales, exhibitions were held in major English cities of the exotic and expensive presents which he had received. Ironically, one of the major gifts which the Prince of Wales gave in return was an English translation of the Vedas by Max Muller.92 He further explained that: On 23 December, (1876) all was in readiness for the arrival of the central fgure of the Imperial Assemblage, the viceroy, Lord Lytton. The eighty-four thousand Indians and Europeans had occupied their far-fung camps, the roads were laid out and the site was complete. The activities of the assemblage were to last for two weeks; the purpose being to mark Queen Victoria’s accession to her imperial title as ‘Kaiser-i-Hind’.93 ‘At noon on 1 January 1877, all was in readiness for the entry of the viceroy into the amphitheatre.’ Cohn pointed out:

Introduction

17

Then a salute of 101 salvos was fred and the assembled troops fred feuxde-joie. The noise of the cannon and rife fre stampeded the assembled elephants and horses; a number of bystanders were killed and injured, and a large cloud of dust was raised which hung over the rest of the proceedings.94 According to Cohn: appointment to the higher public service should not only go to those with ‘intellectual qualifcations’ but must also include those who are ‘natural leaders,’ ‘by birth, rank and hereditary infuence,’ that is, the feudal aristocracy, which was being “created” at the assemblage.95 Yet the assemblage kept being referred to subsequently by Indians and Europeans as a kind of marker, a before and after the event. It became the standard by which public ceremony was measured. It may be said the event itself recurred twice – in 1903 when Lord Curzon organized an imperial durbar in Delhi to proclaim Edward VII Emperor of India on the exact location where his mother’s imperial title was proclaimed, and when in 1911, also on the same spot, George V made an appearance to crown himself emperor of India.96 An important question arises: What kind of justifcation inspired the British hunters and forest offcers in colonial India to produce or write this genre of hunting books? As I have indicated earlier, invariably, most of the game hunting literature is a narrative of hunting different wild animals across the country at different points in time. In other words, most of the writings, if not all, have described the narratives of their hunting experiences, which will help the followers. Another pertinent question is the undistinguishable freedom that colonisers were able to enjoy in new geographical terrains like that of India that the native shikari or hunters were not able to create even an iota of the symbolic or representational authority like that of the British! Of course, it is an effort in building knowledge for the empire project. Another important question is: What is the freedom that colonisers in new geographies like India enjoyed that the native shikari or Indian hunter could not able to create a symbolic or representational authority like the British? As I have indicated earlier or elsewhere, the native shikaris were themselves subordinate to the village administration and hence they could not raise their voices. In other words, the native shikari was part of the traditional village administrative system, and these subaltern voices cannot be heard anywhere. Consequently, it can be attributed that colonialism was a supreme disruption, not for the better, not only to the Indian people of the Indian subcontinent but also to its cultural geographies and fora and fauna. 1.7.1.1 Colonial Administrators and Hunting Since the beginning of the colonial invasion, a prime agenda of the colonial project was hunting and game sports in which right from the Governor-General

18

Introduction

to the administrative staff and military serviceman as well as forest staff and others were constantly engaged until the end of the colonial era. Mandala also pointed out that ‘Hunting was an integral part of British life in India during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, both among the top and lower-ranking cadres of the colonial establishment.’97 Mani points out that ‘British hunters were growing in number in colonial India. Many of them has worked for the British Raj as forest administrators, military personnel or the like. Hunters relied on shikaris, indigenous Indian hunters.’98 For instance, the Governor-General of Bengal engaged in game sports in the early nineteenth century. He left that presidency for Barrackpore on the evening of Jan.22d, from whence his lordship proceeded on a hunting excursion to Malda. The absence of the party from the presidency was not intended to extend beyond the 20th instant. They returned to the presidency of Calcutta on the 11th of February. The party had considerable sport amongst buffaloes and small game, but only one tiger was killed during the excursion.99 During the late nineteenth century, the Governor of Madras, Lord Connemara (1887–91), regularly hunted at Madras Hunt Society, located at Ootacamund in the Nilgiri hills.100 European gamers/hunters killed a large amount of wildlife across the subcontinent during the nineteenth century. ‘During the Year’s sport in Rajputana, India, our “bag” consisted of 156 heads of “large game” killed and wounded, as follows: — 68 tigers killed, 30 wounded, total 98. Panthers killed 3, wounded 4, total 7. Bears killed 25, wounded 26, total 51.’101 In other words, about 20 tigers were killed by a British tiger sportsman on average. ‘Before 1900, George Yule with 400 tigers and Montagu Gerrard with 227 had among the largest British bags. They were to be outstripped by men like the ruler of Udaipur and the Raja of Gauripur with 500 each.’ ‘Between 1850–1854, Rice killed over 100 tigers in Rajputana. Gordon Cumming takes the modern record to the Tapti river border (in 1862 ten tigers in 5 days); Montague Gerard killed 227 tigers in Central India and Hyderabad before he left in 1903; Prideaux of the Central Provinces shot 147 tigers during his service up to about 1930.’102 Forsyth states that: ‘In the end of April and May of 1862, I bagged six tigers and one panther in the Betul jungles, wounding two more tigers which escaped.’103 He further adds that ‘In May, 1864, I had tracked a man-eating tigress into a deep ravine near the village of Pali in the Seoni district. She was not quite a confrmed man-eater, but had killed nine or ten persons in the preceding few months.’104 Again, ‘I spent nearly a week of this time in the destruction of a famous man-eater, which had completely closed several roads, and was estimated to have devoured over a hundred human beings.’105 Ben Johnston of the Nizam’s Army, one of the most successful sportsmen in this quarter, had killed nearly one hundred tigers over

Introduction

19

a period of fve years.106 In the Central Provinces, the British offcers used to kill a large number of tigers. According to Forsyth: ‘I know of eight or ten that have been killed by European offcers since 1862, and I have not heard of anymore for the last few years.’107 Stebbing rightly pointed out that ‘The European has generally been considered to be more destructive than the native of the larger animals, gaur, rhinoceros and buffalo.’108 ‘I have killed many tigers both before and since, but I have never met with such a determined enemy to mankind, for he was supposed to have carried off more than a hundred individuals,’ maintains Leveson.109 On his travel in the Madras Presidency, particularly in Salem District, he says: ‘I went to Putchee Mullah and Koolee Mullah Hills, where I only see a few chetel (spotted deer), so I went on to Salem and on the sides of the Sheveroy Hills. I saw some sambur, chetel, arid old trail of jungle bice (bison).’110 In 1850, Leveson in narrating the story about Painderdee in Raipur district of the Nagpore Province gives the following account: ‘I had killed to my own rife sixteen head of large game in fourteen successive days, between the 1st and 14th of April: viz, two tigers, full-grown, eight hears, seven of them full-grown, live deer, of different sorts, and a wolf; — all on foot, except one tiger and one bear, and marching the while.’111 In addition to that, the British planters also killed certain categories of wildlife to protect the plantations mainly in the highlands. According to Prakash: ‘Often the planters gave their justifcation for the killing of a certain category of wildlife by saying than Sambhur, spotted deer, etc, were pests destroying their plantations especially young chinchona plants.’112 Even some planters were used to killing tigers. For instance, Prakash pointed out that ‘One of the planters Thomas Simon got his reputation of a deadly tiger slayer.’113 Until the mid-nineteenth century, the Britishers adopted the Indian hunting practices and also introduced their own hunting practices. According to Mackenzie: Until the early nineteenth century the British were often spectators at or participants in the spots of Indians. With the extension of military activity and administrative power in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries they began to take over and adapt Indian hunting practices as well as introducing their own. Up to the ‘Mutiny’ British and Indian hunting co-existed.114 Hunting became a central part of imperial culture during the nineteenth century.115 Not only the British offcers and their staff but even the Princes of Wales were lured into engaging in game sports in India. For instance, during the early eighteenth century, Mr. Henry Ramus, at the time judge of the circuit of Bahar, killed upwards of 360 tigers.116 Mackenzie points out that ‘Various forms of hunting were the standard recreation of offcers of

20

Introduction

the civilian, military and forest establishments.’117 The military offcers and soldiers were encouraged to spend their vacation hunting. Mackenzie further added that ‘In the military, almost everyone, from high-ranking offcers to white troopers, participated in their respective places, in some form of the chase.’118 According to Rangarajan: ‘Offcers and soldiers in cantonments were encouraged to spend their vacation acquiring more trophies.’119 Brown stated that ‘I felt all aglow with sporting fre and ardour for the chase, and pictured our triumphant return to cantonments, at the expiry of our leave, laden with trophies, skins, skulls, and horns.’120 1.7.1.2 Colonialism, Elephant and Other Wildlife Although colonialists attempted to eliminate wildlife for commercial means besides like hunters and gatherers, they adopted two different strategies when it came to the elephant and other wildlife resources, particularly the after Empire Raj. After the 1870s, the Empire had enacted acts to protect the elephant not only at the presidency level but across the Indian subcontinent. The elephant was an integral part of Indian culture since the early period. According to Mandala: ‘Elephants had been part of Indian tradition since earlier times and were closely associated with festivals, fairs, royal displays, and state processions. They were also owned by temples and used for trade, work, and hunting purposes.’121 However, under the Company Raj until 1857 and the Empire Raj till 1879, the elephants were hunted and shot dead by the Europeans not only for sport but for their commercial purpose. Since the early nineteenth century, the elephant tusk was exported to England.122 Indeed, the Company Raj as well as Empire Raj not only encouraged to kill elephants but also offered rewards to kill them for destroying the agricultural felds.123 But actually, they had encouraged to kill the elephants to export the tusk from the early nineteenth century and much more in a systematic manner from the mid-nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. In other words, despite the enactment of laws for the protection of elephants in Madras Presidency in particular and the country in general during the last quarters of the nineteenth century, the export of the elephant tusk continued to persist till the early twentieth century.124 While enacting to protect the elephant, the Empire Raj continued paradoxically to encourage to destroy the other wildlife like man-eating tigers and leopards by providing rewards and bounties.125 In addition to the animals, a large number of birds were also destroyed in different parts of the country during the colonial period. ‘On my road to Madras by Pondicherry, I shot a few hares, partridges, curlew, plover, duck, and teal also snipe.’126 At fve o’clock in the evening, our bag began to look rather heavy, and the bearers complained of its weight. On examination, we found that it

Introduction

21

contained a leash of hares, eleven and a half brace of partridges, three and a half couple of forican, and forty—eight braces of snipes.127 Further, the British gamers were also equally responsible for the loss of human life in their hunting process. 1.7.1.3 Royal Hunting Hunting became an integral part of the royal tours in India from the late nineteenth century onwards. John Mackenzie rightly pointed out that the British royal tours, for example, of the Prince of Wales (the future Edward VII) in 1875-6 and the Duke of York (later George V), and a number of other royal tourists in the twentieth century, since hunting trips were always an important component of such visits to India.128 Though the Duke of Edinburgh visited India for about three weeks from December 16, 1869 to January 7, 1870, he never had any hunting programme.129 Whereas the subsequent princes have had a long hunting programme as part of their visit. According to Mackenzie: ‘The visit of the Prince Wales, the future Edward VII, in 1875–76 inaugurated a succession of royal journeys in which hunting took more time than any other activity.’130 Prince of Wales 1875–1976 (Edward VII), 1911 (George V) and 1921–1922 (Edward VIII) have hunted in different parts of the country. Once, the expedition of the Prince of Wales and his party, scheduled at Baypore and at a shooting grounds in Michael’s Valley and the Annamallay Hills, was cancelled due to the prevalence of cholera and malaria fever in the Madras Presidency, especially at the above-scheduled places.131 ‘The shooting in Michael’s valley is said to be good — bison, sambur, elephant and ibex — very tempting, but cholera and malaria forbid !’132 ‘The shooting trip to Michael’s Valley, Coimbatore, and the further extension of the expedition to Bangalore, Seringapatam, and the Nighteries is for the present postponed.’133 Congreve has pointed out that during the year 1875, when his late Majesty, King Edward VII—as Prince of Wales—visited India, the authorities had mapped out a shooting tour on the high ranges of the hills, and a bridle path had been cut through the jungle to enable His Royal Highness to make the ascent, but a serious outbreak of cholera occurred in the villages on the plains, and the proposed trip had to be abandoned.134 Hence, it was rescheduled towards Baroda and Ahmadabad. Fayrer notes that ‘We start early tomorrow morning for some blackbuck shooting and cheetah hunting at a place named Muckanpoora.’135 In 1911, King George

22

Introduction

V and Queen Mary visited India and the royals were on a hunting expedition as well and, according to Fortescue, ‘The total bag for the ten days was thirty-nine tigers, eighteen rhinoceros, of which the King killed eight, and four bears, of which the King killed one.’136 Edward VIII visited India between 1921 and 1922 for about four months and his tour was divided into two parts, separated by the visit to Burma. The frst half took him northward from Bombay through the native states of Rajputana to Nepal and Calcutta, and the second half from Madras to Delhi and Peshawar, and then across the Sind desert to Karachi; the total distance travelled is about 8,200 miles.137 S.W. James’s Palace records that: The Gaekwar met his Royal Highness at the railway station the morning after the departure from Bombay, and they drove together with an imposing escort of State troops through clean, wide streets flled with the Gaekwar’s people. Their houses and shops were covered with fags and messages of welcome in English. Fifteen thousand school children divided into eight groups—including the so-called ‘untouchable’ classes—helped dress the route, and screened stands were flled with ‘purdah’ ladies gazing eagerly at the pageant. Gilded elephants salaamed outside the Law Courts; at Laxmi Vilas Palace, gold and silver cannon and state carriages of solid silver, harnessed to horses in cumbersome trappings, were drawn up beside the guard of honour. When the Prince went a little later from Laxmi Vilas to Nazar Bag Palace—a plain white building in pleasant grounds, not unlike an English country house—to return the Gaekwar's call, he found more shreds of evidence of Baroda’s splendour. In a small anteroom were displayed, 3,000,000 worth of diamonds and pearls, including a diamond once worn by Napoleon III, and purchased in Paris in 1867. The Gaekwar gave an afternoon party in the grounds of Laxmi Vilas which offered strange and varied entertainment. Elephants in full court dress were available for those who cared to ride them, and a ‘Director of Amusements’ presided over an exhibition of acrobats, performing birds, native plays, songs and dances, arranged in open booths around a level stretch of lawn. The Gaekwar had searched all India to provide the fnest performers for a single hour. The state banquet in the evening was held in the grand hall of Laxmi Vilas Palace, and on this occasion, the frst public announcement was made of the engagement of Princess Mary.138 Game and hunting were British establishments and the prince too ‘went into the country early next morning to watch a cheetah hunt, and saw one buck killed.’139 Not only the British but also Indian rulers were encouraged to hunt as a part of the royal gesture. He shot snipe on Pichola Lake and enjoyed a lively dance by Bhils at the British Residency.140 The principal sport

Introduction

23

at Jodhpur was pig-sticking and both the Prince of Wales and the King of Bikaner went in the morning. And, according to S.W. James’s Palace: His Royal Highness went out two mornings before breakfast, accompanied by Sir Pratap Singh, who, despite his 77 years, was as keen and active as the youngest members of the party. The Prince speared the frst pig on the frst morning, and the total bag was fve on the frst day and eleven on the second.141 It is to be pointed out that a major portion of the royal visit was meant for the hunt. S.W. James’s Palace recounts that: Five days were spent at Bikaner. All the ceremonial part of the visit was compressed into the frst day, and the remainder of the time left free for sport. The Maharaja himself is one of the best big game shots in India, and his palace of Lalgarh—a handsome modern structure of red sandstone, equipped with every European comfort — contains many paintings depicting his success in the jungle. His subjects came from all parts of the desert kingdom to see the fne pageant prepared for the Prince’s reception. Seldom has there been such a gathering of camels. One saw camels everywhere: military camels with war service; civilian camels concerned with government transport; palace camels; country camels, sniffng uneasily at the crowded streets and longing for the desert; weatherworn C-3 camels in humble trappings sneering at their more gorgeous brethren—camels on all sides arching their necks and eyeing the unusual scene a little disdainfully.142 He further adds that: The famous Bikaner Camel Corps was the Royal escort. It closed in around the barouche, where the Prince sat with the Maharaja, and moved off in fours with stately step into the crowded streets. Elephants in the usual fancy dress and ‘dazzle’ paint, waited at the cavalcade in a large square—for once they were a secondary feature of interest and the camels seemed to know it. Bullock teams with silver-plated horns and covered with gaudy trailing mantles, had drawn archaic state carriages to this open space where they could add to the splendour of the picture. The entire population of the city lined the roadway, and even a contingent of the ‘untouchable’ castes added its pitiful note to the welcome of the masses.143 The etiquette of an Indian Court provides for certain ceremonies on the arrival of a Royal guest which were followed in every native State visited by the Prince of Wales. Soon after he reached his apartments, four offcers of the Maharaja's household would arrive to inquire formally

24

Introduction

after his health—the ceremony known as ‘Mizaj-pursi’. A little later four members of the Prince’s suite returned the compliment. Another interval, and then the Maharaja went in state to call on the Prince, being received in a Durbar Hall where they sat side by side on a dais, with their respective suites ranged at right angles on either side of the room and exchanged polite remarks as though they had met for the frst time. Before leaving, the Maharaja and his followers received the customary offerings of itr and pan, and garlands of gold thread were hung about their necks. An hour or so later the Prince drove in state to return the visit. Again, he and his host sat together, while the offcials and nobles of the State came forward singly to the dais with a low obeisance and proffered gold mohurs wrapped in white silk for the Prince to touch and remit. The Maharaja offered itr and pan from the state vessels held by court offcials, and hung a garland over the Prince’s head. The members of the Prince’s suite were similarly decorated by dignitaries of the court. The setting for these visits varied from State to State, but the ceremony itself was almost invariably the same.144 The kings hunted a large amount of wildlife. ‘On the frst drive his Royal Highness bagged 35, the highest amount by any single member of the party, and the total day’s bag was 1,035. He also shot a demoiselle crane at Kodamdesar.’145 ‘The week in Nepal was devoted to big game, chiefy tiger and rhinoceros.’146 A night pageant at Bharatpur, which cost £360,000, was one of the most unusual features of the tour. The Maharaja had a hill built especially as the foundation for a pavilion from which his guests could watch the show in comfort. The plain in front was the stage. A low wall of earth formed the edge of it, and served as a screen for the ‘footlights’. In the strong glare thrown by these hidden lamps, the native troops of Bharatpur State were revealed with striking effect as they marched out of the darkness across the ‘stage’ and vanished again into the night. It was like an animated unending frieze unrolling smoothly to the gay music of an unseen band. Golden elephants cheerfully swinging their trunks gave way to camels sixteen abreast, then scarlet infantry marching like a guards battalion; dancing horses, native pipers, palanquins, and lumbering ‘purdah’ carriages drawn by elephants, cavalry, a mournful lion cub in a cage, a miniature ‘tank’ drawing half a dozen limbers, a small boy in a cart drawn by two antelopes, feld kitchens, and—a column of Rolls Royce cars! The cavalry did a musical ride in and out of a maze of lighted lamps set on the ground other horsemen rode standing through an intricate pattern of fares. It was the military tournament at Olympia in a strange and beautiful setting.147

Introduction

25

Kings hunting experience at Nepal was narrated by Jame’s Palace in the following manner: ‘A 91/2 feet specimen had been ‘ringed’ early that morning and the elephant cordon was waiting in the jungle. The prince hit the tiger frst and it was despatched by a member of his staff.’148 The howdahs were assigned various positions as part of the circle, and then beaters went on foot into the jungle with trumpets and shrill cries. The din was terrifc. The tiger suddenly awakened from his lethargy, usually showed an intense desire to remain undercover. The greater the noise, the greater his determination to avoid publicity. Sometimes, he would dart into the open in an angry bewildered fashion, only to bolt back again into the grass at the frst glimpse of the cordon. Sooner or later, however, he would be extracted. Perhaps a chance shot would sting him into a fury, or sheer terror cause him to dash blindly forward. The nearest elephants would squeal nervously, fearing a charge. Sometimes the prisoner did leap on a howdah elephant before the inevitable last shot laid him out. An eight-foot tigress which was ringed near Dhoba on the frst day charged two elephants after being wounded and was shot in the nick of time by Lieut.Col. Harvey of the Prince’s staff. Usually, however, the tiger was killed immediately after he showed himself.149 Then came a diminutive, very perplexed rhinoceros in a tight-ftting wooden prison. Soon, it was followed by two sambhars, goats, two bears, a leopard, a beautiful black panther baring its teeth viciously, musk deer, falcons, an iguana, a python behind heavy bars, partridges, jungle fowl and two savage Tibetan mastiffs. The total booty for the week’s shoot in Nepal was 14 tigers, 7 rhinoceroses, 2 leopards and 2 bears.150 ‘The Prince spent nine days in Burma. He regretted he could not stay much longer. From his arrival at Lewis street jetty, Rangoon, on the morning of January 2, until he sailed again for Madras, on the loth, he was greeted everywhere by merry, smiling people, and there was not a single jarring note in the welcome that carried him on a wave of cheers to Mandalay and back.’151 1.7.2 Man-Eating Tiger Man–animal confict too had taken a heavy toll, especially in the Central and Northern Provinces. For instance, during the early nineteenth century, many human lives were lost, and even the government servants have also become the victims. Johnson points out that: A tigress with two cubs, lurked about the Kutkumsandy pass, and during two months killed a man almost every day, and on some days two. Ten or twelve of the people belonging to the government, (carriers of the post bags,) were of the number. The communication between the presidency and the upper provinces was almost entirely cut off.152

26

Introduction

To protect the travellers from the man-eating tigers, the villagers guarded them with arms. According to Johnson: At every village near the ghauts are stationed Ghautwars who accompany traveler through the ghauts. They have a strange appearance being generally covered with the skin of a tiger, leopard, or some other animal and carry with them a bow and arrows ornamented with peacock’s feathers, or a cow’s tail, a large shield also ornamented, a spear or a Match-lock-gun and Sword.153 According to Hunter: A single tiger is known to have killed 108 people in three years. Another killed an average of about 80 persons per annum. A third caused 13 villages to be abandoned, and 250 square miles of land to be thrown out of cultivation. A fourth, so lately as 1869, killed 127 people, and stopped a public road for many weeks, until the opportune arrival of an English sportsman, who killed him.154 The Champawat tigress of Kumaon had killed 200 people in Nepal and 234 in Kumaon.155 ‘Between fve and six hundred human beings, and an uncalculated number of cattle, are killed by wild beasts in the Central Provinces alone every year.’156 At Purneah in the Bengal Presidency, regarding maneater tigress, Russell gives an account: This beast had been a man-eating for about a year, and during this period she had, it was computed, killed no less than ninety human beings. She had lost all fear of man and used to break into natives’ huts and seize and carry off her victims. Several villages had been deserted owing to the terror inspired by this feline friend, and great were the rejoicings of the villagers when Mr. Mackintosh—a man who was at the death of between two and three hundred tigers during his time in India—brought her in dead, and safely padded on his elephant.157 Apart from the Central and Northern Provinces, man-eaters were also found in the different hill regions of south India.158 Available records show that in the Coimbatore district adjoining to the Western Ghats, man-eating tigers have existed since the late nineteenth century. The government offered heavy bounties to eliminate the man-eating tigers in this district. Nicholson says: One, after committing great ravages, was shot by Major Davies, Acting Superintendent of Police, in 1869. After two years another appeared in the same locality and was the terror of the neighbouring villages for nearly two years. The Magistrate of the district offered frst Rs. 100, then

Introduction

27

Rs. 200, and fnally Rs. 500 to anyone who would shoot the pest; but it was much too wary to be approached.159 Nicholson further pointed out that: The tiger is an inhabitant of all the jangly parts of the district. Of late years, prior to the autumn of 1873, he appears to have increased and multiplied to a most alarming extent in some of the taluks, but more particularly in those bordering on the rivers Moyar and Bhavani. The Satyamangalam taluk has been notorious for several years as the locale of man-eating tigers. One of these terrible pests (a tigress) was shot at Kongrapalaiyam, a village eight miles east of Satyamangalam, on the 16th of August 1869, by Major Davies … and another demon of equal atrocity (also a tigress) fell victim to Captain Caulfeild and myself by strychnine on the 14th of July 1873, a few miles to the north.160 In fact, in 1873, the Government of Madras appointed Captain Caulfeild with the sole purpose of killing the man-eating tigers for the entire Madras Presidency. According to Nicholson, ‘In the autumn of 1873, after our successful employment of strychnine, Captain Caulfeild was appointed tigerslayer to the presidency by the Madras Government.’161 In the subsequent years, several tigers were killed in the Coimbatore district. ‘In 1874, 93 tigers and 32 panthers were destroyed in the district. Only 1 man was killed, and the number of cattle destroyed fell from 2,183 in 1873 to 265 in 1874.’162 The government also encouraged the killing of man-eating tigers by poisoning them. In Nicholson’s account: So soon as permission was given, the Village Magistrates were supplied with small phials duly sealed, each containing six grains of strychnine, and were directed, so soon as the village herd reported a kill, to repair to the spot before sunset and apply the poison. The result was, that in ffteen months from the time of the plan being sanctioned, poison was applied in seventy cases and thirty tigers were found dead near the baits, the others which had eaten and disappeared were later on found totally decomposed at considerable distances, showing that though death had not been immediate, the animal had ultimately succumbed to the effects of the poison.163 The question that naturally arises is why wild animals, particularly tigers, are attacking human beings? Explaining the phenomenon, Tyler pointed out that ‘It is interesting to note that in the districts of Ganjam, Vizagapatam, and Godavari, although tigers have undoubtedly decreased in numbers in the last twenty years, the number of human beings killed by tigers annually has largely increased.’164

28

Introduction

There can be no doubt that one main cause, if not the sole cause, for this increase in man-eating has been the enormous decrease during the same period in those game animals which form the natural food of the tiger, and the policy which permits the indiscriminate slaughter of deer has been directly responsible for the death of many an unfortunate human being.165 Johnson further observes that: Tigers are naturally afraid of men, and in the frst instance seldom attack them, unless compelled by extreme hunger. When once they have ventured an attack, they fnd them much easier prey than most animals of the forest, and always to be met with near villages, and on public roads, without the trouble of hunting about for them through the covers.166 Given this kind of trend, a question arises how the wild predators, despite their decline in numbers in coastal Andhra and coastal Odisha region, increased their attacks on humans? Interestingly, the agricultural expansion since the late nineteenth century due to the establishment of major irrigation dams in both the Krishna and Godavari rivers basins resulted in the decline of not only the tiger habitat but also deprived them of their natural prey such as sambur, deer, antelope, wild pig and so on. In other words, the expansion of irrigation reduced not only the space for predators but also their subsistence, and hence the tiger was left with no other option than to prey on human beings. Let me put it in another way: expansion of agriculture has resulted in not only decline of space for the wildlife but also has widened the space between the big and small games. In other words, it is not only the confict between human and wild animals but also a struggle for space by the large wild animals or big games and their subsistence. It means that not only the space for the large animals declined but also their subsistence options plummeted during the colonial period due to the shrinking space. Since the early nineteenth century, bounties or reward were provided by the state or rulers to destroy specifc wild animals. According to Mahesh Rangarajan, bounties were paid for a variety of feasts in the Madras Presidency since the early nineteenth century.167 ‘The Government, it may be noted, pays rewards for the destruction of solitary rogue elephants, tigers, leopards, bears and wolves.’168 In fact, throughout the history of the Indian subcontinent, none of the rulers except the British ever attempted to wipe out any of the species. According to Rangarajan: ‘Such practices were new to India: no previous ruler had ever attempted to exterminate any species.’169 The Britishers not only attempted to wipe out some species like tiger initially and later extended to other species like elephant, wild buffalo and rhinoceros but also awarded a special reward from the late eighteenth century

Introduction

29

onwards.170 In other words, since the last quarter of the eighteenth century, after the two decades of the Battle of Plassey (1757), the British administration provided the bounties to exterminate some of the wild species in the Bengal Presidency. It seems that the colonial strategy to destroy the wild, particularly tigresses and their cubs, who destroyed the cattle, was an integral part of the agriculture production process to increase the revenue in the early phase of the Bengal Presidency. To destroy the tigresses, not only a huge amount of rewards were given but also special awards were given to eliminate the cubs by the British administration.171 Without any further explanation, it indicates that extermination of the wildlife, if not all but selectively to enhance the commercial interest, which was the prime agenda of the colonial administration from the late eighteenth century onwards. Since then, the practices were extended to other regions of the British administration and continued till the end of the colonial regime in one or the other form. Precisely, extermination of selective wildlife to enhance revenue, particularly land revenue, was the strategy in the early phase of colonialism in the Bengal Presidency during the late eighteenth century. The same strategy was extended and expanded to other Presidencies over the period. In other words, the extermination of wild species for the commercial motive was one of the prime agendas of the British from the late eighteenth century. Hunting was well organised by the Britishers than that in the earlier period. Brown rightly pointed out that: at Kamptee, in the Central Provinces of India, where there was a very good hog-hunting club called the Nagpore Hunt. It was composed mostly of ‘gunners’ (three batteries of artillery being quartered at the station), and a rare lot of good sporting fellows they were, one or two of the brigade staff, a few of the native cavalry, and some three of my own regiment, Her Majesty’s 79th Highlanders. The hunting season began about August, and lasted till March. We had a meet lasting from two to three days generally once a week, with a ten days’ meet at Christmas, which was a sort of big picnic that some of the ladies of the station generally graced with their presence, and another ten days’ meet in March to wind up the season. Each member on joining the Hunt paid an entrance fee of ten rupees, and a small monthly subscription besides. Out of these funds the Hunt provided tents, shikaris, beaters, crockery, butler, cook and blacksmith; and a fxed daily charge was made for messing, which included breakfast, tiffn and dinner. Each member took his own servants, liquor and camp furniture. During the hunting season a book used to be sent round every Saturday giving the proposed meet for the following week. If three members put down their names as intending to hunt at that particular meet, the Hunt camp, kit, etc. were sent on, and all necessary arrangements made. If there were less than three names down, there was no meet.172

30

Introduction

Brown further added that: ‘on the strength of this, he had collected some 80 beaters, and waited for the sahib’s “hookum” or order. These beaters were armed with old matchlocks, horns, tom-toms (native drums) and “all manner of music” calculated to make the most discordant din, and rouse any decent-minded boar to a sense of the necessity of seeking safety in fight. The beaters having been all seated in a circle next followed the distribution of small circular pieces of tin, stamped with the letters “N.H.” (Nagpore Hunt), the initials of the Hunt, and known amongst the natives as “tikul,” “tickkut” and every possible pronunciation of the word “ticket” that could suggest itself to the unenlightened nigger’s mind. No beater was paid at the end of the day unless he produced and gave up his ticket. This was necessary to prevent fraud, as otherwise the number of men, and even children, who would vow they had been beating all day was innumerable.’173 He further said that ‘we always employed a few men provided with little red and white fags as l look-out men,’ and it was their duty on seeing the pig to wave their fags silently in the direction they were going. By their doing this, we knew where to look for the pig (often diffcult to see in thick cover), and all risk of their being headed by the noise of shouting was avoided. These look-out men were generally posted in trees, or on a rocky eminence from whence they could obtain a good view of the covert and the surrounding country.’174 According to Brown: ‘During a month we had every reason to be satisfed with our sport, for during this time we had bagged fve tigers, a bear, several sambur, cheetal, or spotted deer, and four-horned antelope, besides small game.’175 1.7.3 Reward System and Destruction of Wildlife The bounty system initiated as early as the 1630s in North America for wolf scalps was later extended to other parts of the European colonies.176 In India, the bounty system was introduced by the East India Company during the late eighteenth century but was only confned to the tiger. According to Mackenzie, ‘the rewards for killing tigers, frst introduced by the East India Company, in the eighteenth century.’177 The bounties and rewards varied for different animals across the different regions of the country.178 Hunter points out that ‘Rewards are given by Government to native shikaris for the heads of tigers, varying in time and place according to the need.’179 For instance, in the Madras Presidency, ‘the grant of rewards for the destruction of wild animals was at the following rates: — For an elephant Rupees 70, for a tiger Rupees 50, for a cheeta Rupees 25, for a boar Rupees 7, for a wolf or hyaena Rupees 5, for a jackal Annas 8.’180 In the Bombay Presidency, in 1915 it was reported by the Commissioner, Southern Division, that it was customary in this division to give a reward of rupee one for a fullgrown pig and annas eight for a young pig killed and that, the number

Introduction

31

for which such rewards had been paid had risen from 777 in 1909 to 2,712 in 1914. The bulk of these was killed in the pig infested talukas of the Dharwar District.181 The Mysore Government also followed the same system of rewarding: ‘The Government reward in Mysore for killing a panther or leopard is 25 rupees.’182 ‘The reward for a tiger was Rs. 30, and for an elephant Rs. 70; but whilst the reward for the tiger has been increased to Rs. 50, that for the elephant has been withdrawn, and protection substituted.’183 Leveson says: The Government reward for every full-grown tiger's skin produced was 50 rupees or £5 a head in the old day, and this to some extent served to cover part of the expenses of a hunt, but of late years, by the extreme parsimony of the administration this reward has been reduced to half, consequently tiger shooting has now become a very expensive game, and as rule, the sportsman will fnd himself about 100 rupees out of pocket for every tiger he bags.184 In Rajputana, ‘The Government reward for each skin is only ten rupees, or one pound sterling; for a panther fve rupees, or ten shillings, with nothing for bears.’185 In 1852, in Nagpore Province, ‘the Government reward, which is in this district only ffteen rupees (30 shillings), if I succeed in killing the tiger.’186 The cash reward was also hiked in case of man-eating animals. For instance, in the Madras Presidency, Collectors are empowered to offer Rupees 100 for the destruction of a tiger that has killed a human-being. The Collector of South Canara is authorized to give Rupees 60 and Rupees 40 for every tiger or leopard killed. The Collector of Kurnool is authorized to offer Rupees 300 for the destruction of any man-eating tiger in his district. A reward of Rupees 100 is sanctioned for the destruction of every tiger in the Agency Tracts of Godavery and Ganjam and in the district of Vizagapatam.187 The amount of reward too varied for the same wildlife in different parts of the country. For example, Mahesh Rangarajan provides an overview of the variation in cash rewards for killing cheetah in different districts/regions of the North-Western Provinces, Central Provinces and Madras Presidency over four decades, from the 1870s to the 1910s.188 Of course, these bounties were extended to a large number of wildlife species from the last quarter of the nineteenth century.189 Such cash rewards accentuated the pace of destruction of a large extent of fauna. According to Forsyth: For some years heavy rewards were given for every tiger and other dangerous animal killed, special rewards being placed on the heads of man-eaters; and I am convinced that many more were killed during that

32

Introduction

time than previously, though statistics of former years when there was no reward are not available for comparison. The number destroyed increased every year under this stimulus. Rewards for the killing of 2414 tigers, panthers, bears, and wolves were claimed in 1867 (the last year for which statistics are available), against 1863 in 1865. Tigers are certainly not now so numerous by a great deal in many parts with which I am personally acquainted as they were even six or eight years ago.190 He further points out that ‘Some years afterward, when I shot the same country under much more favourable circumstances, the number of tigers had greatly diminished, owing to the high rewards.’191 Mandala rightly observed that ‘Sporting triumphs across British India had given these sportsmen an opportunity to exploit the game under the guises of protecting natives from dangerous predators and policing the Raj.’192 So does Ullas Karanth: ‘Throughout the 19th century and during the frst half of the 20th, tigers were viewed as vermin to be eradicated by giving bounties to local hunters or as glamorous game animals to be exclusively hunted by elite “sportsmen.”’193 After independence, wildlife protection acquired greater importance. The Union Ministry of Food and Agriculture passed a resolution on April 4, 1952, to form a central board to protect wildlife. The resolution says: India’s heritage of wildlife is fast becoming a vanishing asset and some of our notable animals such as lion, rhinoceros, tragopan, cheetah are on the verge of extinction. With a view to preserve the fauna of India and to prevent the extinction of any species and their protection in balance with the natural and human environment, Government of India are pleased to constitute and appoint a Central Board for Wild Life.194 Central Board for Wildlife Chairman, Jaya Chama Rajendra Wadiyar Bahadur, pointed out that: With the unfurling of the scroll of Indian history these conditions have changed … and the protection once afforded to these animals was no longer available to them with the result that many of the fnest of these game animals have nearly reached the verge of extinction—some have already become extinct, but now … thanks to the foresight and forethought of the Government of India it is once more possible to look forward to and welcome the rehabilitation of some of our vanishing species of game.195 The above account brings out the colonial plunder of wildlife in the subcontinent. Interestingly, the game hunting narrative of the British also gives an account of how much wildlife they have bagged to establish their bravery.

Introduction

33

Consequently, several wild species have become extinct in due course while prominent animals like lion, tiger, etc. became endangered. Wildlife protection gained traction only from the early twentieth century with the Britishers emphasising it to keep alive the wildlife game. Soon after its establishment, the Central Board for Wild Life (1952) made the following 13 animals, predominantly game animals, protected animals: (i) Indian lion, (ii) snow leopard, (iii) clouded leopard, (iv) cheetah, (v) rhinoceros, (vi) the Indian wild ass, (vii) Kashmir stag, (viii) musk deer, (ix) brow-antlered deer, (x) pigmy hog, (xi) great Indian bustard (all species), (xii) pink-headed duck and (xiii) white-winged wood duck.196 According to Rangarajan: ‘Two clear watersheds mark the past: one was the impact of the British, whose intrusions into the world of the wild were far more extensive than those of their predecessors.’197 This would be discussed in detail in the subsequent chapters, particularly in the sixth chapter. 1.7.4 Hunting for Feast In fact, in the wildlife literature, which was brought out the meat of the different wildlife on the dining table was recorded at least from the Mughal era.198 Of course, that was not different during the colonial era. Apart from priding on one’s bravery, game sports provided the opportunity to feast on the delicacy of rare animals in the jungles. The gamers, including the British, relished the fesh of wild beasts. Of the early nineteenth century, Bevan says: Having completed my share of the duty by the end of February 1810, I amuse myself the remainder of the time allowed, in hunting and shooting, both of which I enjoyed, as game was plentiful, consisting of hares, ducks, partridges, pea and jungle fowl, of which I was able to obtain an ample supply for my table, with occasionally hog and elk; the latter, however, are only to be found on the summit of the hills, and require great exertion, patience, and perseverance, to be obtained by the sportsman.199 ‘I secured his fne pair of antlers and the lascars cut off as much fesh as they could conveniently carry away.’200 we found fve dead, and four others wounded, which we despatched. … and managed to bag other buck elk and four-spotted deer, besides which the gang, with the dogs’ assistance, next morning brought in fve other deer, which they found dead or wounded some distance off in the jungle.201 Leveson further recounted: ‘During the next three days, although we constantly made long excursions into the jungle, we were very unsuccessful in

34

Introduction

meeting with large game, only killing a few deer for food.’202 According to Brown: As an illustration of the variety of game to be found around Delhi, I remember that in 1869, when encamped on the historical ridge near Hindu Rao’s House, our mess larder-tent contained the following: Blackbuck, ravine deer, geese (both varieties), Brahmini duck, mallard, redheaded pochard, whistling teal, blue-winged teal, common teal, sandgrouse (two varieties), black partridge, bittern, sarus crane, hares, quail (two varieties), snipe, green pigeon, blue-rock pigeon, wild boar and pea-fowl.203 While classifying the categories of hunting, based on object and function, Mackenzie stated that ‘supplying fesh for the subsistence of troops, the local subordinates of European enterprise and for varying the diet of the European offcers themselves.’204 Precisely, hunting was not only bravery, recreation or game but an integral part of the feast of colonialism. In other words, none of the descriptions in the British hunters’ accounts succeeded in incorporating the different wild feast component during the colonial period. Let me put it differently; the Britishers were the font of the different taste of wild animals for their dining table than that of claiming the bravery or recreation. 1.7.5 Colonialism and Protection of Wildlife While encouraging the destruction of wildlife, the colonial administration and the native princely states promulgated several regulations besides enacting many a statute since the last quarter of the nineteenth century. This was prompted by a rapid decline in wildlife during the colonial period. Ringing alarm bells, Stebbing points out that the ‘Game of India is on the decrease and on a very rapid decrease, and that the good old days of yore are gone, never to return.’205 Further, in his reasoning, there is a decrease in the area of jungle capable of affording asylum to some of the larger animals owing to the extension of agricultural lands, the development of the mineral wealth of the country, the building of railways and roads, and to the conservancy operations of the Forest Department through which the jungles are constantly disturbed.206 The native princely states enacted acts, promulgated decrees and issued notifcations to protect wildlife in general and specifc animals in particular. Some of them are the Travancore princely state’s notifcation in 1886, the Abu Wild Birds Protection Law 1889 and the Mysore Game and Fish Preservation Regulation 1901. At the presidency level also, specifc acts were enacted like the Madras Wild Elephant Preservation Act 1873, the Nilgiris

Introduction

35

Game and Fish Preservation Act 1879 and the Madras Forest Act 1882. In addition to that, there were the following Central acts: Indian Penal Code 1860, Indian Forest Act 1878, All India Elephant Preservation Act 1879, Wild Birds Protection Act 1887, Prohibition of Export of Birds 1902, The Wild Birds and Animals (Protection) Act 1912 and Indian Forest Act 1927. Despite the presence of several acts and regulations, from the late nineteenth century to the early twentieth century, several wildlife species were under threat and prominent animals became endangered by the end of the colonial regime. According to Dunbar Brander, Forest Act and Rules there under are in my opinion excellent. It is in application that they fail. Fail in prevention of poaching. There is lucrative trade in game. The Forest Guard fnds the easiest plan to take a ‘percentage of the profts’. ‘Rewards sanctioned by the Rules in poaching cases are too sparingly given, and the Magistrates’ sentences are often quite inadequate.’ Among the main reasons for increased destruction are commercialization of game and the huge increase in the number of guns, licensed as well as unlicensed or illegal guns. The State forests are surrounded by guns, many of which are used constantly for the destructive game both inside outside the forest.207 The Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 acknowledged that about 43 mammals and 25 birds have to be protected under Schedule I, Part I and Part III, respectively. Most of these listed animals and birds were eliminated or targeted due to the colonial policy in general and by the British game sports, predominantly by British administrators. As a consequence, some animals are almost on the verge of extinction. Later, the post-independence government accorded importance to protect certain endangered animals and birds.208 Consequently, special projects were launched, such as the Tiger Conservation Programme in 1973 and another in 1992, to protect elephants and their habitats. The details of wildlife acts will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4. 1.8 Manufacturing of Hunting Instruments Increased commodifcation of the wildlife industry also witnessed the development of a wide range of instruments for hunting including special hunting knives. The blacksmith shop of Arunachalam Asari of Salem was hugely popular among the Europeans, particularly among the game sportsmen. Richards states that: In the second half of the nineteenth century the enterprise of the late Arunachala Asari made Salem famous throughout India, and his hunting—knives, and pig-sticking lances were in great demand. The manufacture of silver- and gold-mounted cheetah-tooth pen-knives still continues a characteristic local industry.209

36

Introduction

Leveson also points out that: we visited the shop of the celebrated Arnatchellum, whose well-balanced boar-spears, axes, and hunting-knives are renowned throughout India for the temper of the steel and the superior fnish of the workmanship. He charges European prices for everything, and I found him as overreaching a rogue as any other nigger.210 Brown also pointed out that ‘Hog-spears are best obtained in India. Arnachellum of Salem is the best maker.’211 To recognise his contribution and credentials, a prominent market street in Salem city was named after him. Though it bears his name even today, people may not be aware of his contribution to a highly valued sport and the skill in making instruments with the fnesse that earned him a clientele from all over the subcontinent. 1.9 Colonialism and Taxidermy According to Mackenzie, even if there is no evidence for the passion for trophies when that has emerged, but they had a decorative item, not in a systematic way since the early period and certainly there are shreds of evidence from the early nineteenth century.212 He further added that: In an age when the most middle class and aristocratic families had some members serving in India, later in Africa or some other parts of the world, it was long before the local stags were joined by the heads and horns of exotic animals.213 Later, the trophies also appeared in other households other than the middle class and aristocratic families in England. This trend has generated considerable trade in trophies.214 Mackenzie further pointed out that ‘The craze for the tiger skin spread far beyond India. In the twentieth century, taxidermists and dealers employed Indian shikaris to satisfy the extensive tourist demand in port cities.’215 The colonial strategy of the commodifcation of wildlife saw the development of a huge taxidermy enterprise such as Van Ingen & Van Ingen, established in Mysore by the legendary Eugene Van Ingen in the 1890s, with a clientele across the world.216 According to Morris (2006), the Van Ingen factory had processed more than 43,000 tiger and leopard trophies in less than 90 years of operation.217 Van Ingen & Van Ingen taxidermy industry used to process different wildlife for their customers across the world. According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia:

Introduction

37

Factory records reveal that Van Ingen & Van Ingen would process over 400 Tigers per year from the 1930s till the late 1960s limited to not only tigers and leopards but also bears, lions, other species of cat, ungulates, and even African game. Film stars, viceroys, and senior military men were numbered among their customers, but at least a third of the taxidermy was done for the Indian nobility.218 According to Lawrence Milton: ‘In its heydays, the factory had stuffed thousands of hunted wild animals including the tiger, leopard, deer, bison, elephant, lion, dogs, and pigs, etc, which are now in possession of government, aristocrats, museums, clubs and the Mysore Palace.’219 ‘In seven years from 1933 to 1939, a total of 3,634 tigers (always the frm’s specialty) were mounted.’220 ‘Van Ingen & Van Ingen taxidermy today are still found throughout the world in the form of head mounts, full mounts, fat  animal  rugs, rug mounts with heads attached.’221 ‘Of the handsome spotted skins that grace many Indian bungalows, and which are generally referred to as cheeta-skins, at least ninety-nine out of every hundred axe those of the panther or of the leopard.’222 Even the trophies are found in the Britishercontrolled clubs. For instance, Ootacamund Club, which was established in 1841, has a large number of trophies. The club document says that ‘The large Ballroom is adorned with well-preserved hunting trophies – obviously donated by members —& included tiger, leopard, bear skins, bison, Sambar deer heads.’223 In Baroda, Bombay Native Infantry was decorated with wildlife trophies. Fayrer narrates that ‘The mess—room was decorated with tiger skins, bison’s, antelope horns, and other trophies.’224 Another prominent taxidermist was Messrs. Theobald Brothers, established during the late nineteenth century and continued till the early twentieth century. Within a short time, their products became popular throughout the world.225 Van Ingen & Van Ingen also established a branch in the Nilgiris hills of Madras Presidency. Russell points out that: I had taken out men enough to carry in the head of a bull in case I should bag one (four men are required solely for this purpose), and the head was brought straight into camp directly after the bull had been shot. I kept men at work skinning it from about seven o’clock (when it reached camp) till midnight, supervising the operation myself to prevent any punctures being made in the skin around the eyes, nose, crest, and mouth; and I had two men kept ready to carry the mask, wound round a bamboo, through the night to Mysore, promising them a handsome reward if they should reach that town by a certain time. The head-skin thus reached the native worker in leather (chuckler), to whom it was consigned, in good order, and he put it into a pickle at once; and after it had been thoroughly cured, I sent it, with the skull and horns, to a

38

Introduction

taxidermist on the Nilgiri hills, and a magnifcent trophy (which is now at home) was the result.226 In short, the taxidermist business which developed both in Mysore and the Nilgiris got recognition and reputation within a short period not only within the county but across the world. Tyler says: South India is well supplied with taxidermists. Messrs. Theobald Brothers, of Mysore, Messrs. Van Ingen, of Mysore, and the frm of the same name at Ootacamund are frst-class artists, and the sportsman may safely entrust his trophies to any of the three to be set up.227 In the name of protecting the humans and cattle, bounties were offered to kill the wild animals in general and man-eaters in particular which were converted into commodities with their power and authority. Consequently, one could see that the protective measures initiated during the colonial period to protect animals or birds had insidious agenda of the game as an integral part of that strategy. In the Central Provinces, the game was not only to hunt wildlife for availing cash rewards or commercial purposes like the sale of animal products but also to give a warm welcome to superior offcers like Governor-General. Forsyth gives an account in the following manner: A good many persons will remember a hunt in the month of January, 1861, when we secured a royal tiger for the Governor-General of India, on his frst visit to the center of his dominions, within a mile or two of the cantonments of Jubbulpur. I mounted sentry over that beast for nearly a week, girding him in a little hill with a belt of fres, and feeding him with nightly kine, till half a hundred elephants, carrying the cream of a vice-regal camp, swept him out into the plain, where he fell riddled by a storm of bullets from several hundred virgin rifes.228 1.10 Colonial Hunters’ Accusation of the Natives Apart from the native kings and British hunters/gamers, the native poachers and shikaris were also responsible for the decline of wildlife in the subcontinent, which should not be overlooked from a scholarly point of view. A very large number of panthers are shot every year, chiefy by native shikaris. In 1914, over seven hundred panthers’ skins were presented for reward at the Government Treasuries. This fgure, of course, excludes those shot in Mysore, Coorg, Cochin, and Travancore, so that the total number accounted for must have been close on a thousand.229 ‘Within comparatively recent years the buffalo was found in these tracts in herds of large size, but now principally owing to tire operations of Indian

Introduction

39

skin-hunters, it has been practically exterminated in parts where it formerly used to roam.’230 Interestingly, since the early twentieth century, the colonial administrators feigned to protect the wildlife in general but were actually protecting the game instead of preserving the wildlife. In other words, once the game animals are destroyed, the British are very much concerned about protecting them so that their game could be revived. In other words, to keep the game alive, they have concerned to protect the wildlife and certainly not to protect the wildlife. This phenomenon started in the early twentieth century with the forest conservators and other offcers and started making lobby towards their higher authority. This attempt itself has demonstrated the British colonial government was very much responsible for the destruction of wildlife in India and they had no interest whatsoever in protecting wildlife as such. It is also important to capture the historical trajectory of commodity capitalism and Indian wildlife during the colonial period that emerged since the late nineteenth century in the Indian subcontinent. Since the late eighteenth century, hunting wildlife was an integral part of the British lifestyle in India. The Madras Hunters Society was established during the late eighteenth century, and the hunters’ society at Ooty had acquired the power to hunt a particular animal i.e., ibex or wild goat from the early nineteenth century. On the same line, the Nilgiris Game Association was established in 1877 with the stated purpose of protecting the wildlife but it served the interests of hunting. As explained in the previous section, hunting in the wild was facilitated primarily for the Britishers and to some Indian elites. Around 200 members of the Nilgiris Game Association can hunt a few lakhs of animals in the forests of the erstwhile Coimbatore district of the Madras Presidency. Yet, the association constantly made wild allegations that wildlife was destroyed by the poachers and others. Had the Nilgiris Game Association restricted to hunting alone at least it would have saved a large number of big games besides several lakhs of small games. Not only that several wild animals with non-commercial value were destroyed by providing bounties, but the Association also continued to raise allegations against various infrastructural development, resulting in the decline of wildlife in the Nilgiris. The fact remains that the nearly 200 members of the association, who were mainly British administrators and planters and Indian estate owners, killed a large number of wild animals in the Nilgiris on the pretext that the association was formed to protect the wildlife. In other words, the association alone could kill wildlife but not others. The colonial strategy was to exclude the locals and form an association to destroy the wildlife in the name of game in a much more organised and systematic manner over 75 years. In the same manner, the strategy was so designed as to control a large extent of forest primarily for hunting in the name of game throughout the Indian subcontinent. This strategy was designed from the early twentieth century onwards to infuence the state to ensure that the game has to survive

40

Introduction

in the name of wildlife protection. The British gamers constantly proposed measures to protect wildlife and used their infuence to save the game. This design was started in the early twentieth century and continued till the end of the colonial rule, i.e., 1947. One of their major allegations was that poachers were responsible for the destruction of wildlife and the other one was that the existing forest administration was not effcient. Such stories were built up from the early twentieth century onwards. It was almost like the United States of America charging Iraq and Iran of having weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and hence they have to be punished. Though the different committees which were formed to probe the allegations have found no proof in them, the association continued to rake it up from time to time to execute their agenda. This is modern capitalism. The Britishers had built up a story that human sacrifce was there in the tribal areas of eastern India and hence that has to be stopped.231 The story was built up over a period to secure control over the forests and other natural resources. Likewise, the colonial hunters constantly made allegations that the native people, particularly shikaris and other poachers, were responsible for the destruction of the wildlife and the forest department staff were ineffcient in containing the same. And, hence the demand for new legislations and fresh regulations to save the wildlife from indiscriminate killing and poaching. The story was built up by the British administrators and particularly Conservators of Forests to protect their game than to preserve the wildlife. Starting from the early twentieth century, this propaganda was carried through the associations in favour of the game. This was the agenda of British administrators. Prakash rightly pointed out that in the name of recreation activities, sports, and fun India’s precious faunas were destroyed by the colonial master in league with the Indian elites. The legacy for such act the current generation is facing when a number of animal species today are on the verge of extinction and some of them have already vanished.232 Since the late eighteenth century, hunting wildlife was an integral part of the British lifestyle in India. The Madras Hunters Society was established during the late eighteenth century and the hunters’ society at Ooty had acquired the power to hunt a particular animal from the early nineteenth century. On the same line, the Nilgiris Game Association was established in 1877 with the stated purpose of protecting the wildlife but it served the interests of hunting. As explained in the previous section, hunting in the wild was facilitated primarily for the Britishers and to some Indian elites. Around 200 members of the Nilgiris Game Association can hunt a few lakhs of animals in the forests of the erstwhile Coimbatore district of the Madras Presidency. Yet, the association constantly made wild allegations that wildlife was destroyed by the poachers and others. Had the Nilgiris Game Association restricted to hunting alone at

Introduction

41

least it would have saved a large number of big games besides several lakhs of small games. Not only that several wild animals with non-commercial value were destroyed by providing bounties, but the Association also continued to raise allegations against various infrastructural development, resulting in the decline of wildlife in the Nilgiris. The fact remains that the nearly 200 members of the association, who were mainly British administrators and planters and Indian estate owners, have killed a large number of wildlife in the Nilgiris on the pretext that the association was formed to protect the wildlife. In other words, the association can kill the wildlife but not others. The colonial strategy was to exclude the locals and form an association to destroy the wildlife in the name of game in a much more organised and systematic manner over 75 years. 1.11 Need of the Study Given this background, the present manuscript attempts to capture the colonial policy and strategy towards wildlife and how that was designed further to commodify to a global market from the perspective of the environmental history. So far, none of the wildlife history literature of the Indian subcontinent has addressed the commodifcation aspects of the different wildlife and how that was commercialised in a systematic manner like any other natural resources project that was carried out during the colonial period or even for that matter the pre-colonial era of Hindu or Muslim rulers from the ancient to the modern era. Indeed, Indian wildlife literature has largely recounted the number of the wildlife being killed by the ancient Hindu rulers, medieval Hindu and Muslim rulers, and modern colonial rulers and glorifed the venture as the brevity of the rulers, offcers, individuals, etc. Unfortunately, the aftermath of the hunting exercise was largely undermined in the Indian wildlife literature not only for the pre-colonial era but even during the colonial period, which is a major lacuna as far as the wildlife literature of the Indian subcontinent is concerned. In other words, the commercialisation of wild animals and their products did not get due attention in the economic history, environmental history and even in the wildlife history. Chaiklin and Gooding observed that: ‘Trades in animals and animal products are a relatively under studied feature of IOW (Indian Ocean World) historiography. Although individual animals and animal products occasionally feature prominently, they rarely feature as a distinct category of trade.’233 They further added that though the animals and their products were considered future of the trade and commerce but did not gain due attention from the end of the ffteenth century to the end of the seventeenth century. During this period, the live animals were exported to other countries mainly centred around diplomacy politics, while, the animal products were also developed with these regions. In other words, until the eighteenth-century export of animals and animal products was limited and the former was mainly diplomacy politics, and the latter was also limited in real terms of commercialisation. However, since

42

Introduction

the early eighteenth century, this trend has changed and emerged as the commercialisation of wild animals and animal products at a large scale till the end of that century.234 One of the prime strategies of the colonial project was to exploit and commercialise natural resources such as land, forest, wildlife, water and exploit them for lucrative trade, primarily that of export. In the early phase of colonialism, the focus was on timber among other major resources. Since the early sixteenth century, European trade and commerce were designed to export a wide range of spices and different types of forest resources. Since industrialisation, a wide range of raw materials were exported from the colonised countries. The latter, while supplying the raw materials, also became a captive market for the fnished products. Since the late eighteenth century, the colonial strategy got expanded into different dimensions and witnessed among other things like plunder of a wide range of natural resources such as teak, sandalwood and other timbers, different kinds of spices, introduction of commercial crops, establishment of iron-making and other industries, increase in land revenue, expansion of irrigation, the establishment of the railway network, destruction of wildlife, land revenue settlement, introduction of reserve forests, enactment of the different acts, establishment of educational institutions, strengthening of the administrative system, engaging the Indian natives for war purposes, etc. Robinson rightly points out that: ‘The attitude of Leadenhall Street to India was originally based upon purely commercial considerations. Even in the early part of the eighteenth-century commercialism was the dominant factor in controlling the policy of the Directors.’235 At the same time, there was no effort to improve the living conditions which resulted in a large proportion of the population living below the poverty line and a large number of lives claimed by famine, epidemic and other natural calamities during the entire colonial period. Consequently, a dip in population growth was accompanied by reduced longevity and a high rate of infant mortality. Population which was about 10–12 crore at the end of the eighteenth century had gone up to only 36 crores by the mid-twentieth century. It was 24 crores at the end of the nineteenth century. India’s wildlife game literature had a whipping boy in the traditional shikari, placing the entire blame on them for the decline of wild animals and birds due to their indiscriminate poaching and smuggling. Further, ineffective implementation of forest acts and the privileges given to certain sections of society to access forest resources besides expansion of cultivation were also cited as reasons. For example, The Shikari occupies his post in the late afternoon – he is no respecter of a close season or of a sex or age – and by sunrise next day several bucks and hinds may be lying round the machan; the skins, horns, should there

Introduction

43

be any of the latter, and the fesh are taken off to the bazaar, where a ready sale is found for them throughout the country. The meat is sold locally, the skins and horns being brought by middlemen for export. It was a common thing to see on the platform at wayside stations near forest areas piles of skins and horns booked, and openly booked in defance of all rules and regulations, to some large centre.236 Now this tiger was shot by a poacher. Sallying forth after deer in the early morning he met the tiger round a corner, fred his muzzleloader at it, dropped the gun, and fed like the wind. Later in the morning a Forest Guard and his watcher, on beat duty, came on the dead tiger and recognized as the man-eater. The gun was also recognized by the watcher who named its owner. So a bargain was struck. The poacher was told that he would not be reported for being in the Reserve Forest with an unlicensed gun provided the Forest Guard was given the skin and skull of the tiger. This was gladly agreed to by a poacher who had no idea that the tiger was a notifed man-eater, with a reward of Rs.300 on its head.237 ‘These regulations were, however, openly broken, and the penalties in existence were practically rarely put into force, except by some exceptionally energetic offcer; and even then, an appeal was often upheld and the orders passed reversed.’238 Organised defance of the forest law brought about by the non-cooperation campaign rendered forest protection impossible for a time in the Guntur district where 58 cases of assault on forest offcials occurred. There was much lawlessness also in the Godavari, Kistna, Cuddapah, Nellore, Chittoor, and North Vellore divisions, in the last of which three forest guards were murdered.239 While making these allegations for the decimation of game animals and birds besides other wild species, they were never decent enough to acknowledge the disastrous role of their game sports. For, the British game sportsmen were worried about keeping alive the game which required protection of the wildlife. Hence, they emphasised that the game right has to be ensured through the appropriate legal mechanism. One of the core underlining strategies of colonialism was the pretension for the larger interest of the community, environment and wildlife masking the real project of commodifcation and commercialisation. Take the case of irrigation projects. They were portrayed as essential to expand the irrigation facilities but the underlying intent was higher revenue generation. Even the establishment of the railway network was trumpeted to improve transport connectivity though the real purpose was to facilitate their trade both for collecting raw materials and to distribute the fnished goods. No wonder that

44

Introduction

the railway network was connected mainly to port cities such as Karachi, Mumbai, Cochin, Chennai, Vizagapatam and Calcutta. Likewise, the reserve forest concept was introduced under the pretext of protecting the ecology and environment for which restrictions were clamped down upon the forestdwelling communities and other dependants, curtailing their access to forest resources. After the introduction of forest reserves, resources from the jungles were extracted in a much more organised manner to further commercial interests while gaming too continued with a game association being formed. Gaming by the British was considered a right and given priority even when there was a rapid decline of major wild animals and birds. And in the name of game, offcers of the forest department or those in the administrative services had engaged in hunting, using the forest and other administrative infrastructure facilities. Well, while getting rewards for killing the animals and birds, they converted them into commercial products as well. Hence, there was a felt need to keep alive the game which demanded greater protection for wildlife. It may be appropriate to quote Temple, ‘It is notoriously a subject of complaint among sportsmen that the spread of cultivation and habitation has driven the big game away from the vicinity of stations and easily accessible localities.’240 One could see that these kinds of arguments were systematically developed from the late nineteenth century onwards and sustained till the end of the colonial era. In the game project, most of the forest offcers (both in service and retired) were actively engaged in the propaganda. The process of colonial strategy towards wildlife protection emerged two important components. One is the portrayal that wildlife was devouring humans and cattle and hence the need to be either annihilated or contained. The second one is that the wildlife becoming scarce for games, which has commercial value, has to be reversed by an appropriate legal mechanism. In other words, commercial interests associated with gaming were taken well care of while crying hoarse even over the loss of men and cattle. The policies and strategies towards wildlife were designed in such a way to suit the colonial agenda. Rationalising this, Temple has noted that ‘many thousands of natives yearly fall victims to the ravages and wild beasts and to the bites of the venomous reptiles, despite the efforts of the authorities to encourage the destruction of these animals. The loss of cattle also, from the same causes, is considerable.’241 Given the macro-picture of the economic history of the Indian subcontinent, the colonial period had a devastating impact on the environment. India’s environmental history literature is largely focused on forests and the displacement of forest-dwelling communities in the Post-Forest Act period, i.e., after 1878. Further, those studies concerning wildlife were also confned to the protected forests, which was nothing more than 4.5 per cent of the entire forest cover. Again, most of them have attempted to capture the extent of the destruction of major and exotic wild animals by the pre-colonial rulers as well as colonial sportsmen. The literature on

Introduction

45

the post-independence period too was devoted to the man–animal confict. And, another aspect of the wildlife studies was the hunting experiences of different kinds of wild animals from the early nineteenth century in different parts of the country. More importantly, the hunting kinds of literature have largely depicted the narrative of the colonial hunters. Interestingly, these colonial hunters or sportsmen, or gamers were mostly part of the colonial administrative apparatus, predominantly the forest administration. Further, a major chunk of the game literature about man-eater narratives in different parts of the country was largely confned to regions other than the southern parts of the subcontinent. Unfortunately, the game kinds of literature have failed to take into account the contribution of subalterns and the experiences of the traditional hunters. The colonial hunters/gamers have invariably exploited the rich and varied experience of the natives. Both wildlife pieces of literature in general and game literature in particular, have failed to capture the aspects of commercialisation of wildlife resources and their export. In other words, the colonial project on the commercialisation of wildlife resources did not gain the required attention. Given this background, the present manuscript attempts to analyse the various dimensions of gaming and hunting as part of the colonial enterprise in the Indian subcontinent, and how that was conveniently undermined by the scholars/ researchers not only from British but also from the Indian subcontinent in a historical perspective (1800–1947). For an in-depth study of the above objective, the following questions have been raised: The basic question is how the changing land-use pattern intensifed the confict between human and wildlife during the colonial era in the Indian subcontinent? Of course, several descriptions hinted at this issue but were not addressed systematically in the scholarly manner of the existing wildlife literature. How the pre-colonial attitudes were different from colonial attitudes towards Indian wildlife? Has the colonial expansion policy intensifed the confict between human and wildlife or not during the colonial period? How the British colonial expansionist strategy towards the hilly region was not only for their habitation but also for establishing tea, coffee and other plantations across the hilly and other elevated regions of the Indian subcontinent that has changed the natural habitat relations of Indian wildlife? Whether the colonial commercial strategy that had not only intruded the wildlife space by establishing tea/coffee plantations in the highlands but also systematically exterminated the wildlife by encouraging their offcers, by providing the leave and incentives to hunt the wildlife for the commodifcation of the wildlife? Was the destruction of wildlife carried out to protect human beings or commercialisation by the colonial administration? Was the incentive/bounty a strategy to commercialise wildlife by the colonial administration? How far the provisions of the forest acts have prevented hunting in the forest, particularly game? Were the wildlife protection measures a systematic strategy to further commercial interests? While

46

Introduction

glorifying games, how were the subalterns exploited and their traditional strategies were appropriated? Was the royal elites’ passion for exotic decoration and fashion a cause for the destruction of wildlife? How game and hunting gave a boost to the taxidermy industry in which India became a global leader during the colonial period? How the colonial strategy of commercialisation of wildlife and its related products had a global market? Last but not the least, how come the wildlife history literature of India has failed to address the commercialisation aspects of the wildlife is an important question. Interestingly, but unfortunately, the scholars of wildlife/environmental history are conveniently excluded or undermined the scholarly scrutiny of commercialisation of wildlife of the past. To answer these above questions, the present book has attempted to explore the changing land-use pattern, viz., the establishment of plantations in the highlands and agricultural expansion in the plains resulting in shrinking of the space for the wildlife, besides commercialisation of the wildlife resources by the colonial project from the late eighteenth century to the mid-twentieth century of the colonial period. 1.12 Synoptic View of the Chapters To answer the above queries and to get an in-depth understanding of the problem, this book is divided into seven chapters. The introduction sets the argument of the book in context, based on the ongoing debate. Delineating the gaps found in the voluminous environmental history literature in general and wildlife in particular provides a fresh perspective by sifting through the European and colonial narratives. In other words, it dissects the colonial project of commercialising the wildlife by employing various strategies. This chapter also gives the outline of the manuscript. The second chapter attempts to capture the complexities and contentious issues about wildlife and humans as well as domesticated animals from the early nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. It essentially captures how population growth, agricultural expansion and development of infrastructural facilities have aggravated the intensity of the man–animal confict. Tracing the genesis of the problem and placing it in a proper historical context, it deals with the colonial mechanisms that were employed. The third chapter discusses the confict together with its application of the colonial strategies in commercialising wildlife and related products. It recounts the loss of human lives and cattle that were being preyed on by wild beasts in the different regions of the country and how the colonial strategy was crafted to commercialise the wildlife resources. Precisely, this chapter argues that wildlife resources were destroyed under the pretext of protecting humans and cattle by romanticising the game as a brave one to systematically loot and commercialise wildlife resulting in the endangerment of several indigenous animals.

Introduction

47

The fourth chapter recounts the various wildlife laws and regulatory initiatives to protect the different forms of wildlife in different regions of the country in particular as well as the country as a whole during the colonial period since the second half of the nineteenth century. Several laws were enacted like the elephant protection act, birds and fsheries act, forest acts, prevention of birds’ export act, the prohibition of hunting in the forests and common lands, etc. during this phase. This chapter analyses the various legal mechanisms and regulations and how they were being implemented in the breach. The ffth chapter analyses the colonial projects being carried out for the commodifcation of wildlife resources for lucrative domestic and international trade. The commercialisation of wildlife had two components: one is that it encouraged the natives to hunt down wild beasts by offering cash rewards and bounties, and the other one was the free run given to Britishers, invariably from the different cadres of services, to engage in hunting in the name of sports and games. Does this chapter raise an important question as to whether these protective mechanisms have had any positive impact on wildlife conservation? In short, it details how these regulative mechanisms have systematically brought wildlife under state control with a commercial motive. The regulatory mechanisms were so designed that they were not to protect the fauna in fact but to bring them under the state control. To escape the legal hurdle, the man-eater’s story was brought in leading to indiscriminate hunting of wild beasts in the name of game and invariably giving a free hand to every East India Company gamer to skin the animals. The agenda is very clear. The British gamers, while shooting the animals, were particular that the animal skin should not be damaged. Skinning was part of the game agenda, but none of the gamers ever mentioned how much price they have availed, and the purpose of skinning the animals, horns and other parts remains unexplained. Ingen & Van Ingen’s taxidermy frm and others became very popular not only in this part of the country but all over the world. In other words, the game was commercialised much more in a systematic manner during the colonial period. This chapter captures how the different wildlife products were extracted and exported to other countries. The sixth chapter captures the colonial strategy of game and commodifcation of wildlife during the colonial period. It narrates how the colonial project has used the traditional knowledge of shikaris, beaters, tanners, informers and local people by giving special allowance to kill the wildlife, using the local administration, forest guest houses, import of hounds, guns, forming association, etc. for the gaming sports in the forests and the surrounding areas. Since the last decade of the nineteenth century, though the reserve and protected forests were restricted for hunting by local people by the forest act, the colonial projects were strategically exempted for the games/hunting in the reserve forests, especially for the Europeans and forest administrators. Invariably, a majority of the forest administrators of

48

Introduction

British India were engaged in hunting. The colonial administration facilitated them through the formation of the hunting society and game society besides assisting in the import of hounds and arranging the beaters, tanners and shikaris, among others. Further, it ensured the arrangement of forest guest houses, captive elephants and horses to hunt the wildlife coupled with incentives. Precisely, this chapter interrogates the strategy of the regulatory mechanisms and their outcome in the course of the colonial period. The last chapter ends with concluding observations besides detailing the pioneering contributions made towards the debate on the environmental history of modern India in general and wildlife history in particular. Notes 1 For details, see Velayutham Saravanan, Colonialism, Environment and Tribals in South India, London: Routledge, 2017. 2 Ibid. 3 Velayutham Saravanan, ‘Colonialism and Coffee Plantations: Decline of Environment and Tribals in Madras Presidency during the 19th Century’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 41 (4), 2004, pp. 465–488. 4 For details see, Velayutham Saravanan, Environmental History and Tribals in Modern India, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. 5 Ibid. 6 Velayutham Saravanan, ‘Environmental History of Tamil Nadu State, Law and Decline of Forests and Tribals, 1950–2000’, Modern Asian Studies, 41 (4), 2007, pp. 723–767. 7 Om Prakash, ‘Wildlife Destruction: A Legacy of the Colonial State in India’, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 67, 2006–2007, p. 692. 8 John Mackenzie, The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation, and British Imperialism, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988; Mahesh Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History: An Introduction, Delhi: Permanent Black, 2001. 9 Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History. 10 Ranjan Chakrabarti, ‘The Jungle, The Imperial Hunt and British Imperialism’ 1800–1947’, in Science, Technology, Medicine and Environment in India: Historical Perspectives, ed. C. Palit and A. Bhattacharyya. Calcutta: Bibhasa, 1998, p. 206. 11 Julie Elaine Hughes, Animal Kingdoms: Princely Power, the Environment, and the Hunt in Colonial India, Ph.D. Thesis, Austin: The University of Texas, December 2009. 12 Thomas R. Trautmann, Elephants and Kings: An Environmental History, Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2015. 13 Vijaya Ramadas Mandala, Shooting a Tiger: Big Game Hunting and Conservation in Colonial India, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2018. 14 J. Moray Brown, Shikar Sketches: with notes on Indian Field-Sports, London: Hurst and Blackett, Publishers, 1887, p. x. 15 Chakrabarti, ‘The Jungle, The Imperial Hunt and British Imperialism’, p. 217. 16 Thaddeus McBride, ‘The Dangers of Liberal Neo-Colonialism: Elephants, Ivory and the CITES Treaty’, Boston College Third World Law Journal, 19 (2), 1999, pp. 733–734.

Introduction 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

48 49

49

Ibid., p. 734. Ibid., p. 737. Ibid., p. 735. Ibid., p. 746. Ibid., p. 757. Vijay Ramadas Mandala, ‘The Raj and the Paradoxes of Wildlife Conservation: British Attitudes and Experiences’, The Historical Journal, 58 (1), 2015, p. 76. Mandala, Shooting a Tiger, p. 19. Mandala, ‘The Raj and the Paradoxes of Wildlife Conservation’, p. 79. Ibid., p. 82. Saravanan, ‘Colonialism and Coffee Plantations’, pp. 465–488. Mandala, Shooting a Tiger, pp. 79–160. R.W. Burton, ‘A Bibliography of Big Game Hunting and Shooting in India and the East’, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 49 (1&2), 1950, pp. 222–241 and R.W. Burton, ‘A Bibliography of Big Game Hunting and Shooting in India and the East’, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 50 (1), 1951, pp. 167–169. Ibid. Brown, Shikar Sketches, p. 15. Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History, p. xv. Ibid. John Knight, ‘Introduction’, in Natural Enemies: People-Wildlife Conficts in Anthropological Perspective, ed. John Knight. London and New York: Routledge, 2000, p. 2. Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History, p. 14. Ibid., p. 4. Ibid., p. 9. Ibid., pp. 7–8. Ibid., p. 8. Ibid., p. 14. Mahesh Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the Natural World: The War against “Dangerous Beasts” in Colonial India’, Studies in History, 14, 1998, p. 267. Daniel Johnson, Sketches of Field Sports as Followed by of with Observations on the Animals, London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Browne, and Thomas Fowler, Great Torrington, Devon, 1822, pp. 169–170. Ibid., p. 173. Adien, ‘An Account of a Hunting Party’, The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British India and Foreign Dependencies, 1, Jan–Jun 1816, pp. 539–540. Ibid., p. 541. Ibid., p. 542. E.P. Stebbing, The Diary of a Sportsman Naturalist in India, London: John Lane Company, 1920, p. 263. ‘Summary of Speeches Made at Mysore on the Occasion of the First Meeting of the Central Board for Wild Life from 25th November to 1st December 1952’, in The Preservation of Wildlife in India: A Compilation, ed. W.R. Burton. Bangalore: The Bangalore Press, 1953, p. 160. S.W. James’s Palace, The Prince of Wales’ Eastern Book: A Pictorial Record of the Voyages of H.M.S. “Renown” 1921–1922, London: Hodder and Stoughton, Limited, 1922, p. 54. Adien, ‘An Account of a Hunting Party’, p. 542.

50

Introduction

50 Henry Bevan, Thirty years in India: Or, A Soldier’s Reminiscences of Native and European Life in the Presidencies, from 1808 to 1838, Vol. II, London: Pelham Richardson, 1839, p. 290. 51 The Mahouts, or elephant-drivers in India, are invariably Mohammedans (see Henry Bevan, Thirty Years in India: Or, A Soldier’s Reminiscences of Native and European Life in the Presidencies, from 1808 to 1838, Vol. I, London: Pelham Richardson, 1839, p. 113. 52 H.H.F.M. Tyler, ‘Fauna’, in Southern India: Its History, People, Commerce, and Industrial Resources, compiled Somerset Playne, London: The Foreign and Colonial Compiling and Publishing Co, 1914–1915, p. 189. 53 ‘the animal obeys the following thirty-one words of command with all the readiness and precision of a disciplined soldier. 1. Make salaam. 2. Lie down. 3. Get up. 4. Stoop. 5. Lift a foreleg. 6. Lift a hind—leg. 7. Walk. 8. Move quicker. 9. Move slower. 10. Run. 11. Stop. 12. Lie on the side. 13. Turn over (12 and 13 used in washing). 14. Raise the trunk.15. Open the trunk. 16. Trumpet. 17. Lay hold. 18. Pull down. 19. Pull up. 20. Drag after. 21. Beat the ground (to try you whether it will bear the animal’s weight). 22. Be cautious. 23. Come here. 24. Go away. 25. Step back. 26. Lift the tail. 27. Brush off the fies. 28. Throw water over you 29. Give me the stick. 30. Give me your chain. 31. Give me your blanket’ (Henry Bevan, Thirty Years in India, Vol. II, pp. 115–116. 54 Henry Bevan, Thirty Years in India, Vol. II, p. 116. 55 Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History, p. 14. 56 Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the Natural World’, pp. 269 and 297. 57 James Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, London: Chapman & Hall, 1871, pp. 437–438. 58 Brown, Shikar Sketches, p. 49. 59 Johnson, Sketches of Field Sports, p. 63. 60 Henry Astbury Leveson, The Hunting Grounds of the Old World, London: Saunders, Otley & Co, 1860, pp. 215–216. 61 George P. Sanderson, Thirteen Years among the Wild Beasts of India: Their Haunts and Habits from Personal Observation; with an Account of the Modes of Capturing and Taming Elephants, Edinburg: John Grant, 1882, p. 13. 62 Leveson, The Hunting Grounds of the Old World, p. 145. 63 Bevan, Thirty Years in India, p. 355. 64 Tyler, ‘Fauna’, p. 186. 65 Douglas Hamilton, Records of Sport in Southern India, etc., London: R.H. Porter, 1892, pp. xxii–xxiii. 66 Johnson, Sketches of Field Sports, p. 57. 67 Ibid. 68 S.H. Prater, ‘The Number of Tiger Shot in a Reserved Forest in India and Burma During the Year 1937–1938’, The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 41, 1998, pp. 883–884. 69 Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History, p. 36. 70 Ibid., p. 38. 71 ‘Breathing Life into Dead Animals’, https://www.deccanherald.com/spectrum/ spectrum-top-stories/breathing-life-into-dead-animals-733139.html (accessed on 20 April 2020). 72 Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History, p. 47. 73 Hughes, Animal Kingdoms, p. 5. 74 Ibid., p. 14. 75 Ibid., p. 21. 76 Ibid., p. 104.

Introduction 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

51

Ibid., pp. 124–125. Ibid., p. 128. Ibid., p. 137. Chakrabarti, ‘The Jungle, The Imperial Hunt and British Imperialism’, p. 210. Mandala, Shooting a Tiger, Chapter 4. Edgar Thurston, Monograph on the Ivory Carving Industry of Southern India, Madras: Government Press, 1901, p. 7. Ibid. Tyler, ‘Fauna’, p. 189. Bevan, Thirty Years in India, p. 62. David Cannadine, Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. xiv. Ibid., p. 11. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 12–13. Ibid., p. 13. Bernard S. Cohn, ‘Representing Authority in Victorian India’, in The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 182. Ibid., p. 201. Ibid., p. 205. Ibid., p. 206. Ibid., pp. 207–208. Mandala, Shooting a Tiger, p. 161. Fiona Natasha Mani, ‘British Hunters in Colonial India, 1900–1947: The Gentleman Hunter, New Technology, and Growing Conservationist Awareness’, Pakistaniaat: A Journal of Pakistan Studies, 4 (1), 2012, p. 69. The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British India and Foreign Dependencies, 3, Jul–Dec,1817, p. 310. Mackenzie, The Empire of Nature, p. 178. William Rice, Tiger Shooting in India: Being an Account of Hunting Experience on Foot in Rajpootana during the Hot Seasons, from 1850 to 1854, London: Smith, Elder and Co, 1857, p. xiii. R.W. Burton, ‘A History of Shikar in India’, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 50, 1952, pp. 848–849. Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, p. 290. Ibid., p. 271. Ibid., p. 291. Bevan, Thirty Years in India, p. 43. Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, p. 306. Stebbing, The Diary of a Sportsman Naturalist in India, p. 261. Leveson, The Hunting Grounds of the Old World, pp. 139–140. Ibid., p. 145. Henry Shakespear, The Wild Sports of India, London: Smith, Elder, and Co, 1859, p. 52. Prakash, ‘Wildlife Destruction’, p. 694. Ibid., p. 693. Mackenzie, The Empire of Nature, p. 170. Ibid., p. 22. Johnson, Sketches of Field Sports, p. 122. Mackenzie, The Empire of Nature, p. 168.

52

Introduction

118 Ibid., p. 168. 119 Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History, p. 25; see also Mackenzie, The Empire of Nature, p. 168. 120 Brown, Shikar Sketches, p. 32. 121 Mandala, Shooting a Tiger, p. 309. 122 See chapter 5, Table 5.1. 123 Mandala, Shooting a Tiger, pp. 310–313. 124 See chapter 5, Table 5.5. 125 Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the Natural World’, p. 265. 126 Bevan, Thirty Years in India, p. 30. 127 Ibid., p. 211. 128 John M. Mackenzie, ‘Forward’, in Shooting a Tiger: Big Game Hunting and Conservation in Colonial India, ed. Vijaya Ramadas Mandala. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2018. 129 The Prince in Calcutta; Or Memorials of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh’s visits in December, 1869, Calcutta: Barham, Hill and Company and Bengal Printing Company Ltd, 1870. 130 Mackenzie, The Empire of Nature, p. 171. 131 J. Fayrer, Notes of the Visits to India of the Royal Highness the prince of Wales and Duck of Edinburgh, 1870–1875–76, London: Kerby and Endeen,1879, p. 33. 132 Ibid., p. 40. 133 Ibid. 134 C.R.T. Congreve, ‘The District of Coimbatore: The Anamalai Hill’, in Southern India: Its History, People, Commerce, and Industrial Resources, Compiled by Somerset Playne, London: The Foreign and Colonial Compiling and Publishing Co, 1914–1915, p. 403. 135 Fayrer, Notes of the Visits to India of the Royal Highness, p. 43. 136 John Fortescue, Narrative of the Visit to India of their Majesties, King George V. and Queen Mary, and of the Coronation Durbar Held at Delhi, 12th December 1911, London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1912, p. 201. 137 James’s Palace, The Prince of Wales’ Eastern Book, pp. 17–18. 138 Ibid., p. 33. 139 Ibid., p. 34. 140 Ibid., p. 36. 141 Ibid., p. 39. 142 Ibid., p. 40. 143 Ibid., p. 41. 144 Ibid., pp. 41–42. 145 Ibid., p. 44. 146 Ibid., p. 48. 147 Ibid., pp. 44–47. 148 Ibid., p. 49. 149 Ibid., p. 50. 150 Ibid., p. 51. 151 Ibid., p. 54. 152 Johnson, Sketches of Field Sports, p. 103. 153 Ibid., p. 8. 154 W.W. Hunter, The Indian Empire: Its People, History, and products, London: Trubner & Co, 1886, p. 653. 155 Jim Corbett, Man-Eaters of Kumaon, Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1944, p. 2.

Introduction

53

156 Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, p. 305. 157 C.E.M. Russell, Bullet and Shot in Indian Forest, Plain and Hill, London: W. Thacker and Co, 1900, pp. 102–103. 158 R.C. Morris, ‘Rarity of Man-Eating Tigers in South India’, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 40, 1946, p. 77. 159 F.A. Nicholson, Manual of the Coimbatore District in the Presidency of Madras, Vol. I, Madras: The Government Press, 1887, p. 29. 160 Ibid., p. 28. 161 Ibid., p. 29. 162 Ibid. 163 Ibid., p. 30. 164 Tyler, ‘Fauna’, p. 189. 165 Ibid., p. 194. 166 Johnson, Sketches of Field Sports, p. 102. 167 Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the Natural World’, p. 271. 168 Edgar Thurston, The Madras Presidency: With Mysore, Coorg and the Associated States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913, p. 90. 169 Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History, p. 23; see also Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the Natural World’, p. 269. 170 Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History, p. 23. 171 Ibid. 172 Brown, Shikar Sketches, pp. 17–18. 173 Ibid., pp. 21–22. 174 Ibid., p. 23. 175 Ibid., pp. 34–35. 176 Mandala, ‘The Raj and the Paradoxes of Wildlife Conservation’, p. 80. 177 Mackenzie, The Empire of Nature, p. 182. 178 Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the Natural World’, p. 271. 179 Hunter, The Indian Empire, p. 653. 180 C.D. Maclean, Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, vol. I, Madras: Government Press, 1985, p. 262. 181 Report of Committee Appointed to Consider and Adopt Measures for the Protection of Crops from Wild Animals and Stray Cattle, Bombay: Government of Bombay, 1923, p. 27. 182 Sanderson, Thirteen Years among the Wild Beasts of India, p. 360. 183 Ibid., p. 41. 184 Henry Astbury Leveson, Sport in Many Lands, Vol. I, London Chapman and Hall, 1877, p. 140. 185 Rice, Tiger Shooting in India, p. 39. 186 Shakespear, The Wild Sports of India, p. 77. 187 Maclean, Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, p. 263. 188 Mahesh Rangarajan, ‘The Role of Administration in Extermination: Fresh Evidence on the Cheetah (Acinonyx Jubatus) in India’, The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 95, 1998, p. 329. 189 Richard Temple, India in 1880, London: John Murray, 1881, p. 82. 190 Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, p. 305. 191 Ibid., p. 291. 192 Mandala, Shooting a Tiger, p. 162. 193 K. Ullas Karanth, ‘Tiger Ecology and Conservation in the Indian Subcontinent’, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 100 (2&3), 2003, p. 181. 194 Ministry of Food and Agriculture Resolution (No.7–110/51–R), New Delhi: Government of India, dated 4th April 1952.

54

Introduction

195 ‘Summary of Speeches Made at Mysore on the Occasion of the First Meeting of the Central Board for Wild Life from 25th November to 1st December 1952’, p. 160. 196 Resolutions Adopted by the Central Board for Wild Life at Its First Session Held in Mysore from the 25th November to the 1st December 1952. 197 Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History, p. xiv. 198 Ibid., p. 14. 199 Bevan, Thirty years in India, p. 34. 200 Ibid., p. 40. 201 Leveson, The Hunting Grounds of the Old World, p. 198. 202 Ibid., pp. 198–199. 203 Brown, Shikar Sketches, pp. 152–153. 204 Mackenzie, The Empire of Nature, p. 170. 205 E.P. Stebbing, ‘Game Sanctuaries and Game Protection in India’, in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1912, p. 23. 206 Stebbing, The Diary of a Sportsman Naturalist in India, p. 242. 207 W.R. Burton, The Preservation of Wildlife in India: A Compilation, Bangalore: The Bangalore Press, 1953, p. 2. 208 Hari Singh, Report of the Study Group on Wild Life and Wild Life Products, New Delhi: Department of Agriculture, 1967. 209 F.J. Richards, Madras District Gazetteers Salem, Vol. I, part I, Madras: Government Press, 1916, p. 276. 210 Leveson, The Hunting Grounds of the Old World, p. 160. 211 Brown, Shikar Sketches, p. 284. 212 Mackenzie, The Empire of Nature, p. 28. 213 Ibid., p. 29. 214 Ibid. 215 Ibid., p. 182. 216 Van Ingen and Van Ingen – WikiVisually https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Van _Ingen_%26_Van_Ingen (accessed on 20 April 2020). 217 P.A. Morris, Van Ingen & Van Ingen: Artists in Taxidermy, Ascot: MPM Publishing, 2006. 218 Van Ingen and Van Ingen – WikiVisually https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Van _Ingen_%26_Van_Ingen (accessed on 20 April 2020). 219 Lawrence Milton, ‘They Preserve Wild Spoils Year After Year’, https://timesofndia.indiatimes.com/city/mysore/They–preserve–wild–spoils–year–after–year/ articleshow/10345185.cms?referral=PM (accessed on 20 April 2020). 220 Morris, Van Ingen & Van Ingen, Reviewed by John Edwards, Archives of Natural History, 34 (2), 2007, pp. 364–365. 221 https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Van_Ingen_%26_Van_Ingen. 222 Sanderson, Thirteen Years among the Wild Beasts of India, p. 327. 223 https://www.ootacamundclub.com/index.php/history (accessed on 20 April 2020). 224 Fayrer, Notes of the Visits to India of the Royal Highness, p. 43. 225 Tyler, ‘Fauna’, pp. 200–201. 226 Russell, Bullet and Shot in Indian Forest, Plain and Hill, pp. 39–40. 227 Tyler, ‘Fauna’, pp. 200–201. 228 Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, p. 262. 229 Tyler, ‘Fauna’, p. 194. 230 Ibid., p. 187. 231 See Felix Patel, The Sacrifce of Human Being: British Rule and the Konds of Orissa, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Introduction

55

232 Prakash, ‘Wildlife Destruction’, p. 700. 233 Martha  Chaiklin and  Philip  Gooding, ‘Introduction: Investigating Animals, Their Products, and Their Trades in the Indian Ocean World’, in Animal Trade Histories in the Indian Ocean World, ed. Martha Chaiklin, Philip Gooding and Gwyn Campbell, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020, p. 7. 234 Ibid., pp. 7–12. 235 F.P. Robinson, The Trade of the East India Company from 1709 to 1813, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912, p. 60. 236 Stebbing, The Diary of a Sportsman Naturalist in India, p. 260. 237 Morris, ‘Rarity of Man-Eating Tigers in South India’, pp. 77–78. 238 Stebbing, The Diary of a Sportsman Naturalist in India, p. 263. 239 G.O.No.1478, Administration Report—Forest Department—1921—22— Reviewed, 4 November 1922. 240 Temple, India in 1880, p. 364. 241 Ibid.

Chapter 2

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

In the natural habitat, humans and wildlife are an integral part of the ecosystem. And, in sustaining the ecosystem and biodiversity resources, wildlife plays a very important role. Natural resources being common to humankind and animals, both share them for their survival. Besides sharing the same ecosystem with man, several animals offer protection either directly or indirectly to humans, their cattle and property. For instance, several insects got crushed and killed by the wildlife, which posed a grave danger to man, domesticated animals and crops. Although the coexistence was not without conficts, they remained minimal due to the low density of population and availability of a vast amount of forest and other common property resources. Rangarajan has rightly pointed out: ‘One person’s dream for the land can be another’s nightmare. The divisions over who should manage and control the land and for what purpose are central to the future of India’s wildlife.’1 He further pointed out: ‘The past may not provide lessons in a crude sense, but it is rich in insights.’2 With the increase of population, the land under cultivation expanded and so did the development of other infrastructure, resulting in expansion of more area and space being brought under the control of the human beings, which had shrunk the habitat for wildlife to a great extent over the period, particularly since the early nineteenth century. Rangarajan observed: ‘Over a billion people—four times as many as existed 150 years ago—live in a country that is also home for almost a thousand bird species and 45,000 varieties of plants.’3 He further added: ‘The denudation of natural vegetal cover over the last two centuries has been an unprecedented scale, but even if much has vanished, much remains.’4 Of course, this was a global phenomenon, invariably in different parts of the world from the early seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries.5 Thaddeus McBride points out: ‘Because of population pressures, elephant terrain increasingly includes human habitats. As a result, elephants cause extensive injuries to humans, property, and crops each year.’6 According to Corbett: ‘In my lifetime I have seen great changes in the forests of the Tarai and Bhabar. Some of these changes have resulted from exploitation, others

DOI: 10.4324/9781003427452-2

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

57

have been brought about in a natural manner.’7 This paved the way for conficts between man and wildlife, and it has become more frequent and intense, especially from the early nineteenth century onwards. The important question is, how were pre-colonial attitudes different from colonial attitudes towards Indian wildlife? Whether the animal voices or agency for wild animals happened during the colonial era is another important question. Thaddeus McBride claims: African elephants have no natural enemies other than a man. It is humans alone, therefore, who will decide the fate of these remarkable creatures. Unfortunately, in recent years though, we have not done an effective job of protecting elephants from ourselves. As a result, elephant populations have declined, a drop mainly attributable to poaching.8 Until the last quarter of the twentieth century, there were no initiatives to protect elephants at the global level. Although there was no initiative to protect the elephant at the global level, some regions/countries have initiated measures to protect and preserve the elephant. For example, Travancore princely state protected the elephant from the early nineteenth century itself.9 Not only were elephants protected since the early nineteenth century but elephant shooting was also prohibited from the mid-nineteenth century onwards. For instance, as early as 1869, the Travancore princely state prohibited the shooting of wild elephants.10 Subsequently, the Madras Wild Elephant Preservation Act 1873 and All India Elephant Preservation Act 1879 were enacted. In other words, India was one of the countries in the world that protected elephants from the early nineteenth century in a particular region and later from the last quarter of the nineteenth century throughout the country. Interestingly, Indian elephants in war coupled with their royal symbolism in parts of South Asia probably meant that their circulation was ‘doubly’ restricted. Elephants were at one time symbols of the ‘primacy of the king’ and carriers of humans and weapons to and across the battlefeld.11 Only in July 1975, did the United Nations adopt the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.12 The CITES Convention’s preamble declares that ‘peoples and states are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and fora.’13 McBride further argued as to ‘how to establish an environment in which elephants, agriculture and human beings can co-exist peacefully.’14 He claims that: ‘The re-introduction of the ivory trade is a positive step forward in the attempt to create an environment in which elephants and humans can co-exist peacefully.’15 McBride further stated that:

58

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

Unfortunately, many liberals have acted irresponsibly in the elephant ivory debate. This is a dangerous precedent to set. As global development continues, it becomes more likely that conficts about sovereignty over the world's fnite resources will escalate. The CITES debate portends increasingly imperialistic measures whenever the developing world deviates from Western recommendations.16 At the same time, Mandala captures the paradoxes of the British Raj and wildlife conservation from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He has rightly pointed out that ‘The British adopted the dual role of hunters and conservers in colonial India. Protection and decimation of forests and wildlife simultaneously shaped ecological landscapes on the margins of arable lands, impacting local environments throughout the Indian sub-continent.’17 Indeed, there is no paradox of either hunting or conservation during the Company Raj from the late eighteenth century to till mid-nineteenth century (1757–1857). In other words, in the frst century of the Company Raj, hunting was only encouraged and the conservation issues did not fgure at all. Indeed, not only protecting the wildlife but also protecting the environment in general occurred until the last quarter of the nineteenth century.18 Even during the frst two decades of the Empire Raj, hunting was continued to be practised. Indeed, conservation of forest initiatives began only during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, particularly after the enactment of the Indian Forest Act 1878 but not earlier, even after the Indian Forest Act 1865. As far as wildlife conservation is concerned, the empire did not have any concern over more than two decades of the late nineteenth century. The wildlife conservation issues were confned only to elephants (from 1873 in Madras Presidency and from 1879 in the country as a whole) and were later extended to protect the wildlife as a whole under the Wildlife Protection Act 1887. Subsequently, Prohibition of Export of Birds 1902 and the Wild Birds and Animals (Protection) Act 1912 were enacted specifcally beside the provisions of the Indian Forest Act 1878 and 1927 to protect the wildlife and specifc enactment at the presidencies and princely states level during that period. Mandala claims that the dual role of hunting and conservation has shaped the ecological landscape to two phases: one is that the Empire Raj also encouraged hunting like the Company Raj and another is once the options for hunting were exhausted, they were taught on conserving wildlife, mainly for the game than for protecting wildlife. He further claims that ‘Hunting and conservation went hand-in-hand as an essential part of the British colonial economy in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in India.’19 Unfortunately, this is not a fact; hunting was an integral part of the British administrators from the mid-eighteenth century or even before of East India Company offcers, whereas the conservation strategy emerged only in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, particularly after the enactment of the Indian Forest Act 1878 or Madras Forest Act 1882. Mandala claims:

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

59

Between the latter half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century in India, colonial administrators, forest offcers, planters, and sportsmen launched comprehensive efforts to protect the endangered species.20 As against Mandala claims, the fact of the matter is that the British hunters’ project was started from the late eighteenth century, and the project of planters was started from the late eighteenth century but effectively from the early nineteenth century in the north-eastern parts and in the southern peninsula from the second quarter of the nineteenth century but the endangered species came into picture only during the last quarter of the nineteenth century.21 Mandala observed the contradictory nature of British colonial conservation policies in India and also their imperial attitudes during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that prioritised the killing of tiger species and the protection of elephant species. Protecting elephants for transportation, administrative and war purposes was an integral part of the Indian rulers, both Hindu and Muslim rulers, from the early period, and hunting tigers was also practised from the early period. The export of ivory and its related products was one of the important components of colonial trade from the early nineteenth century. This issue was discussed in detail in Chapter 5. Overexploitation of elephants and birds for the colonial commercial projects resulted in the enactment of acts for protecting the elephant and birds through these acts (for details see Chapter 4), not for conservation but to sustain the commercialisation process from the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Here, I must comment very seriously that since hunting was an integral part of the Company Raj from the late eighteenth century and continued till the mid-nineteenth century, wildlife conservation emerged starting from the elephant, and then birds, only in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In other words, the frst half of the British rule during the late nineteenth century was mainly focused on hunting the wildlife, and the second half of the last quarter of the nineteenth century thought about preserving the wildlife, but, in fact, selectively. Let me put it differently: the empire started thinking about protecting the wildlife after destroying them at a large scale until the last quarter of the nineteenth century and wildlife conservation emerged only in the last quarter of the nineteenth century onwards. In other words, as Mandala claimed, ‘Hunting and conservation went hand-in-hand as an essential part of the British colonial economy in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in India.’22 He further claimed that ‘Between the latter half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century in India, colonial administrators, forest offcers, planters, and sportsmen launched comprehensive efforts to protect the endangered species.’23 And then ‘The expansion of the Indian Forest Service also enabled forest offcers to hunt and study Indian fora and fauna more closely.’24 In other words, the options for hunting were exhausted during

60

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

the late nineteenth century and they started thinking about the conservation of wildlife certainly not for the preserving the wildlife but for the game to survive. Precisely, wildlife conservation began during the last quarter of the nineteenth century but essentially to protect the game rather than wildlife in general! In addition to that, the commodifcation of natural resources with the advent of colonialism had further shrunk the space that was available for the wildlife. According to Rangarajan, ‘The extension of cultivation often entailed sharper confict not only with carnivores but even with herbivores.’25 Further, the British game projects wiped out a large number of wildlife. Given this background, this chapter attempts to capture the complexities and contentious issues between wildlife and humans and their domesticated animals from the early nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. Essentially, this chapter analyses how population growth, agricultural expansion and development of infrastructural facilities intensifed the confict in the Indian subcontinent during the colonial period, i.e., from the late eighteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. This chapter is divided into fve sections with Section 2.1 providing an analysis of population growth, the attendant spread of human settlements and their impact on natural resources. Section 2.2 details the trend of agricultural expansion in the country. Section 2.3 is about the development of various infrastructural facilities. Section 2.4 deals with the impact of land-use patterns in general and common properties in particular on wildlife resources over the period and the last section ends with concluding observations. 2.1 Trends of Population Growth in India Population growth and density were very low in the Indian subcontinent like anywhere in the world until the mid-seventeenth century. For instance, the population of the Indian subcontinent till then was about 100 million which increased to 130–160 million in the mid-eighteenth century. It went up to 140–200 million in 1800 and 190–240 million in the 1850s.26 Since the 1870s, a complete enumeration of the census was carried out. And, according to the 1871 Census, the total population of the subcontinent was about 238 million. Given the vast extent of area, the available land for the population has not become an issue till the mid-nineteenth century. Until then, the demand for land had not risen primarily due to the low population. The landowners were searching for tenants to carry out cultivation in their lands. According to Hunter, ‘In ancient times, and until three—quarters of a century of British rule had passed, overpopulation was unknown to India. The demand from the landholders, was for tenants, not by the husbandman for land.’27 He pointed out that even in the fertile Gangetic basin, a large extent of the land remained unoccupied towards the end of the eighteenth century. According to him,

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

61

At the end of the last century about one-third of Lower Bengal, and probably half of the Panjab, lay unoccupied. The Central Provinces lay half unoccupied on the south, Assam lay unoccupied on the north. How it came that this great breeding-ground, with every cause of the increase of an Indian population in full development, was thus surrounded by almost unoccupied provinces, while within its districts the competition was by landlords for cultivators, not by cultivators for land?28 The above statement indicates that the large extent of land, which was not yet brought under cultivation, could be a wildlife habitat. In other words, until the end of the eighteenth century, neither population growth was high nor agricultural expansion was rampant. Since the early nineteenth century, both population and agricultural expansion occurred in the Indian subcontinent, besides plantations in the highlands. According to the 1871 Census, the total population of the Indian subcontinent was about 23.88 crore and it went up to 31.87 crores in 1941 (Table  2.1). From the last quarter of the nineteenth century to the midtwentieth century, over the seven decades, the growth of population was about 33.43 per cent. Though it has risen by one-third, the actual increase took place during the last two decades of the colonial era, viz., the 1920s onwards. As such, it becomes evident that the population had remained more or less constant from the 1880s to the 1920s. Whereas, between 1871 and 1921, i.e., over a period of fve decades, it was a mere 5.23 per cent jump. In fact, for two decades during this period, population growth displayed a negative trend. For about four decades (1880–1920), there was no change in population due to severe famine, drought and war in different parts of the country. However, the trend got reversed since the 1920s when the population increased from 25.13 crores in 1921 to 36.11 crore in 1941, touching a growth rate of about 26.79 per cent. Since population density was low and the peoples’ requirement was mainly confned to their livelihood options, Table 2.1 Trends of Population in India, 1871–1941 Year

Population

Decadal Growth Rate

1871 1881 1891 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941

238,830,958 253,891,821 287,223,431 238,396,327 252,093,390 251,321,213 278,977,238 318,660,580

6.31 13.13 −17 5.75 −0.31 11.00 14.22

Source: Census of India (various years).

62

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

there was little or no threat to either the ecology or environment. In addition to that, frequent famines, internal warfare, epidemics like cholera and plague harmed life span resulting in loss of life, keeping population growth under check. From the early seventeenth century to mid-seventeenth century, the population of the Indian subcontinent was about 100 million and, in 1941, it had more than tripled to 318 million. How rapid population growth negated the existence of wildlife and forest habitat, will be discussed in the subsequent sections. 2.2 Expansion of Cultivation After the arrival of the British, cultivation, including that of plantation crops, witnessed a rapid expansion. In the highlands, vast tracts were brought under plantation crops such as tea, coffee and others in Assam, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka and different parts of Madras Presidency. However, coffee cultivation was largely confned to the southern peninsula. For example, in the early 1880s, coffee cultivation in Mysore stood at 159,165 acres; in Madras at 61,481 acres; and in Coorg, it was 48,150 acres.29 In the late 1870s, the total area taken up for tea was 736,082 acres, of which, in Assam 62,642 acres, Bengal 10,046 acres and Madras 3,160 acres. In addition to this, certain areas were brought under plantation crops in the North-Western Provinces.30 Further, in the hill areas of Madras Presidency, about 2,607 acres came under cinchona in the early 1880s.31 These plantation estates had come up in the highlands, which was the habitation of a large number of wildlife. The important questions arise, whether the expansion of agriculture from the pre-colonial Indian rulers since the Mauryan period was different from the Britisher intention of promoting commercial crops and agriculture can be considered as a mercantilist and proft-making enterprise? As I have indicated earlier or elsewhere, the density of the population was low and their needs were also very limited, mainly for their subsistence. Besides that, due to primitive technology, the scope for the expansion of agriculture was limited. Consequently, until the colonial intervention, expansion of agriculture means extending the area within the plains of culturable waste and not necessarily the forest and highlands. Let me put it differently, agricultural expansion during the pre-colonial period means that expanding the unoccupied areas within plains and not necessarily in the highlands. Unlike in pre-colonial times, the British colonial expansionist strategy towards the hilly region was not only for their habitation but also for establishing tea, coffee and other plantations across the hilly and other elevated regions of the Indian subcontinent that has changed the natural habitat relations of Indian wildlife. Mackenzie rightly pointed out that: ‘As the shooting elite converted arable land and hill pasture into a new form of planned wilderness, they not only changed the landscape, they also created fresh topographical perceptions for the nineteenth century.’32 He further pointed out that:

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

63

Animal populations in settled areas were progressively destroyed as the Indian population increased, marginal lands came into cultivation, and Europeans hunted more destructively. As a result, hunting and shooting increasingly became an activity pursued in forests, mountains, and princely States.33 This kind of British colonial expansionist strategy towards hill geographies had witnessed the unprecedented decline of not only the fora and fauna invariably in different parts of the Indian subcontinent, which created an endemic confict between Indian wildlife instead of British colonial expansionist strategy. Precisely, the colonial commercial strategy that had not only intruded the wildlife space by establishing the plantations in the highlands but also systematically exterminated the wildlife by encouraging their offcers, particularly their military and other offcers by providing the leave and incentives, to hunt the wildlife for the commodifcation of the wildlife from the late nineteenth century onwards. Temple says: It is as tea—planters and coffee—planters that Europeans, chiefy British, have so happily increased in India. They have now covered, or are covering, with these plantations, the slopes of the mountains which hem in Assam, a portion of the hills bounding Bengal on the east, the territory ceded by the Bhotan State, the greater part of Darjiling and British Sikhim much of the Kumaon Province, the north of Hindustan, some of the Kangra villages in the Panjab, and to the south many portions of the Nilgiri section of the Western Ghat mountains, including villages, slopes and ridges in the State of Curg, the district of Waynaad and the kingdom of Travancore.34 Russell pointed out that ‘Bisons are impatient of disturbance by man, and many places in the hills, in which they used to be numerous, are now deserted by them owing to the opening up of tea, cinchona, and coffee estates.’35 In the Indian subcontinent, the process of establishing plantations, by clearing vast tracts of virgin forests and displacing tribals, commenced from the second quarter of the nineteenth century in the different provinces. Plantations other than tea and coffee were also developed in the highlands. In 1878, 27,808 acres of forest land were brought under plantation crops. These plantations were developed mainly in the highlands (Table 2.2). After the enactment of the Indian Forest Act 1865, a large area was brought under the reserve forests in different provinces of the Indian subcontinent. As of March 31, 1877, 17,835 square miles in the different provinces were declared as reserve forests. Punjab Province had earmarked 3,782 square miles as reserve forests, Bengal Provinces 3,390 square miles, North-Western Provinces 2,568 square miles, Central Provinces 2,391 square miles, Assam

64

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

Table 2.2 Area under Plantations in Diferent Provinces, 1877–1878 Province

Area in Acres

Bengal North-Western Provinces Oudh Punjab Central Provinces British Burma Coorg Ajmere Assam Mysore Berar Total

637 1,656 265 15,420 — 3,339 396 368 744 2,504 1,419 27,808

Source: Brandis, D. The Reviews of Forest administration in the provinces under the Government of India for the four years from 1873–1874 to 1876–1877, Simla: Government Central Branch Press, 1879, p.18.

Table 2.3 The Area of the Demarcated Reserves in Diferent Provinces as of March 31, 1877 Province

Area in Sq. Miles

Bengal North-Western Provinces Oudh Punjab Central Provinces British Burma Coorg Ajmere Assam Mysore Berar Total

3,390 2,568 824 3,782 2,391 640 381 100 1,910 449 1,400 17,835

Source: Brandis, D. The Reviews of Forest administration in the provinces under the Government of India for the four years from 1873–1874 to 1876–1877, Simla: Government Central Branch Press, 1879, p.9.

1,910 square miles, Berar 1,400 square miles and other provinces have less than 1,000 square miles until 1877 (see Table 2.3). No wonder, initially there were damages to the plantations in the hills and adjoining areas from the wild animals which were disturbed in their natural habitat. For instance,

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

65

Bison and sambur did some damage in the Mount Stuart teak regeneration area by trampling the young seedlings. Sambur also damaged the teak saplings in the experimental plots in Punachi range, Madura. Elephants have begun to damage the teak plantations in Vannathiparai reserve by trampling down seedlings and barking several promising teak plants. The question of starting elephant—capturing operations in conjunction with the Travancore Forest Department is under consideration Tinnevelly. With a view to reduce the damage done by sambur to coppice shoots, the restriction about shooting sambur hinds was removed with the permission of the Collector, but none was shot during the year. The damage caused to the sandalwood and other saplings in Alagarkoil Valley by elephants continued during the year. The elephants uproot trees and damage the crops in the patta lands at the foot of the ghat forest in Srivilliputtur range.36 The above account gives evidence that encroaching the wildlife space had started from the early nineteenth century onwards across the subcontinent. Since the mid-nineteenth century, with the expansion of irrigation facilities, more and more common property lands were brought under cultivation. Several dams were constructed in the different river basins since the early nineteenth century, bringing additional areas under cultivation apart from the traditionally irrigated lands. Consequently, the spread of uncultivated land declined, driving away wild animals further. The growth and development of agriculture, as well as its expansion, was notable in the Indian subcontinent, especially during the second half of the nineteenth century. The net-sown area had gone up progressively during this period. For instance, in 1899–1900, 1,801.50 lakh acres of land was under the net-sown area and it has shot up to 2,427.75 lakh acres in 1946–1947. In other words, the proportion of net-sown area, which was 33 per cent of the total geographical area in 1899–1900, has risen to 40.91 per cent in 1946–1947. This clearly shows that the net sown area has increased by more than 55.44 per cent to the total geographical area during this period. It offers proof that more and more land was brought under cultivation during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. We also have a rich corpus of detailed experiences of wild game of different wild beasts that were narrated by the wild gamers since the early nineteenth century. They have observed and sporadically pointed out that wildlife resources are under threat due to the expansion of cultivation in different parts of the country. Regarding the expansion of the area under cultivation, Temple has pointed out that: There is, however, a consensus of testimony as to the magnitude of the increase. The shrinking of the area, affording cover to wild beasts, has been noted in the traditions of the one generation of sportsmen to

66

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

another. Within the past forty years, the records of the settlements of the land revenue in many parts of the empire, and the known rent—roll of estates in other parts not subjected to the settlement have afforded positive evidence to the same effect.37 According to Sanderson: The culturable area, too, must have been gradually reduced by about four-ffths, as irrigated land produces so much more valuable crops, and its cultivation is so much more arduous, that a small portion of what each man cultivated before as dry land would now suffce for his wants and engage all his labour.38 Similarly, explaining about the dwindling number of the big cats, Hunter says: The advance of cultivation, even more than the incessant attacks of sportsmen, has gradually caused the tiger to become a rare animal in large tracts of country; but it is scarcely probable that he ever will be exterminated from India. The malarious tarai fringing the Himalayas, the uninhabitable swamps of the Gangetic delta, and the wide jungles of the central plateau, are at present the chief home of the tiger. His favourite food appears to be deer, antelope, and wild hog. When these abound, he does not attack domestic cattle. Indeed, the natives of certain Districts consider the tiger as in some sort their protector, for he saves their crops from destruction by the wild animals on which he feeds.39 Sanderson has also noted that: ‘It is pig and deer—not the tiger and panther —that attack the sources of subsistence; and these are only to be kept in check by the animals appointed to prey upon them.’40 According to Johnson: In many parts of India, animals of prey are numerous, and in other parts, those only are found which destroy vegetation; wherever either or both kinds are found, it is absolutely necessary that the farmers or villagers should have some contrivance for their destruction, in order to preserve themselves, their cattle, or their grain.41 While cultivation got expanded with the augmentation of irrigation facilities, farmers also faced the threat of wild animals destroying their crops. It was more so, on the forest fringes and foothills. The Forest Act which prevented hunting in the forest areas further aggravated the situation. A letter from Kanara Vana Dukha Nivarani Sabha (1887) stated that ‘Owing to the dense forests the number of wild animals has largely increased, and not to say that these are dangerous to human life, they damage the crop, sugar plantations,

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

67

&c. Monkeys give the greatest trouble by destroying cardamom and betelnut plants, and cocoanuts in bagayats or garden lands. But the ryot is helpless before these animals. He is not allowed to keep or use arms or guns, and, what is more, the Forest Department has prohibited him from laying traps for catching them in the Government jungles or forests.’42 More than any other wild animal, it is the wild boar that wreaked havoc in the farmlands, destroying the crops extensively. According to Fletcher, ‘No animal does more damage to crops than the Wild Pig (Sus Cristatus) which occurs commonly both in the plains and Hills.’43 Elephants ‘are commonly met within the belt of the lighter jungle which intervenes between the virgin forest and cultivation.’44 As such, to ascertain and account for the damages, a committee was instituted by the Bombay Presidency. It has brought out the extent of damages caused by different wild animals in the Kanara region during the 1920s. Among the fndings of the panel are: The animals to whose devastations attention has been specially drawn in the committee's inquiry are as follows: — Wild pigs, which are immeasurably the most injurious at present. (2) Deer and antelopes, including the nilghai or blue bull: (3) Jackals, which do great damage to many of the more valuable crops including sugarcane. (4) Wild elephants whose damage though local in Kanara; is very great where it occurs.45 In conclusion, the committee has made it amply clear that tigers and panthers are not dangerous as far as the destruction of crops is concerned. Indeed, the panel observed that the big cats have helped by preying on the animals which destroy the crops. Carnivorous animals, chiefy tiger and panthers have been omitted from consideration, as they do not directly damage to crops. They are, moreover, useful in reducing the number of the other injurious animals, particularly, wild pigs. But they are nevertheless serious agricultural pests and are annually responsible for the destruction of a very large number of cattle. Probably, on the whole, the damage they do is least counterbalanced by their—usefulness in killing pigs.46 Besides the boars, the prime destroyers of standing crops, other wild animals too were responsible for causing damage to agriculture and plantations. Moreover, though wild pigs are the greatest offenders, the fgures represent damage by other wild animals as well. Some of' these estimates are as follows: — (a) Mr. V. G. Gokhale, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Konkan, estimates annual direct damage in the Konkan at 8 to 10 lakhs of rupees at prices prevailing early in 1923. (b) The Divisional Forest Offcer, Kolaba, considers that nearly ten per cent of the total crop of

68

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

many villages is destroyed by Wild animals just after sowing. (c) Mr. R.P. Pandit, District Deputy Collector, Dharwar, states that the Mamlatdar of Hangal (Dharwar District), in which taluka the Government land revenue is Rs. 2,07,191, estimates the damage to crops by wild pigs in that taluka as Rs. 11akh or slightly less than half the land revenue. (d) Mr. V.R. Dharwarkar, Gotton Superintendent, Dharwar, (formerly District Agricultural Overseer, Dharwar,) estimates the average damage to sugarcane at 25 per cent, to groundnut at nearly 20 per cent and to rice at 10 percent in that District. (e) Mr. D. M. Ohandavarkar, Dharwar, puts the damage in the Dharwar District in the infested areas at 10 per cent generally arid and at 50 per cent to sugarcane. (f) Mr. S. S. Salimath, Inspector of Agriculture, Dharwar, states that in the infested areas the damage varies from one-sixteenth to one-half of the produce. (g) Mr. M. G. Athalye, Divisional Superintendent of Agriculture Deccan Canal area estimates the direct damage annually in the Deccan Canal areas as follows: — Godavari Canals - Sugarcane Rs.80,000, Groundnut and other crops Rs. 10,000; Pravara Canals - Sugarcane and other crops Rs 10,000; Nira Canals - Sugarcane Rs. 75,000, Groundnut and other crops Rs. 25,000. (h) Mr. G.N. Desai, Divisional Superintendent of Agriculture, Gujarat, estimates that in the badly infested areas the actual damage in individual felds is more than 30 per cent of the crop; (i) Mr. T. N. Jhaveri, Assistant Entomologist, Surat, considers the damage in many parts of the Surat District varying from 10 to 20 per cent or even more in places. (j) The Mamlatdar, Chorasi, Surat District, states that in his taluka all the crops were damaged except wal (Dolichols lablab).47 The committee further observed that in addition to the wild pigs, other animals like jackals, deer and antelopes, wild elephants, etc. were destroying the crops in different parts of the Bombay Presidency.48 This committee was formed to address the grievances of the farmers and the offcers were given their inputs based on a particular region. Based on their observations of the administrators, the policy has to be designed and the enactment has to be made. In other words, individual offcers’ inputs are very important components to design the policy and enactment at the region or country level. To protect the standing crops and control damages, the villagers used to hunt the wild animals regularly with help of the trained dogs, particularly in the Mysore region. Bevan observes that: ‘The native dogs are best trained in the Mysore country. The villagers in these districts generally assemble every Saturday to hunt hares, deer, and jackals, and for the most part, have very good sport.’49 At Coduganar, a leopard or panther was killed by the local people. Giving an account of that, Buchanan says, First he had been shot in the belly, and then he was driven to the banks of a reservoir, where he stood at bay; and, before he was killed, wounded

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

69

three of the men who attacked him with spears; one of whom was severely torn. He agreed very well with the description in Ker’s translation of Linnexus and was about four feet from the snout to the root of the tail. He had killed several oxen; and in this country, it is not unusual for leopards to attack even men.50 On February 26, 1817, at Killanour, about 10 miles from Pondicherry, a woman went to collect grass to a nearby village but was taken away by a tiger. The villagers brought three shooting men, gathered to trace the woman by beating tom-toms but the tiger was moving from one part of the jungle to another and took one more man and tore him very severely, while the villagers made a huge sound and dropped the man and retired in the large bush near the tank. One person went to see but he was suddenly leaped away by the tiger and while he got serious of balls, the spear also shackled him down.51 Apart from collective hunting by the community, individuals too were engaged in hunting. Bevan gives an interesting account: I saw and tried the power of the Wynaud bow on many occasions, and I will here give an instance of its effciency. A poor cultivator who resided close to Manintoddy lost one of the buffaloes he used in his plough. And this was to him a severe misfortune, for his team was the principal support of himself and his family. He knew that the tiger which had killed it would come at night to prey on the carcass, and he, therefore, lay in wait behind a small screen within a few yards of the carcass. The tiger came as he expected; he discharged his arrow at the beast, and so correct was his aim, and such the strength of his arm, that the arrow pierced into the tiger’s heart. He told us that the beast when struck bounded high in the air and fell dead on the remains of his victim. For this feat he received the usual allowance of 30 rupees, or 31.10s., which enabled him to buy two other buffaloes—a reward he nobly earned.52 ‘The damage they do on the whole is very great, sixty or seventy heads of cattle, worth from £5 to £10 apiece, being destroyed by one such animal in the course of a year.’53 Summing up the readiness to slay wild animals, especially the tiger, is an extract from a letter from Nagpore, dated September 15, 1816, which states that: An immense royal tiger, which has carried death and destruction to the very houses of the villages in the neighbourhood of his hounds for some years, escaped from the elephants, after receiving seven shots; these animals had killed several followers and wounded some sepoys; he has

70

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

since returned to his usual place, and maybe expected to afford very fne sport.54 Since the early period, to prevent the tiger intrusion, the villagers used to make a fre in the common property resources other than the forest, which was a practice in the northern parts of the Gangetic region every year. According to Johnson: Of late years it has seldom been followed, except by the Rajah of Bundbissunpore (Ramghur, Rogonautpore, and Bissunpore) and by him on a reduced scale. The other Rajahs although they have not adopted it as an amusement, have sometimes had recourse to it in order to rid their countries of the tigers that were troublesome, whole villages being often entirely depopulated by them. It is wonderful to see the number of villages [or rather the sites where they once stood] in Ramghur, wholly uncultivated and deserted. About the end of May, or early in June, when all the grass and a great part of the underwood becomes dry, and water everywhere scarce; it was the custom to set the jungles on fre for the sake of new grass, and to drive off animals of prey from the neighbourhood of their villages, into the impenetrable covers on the mountains, or into the ravines bordering on large rivers. Without this precaution, it would have been almost impossible for anyone to have lived in many parts of those countries.55 A jungle having been selected into which the animals were to be driven, the fres were then all lighted together for the distance of from ten to twenty miles around it in every direction where there were rivers, or plains to intercept the progress of the fre and prevent its immediate communication with the reserved cover; the consequence was, that nearly all the animals in the neighbourhood were compelled to take shelter in the reserved jungle.56 At daybreak about a hundred were sent off to set fre to the sides of the reserved jungle, and the main body, consisting of men, women, and children, many of them carrying all sorts of noisy instruments, match-lockguns, bows and arrows, spears, freworks &c.57 2.3 Development of Infrastructural Facilities In addition to population growth and expansion of agriculture, the development of other infrastructural facilities, carried out by the British, became a threat to the wildlife. Rail and road providing connectivity as well as other infrastructure like construction of dams came up while developing the plantations in the highlands since the second quarter of the nineteenth century. Since the mid-nineteenth century, the development of the railway network

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

71

not only disturbed the different elevated ranges but also facilitated the gamers and hunters to access the forest areas without much diffculty. Mining activities in the different highlands has further paved the way for access to wildlife resources. Besides the development of road network in the plantation areas, the Forest Department too had built road networks for enhanced forest management. This had facilitated the hunters and poachers to destroy wildlife more than ever. The guest houses built in the interior forests provided the required facility for the sportsman to hunt wildlife. Stebbing rightly pointed out that ‘to the decrease in the areas of jungle capable of affording asylum to some of the larger animals owing to the extension of agricultural lands, the development of the mineral wealth of the country, the building of railways and roads, and to the conservancy operations of the Forest Department through which the jungles are constantly disturbed.58 Also, he attributes the increase in population; roads and railway lines; motor cars and buses to facilitating the penetration of all these into remote areas and shooting from the same.59 Prakash also addressed this issue after World War I in the following manner: ‘The new technologies that arose-mainly is more effcient frepower and in the advent of cars and the roads built to accommodate them-killing of animals and destruction of habitat increased in effciency.’60 ‘The opening out of the country and the consequent restriction of the animals is largely responsible. For instance, Bengal and Assam, e. g. the Western Duars, no longer contain suffciently extensive jungles to harbour rhinoceros and buffalo.’61 Even in peninsular India, the situation was no different and Tyler points out that ‘In Travancore also game is said to be decreasing, partly owing to the opening up of the country and partly owing to poaching.’62 The development of infrastructural facilities, new human settlements in the hills, tourism and the establishment of plantations in the forest area has resulted in the rapid decline of wildlife in different parts of the country during the colonial period. 2.4 Trends of Land-Use Pattern in India The traditional land-use pattern gave way to the new developments initiated systematically by the British. It was an irreversible trend. The establishment of tea and coffee plantations, expansion of cultivation and irrigation facilities and commercialisation of agriculture as well as forest produce besides the development of various infrastructural facilities produced a tectonic change in land-use pattern. Though the tea and coffee plantations were developed in the hill areas from the early nineteenth century to the last quarter of the twentieth century, vast tracts of juggles were also brought under the forest reserve. In 1900, about 12 per cent of the total geographical area was under

72

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

forest cover and it has increased to nearly 14 per cent at the end of the colonial rule. As mentioned earlier, the net—area under cultivation has shot up from 33 per cent to 42 per cent during the same period. The area under fallow also has gone up from 10 per cent to 15 per cent. To be precise, the area under cultivation was about 43 per cent in 1900 and it had touched nearly 56 per cent at the end of the colonial rule. Given the macro-level picture about the land-use pattern, let us see how this change had impacted the space and habitat for wildlife from the perspective of common property resources (CPR). 2.5 The Decline of CPR Other than Forests Though the forest cover had witnessed an increase since the late nineteenth century, the area available between the jungles and cultivated land, known as common property resources (lands) such as pastures, uncultivated fallow, has declined extensively. Traditionally, it is not available for any kind of cultivation. For, this area is very important for the wildlife to access primarily water and also food. To put it differently, while the forest is important for the wildlife, the CPRs are equally important for their food and drinking needs. This space has drastically shrunk since the late nineteenth century. Both the categories of common property resources viz., the land not available for cultivation and uncultivated lands has got reduced from 25.22 per cent to 15.89 per cent and 19.43 per cent to 14.70 per cent, respectively, between 1900 and 1947 (Table 2.4). This trend is more pronounced in different parts of the country from the early nineteenth century onwards. For instance, Williamson has pointed out: The improvements which have taken place in the Cossimbazar Island, in general owing to the many speculators in indigo, have annihilated many of the grass covers, they being converted into arable lands, and as the population increased, the underwoods, with perhaps many of the trees, were cut for fuel.63 Consequently, some of the wildlife took asylum into the cultivated land. For example, A villager informed me that some animal had taken up his quarters in a betel tope, from which he could not be expelled, and that he used at night to commit great havoc among their goats, and he requested my assistance to dislodge him. I took the necessary precautions to prevent escape, and, accompanied by some volunteers of my detachment, whom I posted at intervals around the place entered it myself with a sepoy. We came suddenly on the object of our search, which rose up and snarled, displaying a formidable set of teeth, at no great distance. My fre was

1899/1900– 1939/1940

228,160,853 34.2 280,021,000 41.82 242,775,000 40.91 667,514,606 100 669,648,000 100 593,392,000 100

Source: Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1890/1891 to 1946/1947 (volumes for the respective years).

180,150,454 32.89 222,911,547 35.85 222,825,487 35.8 547,714,219 100 621,728,817 100 622,468,276 100

55.44 22.26

11.47 8.51

14.7 14.76

1946–1947 %

106,404,160 19.43 114,665,202 18.44 113,414,708 18.22 155,491,449 23.3 118,611,000 17.71 87,211,000 57,165,960 10.44 45,335,412 7.29 52,134,792 8.38 49,712,921 7.45 62,033,000 9.26 87,559,000

1939–1940 %

13.75 32.46 15.89 −11.86

1929–1930 %

65,842,918 12.02 81,189,511 13.06 88,323,320 14.19 87,276,573 13.1 87,216,000 13.02 81,585,000 138,150,727 25.22 157,627,145 25.35 145,769,969 23.42 146,872,810 22 121,767,000 18.18 94,262,000

1919–1920 %

Area under forest Area not available for cultivation Uncultivated land Area and current fallows Net area sown Total geographical area

1909–1910 %

1899–1900 %

Details

Table 2.4 Trends of Geographical Area in India: 1880–1947 (in Acres)

Shrinking Space for Wildlife 73

74

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

instantly given with effect, and it turned out to be a very large she-wolf, with two cubs, which we speared.64 Another account about natives engaged in hunting: This handsome deer is intolerant of thirst, and is seldom found far from the neighbourhood of water. Its favourite haunts are among bushes and trees along the banks of nullahs and in bamboo jungle. It requires to drink regularly at least once a day, and from this fact large numbers fall victims to the native shikari, who lives in wait in the hot months, when water is scarce, near some pool to which the deer are known to resort.65 Conclusion Population growth, the introduction of plantation crops in the hill areas, expansion of agriculture and development of infrastructural facilities since the early nineteenth century harmed wildlife. All this transformation over the period shrunk the space for green cover and wiped out other common property resources acting as a buffer for the cultivated lands. Consequently, the man– animal confict got intensifed, resulting in the loss of humans, cattle, crops and the wildlife as well. Since there was no concept of reserve forest until the late nineteenth century, a large expanse of highlands was brought under the tea and coffee plantations. Further, more and more common property land, which consists of areas not available for cultivation and uncultivated land, was taken up for cultivation, sharpening the confict between wildlife and human settlements. In addition to that, the colonial project on the commodifcation of wildlife for commercial purposes systematically destroyed several valuable wild animals, native to the subcontinent in the name of recreation, sports and games for a bourgeoning and lucrative international trade. Notes 1 Mahesh Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History: An Introduction, Delhi: Permanent Black, 2001, p. xii. 2 Ibid., p. xiii. 3 Ibid. 4 Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History, p. xiii. See also Velayutham Saravanan, Environmental History of Modern India, Singapore: Palgrave, 2018. 5 Saravanan, Environmental History of Modern India. 6 Thaddeus McBride, ‘The Dangers of Liberal Neo-colonialism: Elephants, Ivory, and the CITES Treaty’, Boston College Third World Law Journal, 19 (2), 1999, p. 735. 7 Jim Corbett, Jungle Lore, New York: Oxford University Press, 1953, p. 16. 8 McBride, ‘The Dangers of Liberal Neo-Colonialism’, pp. 733–734. 9 Edgar Thurston, Monograph on the Ivory carving Industry of Southern India, Madras: Government Press, 1901, p. 7.

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

75

10 T.F. Bourdillon, Report on the Forests of Trabancore, Trivandrum: The Travancore Government Press, 1893, Appendix-IV, p. xxxvi. 11 Martha  Chaiklin and  Philip  Gooding, ‘Introduction: Investigating Animals, Their Products, and Their Trades in the Indian Ocean World’, in Animal Trade Histories in the Indian Ocean World, ed. Martha Chaiklin, Philip Gooding and Gwyn Campbell, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020, pp. 9–10. 12 McBride, ‘The Dangers of Liberal Neo-colonialism’, p. 734. 13 Ibid., p. 737. 14 Ibid., p. 735. 15 Ibid., p. 746. 16 Ibid., p. 757. 17 Vijay Ramadas Mandala, ‘The Raj and the Paradoxes of Wildlife Conservation: British Attitudes and Experiences’, The Historical Journal, 58 (1), 2015, p,76. 18 Velayutham Saravanan, Colonialism, Environment, and Tribals in South India, London: Routledge, 2017 and Velayutham Saravanan, Environmental History and Tribals in Modern India, Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. 19 Mandala, ‘The Raj and the Paradoxes of Wildlife’, p. 79. 20 Ibid., p. 82. 21 Velayutham Saravanan, ‘Colonialism and Coffee Plantations: Decline of Environment and Tribals in Madras Presidency during the nineteenth century’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 41(4), 2004, pp. 465–488. 22 Mandala, ‘The Raj and the Paradoxes of Wildlife’, p. 79. 23 Ibid., p. 82. 24 Ibid., p. 83. 25 Mahesh Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the Natural World: The War Against “Dangerous Beasts” in Colonial India’, Studies in History, 14, 1998, p. 274. 26 Leela Visaria and Pravin Visaria, ‘Population (1857–1947)’, in The Cambridge Economic History of India, ed. Dharma Kumar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 466. 27 Francis Henry Skrine, Life of Sir William Wilson Hunter, London: Longmans Greens and Co, 1901, p. 393. 28 Ibid. 29 W.W. Hunter, The Indian Empire: Its People, History, and Products, London: Trubner & Co, 1886, p. 502. 30 Ibid., p. 506. 31 Ibid., p. 510. 32 John M. Mackenzie, The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation, and British Imperialism, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988, p. 26. 33 Ibid., p. 299. 34 Richard Temple, India in 1880, London: John Murray, 1881, pp. 56–57. 35 C.E.M. Russell, Bullet and Shot in Indian Forest, Plain and Hill, London: W. Thacker and Co, 1900, p. 13. 36 Annual Administration Report of the Forest Department for the year ending 31 March 1922. Fifth Circle, G.O.No.1478, Administration Report—Forest Department—1921—22—Reviewed, 4 November 1922. 37 Temple, India in 1880, p. 82. 38 George P. Sanderson, Thirteen Years among the Wild Beasts of India: Their Haunts and Habits from Personal Observation; with an Account of the Modes of Capturing and Taming Elephants, Edinburg: John Grant, 1882, p. 16. 39 Hunter, The Indian Empire, p. 652. 40 Sanderson, Thirteen Years among the Wild Beasts of India, p. 267.

76

Shrinking Space for Wildlife

41 Daniel Johnson, Sketches of Field Sports as Followed by of with Observations on the Animals, London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Browne, and Thomas Fowler, Great Torrington, Devon, 1822, pp. 1–2. 42 Letter from Kanara Vana Dukha Nivarani Sabha, Sirsi, Kanara District to Governor of Bombay, dated 17th January 1887. 43 Thomas Bainbrigge Fletcher, Some South Indian Insects and Other Animals of Importance Considered Especially from an Economic Point of View, Madras: Government Press, 1914, p. 214. 44 Sanderson, Thirteen Years among the Wild Beasts of India, pp. 48–49. 45 Report of Committee Appointed to Consider and Adopt Measures for the Protection of Crops from Wild Animals and Stray Cattle, Bombay: Government of Bombay, 1923, p. 1. 46 Ibid., p. 2. 47 Ibid., pp. 4–5. 48 Ibid., pp. 13–18. 49 Henry Bevan, Thirty Years in India: Or, A Soldier’s Reminiscences of Native and European Life in the Presidencies, from 1808 to 1838, Vol. I, London: Pelham Richardson, 1839, p. 160. 50 Francis Buchanan, A Journey from Madras through the Countries of Mysore, Canara and Malabar, Vol. III, London: The Directors of East India Company, 1807, p. 338. 51 The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British India and Foreign Dependencies, 3, (Jul–Dec 1817), p. 313. 52 Bevan, Thirty years in India, pp. 274–275. 53 James Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, London: Chapman & Hall, 1871, p. 257. 54 The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register, pp. 189–190. 55 Johnson, Sketches of Field Sports, pp. 14–15. 56 Ibid., pp. 15–16. 57 Ibid., p. 21. 58 E.P. Stebbing, The Diary of a Sportsman Naturalist in India, London: John Lane Company, 1920, p. 242. 59 W.R. Burton, The Preservation of Wildlife in India: A Compilation, Bangalore: The Bangalore Press, 1953, p. 5. 60 Om Prakash, ‘Wildlife Destruction: A Legacy of the Colonial State in India’, in Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 67, 2006–2007, p. 698. 61 E.P. Stebbing, ‘Game Sanctuaries and Game Protection in India’, in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London,1912, p. 23. 62 H.H.F.M. Tyler, ‘Fauna’, in Southern India: Its History, People, Commerce, and Industrial Resources, compiled by Somerset Playne, London: The Foreign and Colonial Compiling and Publishing Co, 1914–1915, p. 200. 63 Thomas Williamson, Oriental Field Sports, Vol. II, London: W. Pulmer and Co, 1808, p. 27. 64 Bevan, Thirty Years in India, p. 49. 65 Tyler, ‘Fauna’, p. 199.

Chapter 3

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

The confict between humans and wildlife is as old as human history. According to Knight: ‘There is a large and wide-ranging literature on the subject of people-wildlife conficts.’1 This confict is not confned to any particular region and everywhere in the universe. Knight rightly pointed out that: ‘Confict between people and wildlife is ubiquitous.’2 He further detailed the confict between humans and wildlife in different parts of the world. According to Knight: Rats in Asia ruin the rice harvest, lay waste to grain stores and cause hunger and malnutrition, elephants in Africa plough of crops, bulldoze villages and cause human injury, and wild pigs everywhere feed on crops, trample felds and cause great economic loss. Jaguars in Central and South America attack cattle, tigers in India snatch in village animals, and the reintroduction of wolves in Montana is opposed by ranchers fearful of livestock losses.3 In addition to the above, the confict between humans and other wildlife was persistent in the population-inhabited areas.4 The threat of wildlife was contended by humans in different parts of the world.5 The human and wildlife conficts are found across the natural resources, viz., land, river, sea across the world but that was intensive and frequent in the human settlement nearer to the forest. Knight rightly pointed out that: ‘People-wildlife confict is universally found on land and in rivers and seas, in the north and the south, in the city as well as the country-but trends to be especially marked in human settlements in forest-edge regions.’6 Knight further pointed out that there are different kinds of conficts such as: attack on people (wild predators); attack livestock (wild predators); cropriding (wild herbivores and birds); forestry damage (wild herbivores); competition for wild forage with human gatherers, with livestock or with game animals (wild herbivores); competition for pry with human hunters

DOI: 10.4324/9781003427452-3

78

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

(wild predators); house and other building infestations (roosting birds, rats, mice, etc.,) and threat to other natural species and to biodiversity— i.e. ‘environmental pests.’7 Of course, there are other kinds of human and wildlife conficts also persistent in different parts of the world. Interestingly, Knight has also brought out the human and wildlife conficts based on specifc animals from the experience in different continents, viz., Africa, Asia, Europe and America and not only with a wide range of different animals but also from the social and cultural point of view or, in other words, from the anthropological perspective/point of view.8 He rightly pointed out that: As anthropologists, we are concerned not just with the material dimension of these examples of wildlife pestilence, but also with their social and cultural dimensions. In particular, we focus on the tensions and divisions in human society that affect conficts with wild animals.9 He further argues that: ‘People-wildlife conficts are relations of rivalry and antagonism between human beings and wild animals which typically arise from territorial proximity and involve reliance on the same resources or a threat to human wellbeing and safety.’10 He further explained that: ‘Peoplewildlife confict thus include both competition and predation: competition for food between humans and other animal species and wild animal predation on people.’11 He further added: competition works both ways: if wild animals are rivals for human (or human-claimed) foods or territory, human beings are also rivals for the food and territory of wild animals. Predation likewise works in both directions, involving not just wildlife attacks on people, but also human attacks on wildlife—that is, hunting.12 Though Knight claims that: It is an interdisciplinary area of research which brings together many different specialists in search of practical responses and solutions to wildlife pestilence, ranging from more effcient technique of obstruction and repulsion and more effective methods of culling and eradication to habitat management, crop replacement and fertility control.13 Though the author claims analysing people–wildlife confict from the anthropological perspective with the light of interdisciplinary perspective, but he largely confned himself to the

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

79

felds such as applied zoology, applied ecology, and wildlife management, and is concerned with the measurement of wildlife damage, the assessment of wildlife pest numbers and population dynamics, the determination of the causes of pestilence, the development of technologies of damage limitation and pest control, and the application of such technologies.14 In other words, the interdisciplinary attempt from the anthropological perspective to understand the human–wildlife confict ends with some selective aspects of the relations. In fact, at the early stage, the very survival of human beings was dependent upon hunting. Indeed, hunting was invariably a communal activity.15 It may be pointed out that hunting is more of a collective activity than a communal activity not only during the pre-colonial period but even during the colonial period, as Mackenzie indicated. Hunting was labour-intensive and hence everyone such as men, women and even children used to participate.16 According to Mackenzie, hunting ‘encompass the pursuit, driving, ambushing and trapping of wild animals of all species with the intention of killing them for meat, other animal products, or purely for sport.’17 Hence, hunting and gathering were the source of livelihood for human survival even before the advent of settled agriculture, heralding the end of nomadic life. Rangarajan pointed out that ‘Hunting, the rearing of goats or sheep, and cereal-eating often went together.’18 From primitive societies onwards, weapons were developed for hunting, which was more of a collective effort of the community than an individual adventure with everyone partaking in the booty. For primitive societies, it was the norm to move from one place to another for hunting which enabled them to acquire the knowledge of how to trap different types of animals. Encroachment by humans also forced the animals in the wild to move from one place to another to protect themselves. Though primarily a confict with the wild, hunting in ancient times never disturbed or threatened the biodiversity equilibrium. For instance, Shakespear had pointed out that: ‘The tiger and the boar have been heard fghting in the jungle at night, and both have been found dead, alongside one another, in the morning.’19 With human settlements taking root and the process of agricultural production getting developed gradually, protection from wildlife turned out to be a constant effort. During the ancient period, i.e., from the frst to the seventh century, though the rulers protected certain animals and also some extent of forest, only a small extent was brought under cultivation. Rangarajan rightly pointed out that ‘Cultivated sites were still small islands in a sea of forest’ during the ancient period.20 He further observed that since the early sixteenth century to the nineteenth century population growth was low. Consequently, There were vast pastures for cattle, frewood was abundant in most parts of realm, and many areas had higher rainfall levels than at present. It is

80

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

quite possible that more land was forested than was once thought to be case.21 And, interestingly, people also started worshipping wildlife, according divinity to them and also on the mountains which became an integral part of the evolving culture. In every settlement or inhabited place, you will fnd a boundary segregating it from the wildlife. It was how human settlements have evolved over the period. Consequently, in every human settlement, there is a boundary between the human settlement and wildlife. At the entry of the human settlement, you will fnd either a Peepal tree or a banyan tree under which prominent statues of gods such as Ganesh or deities and snakes besides trishuls. Invariably, every year, there will be a thanksgiving festival for these gods, who protected the human settlement. This is clear proof of a community giving due respect to the wildlife which in turn should not disturb the people. However, this primordial relationship either got disturbed or snapped due to population growth, particularly after the early nineteenth century. The growth of population resulted in the expansion of cultivation and development of other infrastructural facilities which led to the decline of space for the wildlife. Together with the shrinking space for wildlife, hunting by the British gamers for their commercial enterprise increased in different parts of the Indian subcontinent. Even as late as the late eighteenth century, both the communities that were settled down and those which were nomadically engaged in hunting for their livelihood was being a common phenomenon. The nomadic and hunting communities are the ones who constantly and regularly supplied wildlife and its related products to the settled inhabitants. For instance, the hunters used to sell famingos or jackals, bats and several other wild animals and related products even now. If not now, in the past settled agriculturalists and wildlife hunters were interdependent for their subsistence and livelihood. In other words, the settled agriculturalist required assistance to prevent and protect him from wildlife, while the hunters complimented it besides supplementing the livelihood of the settled inhabitants. As such, settled agriculture and hunting are an integral part of human survival throughout history. Settled agriculture and population growth have witnessed an expansion of cultivation as well as pastoral lands, resulting in the decline of the area under common property resources. In other words, since the early nineteenth century, the space available for wildlife has progressively declined. I wish to bring Jim Corbett’s observations of how the tiger turned out to be a maneater over the period since the availability of space was gradually encroached upon by human beings. According to Corbett: ‘In my lifetime I have seen great changes in the forests of the Tarai and Bhabar. Some of these changes have resulted from exploitation, others have been brought about in a natural

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

81

manner.’22 Wildlife like deer, bears, boars, etc. used to travel a long distance during the night in search of food and returning to the forest areas before dawn. Forsyth says: The fact is that deer, bears, pigs, etc., travel such long distances at night to their feeding grounds, and depart again to the remoter hills so early in the morning, that unless a very early start be made, nothing but the tracks they have left behind will ever be seen.23 British rule in the subcontinent in the late eighteenth century comprised present-day Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma, besides India. Though the area was so vast with different agro-climatic conditions, the population density was very low. Hence, there was no paucity for the availability of large tracts of unoccupied lands either under the forests or other common property resources. The total geographical area of the Indian subcontinent was about 54,77,14,219 acres and the total population was about 238,396,327. The density of the population was 2.3 per square acre. In other words, the netsown area was only about 33 per cent and the rest of the area was either under the forests or unoccupied lands, the habitat of wild animals. Availability of large tracts of land under the common property resources ensured that there was more than enough space for the beasts of the wild and other animals for their survival and sustenance. The only threat for wildlife was from the hunters and that too was very limited without any major consequence. Moreover, the needs of the self-suffcient local communities were met through cultivation or by hunting and gathering forest produce. These facts clearly show that wildlife resources were abundant and the availability of space for them was vast until the late eighteenth century. Since the early nineteenth century, colonialism has paved the way towards the decimation of wildlife by establishing tea, coffee and other plantations and extracting the forest resources for commercial purposes.24 For instance, about 70 lakh acres of highland was brought under the tea and coffee plantations since the frst quarter of the nineteenth century in the subcontinent. The process of extracting a wide range of forest resources also posed a threat to the wildlife in different parts of the country from the late eighteenth century.25 Since the mid-nineteenth century, establishment of the railway network further exploited the forest resources for timber plate, berth, coach-making and fuelwood invariably in different parts of the country. On the one hand, the population growth increased and, on the other, the common property resources declined, while the Britishers were destroying wildlife to a great extent for commercial motives which resulted in a threat to the wildlife since the early nineteenth century. Not only this, the colonial project was to commodify natural resources like water, which further added a threat to the wildlife since the natural water fows were curtailed since the mid-nineteenth century in different parts of the country.26

82

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

Since the early nineteenth century, population growth witnessed an upward trend across the subcontinent with life expectancy and longevity increasing progressively from then onwards, though not at a faster pace. Simultaneously, the area under cultivation has also increased substantially during the same period. Consequently, the pressure on wildlife continued to build up with its spillover effects. In other words, this chapter attempts to capture, how wild animals raided crops, their attacks on livestock and people, and how the colonial states responded towards these issues historically from the late eighteenth century to mid-twentieth century. 3.1 Conflict between Humans and Wildlife On the one hand, population growth resulted in the expansion of the area under cultivation, and on the other, the spatial spread of human Table 3.1 Number of Persons Killed by Wild Beasts, 1875–1927 Year

Number of Persons Killed

Year

Number of Persons Killed

1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900

21,391 19,273 19,695 20,256 20,312 21,990 21,427 22,125 22,905 22,905 22,907 24,841 22,348 22,970 25,204 23,872 24,300 21,988 24,017 24,449 25,190 24,322 25,242 25,166 27,585 25,833

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927

25,618 25,702 24,576 24,037 23,848 24,900 23,385 21,904 23,860 24,860 26,210 23,527 23,383 24,602 28,682 25,918 26,069 24,764 22,910 23,382 22,756 23,353 23,595 22,454 21,220 21,802 21,010

Source: Statistical Abstract Relating to British India (various years).

C onflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife  83

habitation sharpened the conflict between humans and wildlife. According to Rangarajan, Asian countries encountered a major conflict between people and predators unlike any other countries like England and the United States of America.27 As such, the number of persons killed by wild beasts has progressively increased. For instance, from the last quarter of the nineteenth century to the first quarter of the twentieth century, on an average over 24,055 people were killed by wild animals (see Table 3.1). Over 52 years, between 1875 and 1927, about 12,50,840 persons have fallen prey to attack by wild beasts. While a large number of human beings lost their lives, unfortunately, there was no adequate medical facility to treat the injured. It is to be pointed out that there were traditional medical practitioners to treat snakebites or attack by the scorpion and other poisonous insects. The absence of proper road and transport connectivity, as well as communication network, resulted in a large number of deaths. The statistics that we have are confined to the limited area, particularly the tribal belt that was not under the British, where the causalities were very high by both wildlife and snakebites. The colonial administration which was concerned about documenting the number of such deaths had never attempted to develop and extend healthcare to save such people. On the contrary, it made every effort to destroy wildlife and snakes by providing bounty besides taking an active interest in converting the wildlife into marketable commodities. 3.2 Conflict between Human and Different Types of Wildlife Of the huge number of deaths due to wild beast attack, nearly three-fourth can be attributed to snakebite and the remaining one-fourth to attacks by tigers, leopards, wolves, lion, elephant, jackal, wild-dog and other animals (Table 3.2). The Indian subcontinent and its surrounding seas are home to around 280 species of snakes, of which approximately 60 are venomous. They are limbless reptiles that range by anatomical structure, size and exterior scale patterns. The most commonly known are the terrestrial kind which inhabits deserts, jungles, forests and plains.28 It indicates that the venomous reptiles were responsible for the highest number of deaths. Unlike wild beasts like tiger, lion, elephant, leopard, wolves, etc., which are confined to the thick forests, snakes are found everywhere and there was no boundary for the reptiles. From 1875 to 1912, or about 37 years, on an average, about 24,180 people have lost their lives due to wildlife attacks. Unfortunately, nearly 88 per cent of them lost their lives due to snakebite and the remaining 12 per cent have fallen prey to wild animals (Table 3.2). While referring to the tiger and people, Rangarajan points

3.87 4.79 4.12 4.03 3.44 3.97 4.15 4.05 4.30 3.71 3.66 3.74 4.76 4.24 3.91 3.35 4.03 4.31 4.03 3.53 3.61 3.88 4.24 3.68 3.26 3.65 4.57

204 156 200 300 277 261 239 207 217 229 244 194 210 184 259 179 314 260 291 371 315 326 527 394 327 450 635

0.95 0.81 1.01 1.48 1.36 1.19 1.12 0.94 0.95 1.02 1.07 0.78 0.94 0.80 1.03 0.75 1.29 1.18 1.21 1.52 1.25 1.34 2.09 1.57 1.19 1.74 2.48

1061 887 564 845 492 347 256 278 287 265 248 222 177 139 207 242 218 182 175 227 340 483 595 462 338 424 403

4.96 4.60 2.83 4.17 2.42 1.58 1.19 1.26 1.25 1.18 1.08 0.89 0.79 0.61 0.82 1.01 0.90 0.83 0.73 0.93 1.35 1.99 2.36 1.84 1.23 1.64 1.57

2,228 1,367 1,335 1,483 1,457 1,360 1,373 1,226 1,349 1,471 1,435 1,363 1,158 1,101 1,273 1,220 1,400 1,574 1,368 1,431 1,540 1,569 2,090 1,482 1,402 1,625 599

10.42 7.09 6.71 7.32 7.17 6.18 6.41 5.54 5.89 6.56 6.26 5.49 5.18 4.79 5.05 5.12 5.76 7.16 5.70 5.85 6.11 6.45 8.28 5.89 5.08 6.29 2.34

17,070 15,946 16,777 16,812 17,388 19,150 18,670 19,519 20,067 19,629 20142 22,134 19,740 20,571 22,480 21,412 21,389 19,025 21,212 21,556 22,086 21,000 20,959 21,901 24,619 22,391 22,810

By Snakes 79.80 82.71 84.33 83.00 85.60 87.09 87.13 88.22 87.61 87.53 87.93 89.10 88.33 89.56 89.19 89.77 88.02 86.52 88.33 88.17 87.68 86.34 83.03 87.03 89.25 86.68 89.04

% 21,391 19,279 19,895 20,256 20,312 21,990 21,427 22,125 22,905 22,425 22,907 24,841 22,348 22,970 25,204 23,851 24,300 21,988 24,015 24,449 25,190 24,322 25,242 25,166 27,585 25,833 25,618

Total

828 923 819 816 698 872 889 895 985 831 838 928 1063 975 985 798 979 947 969 864 909 944 1,071 927 899 943 1,171

By Other Wild % Animals

1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901

%

By Tigers

year

By Wolves

Table 3.2 Number of Persons Killed by Diferent Wild Beasts, 1875–1912 (37 Years)

By Leopards %

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

%

84

1,046 866 786 786 698 793 909 896 882 762 885 34,075

4.07 3.52 3.27 3.30 2.80 3.39 4.15 3.76 3.55 2.91 3.76 3.81

512 513 399 402 378 292 302 462 366 253 261 11,910

1.99 2.09 1.66 1.69 1.52 1.25 1.38 1.94 1.47 0.97 1.11 1.33

338 463 244 153 273 277 269 256 319 190 255 13,401

Source: Statistical Abstract Relating to British India (various years).

1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 Total

1.32 1.88 1.02 0.64 1.10 1.18 1.23 1.07 1.28 0.72 1.08 1.50

640 907 728 710 694 604 686 882 815 693 665 46,303

2.49 3.69 3.03 2.98 2.79 2.58 3.13 3.70 3.28 2.64 2.83 5.18

23,166 21,827 21,880 21,797 22,857 21,419 19,738 21,364 22,478 24,312 21,461 7,88,754

90.13 88.81 91.03 91.40 91.80 91.59 90.11 89.54 90.42 92.76 91.22 88.16

25,702 24,576 24,037 23,848 24,900 23,385 21,904 23,860 24,860 26,210 23,527 8,94,643

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife 85

86

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

out that ‘tigers and people lived in very close proximity to each other in grazing grounds and forested lands.’29 The tiger became man-eating because of decline of other wild species for their natural food due to the massive destruction of game.30 Russell rightly pointed out: ‘No doubt those tigers were driven to man-eating owing to the terrible destruction of the game in those hills by natives, and the consequent scarcity of their natural food.’31 Johnson further observes that: Tigers are naturally afraid of men, and in the frst instance seldom attack them, unless compelled by extreme hunger. When once they have ventured an attack, they fnd them much easier prey than most animals of the forest, and always to be met with near villages, and on public roads, without the trouble of hunting about for them through the covers.32 It is an important question, what was the British colonial/cultural attitudes towards snakes in India during the colonial period? Is the cultural perception of Indian people on the question of snakebites in tandem with British colonial perceptions or different? John Knight pointed out that wild animals are indirectly benefcial to humans. … Snakes keep down rat populations, birds control harmful insect populations, hedgehogs and frogs eat slugs, and wild predators such as tigers and wolves keep down the numbers of crop-raiding herbivores.’33 ‘The leopard or panther (Felis Pardus) is far more common than the tiger in all parts of India, and at least equally destructive to life.’34 Henry Bevan pointed out that: I once went into my kitchen, or rather cooking-house, and saw the head of a snake peeping out from under the tiles. I asked the cook why he did not destroy it?—he replied, that the creature was not venomous and that it was, on the contrary, a serviceable friend, for it destroyed the rats and other vermin, which, unless thus checked, would render the place uninhabitable: subsequent observation convinced me that the cook’s account was perfectly correct.35 It seems that since the eighteenth century, the Britishers became concerned about how to prevent the deadly snakes. Price rightly pointed out that: ‘Since the eighteenth-century colonial zoologists and naturalists such as Patrick Russell ventured to identify India’s deadly snakes, learn the effects of their venom and fnd a means to prevent its adverse consequences.’36 Obviously, the British colonial perceptions towards the snakes were different from that of the earlier during the late nineteenth century. Consequently, since the early 1870s, the colonial government introduced the bounty system to eradicate the snakes. Indeed, ‘In 1871, the British Raj launched a bounty scheme which offered fnancial rewards for the destruction of venomous

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

87

snakes in nine presidencies across India and in Burma.’37 Price aptly pointed out that: In 1871 the colonial government felt that venomous snakes were an equal if not greater threat than big game mammals, and launched a bounty scheme to exterminate their populations. It aimed to incentivize the Indian people to eradicate snakes, and thus challenge the ‘irrational’ Hindu belief intolerance towards animals which, according to some offcials, had allowed snakes to run rampant and kill over 20,000 people a year. The bounty scheme was, however, a failure.38 At the same time, the government offcials discussed and also questioned about the Indian culture associated with the snake issues. According to Price: ‘As practical and structural considerations began to mount, government offcials questioned the supposition that Indian culture was the cause of the snake problem.’39 Then, they have changed their perceptions towards snakes at the end of the nineteenth century. Price stated that ‘colonial perceptions of the danger posed by snakes changed gradually over 30 years, leading to the assertion that sanitation [would be] the great remedy against snakes as cultivation [was] against wild animals.’40 He further observed that: As the destruction of their population became considered unviable, offcials used this information to understand how different forms of human and snake activity increased or decreased the possibility of bites, and to propose preventative measures that sought to reduce mortalities through clearing plant life, rubble and ‘waste’ around human settlements, features of the village landscape used by snakes.41 Consequently: ‘As such, the snake campaigns demonstrate that in certain contexts government policies have acknowledged and responded to the actions of animals, demonstrating that specifc episodes in history have been shaped by non-human actors.’42 It indicates that the cultural perceptions of the Indian people were different from the British colonial perceptions. This clearly shows that the confict between humans and the wildlife was very limited. This was because the proportion of occupied land was very low compared to unoccupied land in the Indian subcontinent. Precisely, the confict between humans and wildlife was very limited during the entire colonial regime. The low density of population and a vast area remaining under the forest and other common property resources were the other reasons. According to Price, in North Kanara, during the twenty-two years ending 1877, 510 tigers were killed and 44 persons killed by them, one of whom was Lieutenant Power, of the 35th Madras Infantry. Between the years 1856 and 1882, 51

88

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

bears were killed and 22 persons killed by them, one of whom was Lord Edward Percy St. Maur, second son of the Duke of Somerset. Between the years 1856 and 1877; 805 panthers were killed and 22 persons killed by them. From these returns, it would appear that the bear is about four times as dangerous as the tiger, that the tiger is about three times as dangerous as the panther, and that the bear is about fourteen times as dangerous to man as the panther.43 According to Prater, during Forsyth times (1862–1864): ‘Between 500 and 600 human beings and an incalculable number of cattle were killed by wild beasts in the Central Provinces every year.’44 ‘A man-eating tiger has been roaming about Kaliamba and Tiliki reserves of Ganjam and has killed a few people in the neighbouring villages. The Board has since offered a reward of Rs. 150 for its destruction.’45 Morris gives an account of man-eaters from the different parts of the Madras Presidency. According to him, ‘many maneating tigers in Ganjam district … Vizagapatam District has had its man-eaters, and also other parts of “Agency Tracts.”’46 ‘The Nallamallais, Karnool District, provided man-eating tigers shot eventually at Diguvametta by the then Conservator of Forests in September 1923.’47 A man-eater roamed the Baragur Hills, to the east of the Biligirirangans (Coimbatore District), some 30 to 35 years ago; killing people spasmodically – about 4 or 5 a year. A Government Notifcation offering a reward for the brute described it as ‘Ashygrey, and somewhat stout’!48 In the Madras Presidency, a large number of persons were killed mainly by tigers, panthers/leopards and snakes (see Table 3.3). Of course, the other Table 3.3 Persons Killed by Wild Animals in Madras Presidency, 1879–1883

By elephants By tigers By panthers and leopards By bears By wolves By hyenas By other animals By snakes Total

1879

1880

1881

1882

1883

7 56 83

7 106 44

3 135 47

5 206 28

5 267 49

5 3 2 52 1,123 1,335

5

1

11

59 1,182 1,405

52 1,064 1,302

25 920 1,105

28 3 6 24 1,267 1,649

Source: C. D. Maclean, Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, Vol. I, Madras: Government Press, 1985, p. 263.

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

89

wild animals were also responsible for the loss of lives but their numbers are very few. For instance, Johnson pointed out that: I never heard of more than one person being killed by a bear, and that was an old man who was cutting wood at the foot of Muckangunge hill, about two miles from Hagareebang cantonments, when a female bear having two cubs, being disturbed by him, attacked, and killed him.49 3.3 Conflict between Human and Wildlife in Different Regions In the previous section, we have discussed the number of human deaths caused by wildlife from the last quarter of the nineteenth century to the frst quarter of the twentieth century. In this section, the discussion centres on the spatial spread of the victims in different parts of the country. Bengal and the North-Western Provinces accounted for nearly three-fourths of the human lives lost due to wildlife. To be more precise, nearly half of the deaths were from Bengal Presidency during this period (1875–1925). One-fourth of the victims belonged to the North-Western Provinces and later the United Provinces too bore the brunt of wildlife attacks. In other words, approximately about one-twentieth of the geographical area of the Indian subcontinent accounted for nearly about three-fourths of the human lives lost due to wildlife (Table 3.4). This does not mean that other parts of the country were free of the menace. Though the man–animal confict was there, it was not so alarming as it was in Bengal and the North-Western Provinces. This was maybe due to the forests and wildlife ratio. 3.4 Human vs Wildlife: Conflict over Space Until the close of the eighteenth century, a large extent of land was unoccupied in the Gangetic basin. According to Skrine, about one-third of Lower Bengal and nearly half of Punjab was unoccupied.50 In 1880, while referring to the area under cultivation, Temple pointed out that there is, however, a consensus of testimony as to the magnitude of the increase the shrinking of the area, affording cover to wild beasts, has been noted in the traditions of one generation of sportsmen to another. Within the past forty years (8400, the records of the settlements) of the land revenue in many parts of the empire, and the known rent-roll of estates in other parts not subjected to settlement, afford positive evidence to the same effort.51 Population in those times was very low in the Indian subcontinent. For instance, various estimates have concluded that the total population of the subcontinent (which included present-day Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan) was

885 1,019 126 19,625

852 911 154 20,256

1,336 1,611 130 20,312

156 1,405 1,106 149 21,960

3 1,302 1,165 215 21,427

—

400 57

1,195 1,265 215 22,125

—

381 48

1,649 1,226 208 22,905

2

463 92

1,446 1,216 193 22,425

23

387 59

871 189 1,024

1,623 1,253 227 22,907

2

366 43

722 203 1,286

1,688 1,334 229 24,841

—

421 66

984 205 1,109

1,491 1,240 206 22,348

5

337 52

1,792 1,160 245 25,204

4

409 56

946 248 1,395

(Continued)

1,642 1,230 307 22,970

—

377 69

1,016 241 1,397

981 1,054 165 1,9270

84

445 53

961 261 1,381

913 234 1,203

1,536 1,072 150 21,391

98

421 27

965 182 1,343

1889

—

488 12

771 169 1,233

1888

126

417 32

723 181 1,280

1887

483 37

650 206 1,099

1886

420 35

802 183 1,233

1885

726 203 1,461

1884

666 114 1,098

1883

723 129 617

1882

10,135 11,318 10,779 11,359 10,635 10,458 10,455 11,161 11,823 11,983 10,691 10,281 12,241 4,593 4,219 4,494 5,284 5,480 6,078 6,298 5,856 5,359 6,822 5,981 6,429 6,705

1881

10,914 9,989 5,669 4,692

1880

Bengal N.W. Provinces and Oudh Punjab Lower Burma Central Provinces Assam Ajmere and Mhairwara Mysore and Coorg Madras Bombay Berar Total

1879

1875

Administration/ Year

1878

Table 3.4 Number of Persons Killed by Wild Animals in Diferent Parts of the Indian Subcontinent, 1875–1912

1877

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

1876

90

1903

1,771 1,086 220 21,988

—

417 38

927 628 1,316

1,772 1,230 219 24,017

4

361 46

954 677 1,260

1,891 1,273 268 24,431

11,620

305 68

1,077 723 1,308

1904

(Continued)

24,576

2,449 1,078

—

310 30

1,712 1,267 174 24,300

1902

1,620 1,122 217 23,872

1901

2

1900

—

1899

409 55

1898

415 84

1897

800 1,132 1,856

1896

864 539 1,409

1895

865 259 1,479

1894 11,514 5,407

1893

11,855 11615 10784 12,397 11,549 6,026 6,249 4,799 5,079 5,968

1892

Bengal N.W. Provinces and Oudh Punjab Lower Burma Central Provinces Assam Ajmere and Mhairwara Mysore and Coorg Madras Bombay Berar Total

1891

1890

Administration/ Year

Table 3.4 Continued

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife 91

Bengal N.W. Provinces and Oudh Punjab Lower Burma Central Provinces Assam Ajmere and Mhairwara Mysore and Coorg Madras Bombay Berar Total 3,294 43 — 1,938 1,269

2,235 36

—

1,972 1,237

23,384

974 40 1,432

922 1,424 1,170

1910 8,897 5,619

1909

9,116 5,272

1908

1911

23,527

1,852 1,169

2

262 21

801 1,326 1,186

11,502 5,406

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

Administration/ Year

1907

Table 3.4 Continued

1906

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

1905

92

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

93

about 14–20 million at the beginning of the nineteenth century. But it has gone up marginally to 19–24 million at the middle of the nineteenth century.52 And, even from a layman’s point of view, it would be evident that population increase would inevitably result in the expansion of the cultivation. In addition to this, colonial commercial ventures have denuded the high lands on a vast scale to establish tea and coffee plantations since the early nineteenth century. As indicated earlier, the confict between humans and wildlife was increasingly becoming serious due to the shrinking of forest habitat and the attendant pressure. For example, Bengal and the North-Western Provinces have their borders with the Himalayan ranges, a region known for human–animal confict. The region is also a populous one. And the vast mountain ranges, where the animals coexisted with the humans, started witnessing frequent man–animal conficts. What distinguished this recurring tussle from the other regions was its intensity than in the rest of the Indian subcontinent. 3.5 Loss of Cattle and Livestock Not only were human beings killed by the wild animals but a large number of livestock were too devoured by the animals. For instance, about 70,000– 80,000 cattle were killed during the four decades from the last quarter of the nineteenth century to the frst quarter of the twentieth century. Between 1875 and 1913 (38 years), about 30,63,153 livestock were killed by the wild animals (see Table 3.5). In other words, on an average, 80,609 livestock lost their lives due to the wild animals over the 38 years (1875–1913). The ravages that that tigers, panthers, and leopards commit amongst the cattle in India must in the aggregate amount to some hundreds of thousands of pound sterling per annum; for in many districts the inhabitants suffer a loss exceeding a lac of rupees, or £10,000, in the course of a year.53 Around 1800, while referring to the place Wiridy, near Bangalore, Buchanan points out that: ‘Tigers are very numerous among the copse; a circumstance, however, which does not prevent the inhabitants from sending their cattle into it. A beast is occasionally lost, but this loss is compensated by the abundance of grass.’54 More and more cattle were preyed upon by the beasts from the wild. In the words of Sanderson, Some tigers contract the habit, through being interfered with, of killing more than one animal in each attack. I have seen three, four, and fve cattle on the ground together after attacks by single tigers, and on one occasion fourteen killed by one tiger, in a herd overtaken by a storm; many of the cattle were benumbed and unable to escape.55

94

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

Table 3.5 Number of Cattle Killed by Wild Animals, 1876–1913 (38 years) 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 Total

48,234 54,830 53,197 48,699 55,012 58,386 43,669 46,710 47,478 49,672 59,029 57,541 68,840 76,271 69,550 68,480 70,822 81,668 90,253 96,796 100,107 88,702 84,137 91,750 98,687 91,430 91,781 63,018 96,226 98,582 100,808 94,654 98,674 98,307 1,04,849 1,04,060 1,02,238 1,05,174 1,04,832 30,63,153

Source: Statistical Abstract Relating to British India (various years).

Forsyth says that: In April 1865, having marched nearly a thousand miles exploring in the forests almost without fring a shot, I halted to hunt very large cattle-eating tiger near Chandvel in the Nimár district. This animal was believed

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

95

by the cowherds to have killed more than a thousand head of cattle, and one of the best grazing grounds in all that country had been quite abandoned by them in consequence.56 Although the cattle were restricted in the reserve forest after the Indian Forest Act 1878, the killing of cattle continued unabated over the period. 3.6 Cattle and Livestock Loss Caused by Different Wild Beasts As seen earlier, a huge number of cattle and livestock were either devoured or killed by tigers, leopards, wolves, hyenas, lions, elephants and other wild animals (Table 3.6). In the power play of the mighty and the weak in the battle for survival, the mighty used to win always. Between 1875 and 1912, about three decades or more precisely 37 years, 29,88,421 lost their lives due to wild animals. In other words, in every year, 80,768 cattle lost between 1875 and 1912. The trend continued further with tigers and leopards accounting for nearly two-thirds of the killings. In some places, it was nearly threefourths with the wolves too joining the hunt (see Table 3.6). Further, nearly 7 per cent of the cattle have died of snakebite. And only about three per cent of the cattle were killed by the other wild animals. This evidences that more domestic cattle have fallen prey to the accentuated man-animal confict during the colonial era. 3.7 Loss of Domesticated Animals in Different Regions From the available data, it is clear that the loss of domesticated animals was not even across British India. As mentioned earlier, it was Bengal and the North-Western Provinces which suffered most heavily (Table 3.7). The trend continued to prevail in the subsequent years of 1903, 1907, 1910 and 1912. 3.8 Colonialism and Wildlife Destruction Right from the early nineteenth century onwards, the colonial administration has actively encouraged the wanton destruction of wildlife resources by providing reward. Conservation was only paid lip service. Indeed, this reward amount was not reached to the actual hunters. The native hunters were not paid properly due to the corrupt practice by the colonial administration and equally manipulated by the hunters. For instance, according to Johnson: I have often seen large tigers brought to Chittrah in the Ramghur district, by ten or twelve men, on poles, from the most distant parts of the district, frequently a distance of a hundred and twenty, to a hundred and sixty miles, to obtain the reward of ten rupees.57

25.76 23.93 30.33 26.96 25.92 26.27 33.20 35.36 34.89 39.62 42.29 41.24 39.97 39.53 40.86 42.75 39.54 36.70 37.15 35.33 37.19 36.49 36.18 35.73 34.78 33.97 32.04

17,098 15,373 14,488 15,101 17,670 19,732 15,281 15,970 19,064 19,699 21,504 22,275 24,161 28,596 27,406 25,552 25,612 30,013 34,404 33,696 32,909 30,276 27,770 34,434 37,986 34,227 37,489

35.45 28.04 27.23 31.01 32.12 33.80 34.99 34.19 40.15 39.66 36.43 38.64 35.10 37.49 39.40 37.31 36.16 36.75 38.12 34.81 32.87 34.13 33.01 37.53 38.49 37.44 40.85

9,407 12,848 11,934 10,497 12,224 13,507 8,076 8,661 6,704 4,532 6,635 4,275 4,087 4,469 3,816 3,263 3,707 6,758 6,342 6,313 8,211 6,711 6,698 4,880 5,770 4,750 10,211

19.50 23.43 22.43 21.55 22.22 23.13 18.49 18.54 14.12 9.12 11.24 7.42 5.94 5.86 5.49 4.76 5.23 8.27 7.03 6.52 8.20 7.57 7.96 5.32 5.85 5.20 11.13

2,116 2,039 1,590 3,230 2,378 2,279 1,078 1,007 1,181 1,538 2,130 1,312 2,748 3,142 3,098 3,509 5,043 3,738 5,219 4,889 5,005 4,508 4,608 2,903 3,102 2,396 2,040

By Hyenas 4.39 3.72 2.99 6.63 4.32 3.90 2.47 2.16 2.49 3.10 3.61 2.28 3.99 4.12 4.45 5.12 7.12 4.58 5.78 5.05 5.00 5.08 5.48 3.16 3.14 2.62 2.22

% 4,018 4,983 6,080 4,907 6,556 4,993 2,621 2,388 2,322 2,495 2,313 3,496 7,611 7,100 3,016 2,933 4,799 6,692 5,640 13,393 10,620 7,697 7,118 8,011 8,059 9,457 3,508

8.33 9.09 11.43 10.08 11.92 8.55 6.00 5.11 4.89 5.02 3.92 6.07 11.06 9.31 4.34 4.28 6.78 8.19 6.25 13.84 10.61 8.68 8.46 8.73 8.17 10.34 3.82

By Other % Wild Animals 3,166 6,468 2,945 1,822 1,874 2,536 2,029 2,167 1,644 1,728 1,483 2,514 2,716 2,813 3,793 3,948 3,658 4,498 4,122 4,877 6,129 7,143 7,504 8,743 9,449 9,540 9,123

By Snakes 6.56 11.80 5.54 3.74 3.41 4.34 4.65 4.64 3.46 3.48 2.51 4.36 3.95 3.69 5.45 5.77 5.17 5.51 4.57 5.04 6.12 8.05 8.92 9.53 9.57 10.43 9.94

%

48,234 54,830 53,197 48,699 55,012 58,386 43,669 46,710 47,478 49,672 59,029 57,641 68,840 76,271 69,550 68,480 70,822 81,668 90,253 96,796 10,0,107 88,702 84,137 91,750 98,687 91,430 91,781

Total

12,423 13,119 16,137 13,129 14,257 15,339 14,496 16,517 16,563 19,680 24,964 23,769 27,517 30,151 28,421 29,275 28,003 29,969 33,526 34,194 37,233 32,367 30,439 32,779 34,321 31,060 29,410

%

1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901

By Wolves

By Tigers

Year

%

Table 3.6 Number of Cattle Killed by Diferent Wild Animals, 1875–1912

By Leopards

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

%

96

32.93 38,216 32.16 40,134 28.50 42,812 30.45 45,319 30.34 41,768 30.30 43,977 28.74 43,427 29.25 43,625 28.32 44,059 28.20 42,745 27.72 47,697 33.28 11,51,565

41.08 9,680 41.71 9,387 43.43 9,984 44.96 9,232 44.13 9,842 44.57 9,664 44.17 10,163 41.61 12,639 42.34 11,421 41.81 11,922 45.35 11,141 38.53 3,10,361

Source: Statistical Abstract Relating to British India (various years).

1902 30,630 1903 30,942 1904 28,093 1905 30,701 1906 28,714 1907 29,903 1908 28,258 1909 30,666 1910 29,467 1911 28,833 1912 29,158 Total 9,94,423

10.41 2,387 9.76 2,513 10.13 2,580 9.16 2,422 10.40 2,160 9.79 2,085 10.34 2,767 12.05 3,552 10.98 2,957 11.66 2,780 10.59 2,219 10.39 1,06,248

2.57 3,086 2.61 3,256 2.62 4,737 2.40 5,035 2.28 3,983 2.11 3,206 2.81 2,992 3.39 3,725 2.84 5,064 2.72 5,424 2.11 4,658 3.56 1,97,992

3.32 9,019 3.38 9,994 4.81 10,376 4.99 8,099 4.21 8,187 3.25 9,839 3.04 10,700 3.55 10,642 4.87 10,990 5.31 10,534 4.43 10,301 6.63 2,27,113

9.70 93,018 10.39 96,226 10.53 98,582 8.03 1,00,808 8.65 94,654 9.97 98,674 10.88 98,307 10.15 1,04,849 10.56 1,04,060 10.30 1,02,238 9.79 1,05,174 7.60 29,88,421

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife 97

Bengal N.W. Provinces and Oudh Punjab Lower Burma Central Provinces Assam Ajmere and Mhairwara Mysore and Coorg Madras Bombay Berar Total

1880

1881

1882

1883

1884

1885

1886

1887

1888

1889

1890

1891

1892

1893

1894

6,001 6,455 4,410 2,297 55,012

219 8,894 1,626 3,943 58,386

5,508 7,255 3,172 3,621 53,197

— 10,322 3,428 2,220 54,830

4,280 6,350 3,957 2,684 48,699

5,279 7,685 9,291 8,064 1,223 589 842 1,172 3,062 2,299 2,795 3,750 3,003 2,053 2,493 3,326 232 143 291 216

6,606 825 4,366 2,541 468 191 8,938 2,589 3,849 43,669

4,152 1,048 2,955 2,818 264 288 9,703 3,098 3,739 46,710

2,919 1,329 3,889 4,002 576 132 9,099 2,771 2,445 47,478

2,670 1,335 4,006 3,838 232 336 9,065 2,011 2,458 49,672

2,193 1,315 4,372 6,670 446 358 10,420 2,849 2,277 59,029

1,600 1,377 3,955 14,187 466 685 10,054 2,311 1,713 57,641

2,892 1,134 4,028 14,271 365 542 14,741 2,041 1,857 68,840

2,205 1,440 3,753 16,313 326 580 14,741 2,333 2,060 76,271

634 12,555 2,188 1,815 69,550

578 12,005 1,883 1,410 68,480

724 11,083 2,827 1,531 70,822

891 11,344 2,355 1,491 81,668

664 14,325 2,307 1,376 97,371

(Continued)

912 14,252 1,994 1,627 90,253

1,039 973 1,095 966 879 1,654 1,277 2,039 2,068 3,192 3,608 5,103 5,138 5,332 4,776 3,404 4,674 6,035 7,629 8,438 10,463 15,478 14,745 15,164 14,654 16,497 17,583 19,654 265 281 156 139 272 102 32

11,932 10,329 11,445 12,046 15,815 8,577 8,560 11,710 12,397 12,223 11,621 17,739 24,112 23,364 22,145 22,066 28,445 31,935 35,981 12,122 10,513 7,214 8,391 8,361 8,288 8,604 9,240 8,409 9,317 8,667 7,883 8,848 7,520 6,178 7,189 6,762 6,618 5,960

1879

Administration/ Year

1878

Table 3.7 Number of Cattle Killed by Wildlife in Diferent Parts of Indian Subcontinent, 1876–1912

1877

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

1875 1876

98

2,831 11,697 15,196 17,972 6 1,051 13,220 7,282

1,986 12,215 18,075 14,402 1 975 2,328 129 — 96,226 98,674

17,316 10,103

1904 1905 1906 1907

22,870 7,594

1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903

Source: Statistical Abstract Relating to British India.

Bengal N.W. Provinces and Oudh Punjab Lower Burma Central Provinces Assam Ajmere and Mhairwara Mysore and Coorg Madras Bombay Berar Total

Administration/ Year

Table 3.7 Continued

726 12,711 8,735 1,04,060

2,075 14,449 12,513 16,229 65

22,770 13,782

1908 1909 1910

1,05,174

852 13,345 10,322

1,799 14,479 11,682 15,152 243

23,650 13,650

1911 1912

1913 1914 1915 1916 1917

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife 99

100

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

He further added that: These poor ignorant men often receive only half the reward, the remainder goes into the pocket of the Dewan or his assistant. The English Gentlemen, for the most part, are aware that such speculation is common, and much to their credit, make it a point of paying the reward themselves.58 He also mentions how the reward system was manipulated: ‘I believe it frequently happens that they are paid twice by government for killing the same animal, by producing the head of a tiger to a collector of one district, and the skin to the collector of another.’59 He further added that the reward system has encouraged the hunting of tigers in other regions as well. According to Johnson, inhabitants of the district of Dinagepore, East of the river Ganges, who travel all over Bengal, wherever tigers are to be met with, for the sole purpose of killing them, in order to obtain the reward given by government, of ten rupees for every tiger. Something more they receive as presents from the inhabitants, and gain a little by the sale of their teeth and claws, which are worn by the natives as charms.60 Prakash also pointed out that if an Indian killed a tiger which ‘was not considered conforming to the colonial cannons of sport,’ there was difference in the reward that he received.61 Mandala also observed that the wild animals were killed by native shikaris and tribal hunters but were falsely claimed by the British hunters as ‘their trophies,’ as is revealed by the early twentiethcentury shreds of evidence. According to him: Many forest animals killed by Indian hunters were falsely claimed by British sportsmen as ‘their trophies’ obtained from big game shoots and sold to taxidermists and natural history museums in the metropolis; in this way, some British men made considerable profts.62 I argue that this kind of manipulation and exploitation was an integral part of colonialism, which was practised from the late eighteenth century or at the beginning of colonialism. However, since the late nineteenth century, different wildlife species were systematically killed, and the reward system was extended to a large variety of wild animals. For instance, In Belgaum, between 1840 and 1880 … no fewer than 223 bears were killed. The steady decline of the numbers of the bears is shown by the

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

101

fact that 137 were killed between 1840 and 1850, 51 between 1850 and 1860, 32 between 1860 and 1870, and 3 between 1870 and 1880. In Kanara 51 bears were killed between 1856 and 1882, so we have a total then of 274 bears for these two districts alone.63 Interestingly, the licence provided to kill the wildlife was given under the Indian Army Act 1878. Consequently, wildlife and snakes in large numbers were destroyed and a huge amount of reward/bounty was provided. The same period witnessed a quantum jump in the issuance of licences with the sole purpose of eliminating the animals in the wild. No wonder that between 1875 and 1926, about 10,15,152 wild animals and 84,91,145 snakes were destroyed and approximately £606,805 was extended as cash reward. To destroy wildlife, about 18,61,220 licences were issued under the Arms Act between 1894 and 1913 (see Table 3.8). Besides issuing licences liberally, the colonial administration has encouraged the destruction of wildlife by extending cash rewards. But there was no attempt to provide medical facilities to the people affected by snakebite. This design was promoted with an eye on commercial extraction and lucrative export. In other words, the colonial strategy of protecting the people from wild animals was a mere façade for the commodifcation of wildlife resources. The advance of cultivation, even more than the incessant attacks of sportsmen, has gradually caused the tiger to become a rare animal in large tracts of country; but it is scarcely probable that he ever will be exterminated from India. The malarious tarai fringing the Himalayas, the uninhabitable swamps of the Gangetic delta, and the wide jungles of the central plateau, are at present the chief home of the tiger. His favourite food appears to be deer, antelope, and wild hog. When these abound, he does not attack domestic cattle. Indeed, the natives of certain Districts consider the tiger as some sort their protector, for he saves their crops from destruction by the wild animals on which he feeds.64 A large number of claims for killing wild animals were there in Madras Presidency from 1879 to 1883. But, on the whole, the number of animals killed and brought for the reward has declined during this period. It is to be noted that the category of ‘all other animals’ has come down drastically from 2,956 to 109 between 1879 and 1883. In other words, the elimination of this category of animals has not been the focus. For, only a large game was brought under the purview of reward and it was hiked from 1879 to 1883 resulting in the decline of tigers, panthers, bear, wolves and hyenas in the Madras Presidency (see Table 3.9).

22,357 23,459 22,851 22,487 18,641 14,886 15,279 18,591 19889 23,775 23,670 22,417 18,901 20,709 18,565 14,604 16,518 15,988 15,309 14,009 15,543 18,084 19,045 19,776 18,887 16,863

1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900

2,70,185 2,12,371 1,27,295 1,17,958 1,32,961 2,12,776 2,54,968 3,22,401 4,12,782 3,80,981 4,20,044 4,17,596 5,62,221 5,11,948 5,78,415 5,10,659 85,159 84,789 1,16,689 1,05,842 1,31,305 1,21,949 1,04,888 1,08,385 93,921 88,381

No. of Snakes Destroyed 12,001 12,457 10,301 9,918 9,598 9,999 10,291 14,165 17,436 24,653 22,412 18,901 16,642 15,925 14,336 11,546 11,564 11,771 11,729 7,661 7,992 7,936 7,959 6,550 7,433 7,159

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 69,931 64,851 66,161 58,591 57,011 52,481 49,123 45,045

Amount No. of Licences Rewarded £ to Destroy Wild Animals 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926

Year

13,634 15,479 16,318 16,121 16,831 15,855 15,711 17,926 17,356 19,282 22,406 24,612 24,631 25,903 25,112 20,574 19,477 16,045 19,094 23,255 24,972 23,268 23,911 21,032 21,605 23,639

No. of Wild Animals Destroyed 70,491 71,480 62,551 65,146 63,719 61,703 61,598 70,494 88,272 90,874 1,14,229 90,186 89,714 1,18,816 1,84,663 65,765 73,968 59,495 58,417 61,373 57,285 58,370 59,545 47,106 41,004 46,012

No. of Snakes Destroyed 6,654 6,963 7,230 7,313 8,683 8,275 8,906 10,494 9,641 9,807 13,671 12,739 12,868 13,294 13,887 11,753 11,348 10,145 13,047 14,251 15,893 13,937 12,406 12,841 11,796 10,628

Amount Rewarded (in £)

— — — — — — — — — — —

41,239 37,934 37,680 37,720 37,833 39,706 43,583 1,97,100 1,90,733 1,89,846 1,81,919 1,80,437 1,82,296

No. of Licences to Destroy Wild Animals

Note: From 1881 to 1893, Indian rupee was converted into £ at the rate of Rs.10. From 1915 to 1918, Indian rupee was converted into £ at the rate of Rs.15. From 1919 to 1926, Indian rupee was converted into £ at the rate of Rs.13.33. Source: Statistical Abstract Relating to British India (various years).

No. of Wild Animals Destroyed

Year

Table 3.8 Number of Wild Animals Destroyed, Amount Rewarded and Gun Permitted, 1875–1926 102 Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

103

Table 3.9 Wild Animals killed and Brought for Reward in Madras Presidency, 1879–1883 1879 Elephants Tigers 144 Panthers and leopards 644 Bears 110 Wolves 34 Hyenas 120 Other animals 2,956 Total 4,008

1880

1881

136 750 121 34 104 139 1,234

189 837 149 26 166 62 1,429

1882 3 278 1,205 215 24 289 41 2,055

1883 1 185 1,565 298 93 457 109 2,708

Source: C.D. Maclean, Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, Vol. I, Madras: Government Press, 1985, 263.

3.9 Colonialism and Games From the very beginning, the commercialisation of forest resources, including wildlife and water, was the prime agenda of the colonial project. For this, vast tracts of virgin forests were denuded. Since the early nineteenth century, about seven lakh acres of highland was brought under tea and coffee plantations in different parts of the country from the northeast region to the southwest region of the Indian subcontinent. This topographical change was the frst major threat to the wildlife. Since the last quarter of the nineteenth century, vast areas were brought under the reserve and protected forests. But, fouting the restrictions, hunting down wild animals was actively encouraged with liberal issuing of licences and the lure of cash rewards. It was not without reason that hunting received undue support from the British administrators. For, the animals thus killed sustained the highly lucrative export trade in wildlife products, which started fourishing in India. In furtherance of commercialisation, the colonial strategy included documenting information about the death of humans and the loss of cattle and livestock owing to wildlife attacks. And this was used to justify the liberal grant of licences and reward for hunting. Now, it becomes clear that the colonial strategy was to convert wildlife into a marketable commodity and the protection of humans and cattle was a pretence. Even the reserve forests were not exempt from the colonial commercial project. A large number of wildlife, particularly tiger, were killed in different regions of the Indian subcontinent. This was in contravention of the Indian Forest Act 1878 as well as 1927, which proscribed hunting in the reserve forests. However, hunting of tigers in the reserve forests continued as usual. For instance, in 1937– 1938, large number of tigers were killed in different regions (see Table 3.10). It should however be indicated that a fair number of tigers are also shot at and wounded and not recovered. The total causalities should therefore

104

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

be taken at about 20% in excess of the recorded fgures because quite a number of tigers must die subsequently from bullet wounds. On this basis the total number killed might be estimated at approximately 650.65 In addition to the above, about 51 tigers in Madras Province, 25 in United Provinces, and 18 in Assam were killed from outside of the reserve forests for the same period.66 In the United Provinces, between 1929 and 1939, 1,074 tigers were killed in the reserve forest. Since July 1931, except in the case of man-eaters, the payment of rewards for killing tigers was stopped.67 In 1939, in Bengal, 51 tigers were killed, of which 31 were from the Sundarbans Division. In this division, killing tigers was encouraged due to some of them turning into man-eaters. According to W. Meiklejohn, Senior Conservator of Forests: In that division, the tigers are man-eaters and must be kept down to permit of the extraction of forest produce. Shooting is therefore encouraged and generally, a reward of Rs.100 per tiger is paid and sometimes in special cases the amount is raised to Rs.150.68

Table 3.10 Number of Tigers Shot by Licence-holders in Government-Controlled Forests in the British Provinces and the Indian States in India during the Years 1937–1938 Province or State

Area of Controlled Forest in Sq. Miles

Number of Tiger Shot

Assam Bengal Behar United Provinces Cooch Behar Indore Gwalior Rewa Surguja Orissa Central Provinces and Berar Bombay Hyderabad State Madras Mysore Nilgiris Total

6,429 6,335 1,310 6,173 — 260 — — — 2,118 19,432

18 51 10 116 2 14 11 39 18 19 112

10,819 546 15,124 4,434 —

34 18 19 54 5 540

Source: S.H. Prater, ‘The number of Tiger shot in a reserved forest in India and Burma during the year 1937—1938.’ The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 41, 1998, p.881.

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

105

In Assam, Naga Hills District, 59 tigers were killed in ten years between 1927and 1939.69 In 1850, in the Central Provinces, William Rice and his brother stationed at Neemuch near Gwalior killed 98 tigers (68 killed and 30 wounded).70 The number of tiger shots was 143 in 1929–1930 and 118 in 1930–1931 and afterwards it varies between 105 and 130 annually.71 Precisely, despite the prohibition on hunting wildlife in the reserve and protected forest areas since the late nineteenth century, gamers and hunters continued to have a feld day. 3.10 Conclusion The confict between humans and wildlife is as old as human history. In the process of human settlement and domesticating animals emerges the man vs animal confict resulting in disturbance and dislocation. However, the confict then was very limited and not intense due to low population density and availability of a vast extent of unoccupied area, i.e., forest and other common property resources. Population growth since the early eighteenth century saw the expansion of cultivable lands as well as the area under pastoral lands. Consequently, adequate space required to keep the man vs animal confict at bay was shrinking, thereby sharpening the confict. The colonial project has encroached upon the wildlife area by establishing tea, coffee and other plantations and spread its footprint to establish the railway network. Precisely, the confict between humans and wildlife got aggravated due to the ever-shrinking habitat for the wild animals. Unfortunately, there is a competition for that space, though complicated. This complication further got accentuated due to population growth and the development of various infrastructure facilities. The colonial project was designed to destroy the wildlife for which incentives were provided. It means that the colonial project was to destroy the wildlife by providing incentives and advanced gun technology. Wildlife and forests under the colonial administration were something to be plundered for profteering. Let me put it another way. Colonialism aimed at turning almost every resource into a marketable commodity, which is comparable to the present form of globalisation. The sole agenda of the colonial project was to commodify everything for commercial loot, viz., forest, water, wildlife and other resources. Notes 1 John Knight, ‘Introduction’, in Natural Enemies: People-Wildlife Conficts in Anthropological Perspective, ed. John Knight, London and New York: Routledge, 2000, p. 4. 2 Ibid., p. 1. 3 Ibid.

106 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 2. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 4. Ibid. John M. Mackenzie, The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation, and British Imperialism, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988, p. 3. Ibid., p. 21. Ibid., p. 2. Mahesh Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History: An Introduction, Delhi: Permanent Black, 2001, p. 4. Henry Shakespear, The Wild Sports of India, London: Smith, Elder and Co, 1859, p. 17. Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History, p. 9. Ibid., p. 16. Jim Corbett, Jungle Lore, New York: Oxford University Press, 1953, p. 16. James Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, London: Chapman & Hall, 1871, p. 79. Velayutham Saravanan, Environmental History and Tribals in Modern India, Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. Ibid. Velayutham Saravanan, Water and the Environmental History of Modern India, London: Bloomsbury, 2020. Mahesh Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the Natural World: The War Against “Dangerous Beasts” in Colonial India’, Studies in History, 14, 1998, p. 265. Lloyd Price, ‘Animals, Governance and Ecology: Managing the Menace of Venomous Snakes in Colonial India’, Cultural and Social History, 14 (2), 2017, p. 202. Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the Natural World’, p. 268. Ibid., p. 285. C.E.M. Russell, Bullet and Shot in Indian Forest, Plain and Hill, London: W. Thacker and Co, 1900, p. 102. Daniel Johnson, Sketches of Field Sports as Followed by of with Observations on the Animals, London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Browne, and Thomas Fowler, Great Torrington, Devon, 1822, p. 102. Knight, ‘Introduction’, p. 6. W.W. Hunter, The Indian Empire: Its People, History, and products, London: Trubner & Co, 1886, p. 653. Henry Bevan, Thirty Years in India: Or, A soldier’s Reminiscences of Native and European Life in the Presidencies, from 1808 to 1838, Vol. II, London: Pelham Richardson, 1839, p. 265. Price, ‘Animals, Governance and Ecology’, p. 202. Ibid., p. 206. Ibid., p. 202. Ibid., p. 210. Ibid., p. 203. Ibid., p. 206.

Conflict between Human, Cattle and Wildlife

107

42 Ibid., p. 213. 43 Robert H. Elliot, Gold, Sport, and Coffee Planting in Mysore, Westminster: Archibald Constable and Co, 1894, p. 94. 44 S.H. Prater, ‘The Number of Tiger Shot in Reserved Forest in India and Burma during the Year 1937–1938’, The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 41, 1998, p. 884. 45 Annual Administration Report of the Forest Department for the year ending 31 March 1922. First Circle, in G.O.No.1478, Administration Report—Forest Department—1921—22—Reviewed, 4 November 1922, p. 10. 46 R.C. Morris, ‘Rarity of man-eating tigers in south India’, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 40, 1946, p. 77 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Johnson, Sketches of Field Sports, p. 61. 50 Francis Henry Skrine, Life of Sir William Wilson Hunter, London: Longmans greens Co, 1901, p. 393. 51 Richard Temple, India in 1880, London: John Murray, 1881, p. 82. 52 Leela Visaria and Pravin Visaria, ‘Population (1857–1947)’, in The Cambridge Economic History of India, ed., Dharma Kumar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. 53 Henry Astbury Leveson, Sport in Many Lands, Vol. I, London Chapman and Hall, 1877, p. 153. 54 Francis Buchanan, A Journey from Madras through the Countries of Mysore, Canara and Malabar, Vol. 1, London: The Directors of East India Company, 1807, pp. 49–50. 55 George P. Sanderson, Thirteen Years among the Wild Beasts of India: Their Haunts and Habits from Personal Observation; With an Account of the Modes of Capturing and Taming Elephants, Edinburg: John Grant, 1882, pp. 267–268. 56 Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, p. 272. 57 Johnson, Sketches of Field Sports, p. 87. 58 Ibid., p. 88. 59 Ibid., pp. 81–82. 60 Ibid., p. 81. 61 Om Prakash, ‘Wildlife Destruction: A Legacy of the Colonial State in India’, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 67, 2006–2007, p. 693. 62 Vijaya Ramadas Mandala, ‘The Making and Unmaking of the Gonds. History of Hunting Mores in Colonial India’, Global Environment,10 (2), 2017, pp. 463–464. 63 Elliot, Gold, Sport, and Coffee Planting in Mysore, p. 141. 64 Hunter, The Indian Empire, p. 652. 65 Prater, ‘The Number of Tiger Shot in a Reserved Forest in India and Burma during the Year 1937–1938’, p. 881. 66 Ibid., p. 882. 67 Ibid., p. 883. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid., p. 884. 71 Ibid.

Chapter 4

Law for Wildlife Protection or Game

The absence of any legal mechanism to protect wildlife was not felt until the mid-nineteenth century. For, till then there was no statute or legislation to address the issue in the Indian subcontinent. However, different provinces, particularly the native states, protected certain animals from hunting, effectively bringing wildlife under the rulers’ control. Elephants, for example, have been more or less protected by the Travancore princely state. Though the native rulers had protected certain beasts, they encouraged the destruction of other wild animals to protect humans, cattle and crops by providing incentives. However, there was no specifc wildlife protection act or any legal provision to penalise hunting down of wildlife until the 1860s. The word ‘animal’ denotes any living creature, other than a human being. 4.1 Indian Penal Code 1860 1 In India’s wildlife history, the very frst initiative to protect wildlife was made in 1860 under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to IPC Section 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fre or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fne. Section 428 of the IPC deals with mischief by killing or maiming any animal of the value of ten rupees:

DOI: 10.4324/9781003427452-4

Law for Wildlife Protection or Game

109

Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal or animals of the value of the ten rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fne, or with both. Further, IPC Section 429 stipulates punitive measures for mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc. of any value or any animal of the value of 50 rupees: Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the value thereof, or any other animal of the value of ffty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fve years, or with fne, or with both. 4.2 Indian Arms Act 1878 2 According to the Indian Arms Act 1878, ‘arms’ includes- (i) clasp-knives the blades of which are pointed and exceed three inches in length; (ii) knives, with pointed blades rigidly affxed, or capable of being rigidly affxed, to the handle, and measuring in all over fve inches in length which are not intended exclusively for domestic, agricultural or industrial purposes: provided that it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that knives of this description are not intended exclusively for such purposes; (iii) knives of such other kinds as the President of the Union may, by notifcation, prescribe; and (iv) fre-arms, bayonets, swords, daggers, spears, spear-heads and bows and arrows, also cannon and parts of arms, and machinery for manufacturing arms. Section 5 of the act proscribes manufacture and sale of frearms and explosives except by a licensee. It reads thus: ‘No person shall manufacture, convert or sell, or keep, offer or expose for sale, any arms, ammunition or military stores, except under a license and in the manner and to the extent permitted thereby.’ Section 19 of the Act provides for penalties on Whoever commits any of the following offences (namely):- (a) manufactures, converts, or sells, or keeps, offers or exposes for sale, any arms, ammunition or military stores in contravention of the provisions of section 5; (b) fails to give notice as required by the same section; (c) imports or exports any arms, ammunition or military stores in contravention of the provisions of section 6; (d) transports any arms,

110

Law for Wildlife Protection or Game

ammunition or military stores in contravention of a regulation or prohibition issued under section 10; (e) goes armed in contravention of the provisions of section 13; (f) has in his possession or under his control any arms, ammunition or military stores in contravention of the provisions of section 14 or section 15; (g) intentionally makes any false entry in a record or account which, by a rule made under section 17, clause (c), he is required to keep; (h) intentionally fails to exhibit anything which, by a rule made under section 17, clause (e), he is required to exhibit; or (i) fails to deposit arms, ammunition or military stores, as required by section 14 or section 16; shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fne, or with both. 4.3 The Madras Wild Elephants Preservation Act 1873 3 Aimed at preventing indiscriminate destruction of wild elephants, it came into force on and from October 1, 1873. Section 3.1 of the statute reads as follows: Whoever, not being authorised there to by a license granted under section 3-A, shoots at or intentionally destroys and whoever abets … any wild female elephant upon waste or forest land, whether such land be the property of the Government or otherwise, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fve hundred rupees, and in default of payment to simple or rigorous imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months. It further said: Any person convicted under this Act of an offence committed after his previous conviction under this Act shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one thousand rupees, and, in default of payment, to simple or rigorous imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. However, this section also made provisions for the Collector to issue license to kill female elephants under special circumstances. The District Collector, may, subject to such rules as may from time to time be made by the State Government on the application of any person, grant to such person by name a special license to shoot or destroy wild female elephants upon waste or forest lands in a specifed area situated within the district. Even killing male elephants from waste or forest land was also liable for the same punishment for both frst and second conviction in terms of penalty and imprisonment (Section 4).

Law for Wildlife Protection or Game

111

Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prevent any person from shooting at, or destroying, any wild male or female elephant found upon cultivated lands or upon or in the immediate vicinity of any public road, or to prevent any person from shooting at, or destroying, any male or female elephant in defense of himself or any other person. (Section 6) The objective of the statute was to protect the jumbos from poachers. However, the killing of pachyderms was allowed under a licensing mechanism in order to protect standing crops and human settlements. The princely states and zamindars were given a free hand in this. 4.4 Elephant Preservation Act 1879 4 The Government of India brought forth the Elephant Preservation Act 1879 to strengthen the existing legal mechanism for effective protection of tuskers as well as female jumbos. The act stipulates that No person shall kill, injure or capture, or attempt to kill, injure or capture, any wild elephant unless— (a) in defence of himself or some other person; (b) when such elephant is found injuring houses or cultivation, or upon, or in the immediate vicinity of, any main public road or any railway or canal; or (c) as permitted by a licence under this Act. Further, according to Section 5 on ‘Licence to kill and capture wild elephants,’ The Collector or Deputy Commissioner of any district may, subject to such rules as may for the time being be in force under this Act, grant licences to kill, or to capture or to kill and capture wild elephants in such district: Provided that no such licence shall authorise any person to enter upon any land without the consent of the owner or occupier thereof. Penalty: Whoever, in contravention of Section 3, kills, injures or captures, or attempts to kill, injure or capture, any wild elephant, shall be punished with fne which may extend to fve hundred rupees for each elephant concerned; and whoever breaks any condition contained in a licence granted under this Act shall be punished with fne which may extend to fve hundred rupees. Any person convicted of a second offense under this section shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fne, or with both. When any person holding a licence under this Act is convicted under this section, such license shall become void and shall be delivered up to the convicting Magistrate.

112

Law for Wildlife Protection or Game

4.5 Indian Forest Act 1878 5 The Indian Forest Act 1878 prohibited wild life such as killing or catching elephants, hunting, shooting, fshing, poisoning water, and setting traps and snares and its related products under the category of forest produce and also listed out several wild animals that were made out of bounds. According to the act, forest produce includes: minerals (including limestone and laterite), surface-soil, trees, timber, grass, peat, canes, creepers, reeds, leaves, moss, fowers, fruits. roots, juice, catechu, bark, honey, wax, lac, caoutchouc, gum, wood-oil, grassoil, resin, varnish, silk-worms and cocoons, shells, skins, tusks, bones and horns. Cattle includes ‘elephants, camels, buffaloes, horses, mares, geldings: ponies, colts, fllies, mules, asses, pigs, rams, ewes, sheep, lambs, goats and kids.’ Under Section 25 of this act, both collection of forest produces and killing cattle were not only prohibited but also imposed imprisonment and penalties: shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fne not exceeding fve-hundred rupees, or With both in addition to such compensation for damage done to the forest as the convicting Court may direct to be paid. 4.6 The Nilgiris Game and Fish Preservation Act 1879 6 Protection of the Western Ghats, especially the Silent Valley, was considered very vital. The primary objective of the Nilgiris Game and Fish Preservation Act 1879, applicable to the entire Silent Valley, was ‘protection of Game and Acclimatised fsh in the district of the Nilgiris in the Madras Presidency.’ According to this statute, ‘game’ shall include bison, sambhur, ibex, jungle-sheep, deer of all descriptions, hares, jungle-fowl, pea-fowl, partridge, quail, and spurfowl, or such birds or animals as the [State Government] may deem ft to specify by notifcation from time to time in the [Offcial Gazette]. Further, under Section 3, The [State Government] may, by notifcation in the [Offcial Gazette], from time to time, fx a season or seasons of the year during which it shall not be lawful for any person to shoot at, kill, capture, pursue or sell, or attempt to kill, capture or sell game, as may be specifed in such notifcation within the district aforesaid.

Law for Wildlife Protection or Game

113

Anyone found violating the above would be penalised or imprisoned or face both. As per the statute, violators for a frst offence shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding rupees ffty and forfeiture to Government, at the discretion of the Magistrate, of the game, birds or fshes taken, and of all guns, engines, fsh implements, nets and dogs used in or for the purpose of aiding the commission of such offence, and in default of payment of fne, to simple imprisonment, for a period not exceeding one month, and for every second and subsequent offence, to a penalty not exceeding rupees one hundred and the same liability to forfeiture, and in default of payment to simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding two months. It is to be pointed out that the government issued notifcation on February 3, 1881 to close the hunting for different games in Nilgiris. By a notifcation under this Act, dated 3rd February 1881, the Government has constituted close seasons for the various kinds of game found in the district. Large game (which term includes bison, samber, ibex, jungle—sheep and deer of all Wards) are protected from molestation from the 1st June to the 31st October in each year, and small game (that is, hares, jungle-fowl, pea-fowl, partridge, quail, spur-fowl, snipe and wood-cock) are similarly protected from the frst of March to 30th September in each year.7 4.7 Madras Forest Act 1882 8 Strengthening the legal mechanism further, the Madras Forest Act 1882 was enacted to promote conservation in the reserve forests and protected jungle areas. The defnition of cattle under this act includes elephants, camels, buffaloes, horses, mares, ponies, colts, fllies, mules, asses, pigs, rams, ewes; sheep, lambs, goat and kids. According to Section 21(h), hunting, shooting, fshing, poisoning water or setting traps or snares are prohibited in the reserve and protected forests. Under Section (26 [f]) of Madras Forest Act, protection of land at the disposal of government was not included in a reserve forest and made the provisions to ‘regulate or prohibit hunting, shooting, fshing, poisoning water and setting traps or snares.’ Precisely, the provisions under this statute were intended to protect the wildlife not only in the reserve and protected forests but also in other common property lands. 4.8 Wild Birds Protection Act 1887 9 Hunting of birds in the wild also had come under scrutiny prompting the government to place restrictions and protect the avian species during the

114

Law for Wildlife Protection or Game

breeding season so that they do not get extinct. It necessitated the promulgation of the Wildlife Protection Act 1887, which was enacted for the protection of wild birds and every bird of game. Section 3(1c) of this act empowered the local governments and cantonment authorities as well as municipal authorities to frame such rules prohibiting the possession or sale during breeding season within the municipality or cantonment of any kind of wild bird recently killed or taken or the importation into the municipality or cantonment of the plumage of any kind of wild bird during such season. Further provisions were made under Section 3(2) to penalise those violating it. Accordingly, breach of it shall be punishable with fne which may extend, in the case of a frst offense to fve rupees for every wild bird in respect of which or of the plumage whereof the breach of the rule has been committed, and, in the case of a subsequent offense to ten rupees in respect of every such bud or plumage. Further, Section 4 categorically mentions that the above provisions will have ‘to apply for animals of the game other than birds, and thereupon those provisions shall apply to such animals and their furs in like manner as they apply to wild birds and their plumage.’ 4.9 The Abu Wild Birds Protection Law 1889 10 Yet another law was enacted for western India. According to the Abu Wild Birds Protection Law 1889, peacocks and every bird of game have been classifed as wild birds. This act empowered the Governor-General of Rajputana to make rules to defne the wild bird and breeding season as well as to prohibit ‘the possession or sale during its breading season with Abu of any kind of wild bird recently killed or taken or the importation into Abu of the plumage of any kind of wild bird during such season.’ Further, this act made provisions to punish with fne those who breach the rules. According to this act, those who were found guilty of violating the rules shall be punishable with fne which may extend, in the case of a frst offence, to fve rupees for every wild bird in respect of which or of the plumage whereof the breach of the rule has been committed, and, in the case of a subsequent offense, to ten rupees in respect of every such bird and plumage. It further says that the above provisions will ‘apply to any animals of the game other than birds, and thereupon those provisions shall apply to such

Law for Wildlife Protection or Game

115

animals and their fur in like manner as they apply to wild birds and their plumage.’ 4.10 The Nilgiris Game and Fish Preservation Act 1879 Notifications 11 On January 10, 1894, under the Sections 21 and 26(f) of the Madras Forest Act 1882, the Governor in Council permitted to frame rules and regulations. Accordingly, the Revenue Department notifed the rules which stated: Unless with the sanction of Government, no person shall shoot at, wound or kill the females or immature males of any of the following animals within the limits of any reserved or rented forest or of any fuel or fodder reserve, grazing ground or area under special fre protection: — (i) Bison or Gaur, (2) Sambhur, (3) Spotted-deer, (4) Ibex, (5) Antelope, (6) Barking-deer, (7) Four-horned deer. 2. Unless with the sanction of Government, no person shall kill, wound or shoot at any mature male sambhur or spotted-deer if it is hornless or if its horns are in velvet. 3. No person shall kill, wound, shoot at, or capture peahens at any time throughout the year or the hens of jungle-fowl between the 1st of March and the 1st of October of each year. No person shall take the eggs of peahens or of jungle-hens at any time throughout the year. 4. No person shall hunt, kill, wound or shoot at any game as defned in Madras Act II. of 1879, within any of the reserved or rented forests, fuel or fodder reserves, grazing grounds or areas under special fre protection comprised within the aforesaid limits, until he has obtained a license from the Collector of the Nilgiris.12 Any breach of the above rules will invite ‘imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or to a fne which may extend to Rs. 200 or both.’13 On March 27, 1901, Sir Allan Arthur emphasised the importance of regulating indiscriminate killing of wildlife through an appropriate act. He says: If certain birds. which are eager insect destroyers, are killed, the crops suffer by reason of a plague of insects. If the usual food of the tiger, such as deer, pig and so on, are wantonly destroyed, the tiger by the inexorable law of nature must fnd some other victim, probably the villagecattle, not infrequently the villager himself. If it is necessary that a large number of wild animals be killed in famine years to provide food for the people, the killing should be done with system and in moderation; otherwise, when another famine comes, there will be no wild animals left

116

Law for Wildlife Protection or Game

owing to the slaughter of the young and of females. It should surely be possible to fnd a remedy for this state of things.14 4.11 The Mysore Game and Fish Preservation Regulation 1901 15 In 1901, the Mysore Game and Fish Preservation Regulation was introduced to prevent the indiscriminate destruction of wild animals and birds and to provide for the protection of game and fsh. Under this regulation, the game meant antelope, ibex, jungle sheep, sambhar and all other descriptions of deer, bison, hares, jungle fowl, spur fowl, pea fowl, partridge, grouse, quail, woodcock, bustard, forican, duck and teal, and shall include such other animals and birds that the Government of Mysore may, by notifcation in the Offcial Gazette, declare to be game. Under Section 4, it is made clear that Whenever the Government of Mysore has reason to believe that any particular kind of wild animals or birds, whether included in the defnition of ‘game’ or not, are being largely destroyed for the sake of their skins, horns or plumage for commercial or other purposes, it may, by notifcation in the Offcial Gazette, [proscribe the same]. Section 8 (Penalties for certain offences) stipulates that Any person who wilfully kills, captures or sells, or attempts to kill, capture or sell, any animal, bird, game or fsh, or does any other act, in contravention of this regulation or of any rules or notifcation under this Regulation, or in contravention of any condition contained in a license granted under this Regulation or under the rules made thereunder, shall be liable on conviction to fne not exceeding one hundred rupees. Under Section 12, Government of Mysore or by a subordinate Revenue authority to which the Government may have delegated its authority for the purpose, may arrest without a warrant any person who commits in his view any offence punishable under this Regulation or the rules belief under, and who, on-demand, refuses to give his name and address or gives a name and address which there is reason to believe is false. However, this regulation has made the following exception intending to protect standing crops and livelihood:

Law for Wildlife Protection or Game

117

Nothing in this Regulation shall be deemed to prevent any owner or occupier of land from killing, capturing or pursuing game doing damage to any crop growing thereon, so far as the same may be necessary for the protection of the crop. 4.12 Prohibition of Export of Birds 1902 16 In 1902, the Government of India issued an Ordinance (Customs Circular No. 13, of 1902) prohibiting entirely the export from British India of skins and feathers of all birds, except feathers of ostriches and skins and feathers exported bona-fde as specimens of natural history.17 Since the early twentieth century, the colonial government prohibited exporting of birds and its related products. ‘Some members of the trade approached the Government of India in 1904 with a petition for the rescinding of the regulation. However, the Government saw no reason for its withdrawal or modifcation.’18 The government prohibited to take by sea or by land out of British India the skins and feathers of all birds other than feathers of the ostriches. The skins and feathers were exported as bonafde specimen illustrative of natural history. Thus, an effective check was put in place to curb the reprehensible and destructive traffc. An important fallout of this regulation was the trade vanishing since no foreign market was open to the fowler. 4.13 The Wild Birds and Animals (Protection) Act 1912 19 In yet another improvement on the existing legal architecture, the government brought forth the Wild Birds and Animals (Protection) Act 1912. The act prohibits hunting or indiscriminate killing of birds such as bustards, ducks, foricans, jungle fowl, partridges, peafowl, pheasants, pigeons quail, sand grouse, painted snipe, spurfowl, woodcock, neurons, egrets, rollers and kingfshers, and animals such as antelopes, asses, bison, buffaloes, deer, gazelles, goats, hares, oxen, rhinoceroses and sheep. Section 3 of this act outlawed the following: (a) to capture any such bird or animal, or to kill any such bird or animal which has not been captured before the commencement of such close time; (b) to sell or buy, or offer to sell or buy, or to possess; any such bird or animal which has not been captured or killed before the commencement of such close time, or the fresh thereof; (c) if any plumage has been taken from any such bird captured or killed during such close time, to sell or buy, or to offer to sell or buy, or to possess, such plumage.

118

Law for Wildlife Protection or Game

Those who are violating these provisions would either be imprisoned or imposed penalties or both. According to Section 4(1) of this act, Whoever does or attempts to do, any act in contravention of Section 3, shall be punishable with fne which may extend to ffty rupees. (2) Whoever having already been convicted of an offense under this section, is again convicted thereunder shall, on every subsequent conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fne which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with both. 4.14 Indian Forest Act 1927 20 With wildlife conservation gaining momentum, the government came up with the Indian Forest Act 1927 with more stringent provisions with more clarity. As per the defnition provided by this act, ‘forest produce’ included wild animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax, and all other parts or produce of animals, which were prohibited under Section 26(1). This statute extended the jurisdiction beyond the reserve forests by bringing under its ambit the protected forests. For, Section 32(j) prohibited hunting, shooting, fshing, poisoning water and setting traps or snares in such forests and the killing or catching of elephants in such forests in areas in which the Elephants Preservation Act 1879 (6 of 1879) was not in force. Notes 1 W. Morgan and A.C. Macpherson, The Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) with Notes, Calcutta: G.C. Hay & Co and London: Blackfriars, 1863. 2 Government of India, Indian Arms Act 1878, Shimla: The Government Press, 1892. 3 Government of Madras, The Madras Wild Elephant Preservation Act, Madras: The Government Press, 1873. 4 Government of India, Elephant Preservation Act, 1879, Shimla: Government Central Press, 1879. 5 Government of India, Indian Forest Act 1878, Shimla: Government Central Press, 1878. 6 Government of Madras, The Nilgiris Game and Fish Preservation Act, 1879, Madras: The Government Press, 1879. 7 C.D. Maclean, Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, Vol. I, Madras: Government Press, 1985, pp. 263–264. See also, M.S.S. Pandian, ‘Gendered Negotiations: Hunting and Colonialism in the Late Nineteenth Century Nilgiris’, in Working Paper No. 112, Chennai: Madras Institute of Development Studies, 1993, p. 2. 8 Government of Tamil Nadu, Madras Forest Act 1882, Chennai: The Director of Stationery and Printing, 1883. 9 Government of India, Wild Birds Protection Act 1887, Shimla: Government Press, 1887. 10 The Governor General of Rajputana, The Abu Wild Birds Protection Law 1889, Calcutta: Government of India, 1889.

Law for Wildlife Protection or Game

119

11 Government of Madras, The Nilgiris Game and Fish Preservation Act, 1879 Notifcations, Madras: The Government Press, 1879. 12 C.E.M. Russell, Bullet and Shot in Indian Forest, Plain and Hill, London: W. Thacker and Co, 1900, pp. 499–502. 13 Ibid., pp. 501–502. 14 Abstract of the Proceedings of the Council of the Governor-General of India Assembled for the Purpose of Making Laws and Regulations, Calcutta: The Superintendent of Government Printing, 1902, p. 261. 15 Government of Mysore, The Mysore Game and Fish Preservation Regulation, 1901, Mysore: Legislative Department, 1901. 16 The Government of India issued an Ordinance (Customs Circular No. 13, of 1902). 17 Price Sixpence, Feathers and Facts, London: Printed and Published for The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 1911, pp. 13–14. 18 Ibid. 19 Government of India, The Wild Birds and Animals (Protection) Act, 1912, Shimla: The Government Press, 1912. 20 Government of India, Indian Forest Act 1927, New Delhi: Legislative Department, http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/fles/A1927-16_0.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2020).

Chapter 5

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

The commercialisation of wild animals was as old as human history. Chaiklin and Gooding observed that: ‘Human beings are “creatures of commerce,” and animals were an important part of that commerce.’1 They further argued that: ‘One of the most signifcant motives for human interference in the lives of animals, except as food, was for commerce.’2 Since ancient times, wild animals and birds and their products were exported from India to other countries as far as Greece and Rome. Lions, tigers, elephants, monkeys, snakes, parrots, peacocks and other animals, considered exotic, were exported from the north-western parts of India to Rome. ‘The live animals and their products, such as ivory, skins, furs, horns, and so forth, were most likely obtained with the assistance of the people who shared their habitat: local foragers.’3 It indicates that the tribals and other forest-dwelling communities were well trained to capture the wild animals. However, the quantum of export of wild animals and birds was limited. Stiles observed that ‘Wild animals were highvalue, low-volume exports to Rome.’4 Though ancient India had a robust maritime trade and commerce with other nations since antiquity, the volume of export as well as import was, as mentioned earlier, very limited. Even the European trade and commerce that developed since the early sixteenth century, when compared to the earlier period, was relatively in higher volume. Again, it was mainly confned to certain products and continued more or less in the same pattern over the next three centuries or till the early nineteenth century. In other words, though wildlife and its related products were part of trade and commerce, it did not have a serious impact until then. It is evidenced that a large number of wild animals and birds were found in the country and none of the species were found endangered at least at the end of the eighteenth century or the beginning of the nineteenth century. Commercialisation of wild animals and their products, however, did not get due attention in the economic history, environmental history and even in the wildlife history, in general, and the colonial period in particular. Chaiklin and Gooding observed that:

DOI: 10.4324/9781003427452-5

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

121

Trades in animals and animal products are a relatively understudied feature of IOW (Indian Ocean World) historiography. Although individual animals and animal products occasionally feature prominently, they rarely feature as a distinct category of trade.5 They further added that: Spices, tea, porcelain, and precious metals have received signifcantly more attention. This is perhaps because it refects European demand for these products as they frst entered the region at the end of the ffteenth century and the somewhat recent conceptualisation of the Indian Ocean as a region. Moreover, when animals and their products have been considered an integrated feature of the IOW's commercial history, they are often either divorced from their condition as living organisms or living organisms, or they are ornamentation to political events like diplomacy without any centrality to the process. Yet, there are several ways in which a categoric focus on animals, their products, and their trades can elucidate additional layers of historical understanding of the IOW.6 Though since the ancient period animals and animal products were exported to other countries, it was only limited in number and quantity. The live animals were exported to other countries mainly centred around diplomacy politics. While developing the diplomatic gesture with live animals, the animal products were also traded with other countries. Chaiklin and Gooding recounted that: With regard to trades in live animals around the IOW before the eighteenth–nineteenth centuries, most is known about exchanges of ‘charismatic megafauna’—large animals with symbolic value, such as elephants, ostriches, or giraffes, because of their singular nature. Important animal products, meanwhile, included ivory, pearls, rhinoceros’ horns, and tortoises’ shells, which have provided a subtext for commercial interactions in the region.7 They further argue that: Smaller-scale trades of smaller and domesticated animals or animal products over terrestrial spaces do not feature so prominently in documentary records. Often, they were private undertakings by individuals; or they involved trades in meats or working animals—the kinds of animals and animal products that the general populace needed to survive or to complete everyday tasks.8

122

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

‘The types of animal and animal product trades we know most about in the deeper past from documentary sources, therefore, were notable for their symbolic rather than their proftable impact.’9 Essentially, until the eighteenth century, export of animals and animal products was limited and the former was mainly for diplomacy politics, and the latter was also limited in real terms commercialisation. However, since the early eighteenth century, this trend started changing and the commercialisation of wild animals and animal products emerged on a large scale. In other words, from the symbolic value of the live animals for diplomatic politics and limited export of the animal products to the commercialisation of animals and animal products, all this increased since the early eighteenth century. Chaiklin and Gooding aptly put it: ‘Thus, commerce in certain IOW animals and animal products became increasingly linked to general demand, rather than the demand by political elites.’10 Precisely, since the early period of human history, live animals and animal products were part of trade and commerce not only within the country but also across the countries. Though the animal trade was held across the countries only to a limited extent until the seventeenth century. Interestingly, the live animal export was mainly dominated by diplomatic politics and animal products also exported to other countries during the same period. Since the early eighteenth century, both live animals and animal products have expanded in true commercial motives. Given the background, this chapter raises a fundamental question: How British colonialism and commercialisation of wildlife extents to understand the region, the environment and the political and economic history of the Indian subcontinent? Or whether the commercial worth of wildlife and its commodifcation was frst recognised by the onset of colonisation? The other important questions are: Whether colonialism was concerned only about the commercialisation of wildlife or for their conservation? Was the conservation really intended to protect wildlife or protect it for the sake of game and the commercial interest behind their initiatives? Given this background, the present chapter attempts to capture how the colonial project commercialised the different types of wild animals and their products from the early nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. Since the early colonial period, not only forest areas were encroached upon for establishing tea and coffee estates, a wide range of forest produce was commercialised.11 Cattle and other wildlife resources too were destroyed for commercial purposes. Several forests produce was systematically plundered and exported to other countries, predominantly to the European countries. In addition to several wildlife, products were also exported to other countries. In other words, the colonial administration was ruthless in the destruction of wildlife for amassing elephant tusks, deer musk, peacock and bowl feathers, slow loris and slender loris, langurs, crocodile skins, python skins, water lizards, leopard and panther skins, horns, skins and hides, bones of

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

123

animals from the early colonial period, particularly from the mid-nineteenth century onwards. The colonial project on commercialisation of wildlife had two components: one was an encouragement to the common people to extract wildlife resources with a commercial motive by giving some kind of bounties and the other one was the active support and facilitation provided to British offcers of different cadres in the name of sports and games. The colonial administration which was instrumental in forming the hunting society and game society facilitated the import of hounds and arranging guest houses besides beaters, tanners, shikaris, elephants and horses to hunt the wildlife. Further fnancial incentives were also extended during the colonial period. The colonial wildlife game was always focused on the commodifcation of different wildlife products. Let me explain how concerned the Company Raj and the subsequent British government were about packing the game carefully and meticulously. Until the mid-nineteenth century, comprehensive and detailed data sources were not available to access the quantity as well as the value of the cattle and wildlife resources exported to the other countries. From the mid-nineteenth century onwards, fairly detailed accounts are available from sources such as the Statistical Abstract Relating to British India and Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries, which provide data regarding the cattle and wildlife export from British India both in terms of quantity and value of export. Detailed data is available for the number of cattle, the number of hides and skins, quantity of feather, quantity of ivory products (both unmanufactured and manufactured), quantity of animal bones and horns from the mid-nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century (1850–1950). 5.1 Ivory and Ivory Products Elephant and its related products are an integral part of human history with jumbos being employed for many services, especially during wartime and hunting other wildlife since the beginning of human civilisation. However, ‘Strictly speaking, the term ivory is confned to the tusk of the elephant, and for commercial purposes to that of the male elephant.’12 The use of ivory as a decorative material has been universal from the prehistoric period to the nineteenth century as evidenced by the different museums across the world.13 Even in the ancient period, ‘Figures and conventional designs dived in ivory as mentioned in the Ramayana as being used for the decoration of houses, furniture, and the chariots of warriors.’14 Ivory and its related products were exported to foreign shores for centuries. ‘The quantity of ivory worked in and exported from India has for centuries been enormous.’15 Documentary evidence clearly shows that imported ivory goods were found in St Helens from the early eighteenth century. Imported goods from India were kept for sale at the ‘Blew Warehouse, St Helens’ and not surprisingly the artefacts included

124

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

elephant’s teeth.16 Precisely, ivory was an important and highly valued export item since raw tusks, as well as exquisite handicrafts made of them, were prized possessions of aristocratic lifestyle in different parts of the world. Besides exports, ivory and related products were also an important component of domestic maritime trade. For instance, at Cambay, the seaport to Ahmedabad, 1,68,238 sicca rupees worth shipments of elephant teeth were secured from Madras and Bombay in 1805.17 In the same year, Surat had received 35,684 sicca rupees worth such consignments from Madras and Bombay.18 Shipment of elephant teeth from Bombay and Surat to northern parts of Gujarat and adjacent villages was worth 168,238 sicca rupees and 35,654 sicca rupees, respectively, in 1805.19 The same year saw the export of 44,700 sicca rupees worth shipment from Bombay to London.20 From Bombay and Surat, elephant teeth worth 26,534 sicca rupees were exported to China that year. In Bombay and Surat, elephant teeth worth 375,483 sicca rupees were received and consignments to the tune of 306,993 sicca rupees were exported from/to throughout the world in 1805.21 Elephant teeth and ivory dust worth of Rs. 38 in 1803/1804, Rs.100 in 1814/1815 and Rs. 3858 in 1815/1816 were exported from Bombay.22 About Rs. 1322 worth of skins and hides were exported from Calcutta in 1817/1818.23 It clearly indicates that colonialism extracted and exploited the wildlife resources for its commercial interests in different parts of the country from the early nineteenth century onwards. Despite the surge in the ivory trade, manufacturing of ivory-related products was confned to a few places across British India. ‘The main seats of the ivory industry in Southern India are, at the present day, the Native States of Travancore and Mysore, and the British districts of Vizagapatam and Godavari.’24 Four places are prominent and well known for ivory-carving artistic works in India, viz., Delhi in the Panjab, Murshidabad in Bengal, Mysore and Travancore in Madras.25 Ivory Turner was engaged in the making of less artistic small articles such as bracelets (bangles), chessmen, antimony boxes and the like. And while most towns carried out this work, the prominent ones are Agra, Alwar, Bikaner, Jodhpur (more especially Pali), Amritsar, Ludhiana, Patiala, Tippera, Tirupati, Godavari, etc.26 With the Sikh the use of a comb is almost a religious observance, it is no wonder, therefore, that in Amritsar and other towns of the Panjab, ivory combs of great beauty are to be had. Here and there fabulous sums are expended on special chairs, howdahs and thrones made of ivory, or rather veneered with ivory; so also, in the purchase of mats and fans woven by threads cut from the tusk. Ivory mats are often made at Delhi, Bharatpur, Murshidabad, Tippera, etc.27 In many parts of India wood is inlaid with ivory, but there are three localities that are especially noted for the superiority of this class of work. These are Mysore in South India, Hoshiarpur in the Panjab, and Monghyr in Bengal.28

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

125

Table 5.1 Quantity of Elephant Teeth Imported from the Territory of East India Company to the United Kingdom, 1828–1838 Years

Quantity Imported (Cwts)

1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 Total

892 1,229 1,532 2,125 954 1,015 2,313 2,250 1,730 2,187 2,105 18,332

Source: Accounts Relating to Imports and Exports (London: The House of Commons, 1840).

Elephant teeth and ivory works were exported from different ports of India to the United States since the early nineteenth century. For example, elephant teeth worth 564, 507 and 1,289 sicca rupees were exported from Bengal to the US, respectively, in 1817–1818, 1822–1823 and 1826–1827. Elephant teeth worth Rs.2,000 in 1817–1818, Rs.1,300 in 1818–1819 and Rs.3,500 in 1825–1826 were exported from Bombay to the US.29 A large quantity of ivory was exported not only to the US but also the United Kingdom during the same period. For example, in a decade (1828 and 1838), about 18,332 cwts of ivory teeth were imported from the territory of the East India Company to the United Kingdom (see Table 5.1). 5.2 Protection of Elephants The elephant is one of the wild animals protected from the early period of human history. Invariably, it was domesticated and used by the rulers from the ancient period. According to Prakash: ‘When the British took control of the Indian subcontinent, elephant and other wildlife were so numerous that people were encouraged to hunt and eliminate them in vast numbers.’30 For example, Captain Godfrey was accounted for slaying 99 elephants in Nilgiris.31 ‘Elephants have been more or less protected by the State for a long time.’ Mr. Bourdillon, the Conservator, says in his report on the forests: Lieutenant Arthur, in his memoir of Travancore written in 1810, mentions that, at that time, Government used to allow people to cut pits for these animals on payment of a tax per pit. The elephants thus taken apparently became the property of the persons who dug the pits.

126

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

Subsequent to 1810, Government commenced digging pits on its Own account but it was still allowable for private persons to have pits, as they were called. The elephants thus captured by private persons had to be sold to the Government at Rs. 150 a head.32 By the Travancore Forest Regulation the ivory of wild elephants, whether grown or found upon Government land or private property, is a royalty, and no trade shall be carried on, unless it has been obtained from the Government. Whoever, unless authorised to do so, kills, wounds, or captures a wild elephant within the territories of the State, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fne which may extend to fve hundred rupees, or both for each animal.33 On October 18, 1869, a frst of its kind attempt was made by the Travancore princely state in prohibiting the shooting of wild elephants.34 According to Edgar Thurston: ‘A tax on cutting pits in which to capture them was thus the frst means adopted for the protection of elephants. It was not till the year 1869 that it was found necessary to prohibit their being shot. This, no doubt, was necessitated by the opening up of the country, and the infux of Europeans to the hills for the purpose of planting coffee. The sixth paragraph of the notice prohibiting the shooting of elephants runs as follows: — In any case the tusks and teeth … of wild elephants, however death may have occurred, will as hitherto be the property of the Sircar, and are deliverable to the nearest Police offcer.’ This shows that the monopoly of ivory had been recognized for some time previously.35 A huge value of ivory was manufactured from Travancore since the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Between 1880/1881 and 1898/899, over 20 years, ivory goods worth rupees worth 35,792–5–10 was manufactured from Travancore (Table 5.2). The School of Arts located in Trivandrum, initially known as H. H. The Maharaja’s School of Arts, was founded by Moolam Thirunal  Sir Rama Varma, the  Maharaja  for the State of  Travancore, in 1881. In the beginning, the school used to offer courses for drawing and painting and three subjects of handicrafts, namely ivory work, pottery and smithery. This School of Arts trained the professional sculptors to carve ivory items from 1889 onwards. Though ivory products were made in the Travancore region, the prices were very low. For example, over 25 years, ‘The average price, which Travancore ivory has realised from the year 1875 to 1900, is S. Rs. 5 per pound.’36 There were several products made from ivory. For instance, ‘In a list of ivory articles made at the present day at Vizagapatam the following are enumerated: glove-boxes; handkerchief boxes; money boxes; envelope

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

127

Table 5.2 Value of Ivory Manufactured in the Husur Cutcherry (1880–1881/1888–1889) and School of Arts (1889–1890/1898–1899) Year

Value of articles manufactured Rs. Ch C

1056 (1880–1881) 1057 (1881–1882) 1058 (1882–1883) 1059 (1883–1884) 1060 (1884–1885) 1061 (1885–1886) 1062 (1886–1887) 1063 (1887–1888) 1064 (1888–1889) 1065 (1889–1890) 1066 (1890–1891) 1067 (1891–1892) 1068 (1892–1893) 1069 (1893–1894) 1070 (1894–1895) 1071 (1895–1896) 1072 (1896–1897) 1073 (1897–1898) 1074 (1898–1899)

1,108 13 14 1,434 20 10 1,097 26 3 1,286 9 3 761 2 7 616 143 546 10 10 1,042 10 1 2,189 14 12 3,003 22 14 1,378 25 10 1,391 17 9 2,634 17 9 1,940 3 10 2,346 6 4 2,163 15 2 3,895 27 11 4,008 2 12 2,949 12 9

Source: Edgar Thurston, Monograph on the Ivory Carving Industry of Southern India, Madras: Government Press, 1901, p.6. Note: Rs. = rupees, Ch = chuckrams, C = cash In Travancore, 16 cash is equal to 1 chakram; 4 chakrams equal to 1 fanam and 7 fanams equal to 1 rupee. In other words, 448 cash is equal to 1 rupee.

cases; blotting books, book-stands; stamp boxes; carcases; jewel and work boxes; chess-boards, and picture frames.’37 Interestingly, some communities specialised in making ivory items. For example, in Visakhapatnam district of the erstwhile Madras Presidency and present-day Andhra Pradesh, the Kamsalas community used to make ivory products for the European customers. According to Thurston: In the Vizagapatam district, some artisans are engaged in the ivorycarving industry. They ‘manufacture for European clients fancy articles, such as chess- boards, photograph frames, card-cases, trinket boxes, and so on, from tortoise-shell, horn, porcupine quills, and ivory. The industry is in a fourishing state, and has won many medals at exhibitions. It is stated to have been introduced by Mr. Fane, who was Collector of the district from 1859 to 1862, and to have then been developed by the Kamsalis, and men of other castes who eventually took it up. The foundation of the fancy articles is usually sandal-wood,

68 53 57 92 56 74 78 61 70 84 69.3

1066 (1890–1891) 1067 (1891–1892) 1068 (1892–1893) 1069 (1893—1894) 1070 (1894—1895) 1071 (1895–1896) 1072 (1896–1897) 1073 (1897–1898) 1074 (1898–1899) 1075 (1899–1900) Average of 10 years

469 668 674 70½ 835 570 1,212 746¼ 1,160½ 844½ 788 lb

Total Weight in lb of Tusks Received 423 572½ 579 ¼ 684 909¾ 592¼ 1,313½ 771¾ 1,033 956½ 783½ lb

Total Weight in lb of Tusks Sold 196½ 91 106 ½ 836¼ 773¼ 354 963½ 548 536½ 125½ 453¼

Total Weight in lb of Tusks Exported from Alleppey 272¾ 577 567½ — 61¼ 216 248½ 198¼ 623½ 719 334½

Total Weight in lb of Tusks Sold and Kept in Travancore Supposing That Ivory Was Exported Only from Alleppey

4 10 08 664 655 5 14 7 617 6 8 11 485 5 14 11 3 9 10 — 500

Average Price per lb Rs. A. P

Source: Edgar Thurston, Monograph on the Ivory Carving Industry of Southern India, Madras: Government Press, 1901, p.8. Note: In Travancore, 16 cash equal to 1 chakram; 4 chakrams equal to 1 fanam and 7 fanams equal to 1 rupee. In other words, 448 cash equal to 1 rupee.

No. of Tusks Received in the Commercial Ofce for 10 Years

Year

Table 5.3 Number of Tusks, Weights, Exported and Average Price in Travancore, 1890–1891 to 1899–1900

128 Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

129

which is imported from Bombay. Over this are laid porcupine quills split in half and placed side by side, or thin slices of bison, buffalo, or staghorn, tortoise-shell, or ivory. The ivory is sometimes laid over the horn or shell, and is always either cut into geometrical patterns with a small keyhole saw, or etched with designs representing gods and fowers.’38 Thurston further says that: The designs employed both in the etching and fret-work are stiff, and suited rather to work in metal than in ivory; and the chief merit of this Vizagapatam work perhaps lies in its careful fnish — a rare quality in Indian objects of art.39 Of course, these kinds of specialisations might have prevailed in different parts of the country. The prices also varied according to the quality of the products. For example: ‘The price of the frst sort of ivory ranges between Rs. 110 and Rs. 120 per maund, and of the second sort between Rs. 80 and Rs. 100.’40 Trade in ivory and ivory-related products, especially exports, which was there since the early period, continued till the end of the colonial rule. Between 1880 and 1918, for about 38 years, 2.68 lakh (lbs) quantities of ivory and ivory-related products worth of 29.52 lakhs for 32 years (1849–1881), 10.90 lakh tens of rupees for 17 years (1882–1899) and 0.36 lakh pounds for 18 years (1900–1918) were exported from India (see Tables 5.4 and 5.5). 5.3 Plumage The subcontinent is endowed with a wide range of birds, which were hunted down since the early nineteenth century not only for their meat but for the feathers, which had a market not only in India but also abroad. Prakash observed that: Game birds were in demand, and the international markets created a means by which tribes could get cash by capturing and selling these birds to traders. The bird trade become so great by the 1920s that many species were endangered. The blame was placed mainly upon the traders, who were thought to be exploiting both the trappers and the birds themselves.41 Peacock feathers were a very popular export material from the early nineteenth century. Milburn indicated that: This bird is found in its wild state in several parts of India. Its beautiful feathers are much used among the Chinese to make the raised work

130

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

of birds. They should be chosen perfect and not rumpled. The centre feather of the tail, which is sometimes four feet long, is much esteemed being decorated with what is called with eye, a brilliant spot beautifully enamelled with a variety of colours.42 For example, ‘The common Peafowl (Pavo critatus linn) is found in many parts of the country even up to 5,000 ft in the Himalayas.’43 ‘Peafowls are found in almost all states but are more numerous in the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan where due to religious sentiment they are protected.’44 ‘The tail feathers of the peacock are an important export commodity.’45 Not only peacock but several other birds were hunted for commercial purposes. Narrating about the professional hunters of birds in the Central Provinces, Forsyth says: His early days had been passed in catching and training falcons for the nobles of Upper India, and in shooting birds for sale in the market. He had come down to Central India to make a bag of blue rollers and kingfshers, whose feathers are so much valued in the countries to the east for fancy work.46 Feathers are an integral part of European culture, particularly among women, since the early eighteenth century.47 Moreover, feathers are even part of the royal dress code of the Prince of Wales. In 1875, when the Prince of Wales visited India, he landed in Bombay with feathers as part of his royal attire. Wheeler stated that ‘His helmet was white, with a scarlet piggery and plumes of white and red feathers.’48 Since the late nineteenth century, the export of plumage from India has increased due to the indiscriminate killing of birds in different parts of the country. Though the export of feathers was not a prominent trade activity during the early nineteenth century, it emerged as a trade since the early 1870s. Downham points out that ‘The fancy feather-trade did not exist in the years 1860-70.’49 Even later, plumes trade was controlled mainly by a few traders. According to Sixpence: The plume-trade, though now extensive and lucrative, is not an old one, and it remains in but a few hands, so that in dealing with it there are not the diffculties which might be involved in touching an old-established industry, or an industry affecting a large number of shareholders or of workpeople.50 The prominent bird feathers identifed in the London market belong to the heron and egret plumes. ‘Most of the feathers enumerated in this catalogue were Heron and Egret plumes from India,’ he adds.51

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

131

British game sports claimed the lives of a large number of birds and Leveson’s account throws light on this: for in less than four hours we were satiated with our sport, having killed three couple and a half of ‘forikin’ (or lesser bustard), the fnest bird for the table in India, thirteen leashes of hares, nine braces of grey partridge, and three of grey quail.52 From the last quarter of the nineteenth century onwards, the export of plumage had shot up and the upward trend continued till the early twentieth century. According to George Watt: In 1880-1 the exports were valued at Rs. 2,69,447; in 1884-5 at Rs. 6,33,017; in 1887-8 at Rs. 5,70,495; in 1895-6 at Rs. 5,55,185, since which date it appears to have declined materially; in 1900-1 it stood at Rs. 1,35,440; in 1901-2 at Rs. l,79,618; in 1902-3 at Rs. 88,691; in 1903-4 at Rs. 5,093; in 1904-5 at Rs. 880; in 1905-6 at Rs. 4,416; in 1906-7 at Rs. 1,437. In former years the major portion of these exports went usually to the United Kingdom, which took in 1895-6, Rs. 4,18,006; in 1902-3, Rs. 60,000; and in 1906-7, nil. More recently to China (Hong Kong), which took in 1895-6, Rs. 58,562; in 1902-3, Rs. 23,387; and in 1906-7, Rs. 1,350. Practically the balance on these valuations of the total for the years in question goes to the Straits. The imports of feathers are unimportant. As a natural consequence of recent legislation, the portions of this traffc concerned in the foreign supply will be discontinued.53 Interestingly, there was a voice to protect marketable wildlife products, particularly birds and their products, both in India and Britain from the last quarter of the nineteenth century onwards. I am not sure of any opposition to the commodifcation of wildlife trade in general but certainly there was a voice in favour of prohibiting the export of birds and their products from the last quarter of the nineteenth century. While increasing the quantum of plumage export, protecting wild birds was emphasised in different parts of the country, particularly in the Madras Presidency. Sixpence pointed out that: The question of the protection of wild birds in India, irrespective of the game question, was opened by a letter addressed to the Government of Madras by Surgeon General Bidie, C.I.E., F.Z.S., in 1881. He brought to notice the indiscriminate slaughter of birds, for the sake of their plumage, which was taking place throughout the Madras Presidency, and claimed protection for these helpless creatures mainly in the interests of agriculture.54

132

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

The Government of Madras, in forwarding this letter to the Government of India, remarked that they were alive to the necessity of the adoption, in the interests of agriculture, of some vigorous measures to control the destruction of birds, which appeared to be going on throughout India, and they, therefore, deemed the matter worthy of consideration with a view to a general Act being passed.55 Another reason was the importance of protecting the wildlife being emphasised in other parts of the world, particularly in England. For instance, ‘In 1884 the East India Association of London passed a resolution declaring it very advisable that some regulations should be framed and put in force for protecting the wild birds of India.’56 The Wildlife Protection Act 1887 empowered the local governments to make rules prohibiting the possession or sale during its breeding season of any kind of wild bird. Despite the enactment of the Wildlife Protection Act 1887, several representations and appeals from various quarters were presented/represented to protect the birds. According to Sixpence: From 1887 to 1900 the Government received many representations and appeals from various societies, and from both Indian and European offcials as well as from private individuals, on the subject of bird protection. In consequence, on August 31st, 1900, a circular was issued from Simla to all Local Governments and Administrations, inviting their attention to the Act of 1887, and asking for their views as to the suffciency of the measures in force to prevent the destruction of the birds of India.57 Amazingly, even the media covered the importance of protecting the birds. One of the prominent and popular newspapers in the Madras Presidency during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries published the news emphasising the importance of protecting birds. I am quoting from Sixpence, according to the Madras Mail: The dealers at Indian ports, and certain merchants and brokers in Europe or elsewhere, might indulge in vituperative language, but as, with the market peremptorily and permanently closed, the demand for skins would cease, there would be no inducement to supply skins, or no temptation to slay birds wholesale. The cutting off of the supply from India might compel the fair votaries of fashion at a distance to pay more for the gratifcation of their taste for feathers than they now do. But India need not indulge in any sympathy on their account. What she has great occasion to do is to prevent a state of things that causes a deplorable sacrifce of human food, and the materials for human raiment, besides inficting penury on individuals, and great loss on the State … The ruthless

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

133

destruction of insectivorous birds with gay plumage causes such waste, since it deprives growing food-crops of the protection afforded by a watchful and effcient bird-police against multitudinous insect thieves.58 Based on the report, the government formed an inquiry committee to look into the matter. There was a strong voice from the colonial government, particularly from the Madras Presidency, East India Association of London, several individuals, and interestingly the media also addressed the importance to protect the birds despite enactment of Wildlife Protection Act 1887. As I have indicated earlier, I am not sure of any opposition to the commodifcation of wildlife trade in general but certainly there was a voice in favour of prohibition of export of birds and their products from the last quarter of the nineteenth century from the Government of Madras, East India Association from London, several individuals and also from media. Finally, the Prohibition of Export of Birds came into effect in 1902, which prohibited the export of skins and plumes from India illegally. A positive impact of the enactment of the statute was that the volume of feather trade not only diminished but almost disappeared from the export market. Though the Prohibition of Export of Birds Act 1902 prohibited the export of plumage, smuggling continued even in the subsequent years. For instance, between December 20th, 1907, and February 15th, 1908, twenty-three cases of a dead bird-skins from India were imported as cow hair or horsehair; that in March, 6,400 further skins were imported hidden under a layer of horsehair, and described as horsehair; that ‘osprey’ feathers from India were sent by parcel post, declared as dress material; that smuggling was also carried on by way of the Straits Settlement, in order to evade examination by the Customs offcers.59 He further observed that ‘Naturalists and others interested in the matter saw with surprise that in spite of this prohibition the feathers of birds peculiar to the East Indies, and of others strongly suspected to come from thence, continued to be offered for sale in Mincing Lane.’60 Despite prohibiting the export of skins and plumes from India was illegal under the Export of Birds Act, 1902, there was a huge quantity of export to England. Sixpence rightly pointed out that ‘At the sales in February and April of that year (1908) there were large supplies of Egret feathers, Impeyan Pheasants, Parrots, Kingfshers, Ringnecks, and other birds from India.’61 He further stated that ‘Birds also come from our Colonies in spite of Colonial laws prohibiting the killing or the export of those very species.’62 Precisely, despite the enactment to prohibit, the birds and their products continued to be exported to England during the early twentieth century. Consequently, a bill to Prohibit the Importation of the Plumage and Skins of Wild Birds in 1908. Accordingly:

134

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

Bill to Prohibit the Importation of the Plumage and Skins of Wild Birds, ‘which was passed by the House of Lords on July 21st, and read a frst time in the House of Commons on July 22nd, 1908: — 1. Any person who, after the commencement of this Act, shall have in his possession for the purpose of sale or exchange the plumage, skin, or body, or any part of the plumage, skin, or body, of any dead wild bird, imported or brought into the United Kingdom on or after the frst day of January 1909, which is not included in the schedule to this Act, or otherwise exempted from the operation of this Act, shall be guilty of an offense, and shall on summary conviction be liable for the frst offense to a penalty of not exceeding fve pounds, and for every subsequent offense to a penalty of not exceeding twenty-fve pounds, and in every case, the Court shall order the forfeiture and destruction of the articles in respect of which the offense has been committed.’63 Subsequently, in 1911, another bill was passed in the House of Commons, ‘Bill to Prohibit the Sale, Hire, or Exchange of the Plumage and Skins of Certain Wild Birds.’ This bill was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Alden, and read a frst time on February 22nd, 1911: 1. (1) Any person who, after the commencement of this Act, shall have in his possession for sale or exchange the plumage or skin, or any part of the plumage or skin, of any dead wild bird imported or brought into the United Kingdom on or after the frst day of January one thousand nine hundred and twelve which is included in the schedule to this Act, or not exempted from the operation of this Act, shall be guilty of an offense, and shall on summary conviction be liable for the frst offence to a penalty of not exceeding fve pounds, and for every subsequent offense to a penalty of not exceeding twenty-fve pounds, and in every case, the court shall order the forfeiture and destruction of the articles in respect of which the offense has been committed.64 Precisely, voices were raised to protect birds and their products mainly from the Government of Madras in 1881; then the East India Association from London also became concerned about the importance of protecting the wildlife in 1884, which led to the enactment of the Wildlife Protection Act 1887. Despite the enactment of the act, exporting the birds and their products continued to persist, which was addressed by several individuals and also from media resulting in the enactment of the Prohibition of Export of Birds Act in 1902. Despite this act, the export of birds’ skins and plumes continues to persist. Consequently, a couple of bills were introduced in the House of Commons, viz., the Bill to Prohibit the Importation of the Plumage and Skins of Wild Birds in 1908 and Bill to Prohibit the Sale, Hire, or Exchange of the Plumage and Skins of Certain Wild Birds 1911. In a nutshell, voices were

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

135

raised from Madras and London, which resulted in the enactment of yet another act, which, however, could not address the issues. Consequently, a series of representations were made both from India and England and also from Indian media. This led to the enactment of the act and despite prohibitions, export of the birds and their products continued and consequently Britain prohibited importing the birds and their products. Subsequently, the Wild Birds and Animals (Protection) Act 1912 was enacted to protect the wild birds. Despite the enactment of the act, wild birds continued to be hunted by the hunters and gamers in the subsequent years. For example, in Bharatpur wildfowl hunting, Burton points out that: ‘On 20th November 1916, there fell 4206 birds to 50 guns.’65 In Bikaner, 5,968 were killed by Lord Rawlinson, who was one of the party members in 1921.66 Precisely, the importance of the plumage of wild birds was realised from the early nineteenth century for particular birds or certain varieties of birds. Over 38 years, from 1880 to 1918, about 33.17 lakh (lbs) quantity of feathers worth of 0.46 lakh ponds for 2 years (1880–1881), 10.74 lakh of tens of rupees for 17 years (1882–1899) and 0.41 lakh pounds for 17 years (1900–1917) were exported to other countries (see Tables 5.4 and 5.5). However, it did not get much attention till the mid-nineteenth century from a trade and commerce point of view, which had started burgeoning from then to the beginning of the twentieth century when it almost disappeared due to the enactment of the birds’ protection act. 5.4 Animal Bones Using animal bones as manure for agriculture was extensively discussed by scientists during the last quarter of the nineteenth century which gave rise to two different viewpoints. The major argument was that the Indian soil has suffcient phosphate as well as nitrogen content and hence animal bone manure was not required, while the other group advocated its use for commercial crops such as sugarcane, tea and coffee. In the initial stage, the export of bones and bone manure from India was much criticised by Indian scholars. However, the dominant scientifc opinion was that use of bone manure was not required for Indian farmers since the Indian soils as a whole are not defcient in phosphates or lime; second, that bones contain, in view of their cost, too small a proportion of nitrogen to justify their use; third, that cereals are not so much benefted by bone-manures as by nitrogenous manures; and fourth, that it is the roots which are not grown as feld-crops in India that are most immediately and successfully treated with bone. For these and many other reasons it has been contended that to the Indian cultivator, as matters stand at present, it is perhaps more proftable to sell the bones found on his felds than utilise them as manure.67

136

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

Some scientists, however, favoured its use for the commercial crops: ‘Bone— meal has been found especially useful with sugar—cane, and to some extent is used with both tea and coffee.’68 It seems that there was very little demand for bone manure in India, and hence it was exported to other countries. Moreover, the bone-crushing mills and bone manure factories were established in the sea-port towns with the required road and rail connectivity in the late nineteenth century. For, it was easy to collect the bones from different parts of the country and transport the shipments through canals, rivers and railways.69 Since the last quarter of the nineteenth century, many industries were established in different parts of the country. For instance, In 1891 there were 13 such works that gave employment to 491 persons. Steadily these increased, and in 1900 18 works were employing 991 persons. These are distributed as follows: —Seven in Madras, 6 in Bombay, 2 in Sind, 2 in Bengal, and 1 in the United Provinces. Thus bone-meal and superphosphate are regularly manufactured and on a fairly large scale in India, but as the local demand is limited the product is mainly exported.70 The quantity of export of bone manures constantly increased in the subsequent years. In 1884-5 the exports were 18,383 tons, and from that quantity, they have steadily increased. They attained their highest magnitude in 1900-1, when they stood at 112,061 tons, valued at Rs. 68,41,916. For the years 1902-7, the fgures were: 19023. 100.391 tons. Rs. 54,97,967; 1903-4, 74,788 tons. Rs. 41,57,119; 1904-5, 68,203 tons. Rs. 37,61,480; 19056, 87,562 tons, Rs. 49,78,778; 1906-7, 93,760 tons, Rs. 55,45,241.71 Since the 1880s, a large number of animal bones were exported which continued till the end of the colonial period. Between 1880 and 1940, for about six decades (1880–1940), 46.05 lakh tons quantities and worth of animal bones were exported from India (see Table 5.4). Between 1880 and 1940, over six decades, 0.67 pounds worth of animal bones for 2 years (1880–1881), 43.72 lakh tens of rupees for 16 years (1882–1898) and 18.73 lakh pounds for 41 years (1899–1940) were exported (see Tables 5.4 and 5.5). 5.5 Horns A large number of horns were exported to other countries during the colonial period. Over more than half a century, from 1880 to 1934 (54 years), the total quantity of horns exported to other countries was worth about 32.36 lakh cwt (see Table 5.4). Between 1862 and 1934, over more than

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

137

seven decades, 16.51 lakh pounds for 19 years (1862–1898), 32.63 lakh tens of rupees for a16 years (1882–1898) and 39.92 lakh pounds for 35 years (1899–1934) worth of horns were exported from the Indian subcontinent (see Table 5.5). 5.6 Hides and Skins Hides and skins were processed for various purposes since the early period. ‘The term “Hides” denotes commercially the raw, dressed or tanned skins of full-grown cows, bullocks, buffaloes, and horses, etc., while “Skins” is applied to those of calves, sheep, goats, deer and other wild animals.’72 ‘The Rig Veda refers to the use of tanned deer skins so that it is evident that tanning was understood and carried out in India at a very early date.’73 About the tanning industry of south India, it is said that ‘it was of more of a pure village industry and there is evidence to show that there was an export trade in skins if not in tanned skins about the middle of the frst century A.D.’74 Until the early nineteenth century, hides and skins were processed at the village level and a particular community was engaged in the leather and its related products. These products were largely meant to meet the local demand than for trade purposes. Cuthrie noted that: Little is known about the state of the trade during the frst half the nineteenth century but the records of Messrs. Parry & Co., show that their founder, Thomas Parry, started a large tannery at San Thome in the year 1805 and that within a few years of this there were from 300 to 400 workmen employed there. Leather was supplied from this tannery not only to the local cavalry regiments but exported both to America and England.75 Since the early nineteenth century, hides and skins were exported to other countries. For example, between 1867 and 1940, over 73 years, 6,912.55 lakh numbers (1867–1895); 355.15 lakh cwt (1896–1918) and 14.87 lakh tons (1919–1940) quantity of hides and skins were exported to other countries (see Table 5.4). Over nine decades (91 years) from 1849 to 1940, 470.84 lakh pounds (1849–1881), 1,257.21 lakh tens of rupees (1882–1899) and 3,556.96 pounds (1900–1940) worth of hides and skins were exported to other countries (see Table 5.5). 5.7 Wild Animals A large number of wild animals and birds, as well as related products, were exported from India since the ancient period. For instance, ‘The skins and hides of crocodiles are extensively used for the manufacture of the very best kind of leather, not only as fancy articles for apparel and household use but

138

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

also as the upper leather for high-quality shoes.’76 Likewise, python skin was used for leather products and other fancy items. ‘In India, it is found extensively all over the country particularly in the rocky areas.’77 No wonder that ‘the skins of pythons were extensively used in the manufacture of the very best kind of leather and fancy articles for apparel and house use.’78 ‘It is in great demand in foreign markets and there has been large scale exploitation of pythons for this purpose.’79 The boa was twenty-three feet eight-inch long, and about six feet in circumference. There was a large cake of fat all the way inside from the head to the tail, and of this the natives shewed great anxiety to obtain possession, declaring that it was an infallible cure for all diseases.80 Skins of water lizards were ‘used for manufacturing fancy articles.’ Jungle fowls’ feather also had an important value. ‘This jungle fowl is found in peninsular India roughly south of the Narmada river.’ Deer musk and horns had a great export value during the colonial period. ‘The Musk Deer is forestdwelling animal. It inhabits the Himalayas at elevations of about 8,000 feet and ascends higher altitudes in summer.’81 ‘There has been a regular trade of deer musk and exports have been taking place to Japan, France, USA and other foreign countries where the musk is also used in the perfumery industry because of its lasting odour.’82 ‘Lesser Panda lives in the temperature forest of the eastern Himalayas above 5,000 feet or so.’83 ‘It is in great demand in foreign countries for display purpose in zoological parks and gardens.’84 Slow Loris and Slender Loris has some medicinal value. ‘These lemurs are in demand in foreign countries for medical research. There is a superstitious belief that the eyes of the Slender Loris is said to be a potent love charm and a cure for certain eye diseases.’85 Leopards are exploited for the sake of their skins which are in great demand in foreign countries. These skins are generally used for making apparel, which was the fashion of the day. It is also exhibited as trophy for decoration purposes.86 Langurs are in great demand in foreign countries for medical research purposes. These are also used for the preparation of polio vaccines etc. Certain species of langurs viz., the Nilgiris langurs, are also hunted by tribals for their skins and for their fesh which is believed to be of medicinal value in south India.’87 In addition to the above, a large number of wildlife species were destroyed for commercial purposes during the colonial period. Till the end of the colonial era, no restriction was imposed on the export of wildlife products to other countries. ‘Prior to May 1958, peacock feathers were not controlled under Export Trade Control regulations but their export for commercial purpose

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

139

was prohibited under the Sea Customs Act except as specimen illustrative of natural history.’88 Since the late nineteenth century, tanning the skins of wild animals had also developed. Chatterton points out that: a very considerable business has developed in tanning skins of wild animals such as those of the tiger, panther, bear and various kinds of deer with the hair on, and the results are extremely satisfactory if the skins are in good condition. The hair is unaffected by the chrome liquor and the skins when fnished possess all the qualities of a good chrome leather. In a similar way a good many crocodile hides and a large number of snake skins, have been tanned, the latter being in great demand for the manufacture of fancy articles especially ladies’ waist belts. In their natural colour they look very well and can be readily dyed to any required shade. Snake skins are very plentiful in India but so far as I know this is the frst attempt that has ever been made to turn them to practical account. To obtain good results, the skins must not be damaged and special care has to be taken in killing the snakes.89 ‘The pig affords various economic products, the chief of which are Bristles, Lard, Meat (Pork, Ham, etc.) and Skin … Pigskin forms, when tanned, leather which is principally valued for saddlery.’90 Bristles are employed chiefy in the manufacture of brushes, and the export trade in bristles and other brush fber in recent years is very considerable. For the period 1900-7, the following were the Exports of bristles and fbers for broom and brush manufacture: —1900-1, 49,682 cwt., valued at Rs. 14,93,685; 1901-2, 48,488 cwt., Rs. 13,65,600; 1902-3, 70,917 cwt., Rs. 15,79,002; 1903-4, 83,258 cwt., Rs. 20,76,331; 19045, 81,290 cwt., Rs. 18,39,854; 1905-6, 93,873 cwt., Rs. 21,51,028; 1906-7, 88,158 cwt., Rs. 17,68,930. Of the total for 1905-6, Madras exported 89,978 cwt. and Bengal 3,604 cwt., and the countries to which the largest quantities went were—the United Kingdom, 30,485 cwt.; Germany, 27,874 cwt.; Belgium, 24,463, cwt.; Ceylon, 5,536 cwt.91 ‘Thus, adding together all the available returns of the products derived from the pig, the exports in 1905-6 were Rs. 21,69,778 and the imports Rs. 10,17,138; and in 1906-7, exports Rs. 17,84,827 and imports Rs. 10,70,304.’92 The main agenda of the sportsmen was not only game but skinning the animals and preserving the parts of animals. According to Rice, ‘In all cases, sportsmen should pack and forward to England as soon as possible any skin and head which they may desire to preserve.’93 He further mentions that

140

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

I soon found a large male bear, which I luckily killed with the frst shot in the head, rather to the astonishment of the men with me. Being not very far from the tent, we carried him there on poles, took off his skin, and pegged it down.94 Invariably, the British hunters were more concerned about the skins not only for big games but also for others. For instance, in 1839, Bevan mentions a boa ‘even after it was skinned.’95 William Rice recalls: ‘Went back and skinned the old bear; this job the Bheels soon fnished, using the large blades or points of their arrows as knives.’96 He further stated that ‘For years afterwards, until it was quite worn out, I used his skin as a cover for my bed — sleeping on instead of inside it, as so easily might have been the case but for such a wonderfully lucky shot.’97 This clearly shows how they were concerned about the wildlife skin. While referring to a wounded tiger, Rice says, ‘I unluckily lost this skin, which was very bright one.’98 ‘Skinned her and pegged the skin down close to my tent in the evening.’99 He further mentions that ‘Ordering the body to be carried to my tent to be skinned.’100 Not only the skins but other body parts of wild animals were integral to the colonial project of commercialisation. In the word of Shakespear: ‘Thirteen quarts of fat were taken from this lusty animal.’101 Williamson points out that: As soon as tiger dead, no time is lost to in stripping off the skin; for where it suffered to remain until the heat might taint it, nothing could affect its preservation; it would rot to a certainty; and, even were it not to do so, rapidly, the hair would loosen and fall off.102 The British hunters were always concerned about the skins of the wild animals and birds. For instance, see this reference to pythons in Waliar Jungle: ‘But I’ll just skin him where he is, and take the skin wi’ me.’103 ‘I heard the old blackguard has taken a fancy to human fesh of late, and has carried off a Todah woman and a child within the last three days.’104 As indicated earlier, they were concerned about the hides and skins of the wildlife. About wildlife skins, particularly bison and bear, Campbell points out that ‘we must have his hide before we go to breakfast, hot though it be.’105 Further, about bear it is said, ‘But the skin is a good one, which is all that can be said in favour of our exploit.’106 5.8 Living Animals Since the early period, living animals were also exported to other countries but their numbers were very insignifcant. Oppert points out that ‘Though elephants, tigers, leopards, panthers and other large beasts were occasionally exported from India, one can hardly include them in the list of merchandise.’107 He further states that ‘King Solomon received from India apes and

1,30,862 97,117 1,13,056 95,437 1,09,354 1,04,552 89,799 92,872 1,02,079 1,12,146 1,03,223 1,07,795 1,32,180

1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892

41,279 65,433 67,164 89,839 1,04,621 91,136 99,609 70,857 80,108 93,995 71,460 75,378 1,06,910

Animals, living (No.) Feathers (lbs.)

Year 90,60,464 94,87,464 1,11,04,039 1,36,75,997 1,63,00,150 2,00,43,959 2,29,96,617 1,92,97,051 1,81,62,851 1,94,44,133 1,98,04,121 2,29,21,613 2,12,27,898 2,42,93,884 2,34,01,698 2,48,02,043 2,65,39,988 2,81,72,434 2,91,83,506 3,25,92,614 18,61,987 3,09,67,521 3,23,82,031 3,08,55,948 3,27,42,431 3,58,67,427

Hides and Skins (No./Cwt)

12,255 9,194 9,994 13,570 7,712 13,733 9,927 10,098 13,022 11,495 10,863 13,326 7,245

Ivory, Unmanufactured (lbs.)

Table 5.4 Quantity of Export of Cattle and Wildlife Products Exported from British India

10,179 7,480 6,733 10,993 26,945 18,383 22,691 18,886 26,325 35,393 44,400 61,410 43,766

Animal Bones (Tons)

57,204 64,457 43,698 68,541 59,300 59,515 57,758 48,435 68,018 62,136 70,397 61,755 85,189 (Continued)

Horns (Cwt)

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife 141

1,23,213 1,36,868 1,84,562

1,64,321 1,67,909 2,05,585 2,08,589 2,90,748 3,25,811 3,20,835 3,29,386 3,30,289 3,00,372 2,54,730 3,16,996 3,83,228 3,56,414 4,17,537 4,66,462 5,27,706 5,44,588 4,48,088 2,81,836 3,09,458 3,34,510 2,54,685

1893 1894 1895

1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918

13,261 15,278 19,458 16,800 20,874 28,640 11,501 18,828 9,112 0

3,93,723 2,24,241 2,31,514 1,61,423 1,38,451 1,15,160 1,66,946 96,316 6,794 7,271 13,883

1,44,328 2,47,036 1,58,329

Animals, living (No.) Feathers (lbs.)

Year

Table 5.4 Continued

3,74,25,877 3,62,16,806 4,04,22,447 cwt 11,13,966 9,96,364 12,74,886 11,09,895 17,34,686 19,41,623 12,16,148 11,70,219 12,50,611 13,39,126 18,23,802 19,25,782 12,73,198 15,52,383 17,63,111 16,95,677 17,98,848 21,60,849 19,36,419 14,74,035 17,30,856 19,61,919 12,70,549

Hides and Skins (No./Cwt)

4,668 8,501 4,122 3,323 8,005 3,014 4,397 4,255 4,396 3,931 4,815 6,974 8,639 5,196 4,896 2,217 2,391 3,652 7,813 2,114 2,292 1,396 259

11,213 5,694 7,164

Ivory, Unmanufactured (lbs.)

77,004 74,116 72,664 74,971 1,10,927 1,13,465 94,243 1,05,634 80,925 78,068 1,31,656 1,64,075 1,05,901 96,309 99,842 1,04,143 1,11,892 1,39,967 1,27,433 74,602 60,178 61,668 40,449

47,584 50,020 76,060

Animal Bones (Tons)

67,732 59,804 66,405 69,521 84,763 84,038 62,944 71,396 48,405 61,582 73,521 78,771 74,073 77,257 88,876 84,874 85,147 1,00,757 79,819 48,729 22,849 28,653 19,748 (Continued)

60,499 49,166 61,353

Horns (Cwt)

142 Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

1,90,271 2,40,366 2,20,764 2,70,271 1,91,512 2,26,642 2,77,389 3,21,345 3,05,520 5,70,530 5,41,988 4,88,404 3,18,095 1,84,331 87,645 1,33,282

1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

Tons 73,005 1,19,863 37,850 58,768 60,332 50,009 67,060 69,273 68,992 87,637 89,646 73,183 62,997 49,270 34,190 61,352 47,352 56,291 58,879 56,687 48,508 56,354

Hides and Skins (No./Cwt)

Ivory, Unmanufactured (lbs.) 46,578 1,32,391 1,15,487 1,05,110 1,10,060 1,30,729 1,01,787 1,03,920 1,18,530 39,441 34,354 36,306 37,983 37,778 21,563 24,819 36,474 42,894 5,07,247 68,830 4,0496 5,208

Animal Bones (Tons) 31,298 66,119 41,122 63,574 91,978 87,544 61,849 43,930 38,175 43,110 37,146 36,835 20,767 13,143 38,043 4,763

Horns (Cwt)

Sources: Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1865 to 1874, London: Eyre and Spottiswoode (various years) and Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries (for various years). Notes: Cwt is a unit of measurement for weight used in certain commodities trading contracts. It is equal to 112 pounds in England. 40 Seers = one Mound = 82.2857 lb.

Animals, living (No.) Feathers (lbs.)

Year

Table 5.4 Continued

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife 143

Hides and Skins £

1,93,765 2,19,396 3,24,444 3,63,089 3,37,849 4,02,365 4,92,392 4,31,729 5,72,530 6,39,702 5,44,680 4,44,537 6,61,725 7,94,137 9,04,289 8,97,575 7,25,236 6,09,503 6,59,342 9,88,232 12,36,932 16,91,330 20,20,819 25,25,925 29,21,910 26,18,358

Year

1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874

70,828 56,718 43,086 90,140 55,886 80,895 66,921 82,384 1,28,096 19,805 98,157 97,126 33,039 1,20,367 60,260 80,398 77,217 92,402 85,008 64,575 2,21,842 1,08,289 77,607 65,573 1,04,869 1,29,854

Ivory and Manufacturer of £

Feathers £

35,937 30,012 65,178 31,805 34,917 39,550 48,624 55,651 74,634 61,058 65,323 94,694 62,398

Horns £

Table 5.5 Export Value of Cattle and Wildlife Related Products from India, 1849–1895 Animal Bones £

(Continued)

Animal Living £

144 Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

26,77,767 29,44,933 30,00,552 37,57,480 30,07,561 37,38,455 37,35,646 Tens of Rupees 3,91,50,052 44,44,946 46,66,788 49,36,510 53,34,609 51,49,357 48,60,380 47,46,007 45,24,360 23,67,034 26,38,173 25,67,450 58,01,327 65,59,940 76,39,478 70,51,370 83,17,534 49,66,146

1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881

1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899

Hides and Skins £

Year

Table 5.5 Continued

93,770 1,16,921 1,39,480 1,01,594 1,00,602 96,174 91,841 Tens of Rupees 97,040 112,469 99,098 1,10,839 1,56,298 1,77,091 1,89,972 46,888 28,418 20,326 23,515 6,969 3,281 3,794 3,070 5,154 2,567 1,872

Ivory and Manufacturer of £

28,966 30,425 47,639 63,302 49,759 52,591 57,049 46,888 28,418 20,326 23,515 31,381 34,366 28,618 55,519 37,099 2,40,670 1,97,770

18,619 26,945

Feathers £ 79,012 83,165 1,29,392 1,95,379 1,39,796 1,29,362 1,94,262 Tens of Rupees 1,32,915 1,81,785 1,56,558 1,61,649 1,56,437 1,26,651 1,68,082 1,66,410 1,98,472 2,03,060 3,33,762 2,52,639 1,88,137 1,99,526 2,09,367 1,67,324 1,55,782 1,04,737

Horns £

24,148 41,913 1,29,169 78,718 1,07,363 91,670 1,32,750 1,74,077 2,42,749 3,85,773 2,309,54 2,74,042 4,58,974 4,48,451 4,60,404 4,23,207 3,95,250 2,72,268

34,987 31,582

Animal Bones £

(Continued)

77,804 89,982 1,27,864 1,17,955 1,00,679 87,632 1,34,182 1,12,146 98,085 1,22,278 1,01,878 1,37,307 1,23,213 1,37,761 1,61,053 1,77,967 1,41,422 1,06,653

1,18,768 70,889

Animal Living £

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife 145

1920 1921 1922 1923

1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919

Year

Ivory and Manufacturer of £

£ 3,089 1,779 1,701 1,829 1,652 1,707 2,356 3,162 3,319 2,019 1,895 1,169 758 1,614 4,598 1,096 977 962 96

Hides and Skins £

£ 69,75,251 76,55,092 54,87,123 56,23,436 59,56,726 66,03,904 91,71,408 1,02,30,167 73,01,024 83,11,470 90,79,883 87,23,200 92,85,654 1,09,13,817 1,06,32,442 83,70,634 1,02,70,951 1,59,18,112 95,10,888 1,26,74,627 Rupees 35,95,50,000 8,42,08,000 9,00,21,000 10,76,31,000

Table 5.5 Continued

110 143 220 118 156 252 120 173 100 0

12,481 9,029 11,975 5,913 340 59 294

Feathers £ £ 1,21,392 1,16,978 89,051 1,13,684 80,387 91,491 1,16,663 1,12,769 1,09,985 1,04,270 1,29,226 1,56,336 14,42,06 1,64,140 1,06,013 57,791 38,909 52,906 35,140 57,044 Rupees 16,88,000 8,17,000 10,00,000 12,76,000

Horns £ £ 4,08,581 3,94,228 3,44,128 3,81,784 2,94,858 2,91,856 3,59,857 4,09,701 4,26,743 6,00,424 3,93,745 4,17,710 4,41,812 5,03,402 6,46,043 3,77,785 2,95,777 3,74,983 3,15,884 4,10,881 Rupees 1,47,69,000 1,28,27,000 1,16,77,000 1,23,78,000

Animal Bones £

(Continued)

Rupees 35,50,000 33,76,000 32,92,000 23,29,000

1,33,810 1,45,833 1,42,634 1,37,406 1,48,502 1,29,342 1,28,922 1,50,878 1,43,909 1,05,746 1,29,911 1,54,737 1,82,787 2,22,200 2,45,087 1,41,936 1,31,523 1,50,287 1,52,848 1,53,815

Animal Living £

146 Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

12,83,11,000 13,95,59,000 14,21,37,000 14,55,66,000 17,88,21,000 18,86,72,000 16,01,56,000 7,57,61,000 5,59,92,000 4,01,45,000 6,16,37,000 4,85,57,000 6,16,13,000 7,26,69,000 7,80,42,000 5,83,80,000 8,19,84,000

1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

Ivory and Manufacturer of £

Feathers £ 11,56,000 10,40,000 9,35,000 7,91,000 9,18,000 79,60,000 35,30,000 35,40,000 13,60,000 2,48,000 3,22,000

Horns £ 1,58,89,000 1,26,68,000 1,17,49,000 1,25,40,000 35,23,000 32,53,000 32,94,000 31,45,000 23,21,000 13,49,000 14,48,000 20,24,000 23,99,000 36,17,000 51,97,000 26,70,000 30,64,000

Animal Bones £ 26,60,000 3,142,000 34,62,000 38,32,000 46,87,000 39,95,000 36,80,000 26,00,000 14,99,000 10,10,000 98,60,000

Animal Living £

Source: Statistical Abstract Relating to British India (for various years) and Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries (for various years).

Hides and Skins £

Year

Table 5.5 Continued

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife 147

148

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

peacocks, as we have seen before; the Dravidian name of the peacock in the Bible intimating the presence of Dravidian traders.’108 ‘But not only living animals, valuable skins and horns also were exported.’109 However, since the late nineteenth century, a large number of animals including wild animals were exported to foreign shores. In the words of Russell: So far as I am aware, but one specimen of the Indian bison has reached England alive, and that was a member of a herd captured by a Rajah in the Straits, who succeeded in driving a herd of the animals into a stockade.110 Over 54 years, from 1880 to 1934, about 139.44 lakh animals worth of 1.90 lakh pounds for 2 years (1880–1881), 2,156 lakh of tens of rupees for the period of 16 years (1882–1898) and 70.06 lakh pounds for 35 years (1899– 1934) were exported to other countries (see Tables 5.4 and 5.5). Since the mid-nineteenth century, the huge quantity of live cattle and wildlife, cattle and wildlife skins, elephant tusk and related products, feather and its related products, cattle and wildlife horns, animal bones, etc. was exported, predominantly to European countries. The value of hides and skins has increased progressively from the mid-nineteenth century to mid-twentieth century. The total value of hides and skins, living animal, animal horns and bones has also progressively increased and the total worth of export was also increased for the same period. However, the export of ivory items which had witnessed a quantum jump in the frst three decades (1850–1880) declined in the subsequent period. Likewise, the export of feathers also shot up from 1880 to 1900 and declined rapidly thereafter. The export of ivory and feathers declined due to the enactment of the Elephant Preservation Act 1879 and the Wild Birds and Animals (Protection) Act 1912. In addition to that, the Indian Forest Act 1927 also curtailed hunting in the reserve and protected forests. 5.9 Conclusion The chapter has illuminated the historical dynamics of how the commodifcation of wildlife witnessed its peak during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in India. The chapter also evinced how southern India was a dynamic place in the manufacture of a variety of wildlife products and ivory items. Indeed, until colonial intervention, hunting in the wild was carried out in the traditional manner which did not pose any threat to the wild population. As such, there was no plunder of wildlife before the advent of the British. It was only after the colonial intervention that a wide range of wildlife products were systematically extracted and exported to different parts of the world. The colonial project on commercialisation of wildlife had two components: one was encouragement to the common people to extract

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

149

wildlife resources to further the commercial interests of the British by extending some kind of bounties and the other was active support to Britishers invariably from the different cadres of services in the name of sports and games. This chapter raises the important question of whether the protective mechanisms introduced by the British administration had any positive impact on the conservation of wildlife or wildlife was allowed to be destroyed indiscriminately for commercial purposes in the Indian subcontinent. It has been discussed how these regulatory measures systematically brought the wildlife under state control to facilitate commercial enterprise. It becomes very clear that the regulatory mechanisms brought in from time to time were designed in such a way not to protect the wildlife but to bring it under state control. To escape the legal hurdle, the man-eater’s story was brought in to hunt the animal in the name of game and the prime agenda of every British gamer was invariably skinning the wildlife. The British gamers while shooting down the animal were particular that the skin of the beast should not be damaged. Thus, it is least surprising that a taxidermy enterprise like Ingen & Van Ingen developed during this period and became very popular not only in this part of the country but all over the world. As such, that game was commercialised in a very systematic manner during the colonial period. Precisely, this chapter captured how the different wildlife products were extracted and commercialised, and the next chapter will explain the colonial strategies adopted to protect the game in the name of wildlife conservation. Notes 1 Martha  Chaiklin and  Philip  Gooding, ‘Introduction: Investigating Animals, Their Products, and Their Trades in the Indian Ocean World’, in Animal Trade Histories in the Indian Ocean World, ed. Martha Chaiklin, Philip Gooding and Gwyn Campbell, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020, p. 4. 2 Ibid., p. 6. 3 Daniel Stiles, ‘Hunter-Gatherer Trade in Wild Forest Products in the Early Centuries A.D. with the Port of Broach, India’, Asian Perspective, 32 (2), 1993, pp. 160–161. 4 Ibid., p. 160. 5 Chaiklin and Gooding, ‘Introduction’, p. 7. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid., p. 8. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid., p. 12. 11 Velayutham Saravanan, Environmental History and Tribals in Modern India, Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. 12 Alfred Maskell, Ivories, London: Methuen and Co, 1905, p. 3. 13 Ibid., pp. 416–430. 14 Edgar Thurston, Monograph on the Ivory Carving Industry of Southern India, Madras: Government Press, 1901, p. 3. 15 Maskell, Ivories, p. 330.

150

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

16 F.P. Robinson, The Trade of the East India Company from 1709 to 1813, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912, p. 138. 17 William Milburn, Oriental Commerce; Containing a Geographical Description of the Principal Places in the East Indies, China, and Japan, with Their Produce, Manufactures, and Trade, London: Black, Parry & co. 1813, p. 155. 18 Ibid., p. 160. 19 Ibid., p. 202. 20 Ibid., p. 182. 21 Ibid., p. 221. 22 East India Affairs, Reports form Reporters of External Commerce, Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, (Private Trade) for the Year 1811–12, 1813, p. 384. 23 Ibid., p. 388. 24 Thurston, Monograph on the Ivory Carving Industry, p. 3. 25 George Watt, The Commercial Products of India, London: John Murray, 1908, p. 698. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords Appointed to Enquire into the Present State of the Affairs of the East India Company, London: Court of Directors, 1830, pp. 1188–1197. 30 Om Prakash, ‘Wildlife Destruction: A Legacy of the Colonial State in India’, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 67, 2006–2007, p. 699. 31 Ibid., p. 693. 32 Thurston, Monograph on the Ivory Carving Industry, p. 7. 33 Ibid. 34 T.F. Bourdillon, Report on the Forests of Travancore, Trivandrum: The Travancore Government Press, 1893, Appendix-IV, p. xxxvi. 35 Thurston, Monograph on the Ivory Carving Industry, p. 7. 36 Ibid., p. 8. 37 Ibid. 38 Edgar Thurston, Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Vol. 3, Madras: Government Press, 1909, pp. 147–148. 39 Ibid., p. 148. 40 Thurston, Monograph on the Ivory Carving Industry, p. 8. 41 Prakash, ‘Wildlife Destruction’, p. 698. 42 Milburn, Oriental Commerce; Containing a Geographical Description, p. 284. 43 Hari Singh, Report of the Study Group on Wild Life and Wild Life Products, New Delhi: Department of Agriculture, 1967, p. 7. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 James Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, London: Chapman & Hall, 1871, p. 280. 47 Robin W. Doughty, Feather Fashions and Bird Preservation: A Study in Nature Protection, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975. 48 George Wheeler, India in 1875–76: The Visit of the Prince of Wales: A Chronicle of His Royal Highness’s Journeyings in India, Ceylon, Spain, and Portugal, London: Chapman and Hall, 1876, p. 73. 49 C.F. Downham, The Feather Trade: The Case for the Defence, London: F Howard Doulton & Co Ltd, 1911, p. 9. 50 Price Sixpence, Feathers and Facts, London: Printed and Published for The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 1911, p. 6.

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

151

51 Ibid., p. 7. 52 Henry Astbury Leveson, The Hunting Grounds of the Old World, London: Saunders, Otley & Co, 1860, p. 187. 53 Watt, The Commercial Products of India, p. 142. 54 Sixpence, Feathers and Facts, p. 61. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid., p. 62. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid., p. 63. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid., pp. 63–64. 62 Ibid., p. 64. 63 Ibid., p. 72. 64 Ibid., p. 73. 65 R.W. Burton, ‘A History of Shikar in India’, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 50, 1952, p. 851. 66 Ibid. 67 Watt, The Commercial Products of India, p. 169. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid., p. 632. 73 A. Cuthrie, Handbook of the tanning trade of South India, Madras: Government Press, 1934, p. 1. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid., p. 3. 76 Ibid., p. 11. 77 Ibid., p. 14. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 80 Henry Bevan, Thirty Years in India: Or, A Soldier’s Reminiscences of Native and European Life in the Presidencies, from 1808 to 1838, Vol. I, London: Pelham Richardson, 1839, p. 61. 81 Singh, Report of the Study Group on Wild Life, p. 24. 82 Ibid., p. 25. 83 Ibid., p. 31. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid., p. 33. 86 Ibid., p. 35. 87 Ibid., p. 38. 88 Ibid., p. 7. 89 Alfred Chatterton, Industrial Revolution in India, Madras: Hindu Offce, 1912, pp. 187–188. 90 Watt, The Commercial Products of India, p. 752. 91 Ibid. 92 Ibid., p. 753. 93 C.E.M. Russell, Bullet and Shot in Indian Forest, Plain and Hill, London: W. Thacker and Co, 1900, p. 473.

152

Colonialism and Commercialisation of Wildlife

94 William Rice, Tiger Shooting in India: Being an Account of Hunting Experience on Foot in Rajpootana during the Hot Seasons, from 1850 to 1854, London: Smith, Elder and Co, 1857, p. 4. 95 Bevan, Thirty Years in India, p. 61. 96 Ibid., p. 5. 97 Ibid., p. 8. 98 Ibid., p. 16. 99 Ibid., p. 18. 100 Ibid., p. 20. 101 Henry Shakespear, The Wild Sports of India, London: Smith, Elder and Co, 1859, p. 63. 102 Thomas Williamson, Oriental Field Sports, Vol. II, London: W. Pulmer and Co, 1808, p. 15. 103 Walter Campbell, The Old Forest Ranger, London: Jeremiah How,1845, p. 75. 104 Ibid., p. 20. 105 Ibid., p. 89. 106 Ibid., p. 94. 107 Gustav Oppert, ‘On the Ancient Commerce of India’, Madras Journal of Literature and Science, 1878, p. 216. 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid., p. 217. 110 Russell, Bullet and Shot in Indian Forest, Plain and Hill, pp. 15–16.

Chapter 6

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

‘Bravery, courage and gameness’ — Harry Hieover1

The commodifcation of wildlife resources and their commercial exploitation had their genesis in the late eighteenth century with the advent of colonialism. The strategies adopted towards that end were made more effective and expanded since the early nineteenth century and were somewhat sustained till the end of the colonial rule, despite the regulations and restrictions that were introduced since the late nineteenth century. The commodifcation of natural wealth such as forest resources, water, agricultural products and others was the agenda of the colonial project.2 This chapter analyses how the colonial project designed the strategies to commodify wildlife resources for commercial plunder. How the colonial rulers used the traditional knowledge of the shikaris to locate the different type of wild animals, their movements and characteristics, how they employed the shikaris to trap the wildlife with their traditional methods and technical knowhow, how the traditional knowledge of the tanning community was used to process the skins of different wild animals, horns and others, how information was gathered through the informers, beaters and their instruments and how incentives were offered to kill wild beasts are being discussed here, among other things. Such strategies were further facilitated by the local administration. British gamers had unrestricted access to forest guest houses, could engage government-owned elephants and horses for hunting, avail leave and other privileges for hunting and were given special incentives to kill the wildlife. Apart from these, they could import hounds and guns besides forming the association. Also, they were accorded special privileges to hunt in the forests and other common lands, etc. during the colonial period. While the forest area was restricted for hunting for the local people by the Forest Act, it was strategically exempted for the games/hunting in the reserve forest, particularly for the Europeans, predominantly Britishers and forest administrators, since the last quarter of the nineteenth century. It becomes evident that the importance accorded to DOI: 10.4324/9781003427452-6

154

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

protecting the wildlife and the preliminary initiatives for conservation during the colonial period were largely dictated in the interest of the wildlife sports and games. In particular, it was to facilitate the European hunters. Precisely, this chapter deals with how the colonial projects commodifed the wildlife resources and the strategies that were designed to execute either in a crude manner (using traditional bow and arrow) or with sophistication (gun), from the early nineteenth century onwards to the end of the colonial rule, i.e., 1947. 6.1 Colonialism and Irregularities Colonialism and its attendant irregularities operated through agents and their network in the process of trade and commerce from the early period itself. Robinson rightly pointed out that: It is the underlying cause of the constant disputes between the Company and its self—seeking agents. No young man entered the service of the Company with the idea of fnding a new home, but from the moment that he was appointed a ‘Writer’ in the service, his only ambition was to obtain riches as speedily as possible and to return to England a gentleman of leisure. What wonder then that throughout the eighteenth century constant complaints of the corruption, speculation, and general dishonesty of the agents are to be found in the Letter Books of the Company!3 The British offcers lived a royal life with all kinds of comfort, which included a provision for hunting. For, hunting was an integral part of the high offce a Britisher held. While referring to the life of comfort of colonial offcers in Bombay during the eighteenth century, Robinson pointed out that: Those men who were fortunate enough to succeed to the higher offces of the service lived in the luxury of barbarian potentates. … There is extant the following description of the settlement at Kasimbazar. ‘The English factory was delightfully situated, and the house was built in the most elegant manner. The gardens with which it was surrounded were very fne and covered a large extent of ground, reaching on one side no less than two miles. Besides some very good horses, they had several packs of greyhounds in order to enjoy the diversions of hunting, so that nothing was wanting to make life as agreeable as possible.’4 The colonial hierarchy in trade management was not only exploitative but also oppressive. Robinson provides an interesting account in the following manner:

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

155

At the head of each factory, there was always an Englishman. He employed a native secretary, who was called a ‘Banyan.’ The ‘Banyan’ hired overseers or agents, who were called ‘Gomastahs’; one for each village or station, which supplied the factory. The ‘Gomastah’ was provided with ‘Peons’ who were armed servants, and ‘Hircarars,’ or messengers. The latter were employed to summon the ‘Dallahs,’ ‘Pycars,’ and weavers, when goods were due, or were required to complete a cargo. The former of these were agents, who dealt with the ‘Gomastahs,’ and the ‘Pycars,’ brokers who were intermediate between the ‘Dallahs’ and the weavers themselves. Thus the Company’s servant was fve times removed from the actual weaver. The opportunities which this provided for corruption and oppression proved irresistible for most of the offcials concerned.5 With this kind of exploitation and extraction, the Crown encouraged the East India Company not only confne to trade-related aspects but also look in other domains. For instance, ‘In 1761, the Court wrote to its agents in India, declaring that trade was to be combined with “warfare, fortifcation, military prudence, and political government.”’6 The creation of new desires and new conventional necessities has been the great cause of the increase of industrial prosperity and effciency throughout the world. For example, the East India Company succeeded, within half a century, in making tea an article of universal consumption in England.7 Similarly, the British tried their hands at creating a global market for wildlife and its related products. The East India Company offcials were encouraged for hunting without any restriction from the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. MacKenzie rightly pointed out that ‘East India Company service opened the door to an immense range of hunting unencumbered by rules or laws.’8 However, their success in this was very limited, unlike in the plantation crops like tea and coffee. 6.2 Traditional Knowledge of Shikaris In India, the traditional village administrative system had the twin purpose of managing natural resources and protecting the people from wild beasts. For instance, the nirkanties, who were responsible for distributing water and maintaining the distribution of channels, used to get a share of agricultural yield at the end of the year. Likewise, in every village or most of the villages, a person was given the responsibility to protect the public from wild animals. His responsibilities included capturing the wild animals that strayed into human settlements and farmlands. MacKenzie points out that:

156

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

Their main functions were to protect villagers, stock and travelers from carnivores and crops from herbivores. When guarding those passing through dangerous country, they often wore the skin of a tiger or leopard and carried bows and arrows, a large ornamental shield, or sometimes a spear, a matchlock gun, or a sword. They received land or an allowance from raja or land-owner and presents from travelers for their service.9 Johnson depicted how the hunting communities like shikaris’ livelihood depended on this traditional profession for generations. According to Johnson: Although there are very few natives in India who sport often for amusement, there are a great number whose profession or business is solely to catch or kill animals and game; by which they gain their livelihood: these men [whose, forefathers have followed the same profession,] are brought up to it from their infancy, and as they pursue no other business through life, they become surprisingly expert.10 MacKenzie further added that: These hunters, usually Hindus of low caste, often had specialized functions, some catching birds and hares, others being concerned with the destruction of tigers. A whole variety of techniques were used, involving nets, bamboo frames, nooses, birdlime, and camoufage (particularly to catch waterfowl). The products of this hunting were sold in markets and villages to Muslims and low-caste Hindus prepared to eat the meat.11 Williamson gives another interesting account about north India. According to him: The shecarrie is a free occupation, open to all religions and classes; though ordinarily its followers are not very remarkable for morality or sobriety. Nevertheless, they seem to possess a certain portion of esteem among the inhabitants around them, and being in many respects useful, are rather protected than discouraged. They are generally excellent in their profession, being good marksmen, and very expert in various kinds of poaching. They study the habits, and are well acquainted with the seasons of every species of game, of which they destroy vast quantities. Such characters would in this country soon come under the notice of justice; but in India, where no laws exist to curb them, and where their exertions are rather deemed benefcial than furtive, having abundance of practice, they for the most part arrive at a wonderful precision of aim, and are in general not only tolerated but encouraged.12

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

157

He further stated that: With respect to what the shecarries kill, except in the vicinity of European stations, it is of very little value. The Hindoos do not eat fesh; and as to the Mussulmans, they are not disposed, in general, to touch game, on account of its not having been hulloled, or killed in the regular manner, by a true follower of their faith; who should, at the moment of incision, consecrate the fesh by means of a prayer and benediction. The less rigid, however, consider game as being, from the manner in which it must of necessity be in general acquired, exempt in a certain measure from such exact ceremony; and among the Hindoos there are some casts or sects, that do not hesitate to eat game of all kinds. Farther, the lowest casts of Hindoos, such as the choomars, the hallacures &c. are privileged to eat everything they please, without derogation to their characters, which are held in the most supreme contempt by the superior classes.13 Hence the shecarrie may always fnd some persons ready to partake of his dead game; and when his good fortune may enable him to obtain a live deer, &c. which by bleeding under the sacred knife, is rendered lawful provision, his pocket is replenished with a few annas, or eventually a whole rupee, equal to half a crown, and he not only eats in gaiety, but probably displays his liberality at the distiller’s.14 While hunting the British hunters as well as their hunting members used to wear some kind of safety measures like the cricket players. For instance, Leveson rightly pointed out that ‘My head was well protected with a bisonskin cap.’15 And he further added that ‘Some of the old hands had also sambur (elk) skin jackets, and all wore hunting—caps.’16 Forsyth brought out the responsibilities of the person in the following manner: Generally, there is at least one native in every circle of villages whose profession is that of ‘shikari,’ or hunter, and who is always on the outlook to shoot the village tiger. When he hears of a bullock having been killed, he proceeds to the spot, and, erecting a platform of leafy boughs in the nearest tree, watches by night for the return of the tiger, who, though he may kill and lap the blood during the day, never feeds before sunset.17 Nicholson describes the role and responsibilities of the shikaris as follows: The destruction of tigers was formerly in this wise. When a cow or ox had been killed, the herdsman brought the intelligence; if there were shikaris in the village, they would go out, erect a platform of branches in a tree, or make an ambush of thorns on the ground, near the dead animal, and when the tiger returned about sunset they fred their long match-lock (with a barrel of fve or six feet) loaded with a large charge of coarse

158

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

powder and a bullet or two, and never missed their aim. In this way about twenty tigers were shot annually, but no great impression was made on their numbers, and the amount of cattle destroyed remained very much on an average.18 The shikaris could be engaged to protect the crops for a particular time. For example, Cad’ Curubaru were engaged in crop season to ‘watch the felds at night, to keep off the elephants and wild hogs. They receive monthly one Fanam and ten Seers, or 138/100 peck of Ragy.’19 Their manner of driving away the elephant is by running against him with a burning torch made of Bamboos. The animal sometimes turns, and waits till the Curubaru comes close up but these poor people, taught by experience, push boldly on, and dash their torches against the elephant’s head, who never fails to take immediate fight.20 These shikaris, however, were not effcient in protecting from the wild beasts due to the outdated hunting instruments. Leveson pointed out that ‘Although in almost every village there is a professional shekarry or hunter, he is generally ineffciently armed with an untrustworthy matchlock, as to be unable to cope with his wary antagonist.’21 The shikari is an integral part of India’s village administration. The importance of a shikari was highlighted by Mahesh Rangarajan: ‘The village shikari on a beat on which they were known was the best bet against “both evils” – crop-raiding deers and man-eating tigers.’22 Price stated that ‘Across village societies, the skills of shikari (hunter) castes were highly valued by those who sought protection from destruction caused by wild animals.’23 Of course, the same kind of practice prevailed even among the tribal and highlands, invariably in different parts of the country. The shikaris were treated as a subaltern both in the plains and in the highlands. Campbell described how the traditional shikaris were treated in Shikarpoor of Mysore Country after the death of a Brahmin due to man-eater tigers in the 1840s. According to Campbell: Ameldar despatched a Peon to summon Bhurmah the principal Shikaree of the village. In a few minutes he was dragged by the offcious policeman, as if he were a criminal, into the great man’s presence, and abused, with that despotic disregard of right and wrong, which ever accompanies an Asiatic’s possession of power. Bhurmah was one of the most noted Shikarees of that province; his whole life had been spent in watching beasts of prey; but the dreaded tigress of Shikarpoor had as yet baffed him; and now that she had killed a Brahmin, it followed, according to a Brahmin’s reasoning, that poor Bhurmah, together with all his kindred, but more especially those of the female line, were everything that is odious

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

159

in a Brahmin’s eyes. Having been duly apprised of these fair inferences, resulting from a priest having been eaten, he was commanded, upon pain of an Ameldar’s displeasure, to produce the head of the tigress before she committed further sacrilege. ‘It is an order!’ answered the submissive Hindoo, shouldering the long matchlock on which he had learned during this satisfactory audience. And the man who wore three medals on his breast, rewards for gallantry in his many conficts with tigers, retired cowering from the presence of an effeminate Brahmin, without a word of reply to the most insulting and unjust abuse. Bhurmah, a poor Shikaree and Mansfeld, a British offcer, were very different persons, and very different was the style in which the Ameldar addressed them. As soon as he had vented his wrath upon the inferior, the administrator of justice penned a fowery letter to his superior, the English Burrah-Sahib of whose arrival in a neighbouring village he had that day been informed. Having described the sad event in glowing language, he proceeded to beg that the mighty warrior, the great and powerful Lord, in whose hands a lion was as a mouse, would be graciously pleased to extend the shadow of his protection over his devoted slaves, and come with his elephant and death-dealing weapon, to rid them of the destroyer of their peace.24 Since the Company Raj from the mid-eighteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century (1757–1858), about little more than one century, particularly since the late nineteenth century, particularly after the Mutiny, the traditional shikari was engaged as an informer and strategist and arranging the beaters, tanners, etc., for the British hunters. Mahesh Rangarajan observed that ‘In the aftermath of the Rebellion of 1857, Indians were not to be trusted with modern fre arms.’25 MacKenzie aptly captured the changing dynamics of the role of shikaris who were given menial tasks, acting as beaters to fush the pigs from their coverts, looking after horses and equipment.26 He further added that ‘At frst Europeans used the services of Indian shikaris, but they soon appropriated both name and activity themselves.’27 Mani also pointed out that ‘The Indian shikari on the other hand had his reputation forever tarnished and his ancestral occupation stripped away.’28 Mandala also pointed out that the Britons who had acquired knowledge and expertise of shikar from the Indians initially, over the course of time, successfully appropriated native knowledge systems by introducing new codes of sportsmanship that brought new rules of engagement into the Indian hunting feld.29 Rangarajan points out that ‘In each district, the local shikaris were to be organised into a corps under the command of a civil, or preferably, military offcer.’30 While referring to the tribals in Nilgiris in Madras Presidency, Prakash also pointed out that: ‘the colonial mindset dubbed the hunting

160

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

activities of the indigenous peoples like that of Badgas, Kurumbas and the Irulas as merely utilitarian and effeminate.’31 Cannadine has rightly pointed out that the Britishers has discrepant views one is that ‘the native regimes and hierarchies were backward, ineffcient, despotic and corrupt, and had be overthrown’ and on the other hand how the traditional system has to be ‘cherished, preserved and nurtured overseas as a more wholesome version of society’ based on their Britain experience.32 This strategy was worked and executed as far as the shikaris are concerned. On the one hand, the Britishers used the shikaris’ knowledge and experience extensively for the hunting project from the late eighteenth century onwards and continued till the enactment of the Forest Act and the development of gun technology in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. But then they portrayed the shikaris as poachers to hide their own poaching in the name of game and sports. In other words, their design and strategy were based on their own experience which was crafted to use and exploit the same as far as the shikaris were a cause of concern. Consequently, Rangarajan observed that: By displacing the resident shikari, the corps would have deprived the cultivators of their best line of defence. The village shikari on a beat on which they were known was the best bet against ‘both evils’ – cropraiding deers and man-eating tigers.33 This is a colonial strategy in general. For example, the colonial expansionist policy to establish the tea and coffee plantations and annexing the tribal areas for the commercial motive from the early nineteenth century by questioning their occupancy/ownership rights over the land.34 The Britishers made an allegation that the tribals were instrumental in the destruction of the forest and hence they had been curtailed. While making the allegation, the colonial government itself extracted the forest resources for commercial purposes.35 The colonial administration designed the strategy how to increase the land revenue by extending irrigation facilities from the midnineteenth century onwards in different parts of the country.36 Precisely, the commercialisation of the colonial project did not exclude even the wild animals. For this project, they have portrayed the traditional shikaris as poachers and discarded their contribution to protecting the people and cattle over the period.37 In other words, the colonial administration questioned the traditional system for their commercial interest from the late nineteenth century, not only among the tribals and highlands but the entire Indian subcontinent. The Britishers used the traditional knowledge of shikaris from the late eighteenth century to mid-nineteenth century and then portraited them as a poacher in the name of conservation of wildlife and saving the game. In other words, until understanding the Indian geography, the Britishers used traditional knowledge of the shikaris to hunt the wild animals in different parts of the country and once they understood the geography and

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

161

gun technology developed, they portraited the shikaris as poachers and pretended themselves to be the conservators of the wildlife but their intension was to preserve the game. Given the macro-level picture, recent studies explored how colonialism, particularly the empire, impacted the tribals’ hunting mores in the hill areas but they have also mainly confned themselves to the Central Provinces. These studies were confned mainly to the empire era rather than covering the entire colonial era. Of course, the Central Province tribals were well trained to capture the wildlife and also exported to other countries since ancient times.38 In other words, hunting was an integral part of the tribal communities in general and of the Gonds in particular in the Central Provinces from the ancient period. Rashkow has analysed how the colonial hunting strategy impacted the Gond tribes, who were traditionally hunting tribes in Central India. In other words, how the British sportsmen made them ‘subaltern shikaris’: ‘as shikaris, guides, trackers, beaters, porters, camp servants, etc., became a common means of earning a living among the Gonds.’39 Though the shikaris were subalterns in the traditional village administrative set-up during the precolonial period, at least they had the privileges and dignity to protect the villagers and crops from the wild animals but the colonialism stripped off those things and made them merely subalterns under the direction of the game/sportsman of British hunters. Even the subaltern options for their livelihood did not survive for long as colonialism projected traditional hunting tribes as poachers.40 Rashkow further argued that: how hunting altered the course of Central India’s environmental history in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The creation of a category of subaltern shikaris to serve in the elite hunt and the category’s eventual dismantlement as wildlife became scarce, played a key role in the social and ecological transformation that overwhelmed central India in the colonial era. Critically assessing conscription and employment practices in sports hunting reveals how the British shaped the social and environmental history of central India’s forest and hill dwelling communities. Not only does this approach reveal forms of domination, stratifcation, and systems of violence that has defned the colonial era, it also shows how these systems worked to reshape the living environment and the political landscape of the forests. Hinterland communities became increasingly incorporated into dominant modes of political and economic relations. Where colonial approaches to wildlife became normative, this often led to overkill or to exclusion of local peoples from natural resources, and contributed to the decline of forest dwelling as a way of life.41 Rashkow further points out that:

162

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

In the early part of the nineteenth century when only smoothbore and nonrepeating rifes existed, even the best sportsmen would still have had to hit their targets multiple times before bringing down big game. Thus, big game hunting was more diffcult, more dangerous and comparatively rare in the early years of empire.42 It indicates that the Company Raj cleverly engaged the traditional shikaris, when the shooting rife technology was not advanced. In other words, the traditional shikaris were used as a life saviour by the British hunters/gamers during the Company Raj and also in the earlier phase of the British Empire. Rashkow aptly put it: Often barefoot, herding a reluctant tiger towards a trap, it was not uncommon for beaters to be maimed or killed. Their safety very much depended on their master’s being a good shot. If a shikari was injured or killed in the line of duty, they could not expect much in the way of compensation. The lives of rural folk conscripted in shikar were considered very cheap.43 She further added that ‘by 1878 all European powers had rearmed with breech loading weapons, this made old percussion cap, fintlock and muzzleloading weapons available on overseas markets.’44 MacKenzie also points out that ‘They enthusiastically adopted the atavistic use of spear and knife, but they also applied the rapidly developing precision of nineteenth-century frearms, culminating in the high-velocity cordite rife at the end of the century.’45 He further added that: Until the early nineteenth century the British were often spectators at or participants in the spots of Indians. With the extension of military activity and administrative power in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, they began to take over and adapt Indian hunting practices as well as introducing their own. Up to the ‘Mutiny’ British and Indian hunting co-existed.46 The technological development in gun making to hunt the wild animals changed the perceptions towards the traditional shikaris of the Indian subcontinent. Mandala also referred to this point in the following manner: ‘While early colonial hunters’ narratives reveal a close adaptation of native hunting, from the mid-nineteenth century the British rulers were at pains to set themselves apart from Indian hunters.’47 Indeed, until 1878, the traditional shikaris were an integral part of the British hunting for a wide range of activities and once the advanced gun technology emerged, the shikaris were portraited as poachers. Rashkow further observed that ‘While it may be all but impossible to prove who killed more wildlife, either sportsmen or

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

163

subaltern shikaris, what we can observe is that many colonial sportsmen and conservationists held deep prejudices against their Indian counterparts.’48 MacKenzie also pointed out that ‘Indian hunters benefted from the reward system in the early days, but gradually the killing of tigers was largely taken over as a European prerogative.’49 Until the mid-nineteenth century, the shikaris of Gond tribe in the Central Provinces were the subaltern of the traditional tribal administrative system like in the plain areas of the Indian subcontinent, but they were made as ‘subaltern shikaris’ by the British hunters during the late nineteenth century stripping off their traditional roles, which not only made them subordinates but also posed question to their very basic livelihood. Precisely, Rashkow argued how the colonial hunting strategy impacted the traditional hunting Gond tribe’s livelihood from the late nineteenth century to the early twentieth century in Central India. Mandala argues that ‘how indigenous tribes such as Gonds in forest interiors were able to manage and maintain independent hunting cultures until early twentieth century, despite colonial rule.’50 Subsequently, he contradicted the above claims, by disarming local groups and Indian hunters through forest and arms legislation in addition to transforming shikar or big game hunting into ‘sport’, which became an exclusive privilege of British colonials and Indian princes by the later part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.51 He further argues that ‘big game hunting was transformed into “sport” by colonizers, excluding ordinary Indians and pushing native shikaris (local hunters) and indigenous tribes into the roles of “hunting assistants” and “helpers” to the British by the late nineteenth century.’52 The British hunters have used the knowledge of the shikaris from the late eighteenth century for the hunting/game/sports invariably in different parts of the country. In other words, the Britishers wherever and whenever setting the camp, used to approach the nearest villages to fnd the shikaris to gather the information about the wildlife and also to arrange the beaters from the early colonial period or at least from the early nineteenth century. Interestingly, the shikaris were engaged not only for the big games but also for every type of hunting by the Britishers from the late eighteenth century onwards. Mandala further argued that ‘Many of the imperial hunters were encouraged by the colonial government to despatch troublesome “man-eating” tigers and leopards, “destructive” elephants or wild pigs to safeguard villagers and agricultural base.’53 The colonial hunters were not encouraged to hunt selectively as Mandala claimed but they were encouraged to hunt in general. He further claimed that ‘hunting and conservation as equally essential part of the British colonial governance and economy during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in India.’54 Mandala claims that

164

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

‘hunting and conservation as equally essential part of the British colonial governance and economy during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in India.’55 He further pointed out that ‘While of certain relevance in addressing aspects of imperial power in connection with wildlife, these materials fail on the whole to connect hunting and conservation more concretely to the centre of colonial governance and administration.’56 Hunting was an integral part of colonialism from the late eighteenth century, while the idea of conservation came into being only during the last quarter of the nineteenth century and therefore, the question arises, how come the linkage and relevance of Mandala’s argument. He further argues that ‘Preserving game was also crucial for continuation of the imperial sport of hunting as was evident in the denial of hunting rights to the local populace and restricting hunting privilege to only a few.’57 This argument was applicable only during the empire and that too particularly after the enactment of the Forest Act. The claim of Mandala has to be further investigated, because, according to Forsyth: For some years heavy rewards were given for every tiger and other dangerous animal killed, special rewards being placed on the heads of maneaters; and I am convinced that many more were killed during that time than previously, though statistics of former years when there was no reward are not available for comparison. The numbers being destroyed increased every year under this stimulus. Rewards for the killing of 2414 tigers, panthers, bears, and wolves were claimed in 1867 (the last year for which statistics are available), against 1863 in 1865. Tigers are certainly not now so numerous by a great deal in many parts with which I am personally acquainted as they were even six or eight years ago.58 He further points out that ‘Some years afterwards, when I shot the same country under much more favourable circumstances, the number of tigers had greatly diminished, owing to the high rewards.’59 In other words, Rashkow pointed out how the colonial hunting in the tribal areas of the Central Provinces made the shikaris a subaltern from the late nineteenth century. Hence, the claims by Mandala have to be looked at very seriously. Mandala further claimed that: Many forest animals killed by Indian hunters were falsely claimed by British sportsmen as ‘their trophies’ obtained from big game shoots and sold to taxidermists and natural history museums in the metropolis; in this way, some British men made considerable profts.60 This is not a peculiar one and it happened in different parts of the country since the early nineteenth century.61 Mandala further argued that:

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

165

In British India too, administrative power and the hunt were correlated in the sense that shikar was widely used by the colonialists both to meet their colonial ambitions and provided recreational beneft. It was in the sphere of hunting that the British endeavoured to adopt a more systematic approach to their administration. Thus, hunting and colonial rule had a peculiar association throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in India. This association was refected and reinforced in the lives of many Anglo-Indian offcials during the company period as well as in the lives of offcer-hunters in the later British Raj.62 Mandala attributed how the shikar was used for hunting purpose during the empire from the late nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. I must recollect the book review which I wrote more than a decade back one could not attribute each and everything for the impact of watershed management.63 Certainly, and obviously, wildlife is one of the components of colonialism and Empire but, defnitely, wildlife is not the only centre of colonialism. Hence, I argue that stripping off the shikaris’ traditional roles was not confned to only the tribes or tribal areas and that this applies to the entire Indian subcontinent in general. Indeed, the impact was more rampant in the plains than in the hills not only during the empire era but for the entire colonial era from the late eighteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. Unfortunately, the scholars of wildlife history in general and who studied a particular species like tiger or elephant linking the entire colonial project was centred around the wildlife, which is not, and in fact, essentially polemic and became an opinion of the individuals. In other words, a new form of colonialism in academic writings emerged over the last two decades of the twentyfrst century particularly when it came to wildlife. 6.3 Tanning the Skins and Other Products Skinning the different wild animals was an integral part of the British or other European hunters’ motive from the early colonial period. For, the underlying factor of the game was to commodify the different parts of the wild animals such as skin, horn and others to commercialise those either within the country or abroad. The literature on wildlife games, especially those on hunting since the early nineteenth century, never failed to mention the skinning of the animals and other related products in their narratives. As such, it becomes evident that commodifying wildlife was an underlying factor behind the colonial game project ever since the beginning of the colonial intrusion into the Indian subcontinent. Betraying the intention of the colonial hunters, the narratives on wild sports gamers were mainly concerned about skinning the different kinds of animals. Invariably in the hunting game projects, tanners who are specialised in skinning the animals and other products were an integral part. In case the

166

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

tanners were not there, then the gamers used to engage the local people, who were trained in skinning and found invariably in every village of the Indian subcontinent. For, it was not surprising that the European gamers, particularly British gamers, were very much concerned about the skins and other parts of the wild animals. Elliot says, ‘… began to skin the panther.’64 Russel says, ‘Having cut off the bull’s head …’65 Shakespear says, ‘if the skin was not spoilt, they would send it to me.’66Leveson says that ‘After dinner, we superintended the pegging down of the skins, and retired early to rest …’67‘… leaving the gang to break up the deer and bring in the skins.’68 From a large herd of antelope, ‘We collected the game tied up in front of our saddles.’69‘After having given orders to the “gooroo” to go with some of the people and bring the skin,…’70‘… some of the gang worked by turns with the axe to cut out the tusks (a tedious and lengthy operation, requiring much care).’71‘The tusks, which weighed about 70 Ibs, were cut out …’72‘… sent a part of the gang to fetch in the ivory, which altogether weighed nearly three hundred pounds not a bad bag for three days’ “shekar.”’73 a black panther started up from a cleft in the ground close under my feet, and I had the good fortune to roll him over with a single ball, which took effect just behind the ear. The skin was magnifcent, the spots being distinctly visible when held up to the light, appearing of a deeper black than the rest.74 I superintended the preparation of the skins (as my own man who usually did that kind of work was with the gang at Bowani by seeing them stretched tightly and pegged down on the ground, exposed to the heat of the sun, whilst wood-ashes, coconut oil, hulde (turmeric), and arsenical soap were rubbed in.75 ‘After dinner we superintended the pegging down of the skins, and retired early to rest.’76 ‘After skinning the tiger, the whole of the fesh was carried away by the natives, which they use for various medicinal purposes.’77 ‘Thirteen quarts of fat were taken from this lusty animal.’78 ‘… shikarees had found the tigress dead, but that her skin was decomposed and unft to send to me. This was unsatisfactory, but could not he helped.’79 ‘Having been nearly killed by a large tusk elephant with it in my hand, I sold it on the very frst opportunity for nine pounds less than it cost me.’80 The above accounts indicate that securing the skin and other parts of the different wild animals was the main agenda of the colonial gamers. 6.4 Madras Hunting Society The Hunting Society was formed and its branches were established in different parts of the country to facilitate the British gamers. For instance, the

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

167

Madras Hunting Society, which was established in Chennai in 1776, continued to function till the close of colonial rule.81 According to Prakash: The hounds were taken out on two days in a week and the jackal was the main animal, which was hunted. Jackals were plentiful. Hunting jackals was a popular sport amongst British civil servants and British traders. The main areas, which they chose for hunting, were to the south of Madras at Chengelpet and the west of Madras at Thiruvallur. Unlike today, those areas were covered by tropical forests with rich fora and fauna.82 This society imports the hounds from England and made them available in different parts of the country. According to Burton, since 1776 when the Madras Hunting Society imported a pack of hounds from England, hunting has gone on uninterrupted in India up to the present day through a Hunt being maintained at one time or another in many places. The list is a long one: Bangalore, Belgaum, Bombay, Calcutta, Dacca, Delhi, Jaipur, Jaora, Jullundur, Madras, Meerut, Mhow, Mysore, Ahmadabad, Peshawar, Poona-Kilkee, Rawalpindi, and perhaps some more.83 For instance, in Ootacamund, hounds were kept in kennels in 1829, and it continued till the end of the colonial era.84 ‘It may be presumed that the Madras Hunt is entitled to the distinction of being the frst hunt established in India. Hounds are out two days a week, and the jackal is the quarry hunted.’85 Leveson pointed out that: ‘Hog-hunting, as carried out in India, is truly a legal sport’86 In 1828, The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register brought out the details of meetings regarding the subscription for the Madras Hunt Society, which was held at the race stand on January 26 and it was decided that: That a subscription from all members be immediately collected of fve gold mohurs. That after the 15th February 1828, any person becoming a member shall pay seven gold mohurs; That offcers of the artillery or garrison be honorary members, and pay one gold mohur entrance, and the monthly subscription as long as they attend the hunt; That visitors at the presidency be honorary members on paying tile monthly subscription; That the monthly subscription at present be two pagodas per month; That the establishment consist of a master of the hounds, two whippers in from the members, a feeder (on a salary of two pagodas a month), a dog boy for every three couples of hounds, and one cook boy or sweeper; That the monthly subscription be paid in advance; That every member or honorary member shall give due notice to the committee on wishing to retire

168

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

on quitting the presidency; That the whole management of the hounds rest with the committee, who shall fx the time and place of meeting; That the committee shall take measures for the importation of dogs, and that they report proceedings once in six months; That there shall be a hunters’ stakes at the annual race meeting, for horses regularly hunted before November, and that the committee grant certifcates to that effect.87 6.5 Ooty Hunt Club In 1835, the Ooty Hunt Club was established mainly for fox hunting and later extended to wild boar and tiger.88 The average annual cost of running the Hunt is about Subscription Rs. 20,000, and the Management is entirely dependent on voluntary subscriptions. There is no ‘cap’ nor minimum subscription, but regular followers are expected to subscribe not less than Rs.100, and the fortunate possessors of several horses to increase their subscriptions in proportion.89 It indicates that around 200 persons enrolled themselves as members of the society. All followers of the Hunt who have subscribed Ooty Hunt not less than Rs. 100 may be elected to the Hunt Club and must be proposed and seconded by two members of the Hunt Committee which has the power of election. The annual subscription to the Hunt Club is Rs. 15, payable only so long as the Member is in Ootacamund.90 According to Pandian: ‘The Ooty Hunt, which was usually organised twice a week between May and September and supported by voluntary subscriptions, was an exciting as well as an exacting event for the residents of and the visitors to the hills.’91 He further argued that ‘hunting, according to these provisions of the Act, meant hunting only for trophies and utilitarian motives had hardly any place there – a purist’s defnition of sports indeed.’92 He further claimed that the colonial project undermined the masculinity. 6.6 Kennels at Ooty In Ooty, kennels were developed in the early nineteenth century to facilitate hunting by the hunting society. Kennels are a very important and integral part of the game sports. The Kennels are situated near the Golf Links. They were rebuilt on English lines some twelve years ago. They contain kennels and yards

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

169

for sixty couple of hounds; separate boiling house, hospital, storerooms, offce, superintendent’s bungalow, lines, and stabling for six horses.93 The number of hounds in kennel varies from time to the Hounds time but is usually about ffty couple. The usual practice is to import ten couple of hounds, or so, annually from some well-known kennel in England and to breed about ffteen or twenty couple locally.94 6.7 Nagpur Hunt/Tent Clubs To prevent the indiscriminate killing of pigs in the Wardha district of the Central Provinces, the Nagpur hunt/tent clubs was founded in 1863.95 These tent clubs were formed to ‘Coverts were preserved in the Central Provinces, and action was taken to discourage poaching by “professional hunters of the criminal tribes.”’96 ‘Tent clubs were also found at Saugor, Delhi, Agra and Meerut and many other places.’97 The Nagpur tent club laid down the rules that no one could hunt without the permission of the captain and secretary of the hunt/tent club.98 It indicated that anyone other than members of the club was restricted from pig-hunting. In other words, the members were largely Britishers and others were excluded from pig-hunting. 6.8 Cheap Labour for Beaters and Informers The colonial hunting project, either in the name of game or sports, thrived on exploiting the native subalterns and their traditional knowledge by providing some drinks and tobacco to extract the very basic information about wildlife. The European gamers used the intelligence and knowledge of the natives to get vital details about the movement and habits of various animals and birds. For instance, Leveson pointed out that: when intelligence was brought that a very Agapemone of bears had been discovered in some low hills close to the foot of the Shervaroy range. It was therefore decided that we should beat up ‘their diggings’, and having assembled the villagers, who professed to know their haunts, we distributed the usual allowance of grog and tobacco, and gleaned all the information they could give us as to the game in that part of the country.99 ‘… our coolies had managed to collect the game at the foot of the hill, which consisted of eleven bears besides the little one caught alive, not a bad day’s work for three guns.’100 According to Bevan: It was my custom in the evenings to invite a few of the most intelligent native of the village to my tents, from whom I obtained considerable

170

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

local information; and in return, I amused them with an occasional Nuntch,101giving them betel-nut at their departure.102 The British hunters used the tribals for their pastime and merrymaking, and I quote from Prakash: The craving for animal food amongst the Badagas population of the Hills is something extraordinary … their fondness for venison is not exceeded by any alderman in the old country … A Badga will cheerfully work all day long for a few pounds of meat, os, knowing this, some men have made it a point of paying their coolies in meat instead of money.103 The above account clearly shows how subalterns among the natives were exploited in the colonial project towards the commercialisation of wildlife. 6.9 At the Cost of Subaltern Life The exploitation of labour was a hallmark of the colonial enterprise. Native labour was engaged for a very meagre amount for their service. Leveson observed that: Decent shikaris can generally be obtained on the spot, though they will not of course come up to men who have been brought up by the sportsman himself to the work. The current expenses, after the outft has been bought, will come to about 30l. per mensem for each sportsman.104 The British game person looted in such a way by exploiting the labour force. For instance, the following account would suffce: ‘We assembled all our people in a circle, distributed the usual allowance of grog and tobacco, and afterward heard all they had to say about the game to be found in the country and the most effective manner of pursuing it.’105 Russell pointed out that: Unfortunately, a reward, which is in Mysore as high as ffty rupees, is paid for the destruction of each tiger. Now when we refect that a forest guard in Mysore draws pay at the rate of only six rupees per mensem in most localities, we can well imagine how proftable a business it must be for a man of his class to shoot deer, etc., for the purpose of sale, and to occasionally shoot a tiger for the sake of the reward.106 6.10 Administrative Support The British gamers used to avail themselves of all kinds of facilities in terms of forest guest houses from the forest department, and the district administration used to facilitate their requirements in terms of arranging the beaters

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

171

and skinners among other things. During Leveson’s visit, the Salem District Collector sent his staff members to arrange the beaters and others in different villages. According to Leveson, ‘The collector sent some of his “peons” (police) to prepare beaters.’107 Invariably, the British hunters used to stay in the forest guest houses in different parts of the country. 6.11 Nilgiri Game Association (1877) In 1877, the Nilgiri Game Association was founded at Udhagamandalam in the Nilgiri district, erstwhile Coimbatore district of the Madras Presidency, by a group of British planters and big-game hunters. Initially, it consisted of more than 500 members. However, in the later years, actual members of the association were only around 150. According to Davidar, ‘On an average, there are 150 such members in a year.’108 In addition to the regular members, there were some honorary members and not surprisingly most of them were government offcials.109 The Nilgiri District Collector was the ex-offcio president of this association, and the members are the District Forest Offcer of the Nilgiri North, Nilgiri South and Gudalur and the Field Director of Mudumalai Tiger Reserve and Mukurthi National Park. This association was instrumental in enacting the Nilgiris Game and Fish Preservation Act 1879.110 This was the frst piece of legislation to protect wildlife in the Indian subcontinent.111 This legislation empowered the association to regulate the types of game to be hunted and the opening and closing of seasons, etc. According to this act, the Nilgiri District included the entire tract known as the Silent Valley and bounded by the north bank of the Bhavani River from Attipadi in the Attipadi Valley to the junction of the Mayar River, the west and south banks of the Mayar River from its junction with the Bhavani to the point in the Mudumullah district nearest to Gudalur, a line carried thence to the head of the Pendy River (Ouchterlony Valley), the east bank of the Pandy River to where it falls near the Karkur Pass into Malabar Payenghaut, a line along the southern crest of the Ouchterlony Valley and across the western slopes of the Nilgiri and Mukurti peaks and Sisapara ranges to Wallaghaut.112 This association issued game licenses mainly to the British elites for their hunting sports.113 The local people were excluded from this association. In 1893, this association was renamed ‘The Nilgiri Game and Fish Preservation Association.’ Every person holding a license to shoot and fsh for the whole season automatically becomes a Member of the Association; or, if he holds a temporary license, may become a Member of the Association for the term of such license on the donation of Rupees 10 to the Association.114 Under Section 33 of the Madras Forest Act V of 1882, the rented forest of the Nilgiris also comes under the purview of the reserve forest. ‘The areas

172

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

covered by the shooting license are the reserved and rented forests, fuel and fodder reserves, grazing grounds, Toda Patta lands, and areas under special fre protection.’115 No person shall hunt or shoot within the limits to which these rules apply without a license issued by the Collector of the Nilgiris. Provided that this rule shall not apply to the hunting of jackals by the Ootacamund Hunt.116 Except with the sanction of the Collector, no person shall shoot at, wound or kill within the area to which these rules apply, the females or immature males of any of the following animals or mature male sambhur or spotted deer which are hornless or whose horns are in velvet: 1 Bison or Gaur. 2 Sambhur. 3.Spotted deer, 4 Ibex. 5 Antelope.117 Though a very vast area was covered under this act, certain areas were closed for shooting, certain areas closed for small game shooting, certain areas closed for ibex shooting, certain areas closed for beating, certain areas of government reserved forests closed for shooting, shooting of jungle hens and Nilgiri black monkeys was prohibited, shooting at a small game between sunset and sunrise was also forbidden, the number of dogs used for beating for the small game shall not exceed 12 to each party and for the big game with more than 12 dogs to each party and they should not be fred at the small game.118 The game rules also restricted the number of animals that could be hunted for a whole season. The number of big game shot by a license-holder in the course of a season in the case of the holder of a license for the whole season shall not exceed: Four Sāmbhar stags, four-spotted deer stags, Six jungle sheep, Three antelope, One bison, One ibex and in the case of the holder of a license for a period less than the whole season shall not exceed Two Sāmbhar stags, Two-spotted deer stags, Three jungle sheep, Two antelope, One bison or one ibex.119 The game rules also restricted the killing of immature animals and, if someone did, they would be under the legal purview. ‘The heads of all immature animals killed by license—holders must be sent to the offce of the District Forest Offcer, Ootacamund, and shall be confscated to Government.’120 ‘The Association maintains a staff of game watchers for the protection of wild life and fsh and generally assists the Forest department in the enforcement of game laws.’121 ‘Elephants are strictly protected and only those that are proscribed are allowed to be shot by license holders. Such prescriptions are quite rare although about a half dozen people are killed by elephants every year.’122 ‘Tigers, Panthers, Bears, Hyenas, Wild Dogs, and pigs are not

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

173

classifed as game and may be shot at any time, but a license is necessary for their pursuit except on private land.’123‘No shooting of any game animal is permitted at a waterhole or salt-lick, for a machan or shelter, or by the aid of artifcial light.’124 Despite the various developments that took place in the Nilgiris, in terms of development projects, population pressure, use of chemical fertilisers and chemical pesticides for crops, etc., the association’s rules and regulations had helped preserve the wildlife in Nilgiris. Davidar observed that: Disturbed conditions prevailing in the various hydroelectric project areas, population pressures, increasing demand made on forest lands, denudation of forests, disturbance of natural conditions and forests by the planting of blue gum wattle and other such exotics on a massive scale, use of insecticides and pesticides, harmful to wild life, excessive cattle grazing, and consequent soil erosion, and better transport facilities have not been conducive to the preservation and propagation of wild life.125 The Nilgiris Game Association has issued a large number of licenses both on a seasonal and monthly basis. Between 1912–1913 and 1946–1947, nearly for about 35 years 2,409 licenses on a season basis and 956 licenses on the monthly basis were issued (Table 6.1). Most of the license holders were not surprisingly Europeans. The Nilgiris Game Association members killed a large number of animals which included bison, sambur, chital, ibex, black buck, tiger, pander, bear, jungle sheep, four-horned antelope and hyena. In about three and a half decades from 1912–1913 to 1946–1947, nearly 4,000 game animals were killed by the members. They included 170 bison, 767 sambur, 740 chital, 145 ibex, 135 black buck, 262 tiger, 503 panther, 117 bear, 1129 jungle sheep, 18 four-horned antelope and 14 hyena (Table 6.2). No wonder then that the prominent taxidermist Van Ingen & Van Ingen had established a branch at Udhagamandalam during the early twentieth century. This offers proof as to how the wildlife was hunted and commercialised through the association from the nineteenth century. Not only the large games but also a large number of small games were also hunted by the Nilgiris Game Association members. The small games were jungle cock, jungle hen, spurfowl, snipe, wood pigeon, hare, woodcock, mouse deer, deer, peacock, pea ben, partridge and quail, etc. During the last seven years of colonial rule 1940–1947, about 12,631 small games were hunted by the Nilgiris Game Association members, which included 1,945 jungle cock, 1,261 jungle hen, 550 spurfowl, 3458 snipe, 2670 wood pigeon, 1106 hare, 607 wood cock, 24 mouse deer, 365 peacocks, 115 pea ben, 448 partridge and 82 quail (Table 6.3). The small game was not in the permitted areas but all over the entire mountain range.

174

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

Table 6.1 No. of Licenses Issued Season and Monthly, 1912–1913/1946–1947 Year

Season

Monthly

1912–1913 1913–1914 1914–1915 1915–1916 1916–1917 1917–1918 1918–1919 1919–1920 1920–1921 1921–1922 1922–1923 1923–1924 1924–1925 1925–1926 1926–1927 1927–1928 1928–1929 1929–1930 1930–1931 1931–1932 1932–1933 1933–1934 1934–1935 1935–1936 1936–1937 1937–1938 1940–1942 1942–1943 1943–1944 1944–1945 1945–1946 1946–1947 Total

73 80 49 47 51 72 58 77 85 101 84 91 85 69 100 86 96 90 93 68 66 73 64 83 70 72 46 60 62 71 86 101 2,409

20 34 17 34 19 32 50 41 38 45 42 27 22 22 26 33 25 19 25 30 18 17 28 20 25 33 6 27 44 51 46 40 956

Source: E.G. Phythian-Adams, ‘The Nilgiris Game Association, 1879—1939’ The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 41, 1939, p.386; Davidar, E.R.C. ‘The Nilgiri India Wildlife Association and Status of Wildlife in the Nilgiris India’ The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 65, 1968, p.440.

Wild pig is most destructive in terms of damaging agricultural crops. In Nilgiris, ‘wild pigs have increased enormously and cause very serious damage to crops, more especially potatoes.’126 In addition, several other wild animals known as vermin damaged the crops and plantations. The vermin include ‘wild dogs, wild cats, red mongooses, mortens, crow pheasants, sparrow hawks, marsh harriers, etc’.127 The association also encouraged the killing of these vermin by providing bounties from the early period which continued

Bison

1 — — 5 2 4 2 7 10 9 12 6 2 4 2 4 6 2 14 6 6 5 5 13 6 14

Year

1912–1913 1913–1914 1914–1915 1915–1916 1916–1917 1917–1918 1918–1919 1919–1920 1920–1921 1921–1922 1922–1923 1923–1924 1924–1925 1925–1926 1926–1927 1927–1928 1928–1929 1929–1930 1930–1931 1931–1932 1932–1933 1933–1934 1934–1935 1935–1936 1936–1937 1937–1938

41 50 27 38 46 48 43 42 38 43 30 24 20 17 25 17 15 13 18 12 10 10 9 20 12 13

Sambur

19 35 25 33 21 18 28 32 43 44 24 22 17 14 33 27 33 15 20 23 17 19 18 38 17 36

Chital 9 6 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 5 9 9 8 5 11 10 4 2 9 5 10

Ibex 9 14 11 11 8 10 11 9 14 4 — — — — 4 5 6 2 2 4 — 3 — 3 1 —

Black Buck 7 11 4 2 8 11 6 9 16 8 14 17 19 6 9 9 7 12 5 7 6 13 9 7 8 5

Tiger 17 31 16 12 25 29 20 40 26 32 47 35 27 10 6 21 13 7 1 5 8 8 11 11 6 12

Pander 6 13 1 3 4 5 6 6 6 9 11 7 3 3 2 2 8 — 3 2 2 2 4 1 2 —

Bear

Table 6.2 Number of Big Game Killed by the Nilgiris Game Association, 1912–1913/1946–1947

25 34 18 40 46 24 10 36 42 61 69 62 57 22 34 37 45 31 42 34 26 51 35 46 41 33

Jungle Sheep 1 1 — 2 — 1 — — 1 1 — — — 2 — 1 — 4 — — — — — — 2 2

— — 1 — — — — 1 2 — — 3 — 2 2 1 — — — — 1 — — 1 1 —

Hyena

(Continued)

Four-Horned Antelope

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife 175

6 8 3 5 — 1 170

1941–1942 1942–1943 1943–1944 1944–1945 1945–1946 1946–1947 Total

17 9 25 18 7 10 767

Sambur

13 8 18 15 4 11 740

Chital 8 3 2 1 3 3 145

Ibex 1 — — 1 2 — 135

Black Buck 5 9 5 4 3 1 262

Tiger 6 3 6 2 4 6 503

Pander 1 — 2 1 — 2 117

Bear

23 19 28 23 1,129

35

Jungle Sheep — — — — — — 18

Four-Horned Antelope — — — — — — 14

Hyena

Sources: E.G. Phythian-Adams, ‘The Nilgiri Game Association, 1879—1939’ The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 41, 1939, p.386; Davidar, E.R.C. ‘The Nilgiri India Wildlife Association and Status of Wildlife in the Nilgiris India’ The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 65, 1968, p.440.

Bison

Year

Table 6.2 Continued

176 Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

728 764 402 523 163 283 595

Snipe 584 389 458 365 275 315 284

Wood Pigeon 274 167 218 138 86 118 105

Hare 138 115 126 117 31 73 7

Wood Cock 2 3 7 2 2 1 7

Mouse Deer 97 117 69 43 5 14 20

Peacock

19 39 27 3 13 14

Pea Ben

97 87 120 33 29 42 40

Partridge

1 2 24 16 — 21 18

Quail

Source: Davidar, E.R.C. ‘The Nilgiri India Wildlife Association and Status of Wildlife in the Nilgiris India’ The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 65, 1968, p.441.

108 109 133 67 21 51 61

366 392 303 273 162 235 214

1939–1940 1940–1942 1942–1943 1943–1944 1944–1945 1945–1946 1946–1947

254 240 207 147 79 181 153

Jungle CockJungle Hen Spurfowl

Years

Table 6.3 Number of Small Game Killed by the Nilgiris Game Association, 1939–1940/1946–1947

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife 177

178

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

Table 6.4 Amount Paid for the Destruction of Vermin, 1912–1913/1937–1938 Year

Amount Paid in Rupees

No. of Wild Dogs Destroyed

1912–1913 1913–1914 1914–1915 1915–1916 1916–1917 1917–1918 1918–1919 1919–1920 1920–1921 1921–1922 1922–1923 1923–1924 1924–1925 1925–1926 1926–1927 1927–1928 1928–1929 1929–1930 1930–1931 1931–1932 1932–1933 1933–1934 1934–1935 1935–1936 1936–1937 1937–1938 Total

1,420 1,112 787 850 657 1,200 1,023 897 1,415 1,773 4,192 677 — 195 434 1,254 1,312 471 909 525 587 1,295 943 751 1,230 670 26,579

58 46 35 35 22 56 46 41 62 52 93 12 — 20 36 — — — — 16 15 30 18 16 48 28 785

Source: E.G. Phythian-Adams, ‘The Nilgiri Game Association, 1879—1939’ The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 41, 1939, p.392.

till the mid-twentieth century. For killing the vermin such as wild dogs, wild cats, red mongooses, martens, crow pheasants, sparrow hawks, marsh harriers, etc., reward amounts were paid from the early decades of the twentieth century, viz., from 1912–1913 to 1938–1939 (see Table 6.4). For instance, for killing nearly 785 wild dogs, about Rs. 26,579 was paid as a reward amount for 25 years. 6.12 Making Allegations against the Local Hunters While proposing the Indian Forest Department and the Act of 1878, the Britishers used to make allegations against the tribals and other forest-dwelling communities for the decline of forest resources and argued that indiscriminate destruction had to be prevented to protect the ecology and environment.

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

179

In the same manner, invariably, the British sportsmen used to make allegations against the native hunters for the decline of wildlife. Chakrabarti rightly pointed out that ‘the English were the poachers but they used game law to brand the indigenous forest people, who earned their livelihood from the forest, as “poachers.”’128 In other words, he further stated that ‘While the new laws restricted small scale hunting by tribal people, they facilitated more organized shikar expeditions by the Europeans.’129 They have built up the narrative over the period that wildlife was disappearing due to the native hunters and hence they have to be protected. But the underlying fact was that wildlife was disappearing as a result of recreation, hunting, food, game and also commodifcation of wildlife. One can see their criticism of the closing of the forest for shooting in the following: ‘the armchair conservationist and the unrealistic policy of the Government in closing of forests to shooting to placate without affording special protection to wild life in the area resulting in wholesale slaughter.’130 Stebbing criticised the traditional method of capturing wild animals which was one of the major reasons for the decline of the wildlife. According to him: But as an important factor, perhaps a more important one in its effects on the great decrease which is imperiling some of the species in the country is to be found in the operations of the Indian poacher. The poacher has remained outside the notice of the Government and has had a free hand to perpetuate his nefarious practices. I propose to deal briefy with some of the methods by which this inhuman class of slayers carry out their operations. They will speak for themselves. Considerable ingenuity is displaced in many of the methods employed by the poaching fraternity. But any admiration one may feel for the cleverness is overwhelmed by horror as one realizes that both animals and birds are often done to death by methods the brutal callousness of which has to be witnessed in order to be credited.131 The Britishers used to purchase the wild animals, particularly elephants, for their administrative purposes. For instance, In 1835 the price of elephants was £45 per head; in 1855 about £75; in 1874, twenty were purchased at Sonepoor for the Bengal Government at £132, 15s. each; in 1875, seventy were required at Sonepoor, for which £140 per head was sanctioned, but not one was procurable at that fgure and £150 is now the lowest rate for which young animals, chiefy females, and not fully grown, can be obtained. The price of good females of the working class is at present from £200 to £300. The value of tuskers is very capricious; it depends mainly upon the nearness of approach of their points to those of the Koomeriah. The best is only found in the possession of those who can pay fancy prices, but all-male elephants are

180

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

in high demand for the retinues of rajahs and temple purposes. Scarcely any limit can be placed on the price of a really perfect Koomeriah; £2000 is not an unknown fgure. Tuskers of any pretensions at all command from £800 to £1500. Two newly-caught tuskers of no particular merit were sold out of the Dacca stud, in 1875, for £1600 the pair.132 The Madras Government is entirely dependent for its supply of elephants on Burmah, as there is no Government catching establishment in the Presidency, as in Bengal, and the immense number of elephants roaming the Madras forests is turned to no account. The elephants are shipped from Moulmein to Coconada in vessels specially chartered for the purpose. A batch of about 60, imported eight years ago, cost £176 each when landed. Prices have risen since. The Collector of Coimbatore, a district of Madras, commenced elephant-catching in 1874, upon the plan adopted in Mysore, and between 1874 and 1877 captured 76 elephants, but the cost has been so great (about £13,000), and so many have died, that the scheme has been a fnancial failure.133 6.13 For Game or Protection of Wildlife? Since the late eighteenth century, hunting wildlife was an integral part of the British lifestyle in India. The Madras Hunters Society was established during the late eighteenth century, and the hunters’ society at Ooty had acquired the power to hunt a particular animal from the early nineteenth century. On the same line, the Nilgiris Game Association was established in 1877 with the stated purpose of protecting the wildlife but it served the interests of hunting. As explained in the previous section, hunting in the wild was facilitated primarily for the Britishers and to some Indian elites. Around 200 members of the Nilgiris Game Association hunted a few lakhs of animals in the forests of the erstwhile Coimbatore district of the Madras Presidency. Yet, the association constantly made wild allegations that wildlife was destroyed by the poachers and others. Had the Nilgiris Game Association restricted to hunting alone, at least it would have saved a large number of big games besides several lakhs of small games. Not only that, several wild animals with noncommercial value were destroyed by providing bounties; the association also continued to raise allegations against various infrastructural development, resulting in the decline of wildlife in the Nilgiris. The fact remains that the nearly 200 members of the association, who were mainly British administrators and planters and Indian estate owners, have killed a large amount of wildlife in the Nilgiris on the pretext that the association was formed to protect the wildlife. In other words, the association could kill the wildlife but not others. The colonial strategy was to exclude the locals and form an association to destroy the wildlife in the name of game in a much more organised and systematic manner over 75 years.

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

181

In the same manner, the strategy was so designed as to control a large extent of forest primarily for hunting in the name of game throughout the Indian subcontinent. This strategy was designed from the early twentieth century onwards to infuence the state to ensure that the game has to survive in the name of wildlife protection. The British gamers constantly proposed measures to protect wildlife and used their infuence to save the game. This design was started in the early twentieth century and continued till the end of the colonial rule, i.e., 1947. One of their major allegations was that poachers were responsible for the destruction of wildlife and the other one was that the existing forest administration was not effcient. Such stories were built up from the early twentieth century onwards. Prakash rightly pointed out that ‘Hunting by the natives for subsistence purpose was not tolerated by the British.’134 It was almost like the United States charging Iraq and Iran of having weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and hence they have to be punished. Though the different committees which were formed to probe the allegations found no proof in them, the association continued to rake it up from time to time to execute their agenda. This is modern capitalism. The Britishers had built up a story that human sacrifce was there in the tribal areas of eastern India and hence that had to be stopped.135 The story was built up over a period to secure control over the forests and other natural resources. Likewise, the colonial hunters constantly made allegations that the native people, particularly shikaris and other poachers, were responsible for the destruction of the wildlife and the forest department staff were ineffcient in containing the same. And hence the demand for new legislation and fresh regulations to save the wildlife from indiscriminate killing and poaching. The story was built up by the British administrators and particularly the Conservators of Forests to protect their game than to protect the wildlife. Starting from the early twentieth century, this propaganda was carried through the associations in favour of the game. This was the agenda of British administrators. The colonial regime’s real intention to protect and preserve the games was cloaked in the argument for protection of wildlife in the different regions of the subcontinent. For this, they carefully constructed the narrative. One such was of Sir Arthur Allabn, who on March 27, 1901, emphasised the importance of regulating indiscriminate killing of wildlife through an appropriate act. He says: If certain birds, which are eager insect destroyers, are killed, the crops suffer because of a plague of insects. If the usual food of the tiger, such as deer, pig and so on, are wantonly destroyed, the tiger by the inexorable law of nature must fnd some other victim, probably the village cattle, not infrequently the villager himself. If a large number of wild animals must be killed in famine years to provide food for the people, the killing should be done with the system and in moderation; otherwise, when

182

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

another famine comes, there will be no wild animals left owing to the slaughter of the young and of females. It should surely be possible to fnd a remedy for this state of things.136 Stebbing pointed out that ‘the Game of India is on the decrease and a very rapid decrease, and that the good old days of yore are gone, never to return.’137 Burton suggested a separate legal mechanism to protect the wildlife. According to him, ‘Legislation is necessary to prohibit offering for sale, possessing for sale, or marketing in any way the hides, horns, fesh of any indigenous wild birds, or wild animals throughout the year.’138 Stebbing was concerned not only about the modern gun technology but also about the lower prices of them. According to him, ‘That the modern rife has to some extent been responsible for the present state of affairs is beyond cavil – its accuracy and also the cheapness with which the more roughly made forms can be purchased.’139 Further, in the reasoning of Monteith, the license fee has to be increased. He also insisted on restricting the vehicles for hunting as a measure to protect the wildlife. According to him, the horns and hides of different wildlife in Bombay State were commercialised since the 1930s. As such, he suggested hiking the fee as well as restricting the vehicles for hunting to arrest the depletion of wild resources.140 A.J.M Milroy advocated imposing a higher fee for hunting in the sanctuary. Further, he insisted upon the development of a road network to attract visitors to the sanctuary as well as allowing hunting with reasonably higher fees to manage the sanctuary, besides calling the gun after the harvest in the north-eastern region, particularly in Assam.141 As far as the Madras Presidency was concerned, R.D. Richmond described that a large extent of the area was under the Madras State and hence there was no major threat to the game animals.142 Countering this, R.C. Morris argued that several animals have disappeared from the forest as poaching posed a great threat in the reserve forest. Hence, in his view, effective administration and regulating weapons for poaching were important. Further, he also suggested a park in a couple of places in the Madras Presidency.143 Mysore State opined that though there was a decline in the number of game animals, it was not at an alarming level. However, several measures were emphasised to protect wildlife. E.G. Phythian-Adams pointed out that though the game animals have declined, the situation had not deteriorated much and was not a cause for worry in Mysore State. However, he suggested several measures towards conservation.144 Hyderabad State too witnessed a sharp fall in wildlife due to massive hunting. Further, the consequences of developmental projects and various infrastructural facilities besides population growth were a cause for concern. Salim A. Ali observed that though the forest was divided into circles and open for shooting purposes for a very short period in Hyderabad State, wildlife, particularly the bird population, has been reduced drastically due to the connivance of the administration largely infuenced by the rich and infuential people since the early twentieth century. Hence, protecting the birds

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

183

was very important and a need of the hour. In addition to that, he attributes the increase of population, besides the development of roads and railway lines, motor cars and buses penetration into remote areas as a cause to the increase of hunting of wildlife.145 Stebbing insisted upon regulating the European game to protect the game. According to him: The whole crux of the position is, of course, the necessity for regulating the number of animals shot, so as to prevent deterioration or extermination of the game. On the whole, the European is more destructive than the native to the animals which are greatest in need of protection. Rules and the proper control and management of shooting-grounds can control the European.146 He was further concerned about the ineffcient or ineffective implementation of the existing rules and regulations which were supposed to have protected the wildlife. According to him, Rules under the Forest Act have been in force in these forests for years, a sixth of British India being under the Act and Rules. It would have been suffcient merely to have enforced these rules in the spirit as also in the letter; and adequate protection would have been afforded to species which are now, owing to this apathy and neglect, within a measurable space of deterioration, if not of total extinction.147 Stebbing also faults the existing license system in the late nineteenth century. According to him, We all know the way these license gun-holders go to work. A machan (platform) is built on a known deer-run on the edge of the forest and just without its boundary, if not inside, with the connivance of the Forest Guard. The shikari occupies his post in the late afternoon, and by sunrise next day several bucks and does maybe lying round the machan; the skins, horns, should there be any of the latter, and the fesh are taken off to the bazaar, where a ready sale is found for them throughout the country. The meat is sold locally, the skins and horns being bought by middlemen for export. It is a common thing to see on the platform at wayside stations near the forest areas piles of skins and horns booked, and openly booked, in defance of all rules and regulations, to some large centre.148 According to S.H. Prater: The movement for the Protection of Nature had its origin barely ffty years ago. It is the European Nations and the American people who set an example to the World as to what could be done to preserve wildlife

184

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

within their lands. The cause of Conservation has been advanced by various International Conferences. A Central Bureau known as the International Offce for the Protection of Nature (I.O.P.N.) was established, and in 1948 the International Union for the Protection of Nature (I.U.P.N.) was constituted at Fontainebleau.149 ‘The danger to wildlife has been accentuated in recent years by the enormous increase of frearms in use, and by the inability of Governments to enforce such laws as exist for the protection of the wild animals.’150 Dunbar Brander pointed out that the games in private lands of Central Province have almost disappeared.151 According to him: Forest Act and Rules thereunder are in my opinion excellent. It is in an application that they fail. Fail in the prevention of poaching. There is a lucrative trade in game. The Forest Guard fnds the easiest plan to take a ‘percentage of the profts.’ ‘Rewards sanctioned by the Rules in poaching cases are too sparingly given, and the Magistrates’ sentences are often quite inadequate.’ Among the main reasons for increased destruction of game are the commercialisation of game, the large increase in the number of guns licensed as well as a large increase in unlicensed or illegal guns. The State forests are surrounded by guns, many of which are used in constantly destroying game both inside the forest and just outside it.152 Hence, he suggested several measures to rectify these loopholes and drawbacks. As far as Uttar Pradesh is concerned, F.W. Champion gives an interesting observation. According to him, the game animals were almost extinct outside of forest but not in the reserved forests. While emphasising the killing of deer to protect the crops, he expresses the inability to differentiate the license for game and protection of crops. As such, his suggestion was to limit the reward for destroying the wildlife.153 I would not be understood to say that it is the native shikari alone who acts in this way. It is an open secret that the native soldier of shikar-loving propensities, as also his British brother, will act in an exactly similar manner on occasion.154 Since the early twentieth century, a series of representations were submitted by the game proponents to protect the wildlife for their game. Kumar et.al rightly pointed out: ‘Strategies for the preservation of game, however, inevitably carried many an exclusionary agenda.’155 In 1901, Lord Curzon acknowledged that there was a serious drawback in the existing legal mechanism in the Indian subcontinent.

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

185

He admitted that hitherto the attempts made by Government to deal with the question by legislation or by rules or notifcations based on statutes had been somewhat ‘ftful and lacking its method,’ and, after mentioning some of these attempts, he said:—‘The general effect of these restrictions has been in the right direction, but I doubt if they have been suffciently coordinated, or if they have gone far enough, and one of my last acts in Simla, before I had received or read your memorial, was to invite a re-examination of the subject, with the view of deciding whether we might not proceed somewhat further than we have already done.’156 Subsequently, there were changes in the game rules in favour of the British hunters in the subsequent years. Stebbing pointed out that: Of late, however, matters for the protection of game have to some extent considerably improved, and Local Governments throughout the country have revised their Game Rules, and in some cases have ordered the formation of Game Sanctuaries in addition to limiting the number of head of game to be shot in a district or block of forest to a defnite number per year. Further, in certain provinces sportsmen are only allowed to kill individually a certain head of each different species of animal, thus eliminating the worst feature of the old-time sportsmen—the butcher, whose boast was not the size of the trophies he obtained so much as the member of animals he had killed.157 He further says that ‘The enlightened ruler of Chamba State also took up the question, and prohibited all shooting except on passes issued on his own authority.’158 Maintaining that this was not suffcient, he also pointed out that: ‘Whilst such laudable commencements were thus made to preserve the game of areas which, owing to their peculiarly favourable climatic conditions for the European sportsman, were threatened with extinction, the Local Governments in India were very apathetic in the matter.’159 He also drew attention to the problems in the existing legal mechanism. According to him, Game Rules were in existence for the Forest Reserves of the country, but they related chiefy to a close season, the latter in some cases only applicable to the females, and the same was the case for the open country, where the rules usually related to birds only.160 While proposing the colonial strategy, Stebbing argued that: I am aware that I am laying myself open to serious attack in thus stating the case, but it is maintained that any and every rule that is made with the idea of protecting the game of a country is a step in the right direction, and therefore advantageous both to the sportsman and the game

186

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

itself, however hard it may seem to fall on a particular body of individuals or a particular individual.161 The Britishers started lobbying in favour of their games like Indian politicians lobbying for their Cabinet posts. In a statement, he says: ‘I would like to appeal here to the public spirit and fairness of all true sportsmen to aid to the best of their abilities the present endeavours of the Government of India in the direction of arresting the destruction of Wild Animals.’162 In his view: ‘What is required is to fx the close seasons defnitely, and the Government of India have now, as we shall see, proposed to legislate to give power to fx a close season for different kinds of game.’163 The proponents of the wildlife game law were concerned about four prominent issues: the frst one was criticism of the traditional forest rights of the tribals and other forest-dwelling communities to access the forest resources and stiff opposition to their access to forest resources without any restrictions. The second one was that farmers in India never claimed the right of property in the game animals and birds as they were concerned only about protecting their crops from the wildlife. The third one was while protecting the wildlife, provisions have to be made for the game. The fourth one was regarding the issues related to shikaris. The game proponents were critical of the existing traditional and customary rights and privileges of the tribals and other forest-dwelling communities which were recognised by the Indian Forest Act. According to them, ‘for many forests are burdened with “rights”, under which large amounts of forest products are annually given away free to villagers by the Government.’164 The second one was that there would be a problem to propose the game in agricultural lands in the rural areas of the Indian subcontinent. Their argument was: In European countries, in England for example, the population have a frm conviction that the right of killing game belongs to them, contrary to the practice of centuries. In India, no such diffculties surround the game-protection question. The occupiers of the soil have no conviction whatever that they possess the right of property in the game animals and birds that abound in their felds and jungles. They are concerned only about the protection of their crops from the raids of these animals. If this right of protection is recognised, and the Government which assumes ownership of all game acknowledges its responsibility in this respect, it can be confdently stated that no apprehension need be felt regarding the attitude of the Indian rural population towards the proposed law. Legislation for the protection of game in this country will not create any feeling comparable to that which still exists in the minds of the people regarding the action taken by Government when forest lands were resumed ffty years ago.

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

187

The analogy, it may be pointed out, scarcely holds, since the forests of the country are protected solely in ‘the interests of the people themselves and posterity, whilst the protection of game is undertaken in the interests of the sportsman and in that of science.’165 Precisely they have pointed out that ‘The native of India has never made any claim to the ownership of game animals (mammals) or birds, since he has never possessed it.’166 Bevan brought out an interesting account: A party of offcers, of which I was one, went on a shooting excursion in the year 1811, to a place about fve miles from Madras. I accidentally was separated from my companions, and followed a wounded snipe into an enclosed feld of rice. Here: I was most wantonly assailed by the proprietor, who not only exhausted the copious vocabulary of oriental vituperation in abusing me, but called some coolies, or labourers, who were weeding in a neighbouring feld, to join him in a personal attack. It was in vain that I expostulated, and mildly told him that I had neither meditated harm nor inficted any damage on his crop.167 The third one concerned the sportsmen’s need to protect the game by according certain privileges to the game. Stebbing pointed out that: The third class which will be affected by this law is sportsmen, European and Indian. In the former category should be placed, frst, the offcial who is backed by Government authority and his favoured friends who are given all the facilities which his position allows; next, the solitary hunter with his small camp and all the Game Regulations of the Province to keep him in the right path. The subdivisions in this class are numerous, and include the unemployed colonel putting in his time, the subaltern out on ten days’ casual leave, the humble clerk who can occasionally get away from his offce for a week, and the British soldier let loose in parties for fxed periods.168 The fourth one was about the shikari who had to be handled in the process of making wildlife protection law. According to Stebbing: Next comes the Indian shikari, who is also numerously subdivided. There is the rich landowner, possessed of unlimited sporting appliances and his host of followers; the professional game-killer who lives by his licensed gun; the small landholder who does not know how to use a frearm, but whose dignity is enhanced by the possession of weapons freely lent to his underlings for supplying his kitchen with fresh meat; and, fnally, the half-starved villager of the meaner castes, who is given a gun for use at night in the felds, but which weapon is regularly and illegally used for the destruction of game animals of every prohibited class. In this

188

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

inventory, the Gurkha soldier does not fnd a place, for he belongs to a class which he amply flls by himself with his small but very important personality. He deserves separate notice. From the banks of the Sarda on the frontier of Nepal to the banks of the Indus, the battalions of these gallant little men are scattered in cantonments all along the outer spurs of the Himalayan range. In seven or eight of these locations there are at least fourteen thousands of these disciplined warriors, who, in the absence of opportunities for spilling human blood legitimately, are given a free hand for slaughtering wild animals, along fve hundred miles of the best hunting grounds in Upper India.169 Stebbing further pointed out that: I shall then give an abstract of portions of the proposed new Indian Game Act, making some suggestions for specifying more distinctly than the Act does at present the various classes of game, and suggesting that the game animals and birds, as also useful insectivorous birds, shall be severally mentioned in the Act by name.170 He proposed that: Game Sanctuaries may be of several kinds: —1. Entirely closed to all shooting. 2. Closed to beating only. 3. Closed to the shooting of certain species of game. 4. Closed to shooting of all game, save noxious ones, such as carnivora, pig, etc.171 6.14 Conclusion Colonialism and commercialisation of natural resources such as forest, water, wildlife, etc. was an integral part of the colonial project that emerged from the mid-eighteenth century and continued till the end of the colonial rule or until the mid-twentieth century. Colonialism and commercialisation of forests have been extensively explored from the environmental history point of view from the late eighteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. The water-related issues did not get that much attention like did the issues of the forest but this book dealt with the issues and problems from the environmental history point of view not only for the colonial period but also for the postindependence India.172 Unfortunately, again the wildlife history has failed to address the commercialisation component during the colonial period. Given the background, this chapter attempted to explore how the Company Raj designed the strategy to exploit the wildlife from the late eighteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century (1757–1857) and how they designed the strategy to exclude the locals over the period in the name of protecting the wildlife for their game and commercial project. This chapter brought out

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

189

how colonialism designed the strategy of hunting as an integral part of the colonial administration from top to bottom such as governors, collectors, military offcers, forest offcers and their subordinates and how they were encouraged for hunting the wildlife. It further argues how the traditional hunting communities were used by the Britishers until the mid-nineteenth century and how they were excluded subsequently. More importantly, how colonialism formed associations and how they excluded the Indians from the hunting project. Precisely, this chapter brought out the strategy of colonialism to extract and exploit the hunting projects for their commercial gains while restricting the traditional hunters and others to procure their livelihood means from the mid-eighteenth to the mid-twentieth century of the colonial period. Notes 1 Henry Astbury Leveson, Sport in Many Lands, Vol. I, London Chapman and Hall, 1877, p. 91. 2 See, for details, Velayutham Saravanan, Colonialism, Environment and Tribals in South India, London: Routledge, 2017; Velayutham Saravanan, Environmental History and Tribals in Modern India, Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018; Velayutham Saravanan, Water and the Environmental History of Modern India, London: Bloomsbury, 2020. 3 F.P. Robinson, The Trade of the East India Company from 1709 to 1813, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912, p. 60. 4 Ibid., pp. 64–65. 5 Ibid., pp. 66–68. 6 Ibid., p. 61. 7 Ibid., p. 66. 8 John M. MacKenzie, The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation, and British Imperialism, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988, p. 172. 9 Ibid., pp. 172–173. 10 Daniel Johnson, Sketches of Field Sports as Followed by of with Observations on the Animals, London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Browne, and Thomas Fowler, Great Torrington, Devon, 1822, p. 1. 11 MacKenzie, The Empire of Nature, p. 173. 12 Thomas Williamson, Oriental Field Sports, Vol. I, London: W. Pulmer and Co, 1808, pp. 209–210. 13 Ibid., p. 210. 14 Ibid., pp. 210–211. 15 Leveson, Sport in Many Lands, p. 128. 16 Henry Astbury Leveson, The Hunting Grounds of the Old World, London: Saunders, Otley & Co, 1860, p. 31. 17 James Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, London: Chapman & Hall, 1871, p. 257. 18 F.A. Nicholson, Manual of the Coimbatore District in the Presidency of Madras, Vol. I, Madras: The Government Press, 1887, p. 29. 19 Francis Buchanan, A Journey from Madras through the Countries of Mysore, Canara and Malabar, Vol. II, London: The Directors of East India Company, 1807, p. 126. 20 Ibid., p. 127.

190

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

21 Leveson, Sport in Many Lands, p. 153. 22 Mahesh Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the Natural World: The War Against “Dangerous Beasts” in Colonial India’, Studies in History, 14, 1998, p. 273. 23 Lloyd Price, ‘Animals, Governance and Ecology: Managing the Menace of Venomous Snakes in Colonial India’, Cultural and Social History, 14 (2), 2017, p. 204. 24 Walter Campbell, The Old Forest Ranger, London: Jeremiah How, 1845, p. 189. 25 Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the Natural World’, p. 297. 26 MacKenzie, The Empire of Nature, p. 187. 27 Ibid., pp. 187 and 298. 28 Fiona Natasha Mani, ‘British hunters in Colonial India, 1900–1947: The Gentleman Hunter, New Technology, and Growing Conservationist Awareness’, Pakistaniaat: A Journal of Pakistan Studies, 4 (1), 2012, p. 72. 29 Vijaya Ramadas Mandala, Shooting a Tiger: Big Game hunting and Conservation in Colonial India, Oxford; Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 219. 30 Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the Natural World’, p. 272. 31 Om Prakash, ‘Wildlife Destruction: A Legacy of the Colonial State in India’, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 67, 2006–2007, p. 693. 32 David Cannadine, Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 12–13. 33 Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the Natural World’, p. 273. 34 Saravanan, Colonialism, Environment and Tribals in South India. 35 Saravanan, Environmental History and Tribals in Modern India. 36 Saravanan, Water and the Environmental History of Modern India. 37 E.P. Stebbing, ‘Game Sanctuaries and Game Protection in India’, in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1912, p. 23. 38 Daniel Stiles, ‘Hunter–Gatherer Trade in Wild Forest Products in the Early Centuries A.D. with the Port of Broach, India’, Asian Perspective, 32 (2), 1993, p. 160. 39 D. Ezra Rashkow, ‘Making Subaltern Shikaris: Histories of the Hunted in Colonial Central India’, South Asian History and Culture, 5 (3), 2014, p. 292. 40 Ibid., p. 292. 41 Ibid., p. 294. 42 Ibid., p. 295. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid., p. 304. 45 MacKenzie, The Empire of Nature, p. 169. 46 Ibid., p. 170. 47 Mandala, Shooting a Tiger, p. 12. 48 Rashkow, ‘Making Subaltern Shikaris’, p. 297. 49 MacKenzie, The Empire of Nature, p. 182. 50 Vijaya Ramadas Mandala, ‘The Making and Unmaking of the Gonds: History of Hunting Mores in Colonial India’ Global Environment, 10 (2), 2017, p. 427. 51 Mandala, ‘The Making and Unmaking of the Gonds’, p. 422; see also Mandala, Shooting a Tiger, pp. 12 and 169. 52 Vijaya Ramadas Mandala, ‘Tiger Huntresses in the Company Raj: Environmentalism and Exotic Imaginings of Wildlife, 1830–45’, International Review of Environmental History, 5 (2), 2019, p. 98. 53 Mandala, Shooting a Tiger, p. 2. 54 Ibid., p. 13. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid., p. 9. 57 Ibid., p. 10.

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife 58 59 60 61 62 63

64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

191

Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, p. 305. Ibid., 291. Mandala, ‘The Making and Unmaking of the Gonds’, pp. 463–464. Johnson, Sketches of Field Sports, p. 81. Mandala, Shooting a Tiger, p. 7. Velayutham Saravanan, ‘Dynamics of Development Initiatives’, The Book Review, 31 (2), 2008, pp. 79–80 (Community-Based Natural Resource Management: Issues and Cases from South Asia by Ajith Menon, Praveen Singh, Esha Shah, Sharachandra Lele, Suhas Paranjape and K.J. Joy (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2007). Robert H. Elliot, Gold, Sport, and Coffee Planting in Mysore, Westminster: Archibald Constable and Co, 1894, p. 154. C.E.M. Russell, Bullet and Shot in Indian Forest, Plain and Hill, London: W. Thacker and Co, 1900, p. 51. Henry Shakespear, The Wild Sports of India, London: Smith, Elder and Co, 1859, p. 72. Leveson, The Hunting Grounds of the Old World, p. 202. Ibid., p. 204. Ibid., p. 190. Ibid., p. 236. Ibid., p. 277. Ibid., p. 278. Ibid., p. 292. Ibid., p. 205. Ibid., p. 178. Ibid., p. 202. Henry Bevan, Thirty Years in India: Or, A Soldier’s Reminiscences of Native and European Life in the Presidencies, from 1808 to 1838, Vol. II, London: Pelham Richardson, 1839, p. 42. Shakespear, The Wild Sports of India, p. 63. Ibid., p. 74. Ibid., p. 7. R.W. Burton, ‘A History of Shikar in India’, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 50, 1952, p. 853. Prakash, ‘Wildlife Destruction’, p. 699. Burton, ‘A History of Shikar in India’, pp. 852–853. Ibid., p. 853. A.H. Steele, ‘Sport’, in Southern India: Its History, People, Commerce, and Industrial Resources, compiled by Somerset Playne, London: The Foreign and Colonial Compiling and Publishing Co, 1914–1915, p. 421. Leveson, Sport in Many Lands, p. 85. The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British India and Foreign Dependencies, 26, London: Allen and Co, 1828, pp. 363–364. Rahul Bedi, ‘Riding Back to the Days of the Raj with the Ooty Hunt’, The Irish Times, 27 July 2004. J.S.C. Eagan, A Handbook of General Information upon the Nilgiris for Visitors and Residents, Vepery: S.P.C.K. Press, 1916, p. 41. Ibid. M.S.S. Pandian, ‘Gendered Negotiations: Hunting and Colonialism in the Late Nineteenth Century Nilgiris’, in Working Paper No. 112, Chennai: Madras Institute of Development Studies, 1993, p. 2. Ibid., p. 19. Eagan, A Handbook of General Information, p. 41.

192 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129

130 131 132 133

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife Ibid. MacKenzie, The Empire of Nature, p. 187. Ibid. Ibid., p. 188. Ibid. Leveson, Sport in Many Lands, p. 123. Ibid., p. 130. A native dance. Henry Bevan, Thirty Years in India: or, A Soldier’s Reminiscences of Native and European Life in the Presidencies, from 1808 to 1838, Vol. I (London: Pelham Richardson, 1839), p. 36. Prakash, ‘Wildlife Destruction’, p. 693. Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, p. 441. Leveson, The Hunting Grounds of the Old World, p. 169. Russell, Bullet and Shot in Indian Forest, Plain and Hill, pp. 98–99. Leveson, The Hunting Grounds of the Old World, pp. 165–166. E.R.C. Davidar, ‘The Nilgiri India Wildlife Association and Status of Wildlife in the Nilgiris India’, The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 65, 1968, pp. 431–432. Ibid., p. 432. Eagan, A Handbook of General Information, p. 145. Davidar, ‘The Nilgiri India Wildlife Association’, p. 431. The Nilgiris Game and Fish Preservation Act, 1879. Eagan, A Handbook of General Information, p. 145. Ibid. Ibid., p. 146. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 148–150. Eagan, A Handbook of General Information, p. 150. see also E.G. Phythian– Adams, ‘The Nilgiri Game Association, 1879–1939’, The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 41,1939, p. 384. Eagan, A Handbook of General Information, p. 150. Davidar, ‘The Nilgiri India Wildlife Association’, p. 432. Ibid., p. 433. Phythian–Adams, ‘The Nilgiri Game Association’, p. 385. Ibid. Davidar, ‘The Nilgiri India Wildlife Association’, p. 437. Phythian–Adams, ‘The Nilgiri Game Association’, 389. Ibid., p. 392. Ranjan Chakrabarti, ‘Introduction’, in Situating Environmental History, ed. Ranjan Chakrabarti. New Delhi: Manohar, 2007, pp. 22–23. Ranjan Chakrabarti, ‘The Jungle, The Imperial Hunt and British Imperialism’ 1800–1947’, in Science, Technology, Medicine and Environment in India: Historical Perspectives, ed. C. Palit and A. Bhattacharyya. Calcutta: Bibhasa, 1998, p. 209. Davidar, ‘The Nilgiri India Wildlife Association’, p. 437. E.P. Stebbing, The Diary of a Sportsman Naturalist in India, London: John Lane Company, 1920, p. 242. George P. Sanderson, Thirteen Years among the Wild Beasts of India: Their Haunts and Habits from Personal Observation; With an Account of the Modes of Capturing and Taming Elephants, Edinburg: John Grant, 1882, p. 92. Ibid., p. 93.

Colonial Game Strategy and Exploitation of Wildlife

193

134 Prakash, ‘Wildlife Destruction’, p. 698; see also Mandala, Shooting a Tiger, pp. 164–166. 135 See Felix Patel, The Sacrifce of Human Being: British Rule and the Konds of Orissa, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995. 136 Abstract of the Proceedings of the Council of the Governor-General of India Assembled to Make Laws and Regulations, Calcutta: The Superintendent of Government Printing, 1902, p. 261. 137 Stebbing, ‘Game Sanctuaries and Game Protection in India’, p. 23. 138 R.W. Burton, ‘Wild Life Preservation in India’, The journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 51, 1953, p. 566. 139 Stebbing, ‘Game Sanctuaries and Game Protection’, p. 23. 140 W.R. Burton, The Preservation of Wildlife in India: A Compilation, Bangalore: The Bangalore Press, 1953, pp. 2–3. 141 Ibid., p. 3. 142 Ibid., p. 4. 143 Ibid. 144 Ibid., p. 5. 145 Ibid. 146 Stebbing, ‘Game Sanctuaries and Game Protection’, p. 24. 147 Ibid., p. 25. 148 Ibid., p. 24. 149 Burton, The Preservation of Wildlife in India, p. 1. 150 Ibid. 151 Ibid., p. 2. 152 Ibid. 153 Ibid., pp. 3–4. 154 Stebbing, ‘Game Sanctuaries and Game Protection’, p. 24. 155 Deepak Kumar, Vinita Damodaran and Rohan D’Souza, ‘Introduction’, in The British Empire and the Natural World: Environmental Encounters in South Asia, ed. Deepak Kumar, Vinita Damodaran and Rohan D’Souza. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 4–5. 156 Stebbing, ‘Game Sanctuaries and Game Protection’, pp. 25–26. 157 Ibid. 158 Ibid. 159 Ibid., pp. 26–27 160 Ibid., p. 27. 161 Ibid. 162 Ibid. 163 Ibid. 164 Ibid., p. 28. 165 Ibid. 166 Stebbing, The Diary of a Sportsman Naturalist in India, p. 263. 167 Bevan, Thirty Years in India, Vol. I, p. 207. 168 Stebbing, ‘Game Sanctuaries and Game Protection’, p. 28. 169 Ibid., pp. 28–29. 170 Ibid., p. 29. 171 Ibid., p. 32. 172 Saravanan, Water and the Environmental History of Modern India.

Chapter 7

Conclusion

The commodifcation of natural resources for commercial plunder can never be seen in isolation as it was a long-term strategy of colonialism that has been explored extensively by scholars over the last four to fve decades. The studies on wildlife exposed how colonialism was the root cause of the destruction of wild animals and exploitation of forest resources and how the British gamers bagged the wild animals. Indeed, a vast number of narratives, mainly by the British administrators, are available for the different parts of the country from the early nineteenth century onwards. Unfortunately, these wildlife hunters’ narratives were largely confned to very few wild animals such as tiger, leopard, cheetah, deer, bison, bear, snake, etc. The British game hunters never failed to mention that these animals are either man-eaters or posed a threat to crops as well as cattle and hence needed to be eliminated. Here, it needs to be clarifed that there is a difference between ‘game’ and ‘hunting.’ While the former is like bull-taming, a sport in Tamil Nadu without harming the cattle, the latter is about eliminating/killing the animal. Hence, the very basic meaning of wildlife hunting should not be mixed with the game. Even from a layman’s understanding, no game is played to kill others anywhere in the world including Europe. Again, a large part of the wildlife literature has focused on the man–animal confict, including wildlife in the protected areas of the post-independence period. These studies and researches were mostly concerned about how the wild beasts killed the people living around the forests or how people killed the wild animals to protect themselves. Essentially, the confict between humans and wildlife in the protected areas gained prominent attention and became the primary focus in the post-independence period. However, in discussing the man–animal confict, the commodifcation of wildlife resources for commercial purposes was either neglected or did not get its due attention in the domain of environmental history. This book attempts to fll the gap as to how wildlife resources were not only destroyed but also commercialised by the colonial project from the early nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. In other words, how the population growth, agricultural expansion and establishment of plantations in the hilly areas and highlands intensifed the confict between humans and wildlife DOI: 10.4324/9781003427452-7

Conclusion

195

besides the colonial strategy of commodifying the wildlife, in a historical perspective from the environmental and ecological history point of view. At the very outset, an effort has been made to capture the complexities and contentious issues about wildlife and humans, their domesticated animals due to population growth, agricultural expansion and development of other infrastructural facilities from the early nineteenth century to the midtwentieth century. It discusses how the shrinking space between the wild and human settlements has aggravated the intensity of the confict at the macro level during the colonial period. The much-reduced habitat for the wild animals has resulted in the beasts straying into human settlements, claiming human lives and cattle as well as the destruction of crops. To contain wildlife intrusion, they were killed under the pretext of protecting men and cattle. This was encouraged in the name of game by providing bounties that resulted in several prominent wild animals getting endangered by the end of colonial rule. Even as the colonial administration encouraged the destruction of wildlife by hunters in the name of game and provided the license to kill them, various wildlife laws and regulations were enacted to protect wildlife in the different regions of the country since the second half of the nineteenth century. But unfortunately, these legal mechanisms and regulations, intended to protect the wildlife, failed to control the indiscriminate destruction of wildlife till the end of colonial rule. Not only did wildlife continue to be destroyed for commercial purposes, these regulative mechanisms systematically brought the wildlife resources under the state’s control, facilitating unhindered wildlife trade. To escape the legal hurdle, the man-eater tiger’s story was brought into hunt the animals in the name of game, and invariably every British hunter skinned the wild beast which was the main agenda. And the deadly wild animals and their body parts were converted into a commodity, adorning the bungalows of the elite in India and abroad—in fact, all over the world even to the day. The colonial commodifcation of wildlife resources continued to thrive as one of the lucrative commercial projects despite the restrictions in force until the end of colonial rule. As such, it becomes evident that commodifcation of wildlife for commercial purposes was one of the prime agenda of colonialism which had its successful run till the end of the British Empire in the Indian subcontinent. This book could well be sort of a little contribution towards the debate on India’s environmental history in general and wildlife history in particular.

Bibliography

Adien. An Account of a Hunting Party. The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British India and Foreign Dependencies 1 (Jan–Jun), pp. 539–542, 1816. Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords Appointed to Enquire into the Present State of the Affairs of the East India Company. London: Court of Directors, 1830. Bedi, Rahul. Riding Back to the Days of the Raj with the Ooty Hunt. The Irish Times, 27 July 2004. Bevan, Henry. Thirty Years in India: Or, A Soldier's Reminiscences of Native and European Life in the Presidencies, from 1808 to 1838. I. London: Pelham Richardson, 1839. Bevan, Henry. Thirty Years in India: Or, A Soldier's Reminiscences of Native and European Life in the Presidencies, from 1808 to 1838. II. London: Pelham Richardson, 1839. Bourdillon, T.F. Report on the Forests of Travancore. Trivandrum: The Travancore Government Press, 1893. Brandis, D. The Reviews of Forest Administration in the Provinces under the Government of India for the Four Years from 1873–74 to 1876–77. Simla: Government Central Branch Press, 1879. Brown, J. Moray. Shikar Sketches: With Notes on Indian Field-Sports. London: Hurst and Blackett, Publishers, 1887. Buchanan, Francis. A Journey from Madras Through the Countries of Mysore, Canara and Malabar. 1. London: The Directors of East India Company, 1807. Buchanan, Francis. A Journey from Madras Through the Countries of Mysore, Canara and Malabar. II. London: The Directors of East India Company, 1807. Buchanan, Francis. A Journey from Madras Through the Countries of Mysore, Canara and Malabar. III. London: The Directors of East India Company, 1807. Burton, R.W. A Bibliography of Big Game Hunting and Shooting in India and the East. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 49 (1&2), pp. 222–241, 1952. Burton, R.W. A History of Shikar in India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 50 (4), pp. 845–869, 1952. Burton, R.W. Wild Life Preservation in India. The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 51 (3), pp. 561–578, 1953.

198

Bibliography

Burton, W.R. The Preservation of Wildlife in India: A Compilation. Bangalore: The Bangalore Press,1953. Campbell, Walter. The Old Forest Ranger. London: Jeremiah How, 1845. Canadine, David. Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Chaiklin, Martha and Gooding, Philip. Introduction: Investigating Animals, Their Products, and Their Trades in the Indian Ocean World. In Animal Trade Histories in the Indian Ocean World, edited by Martha Chaiklin, Philip Gooding and Gwyn Campbell. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–26, 2020. Chakrabarti, Ranjan. Introduction. In Situating Environmental History, edited by Ranjan Chakrabarti. New Delhi: Manohar, pp. 1–42, 2007. Chakrabarti, Ranjan. The Jungle, The Imperial Hunt and British Imperialism’ 18001947. In Science, Technology, Medicine and Environment in India: Historical Perspectives, edited by C. Palit and A. Bhattacharyya. Calcutta: Bibhasa, pp. 204– 221, 1998. Chatterton, Alfred. Industrial Revolution in India. Madras: Hindu Offce, 1912. Cohn, Bernard S. Representing Authority in Victorian India. In The Invention of Tradition, edited by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 165–210, 1983. Congreve, C.R.T. The District of Coimbatore: The Anamalai Hills. In Southern India: Its History, People, Commerce, and Industrial Resources, edited by Somerset Playne. London: The Foreign and Colonial Compiling and Publishing Co., pp. 397–403, 1914–1915. Corbett, Jim. Jungle Lore. New York: Oxford University Press, 1953. Corbett, Jim. Man—Eaters of Kumaon. Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1944. Cuthrie, A. Handbook of the Tanning Trade of South India. Madras: Government Press, 1934. Davidar, E.R.C. The Nilgiri India Wildlife Association and Status of Wildlife in the Nilgiris, India. The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 65 (2), pp. 431–443, 1968. Department of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1924–25 to 1933–34. Delhi: Managers of Publications, 1936. Digby, Simon. The Maritime Trade of India. In The Cambridge Economic History of India. 1: C.1200—C.1750, edited by. Tapan Raychaudhuri and Irfan Habib. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–26, 1982. Doughty, Robin W. Feather Fashions and Bird Preservation: A Study in Nature Protection. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975. Downham, C.F. The Feather Trade: The Case for the Defence. London: F Howard Doulton & Co Ltd, 1911. Eagan, J.S.C. A Handbook of General Information upon the Nilgiris for Visitors and Residents. Vepery: P.C.K. Press, 1916. East India Affairs. Reports Form Reporters of External Commerce, Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, (Private Trade) for the Year 1811–12. London: East India House, 1813. East India (Trade). Tables Relating to the Trade of British India with the British Empire and Foreign Countries 1892-93 to 1896–97. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1898.

Bibliography

199

East India (Trade). Tables Relating to the Trade of British India with the British Empire and Foreign Countries 1899-00 to 1903–04. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1905. East India (Trade). Tables Relating to the Trade of British India with the British Empire and Foreign Countries 1901-02 to 1905–06. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1905. East India (Trade). Tables Relating to the Trade of British India with the British Empire and Foreign Countries 1902-03 to 1906–07. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1908. East India (Trade). Tables Relating to the Trade of British India with the British Empire and Foreign Countries 1903-04 to 1907–08. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1909. East India (Trade). Tables Relating to the Trade of British India with the British Empire and Foreign Countries 1909-10 to 1913–14. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1915. East India (Trade). Tables Relating to the Trade of British India with the British Empire and Foreign Countries 1910-11 to 1914–15. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1916. East India (Trade). Tables Relating to the Trade of British India with the British Empire and Foreign Countries 1911-12 to 1915–16. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1918. East India (Trade). Tables Relating to the Trade of British India with the British Empire and Foreign Countries 1912-13 to 1916–17. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1919. Elliot, Robert H. Gold, Sport, and Coffee Planting in Mysore. Westminster: Archibald Constable and Co, 1894. Fayrer, J. Notes of the Visits to India of the Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Duck of Edinburgh, 1870–1875—76. London: Kerby and Endean, 1879. Fletcher, Thomas Bainbrigge. Some South Indian Insects and Other Animals of Importance Considered Especially from an Economic Point of View. Madras: The Government Press, 1914. Forsyth, James. Highlands of Central India. London: Chapman & Hall, 1871. Fortescue, John. Narrative of the Visit to India of Their Majesties, King George V. and Queen Mary, and of the Coronation Durbar Held at Delhi, 12th December 1911. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1912. G.O.No.1478. Administration Report—Forest Department—1921–22—Reviewed. 4 November 1922. Government of India. Elephant Preservation Act, 1879. Shimla: Government Central Press, 1879. Government of India. Indian Arms Act 1878. Shimla: The Government Press, 1892. Government of India. Indian Forest Act 1878. Shimla: Government Central Press, 1878. Government of India. Indian Forest Act 1927. New Delhi: Legislative Department. http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/fles/A1927-16_0.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2020). Government of India. Indian Penal Code 1860. http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/ fles/A1860-45.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2020). Government of India. Prohibition of Export of Birds, 1902, an Ordinance (Customs Circular No. 13, of 1902), 1902.

200

Bibliography

Government of India. The Wild Birds and Animals (Protection) Act, 1912. Shimla: The Government Press, 1912. Government of India. Wild Birds Protection Act 1887. Shimla: Government Press, 1887. Government of Madras. The Madras Wild Elephant Preservation Act. Madras: The Government Press, 1873. Government of Madras. The Nilgiris Game and Fish Preservation Act, 1879. Madras: The Government Press, 1879. Government of Madras. The Nilgiris Game and Fish Preservation Act, 1879 Notifcations. Madras: The Government Press, 1879. Government of Mysore. The Mysore Game and Fish Preservation Regulation, 1901. Mysore: Legislative Department, 1901. Government of Tamil Nadu. Madras Forest Act 1882. Chennai: The Director of Stationery and Printing, 1883. Hamilton, Douglas. Records of Sport in Southern India, etc. London: R.H. Porter, 1892. https://www.deccanherald.com/spectrum/spectrum—top—stories/breathing —life—into—dead—animals—733139.html. Hughes, Julie Elaine. Animal Kingdoms: Princely Power, the Environment, and the Hunt in Colonial India. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, December 2009. Hunter, W.W. The Indian Empire: Its People, History, and Products. London: Trubner & Co, 1886. James's Palace, S.W. The Prince of Wales' Eastern Book: A Pictorial Record of the Voyages of H.M.S. "Renown" 1921–1922. London: Hodder and Stoughton, Limited, 1922. Johnson, Daniel. Sketches of Field Sports as Followed by of with Observations on the Animals. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Browne, and Thomas Fowler, Great Torrington, Devon, 1822. Karanth, K. Ullas. Tiger Ecology and Conservation in the Indian Subcontinent. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 100 (2&3), pp. 169–189, 2003. Knight, John. Introduction. In Natural Enemies: People-Wildlife Conficts in Anthropological Perspective, edited by John Knight. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 1–35, 2000. Kumar, Deepak, Damodaran, Vinita and D’Souza, Rohan. Introduction. In The British Empire and the Natural World: Environmental Encounters in South Asia, edited by Deepak Kumar, Vinita Damodaran and Rohan D’Souza. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–13, 2011. Leveson, Henry Astbury. Sport in Many Lands. I. London: Chapman and Hall, 1877. Leveson, Henry Astbury. The Hunting Grounds of the old World. London: Saunders, Otley &Co, 1860. Mackenzie, John M. Forward. In Shooting a Tiger: Big Game Hunting and Conservation in Colonial India, edited by Vijaya Ramadas Mandala. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2018. Mackenzie, John M. The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation, and British Imperialism, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988. Maclean, C.D. Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, I. Madras: Government Press, 1985.

Bibliography

201

Mandala, Vijaya Ramadas. Shooting a Tiger: Big Game Hunting and Conservation in Colonial India. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Mandala, Vijaya Ramadas. The Making and Unmaking of the Gonds. History of Hunting Mores in Colonial India. Global Environment 10 (2), pp. 421–481, 2017. Mandala, Vijay Ramadas. The Raj and the Paradoxes of Wildlife Conservation: British Attitudes and Experiences. The Historical Journal 58 (1), pp. 75–110, 2015. Mandala, Vijaya Ramadas. Tiger Huntresses in the Company Raj: Environmentalism and Exotic Imaginings of Wildlife, 1830–45. International Review of Environmental History 5 (2), pp. 97–113, 2019. Mani, Fiona Natasha. British Hunters in Colonial India, 1900–1947: The Gentleman Hunter, New Technology, and Growing Conservationist Awareness. Pakistaniaat: A Journal of Pakistan Studies 4 (1), pp. 69–87, 2012. Maskell, Alfred. Ivories. London: Methuen and Co, 1905. McBride, Thaddeus. The Dangers of Liberal Neo-Colonialism: Elephants, Ivory and the CITES Treaty. Boston College Third World Law Journal 19 (2), pp. 733–757, 1999. Milburn, William. Oriental Commerce; Containing a Geographical Description of the Principal Places in the East Indies, China, and Japan, with Their Produce, Manufactures, and Trade. London: Black, Parry & Co, 1813. Milton, Lawrence. They Preserve Wild Spoils Year After Year. https://timesofndia .indiatimes.com/city/mysore/They—preserve—wild—spoils—year—after—year/ articleshow/10345185.cms?referral=PM (accessed on 20 April 2020). Morgan, W. and Macpherson, A.C. The Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) with Notes. Calcutta: G.C. Hay & Co and London: Blackfriars, 1863. Morris, R.C. Rarity of man—Eating Tigers in South India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 40 (1), pp. 177–178, 1946. Nicholson, F.A. Manual of the Coimbatore District in the Presidency of Madras, Vol. I. Madras: The Government Press, 1887. Oppert, Gustav. On the Ancient Commerce of India. Madras Journal of Literature and Science, pp. 188–231, 1878. Pandian, M.S.S. Gendered Negotiations: Hunting and Colonialism in the Late Nineteenth Century Nilgiris. Working Paper No. 112. Chennai: Madras Institute of Development Studies, 1993. Patel, Felix. The Sacrifce of Human Being: British Rule and the Konds of Orissa. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995. Phythian—Adams, E.G. The Nilgiri Game Association, 1879–1939. The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 41 (2), pp. 384–396, 1939. Prakash, Om. Wildlife Destruction: A Legacy of the Colonial State in India. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 67, pp. 692–702, 2006–2007. Prater, S.H. The Number of Tiger Shot in Reserved Forest in India and Burma During the Year 1937–1938. The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 41 (4), pp. 881–889, 1998. Price, Lloyd. Animals, Governance and Ecology: Managing the Menace of Venomous Snakes in Colonial India. Cultural and Social History 14 (2), pp. 201–217, 2017. Rangarajan, Mahesh. India's Wildlife History: An Introduction. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2001.

202

Bibliography

Rangarajan, Mahesh. The Raj and the Natural World: The War Against ‘Dangerous Beasts’ in Colonial India. Studies in History 14, pp. 265–299, 1998. Rangarajan, Mahesh. The Role of Administration in Extermination: Fresh Evidence on the Cheetah (Acinonyx Jubatus) in India. The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 95 (2), pp. 328–332, 1998. Rashkow, D Ezra. Making Subaltern Shikaris: Histories of the Hunted in Colonial Central India. South Asian History and Culture 5 (3), pp. 292–313, 2014. Report of Committee Appointed to Consider and Adopt Measures for the Protection of Crops from Wild Animals and Stray Cattle. Bombay: Government of Bombay,1923. Rice, William. Tiger Shooting in India: Being an Account of Hunting Experience on Foot in Rajpootana During the Hot Seasons, from 1850 to 1854. London: Smith, Elder and Co, 1857. Richards, F.J. Madras District Gazetteers Salem, Vol. I Part I. Madras: Government Press, 1916. Robinson, F.P. The Trade of the East India Company from 1709 to 1813. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912. Russell, C.E.M. Bullet and Shot in Indian Forest, Plain and Hill. London: W. Thacker and Co, 1900. Sanderson, George P. Thirteen Years among the Wild Beasts of India: Their Haunts and Habits from Personal Observation; with an Account of the Modes of Capturing and Taming Elephants. Edinburg: John Grant, 1882. Saravanan, Velayutham. Colonialism, Environment and Tribals in South India. London: Routledge, 2017. Saravanan, Velayutham. Dynamics of Development Initiatives. The Book Review 31 (2), pp. 79–80, 2008. (Community-Based Natural Resource Management: Issues and Cases from South Asia by Ajith Menon, Praveen Singh, Esha Shah, Sharachandra Lele, Suhas Paranjape and K.J. Joy, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 2007). Saravanan, Velayutham. Environmental History and Tribals in Modern India. Singapore: Palgrave, 2018. Saravanan, Velayutham. Political Economy of Modern South India. New Delhi (under review). Saravanan, Velayutham. Water and the Environmental History of Modern India. London: Bloomsbury, 2020. Shakespear, Henry. The Wild Sports of India. London: Smith, Elder and Co, 1859. Singh, Hari. Report of the Study Group on Wild Life and Wild Life Products. New Delhi: Department of Agriculture, 1967. Sixpence, Price. Feathers and Facts. London: Printed and Published for The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 1911. Skrine, Francis Henry. Life of Sir William Wilson Hunter. London: Longmans Greens Co, 1901. Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the Five-Years, 1879/80 to 1883/4. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1885. Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the Five-Years, 1883/4 to 1887/8. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1889. Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the Five-Years, 1886/7 to 1890/1. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1892.

Bibliography

203

Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the Five-Years, 1887/8 to 1891/2. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1893. Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the Five-Years, 1888/9 to 1892/3. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1894. Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the Five-Years, 1889/90 to 1893/4. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1895. Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the Five-Years, 1890/1 to 1894/5. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1896. Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the Five-Years, 1891/2 to 1895/6. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1897. Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the Five-Years, 1902/03 to 1906/07. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1908. Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the Five-Years, 1906/07 to 1910/11. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1912. Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the Five-Years, 1907/08 to 1911/12. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1913. Statement of the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the Five-Years, 1908/09 to 1912/13. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1914. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1840 to 1865. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1867. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1858 to 1867. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1869. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1860 to 1869. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1870. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1867/8 to 1876/7. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1878. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1876/7 to 1885/6. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1887. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1883/84 to 1887/8. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1889. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1885–86 to 1894–95. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1896. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1894–95 to 1903–04. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1905. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1903–04 to 1912–13. London: His Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1915. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1908–09 to 1917–18. London: His Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1920. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1910–11 to 1919–20. London: His Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1922. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1912–13 to 1921–22. London: His Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1925. Statistics and Commerce Department. Statistical Abstract Relating to British India from 1865 to 1877. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Offce, 1870.

204

Bibliography

Stebbing, E P. Game Sanctuaries and Game Protection in India. In Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, pp. 23–55, 1912. Stebbing, E.P. The Diary of a Sportsman Naturalist in India. London: John Lane Company, 1920. Steele, A.H. Sport. In Southern India: Its History, People, Commerce, and Industrial Resources, Compiled by Somerset Playne. London: The Foreign and Colonial Compiling and Publishing Co, pp. 420–426, 1914–1915. Stiles, Daniel. Hunter—Gatherer Trade in Wild Forest Products in the Early Centuries A.D. with the Port of Broach, India. Asian Perspective 32 (2), pp. 153–167, 1993. Summary of Speeches Made at Mysore on the Occasion of the First Meeting of the Central Board for Wild Life from 25th November to 1st December 1952. In The Preservation of Wildlife in India: A Compilation, edited by W.R. Burton. Bangalore: The Bangalore Press, 1953. Temple, Richard. India in 1880. London: John Murray, 1881. The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British India and Foreign Dependencies, 26, London: Allen and Co, pp. 363–364, 1828. The Governor General of Rajputana. The Abu Wild Birds Protection Law 1889. Calcutta: Government of India, 1889. The Prince in Calcutta; Or Memorials of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh’s Visits in December, 1869. Calcutta: Barham, Hill and Company and Bengal Printing Company Ltd, 1870. Thurston, Edgar. Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Vol. 3. Madras: Government Press, 1909. Thurston, Edgar. Monograph on the Ivory Carving Industry of Southern India. Madras: Government Press,1901. Thurston, Edgar. The Madras Presidency: With Mysore, Coorg and the Associated States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913. Trautmann, Thomas R. Elephants and Kings: An Environmental History. Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2015. Tyler, H.H.F.M. Fauna. In Southern India: Its History, People, Commerce, and Industrial Resources. Compiled by Playne, Somerset. London: The Foreign and Colonial Compiling and Publishing Co, pp. 186–201, 1914–1915. Visaria, Leela and Visaria, Pravin. Population (1857–1947). In The Cambridge Economic History of India, edited by Dharma Kumar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 463–532, 1983. Watt, George. The Commercial Products of India. London: John Murray, 1908. Wilkins, E.W. The District of Coimbatore: The Shervaroy Hills. In Southern India: Its History, People, Commerce, and Industrial Resources. Compiled by Somerset Playne. London: The Foreign and Colonial Compiling and Publishing Co, pp. 404– 407, 1914–1915. Williamson, Thomas. Oriental Field Sports, Vol. I. London: W. Pulmer and Co, 1808.

Index

Akbar 8, 9 animal bones 123, 135, 136, 141–148 Annamallay 21 Arunachalam Asari 35 Baypore 21 bears 11, 12, 18, 22, 25, 28, 31, 32, 36, 37, 81, 88, 100–103, 164, 169, 172 Bengal Presidency 26, 29, 89 Bharatpur 24, 124, 135 big game 6, 12, 14, 23, 24, 28, 39, 41, 44, 87, 100, 140, 162–164, 172, 175, 180 Bikaner 12, 13, 23, 135 bison 11, 12, 19, 21, 37, 63, 65, 112, 113, 115–117, 129, 140, 148, 157, 172–176, 194 boars 11, 67, 81 Bombay 22, 30, 37, 67, 68, 90–92, 98, 99, 104, 124, 125, 129, 130, 136, 154, 167, 182 bounties 6, 20, 26, 28–32, 38, 39, 41, 47, 123, 149, 174, 180, 195 Buchanan, Francis 68, 93 Calcutta 18, 22, 44, 124, 167 Central Provinces 18, 19, 26, 29, 31, 38, 61, 63, 64, 88, 90, 92, 98, 99, 104, 105, 130, 161, 163, 164, 169 Chatterton 139 cheetahs 11 Chittoor 43 Cochin 18, 44 Cohn, Bernard. S. 16 Coimbatore 11, 21, 26, 27, 39, 40, 88, 171, 180 commercialisation 1, 3, 5, 7, 41, 43–47, 59, 71, 103, 120, 122, 123, 140, 148, 160, 170, 184, 188

commodifcation 7, 35, 36, 41, 43, 45, 47, 60, 63, 74, 101, 122, 123, 131, 133, 148, 153, 179, 194, 195 Coorg 14, 18, 62, 64, 90–92, 98, 99 Cuddapah 43 Davidar, E. R. C. 171, 173 Dharwar 31, 68 economic history 41, 44, 120, 122 elephants 4, 8, 9, 11–14, 17, 20, 22–25, 28, 35, 38, 48, 56–59, 65–69, 77, 88, 95, 103, 108, 110–113, 118, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 140, 153, 158, 163, 172, 179, 180 elk 11, 33, 157 England 6, 20, 36, 83, 132, 133, 135, 137, 139, 148, 154, 155, 167, 169, 186 environmental history 1, 2, 5, 41, 44–48, 120, 161, 188, 194, 195 feathers 26, 117, 122, 129–133, 135, 138, 141, 142, 144–148 France 138 Ganjam 27, 31, 88 George Yule 18 Godavari 27, 28, 43, 68, 124 Gorakhpur 9 Government of Madras 27, 132–134 Governor-General 17, 18, 38, 114 Gujarat 68, 124, 130 hares 11, 12, 20, 21, 33, 34, 68, 112, 113, 116, 117, 131, 156 hides and skins 123, 137, 140–148 Himalayas 66, 101, 130, 138 hog-deer 11, 12

206

Index

horns 20, 23, 30, 36, 37, 42–43, 47, 112, 115, 116, 118, 120–123, 136–138, 141–148, 153, 157, 172, 182, 183 hunting excursion 10, 18 hyenas 11, 88, 95, 96, 101, 103, 172

Nizam’s Army 18 North Kanara 87 Northern Provinces 25, 26

ibex 11, 12, 21, 112, 113, 115, 116, 172–176 ivory, unmanufactured 141–143

panthers 11, 12, 18, 27, 32, 38, 67, 88, 93, 101, 103, 140, 164, 172 partridges 11, 12, 20, 21, 25, 33, 117 pea-fowl 11, 34, 112, 113 Pondicherry 20, 69 porcupines 11 Prince of Wales 16, 21, 23, 130 princely states 2, 12–14, 34, 58, 63

jackals 11, 67, 68, 80, 167, 172 Japan 138 Jodhpur 23, 124 junglefowl 11 jungle-sheep 11, 112 Karachi 22, 44 Kumaon 26, 63 Kurnool 31 large game 11, 18, 34, 101, 113, 173 leopards 9, 11–14, 20, 25, 28, 37, 69, 83, 84, 88, 93, 95, 96, 103, 138, 139, 163 Lucknow 8, 9, 10 Madras Presidency 12, 20, 30, 31, 37, 39, 40, 58, 62, 88, 101, 112, 127, 131–133, 159, 171, 180, 182 Maharaja of Cooch Berar 12 Maharaja of Mysore 9 Malabar 14, 171 Malda 18 man-eating tigers 3, 8, 9, 15, 20, 26, 27, 88, 158, 160 mid-eighteenth century 5, 9, 58, 60, 159, 188 mid-twentieth century 7, 8, 42, 46, 60, 82, 123, 148, 165, 178, 188, 189, 194 Mughal period 9 Mumbai 44 Mysore 9, 10, 12–14, 31, 34, 36–38, 62, 64, 68, 90–92, 98, 99, 104, 116, 124, 158, 167, 170, 180, 182 Nagpore 19, 29–31, 69 native poachers 38 Nawab of Tonk 12 Nellore 43 Nepal 22, 24–26, 188 Nilgiris 5, 6, 34, 37–41, 104, 112, 113, 115, 125, 138, 159, 171–175, 180

Ootacamund 18, 37, 38, 167, 168, 172

quail 11, 12, 34, 112, 113, 116, 117, 131, 173, 177 Rajasthan 130 Rajputana 2, 13, 18, 22, 31, 114 rhinoceroses 9, 25, 117 Satyamangalam 27 Sheveroy Hills 19 snipe 11–13, 20–22, 34, 113, 117, 173, 177, 187 South Canara 31 Southern India 124, 148 spotted-deer 11, 12, 115 spur-fowl 11, 113 state of Mysore 12 tanning industry 137 Tipu Sultan 10 Travancore 14, 34, 38, 57, 63, 65, 71, 108, 124–126, 128 tribals 1, 5, 8, 63, 120, 138, 159–161, 170, 178, 186 Van Ingen & Van Ingen 36, 37, 173 Vizagapatam 27, 31, 44, 88, 124, 126, 127, 129 Western Ghats 26, 112 wild dogs 172, 174, 178 wolves 11, 28, 32, 77, 83, 84, 86, 88, 95, 96, 101, 103, 164 woodcock 11, 116, 117, 173 Wynaad Jungle 11 Wynaud 10, 69 Yercaud hills 11