On May 8th 2015, Rampal Saini, a forest guard at the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve, in Rajasthan, lost his life to a tiger, T24, also known as Ustad. Saini, was 56 years old, and for 27 years he had been a gate keeper at the reserve, one who would faithfully note the vehicle numbers of devotees trekking up the four-kilometre rugged pathway to the Ganesha temple atop the Ranthambore Fort inside the national park.
On that fateful day, Saini, who had been looking out for Ustaad for some time, was informed that the tiger had been sighted nearby his post. As he ventured into the reserve to look behind the hedges, the tiger jumped on him and mauled him to death. Two other guards trailing close by raised an alarm, but by the time a rescue jeep came and chased Ustaad away, after some drama (the tiger chased the jeep too), Saini was a corpse.
T24 was labeled a ‘man-eater’ and it was time to cage one of India’s national animals, and the subject of much conservation activity. This became a reality, when, eight days later, on May 16th, T24 was caught and put in a 7 x 4 foot cage. By that time he had killed four people in five years.
Forest officials then drove him over 400 km away to Sajjangarh Biological Park in Udaipur, which would be his new abode for some time. Officials monitoring his integration in the new environment say that he is coping well.
However there are many who disagree with the nomenclature of ‘man eater’ being applied to T24, and his being translocated to a new habitat. Support for Ustad is rife on the social media, and in candlelight marches. Ustaad though, is oblivious to the storm around him, and contemplating his fate silently as is evidenced in CCTV footage.
The ‘Man Eater’ tag
T24’s fans are getting increasingly upset with the ‘ Man Eater’ tag for T24. “It was T25 ‘Zaalim’ who was the aggressive one. If your eyes met his, he would growl. But Ustad was never like that. Hundreds of devotees crossed his way daily but he never chased after them.” Bina Kak, former minister in the Rajasthan govt. is reported to have told the Indian Express. Kak goes on to show a picture of three women carrying stacks of fuelwood and walking on a dirt track coming face to face with Ustad. Even as the women freeze seeing the giant, Ustad ignores them and walks off. “Does a man-eater behave like that? Every time Ustad has killed anybody, it’s because that person got too close to him and intruded into his space,” she says. Kak is also worried about T24’s health in his new home. “His constipation may worsen at the park as there is less space for him to walk. At the reserve, where he walked several kilometres, he would be administered enema to treat severe bouts of constipation.”
Wildlife activists debate Ustaad’s move
While many wildlife activists are up in arms against Ustaad’s translocation, there are those in favour too.
Valmik Thapar, one of India’s most respected wildlife experts and conservationists, said relocating Ustad was the best option: “In my 40 years of experience of the tigers of Ranthambore, T-24 is the most dangerous tiger I have ever encountered. He killed four people, including two forest guards and two locals. The local villagers were partly eaten. The forest guards were not eaten because their bodies were retrieved keeping the tiger at bay.
On the other hand, Madhusudan, a senior photo journalist and wildlife photographer from Mysuru had a different view. Speaking to Newskarnataka.com, he said, “ I don’t consider a tiger which killed a human being as a Man eater because whenever a Tiger kills a human it doesn’t mean that it has killed to eat. Rarely does a tiger kill humans for food”.
“It does make sense to shift a tiger to a zoo when it has lost the fear of human beings rather than translocating the animal to another natural habitat, which may result in an animal- animal conflict over territory and result in the loss of one them under the law of the jungle “Survival of the Fittest”, he added.
Reacting to the death of translocated Tigers in the past he said “Whenever a Tiger is translocated it should be kept under observation and monitored which gives a clear picture of the behavior of the Tiger. Most the time, the translocated Tiger dies because the Tiger finds it difficult to adjust with the new territory”
Focus on the eco system
There is some truth in this argument. It makes sense to focus on the species and the eco system rather than one tiger. Every wild tiger requires a prey base of 500 animals to sustain it. To save the tiger species for future generations to admire, authorities will need to think of increasing the forest area and the number of other animals too as a balanced eco system can prevent wild animals from becoming man eaters.
Translocation is not the only solution. It is difficult to blame wildlife for human-wildlife conflict, because the animals are simply, doing what animals do. On the other hand, if humans view wildlife as pests, as damaging to their livelihoods, or as a danger to their community or family, then wildlife is going to lose. The challenge for conservationists is to somehow change those attitudes by offering practical and effective solutions.
Ullas Karanth, renowned tiger scientist reiterates this philosophy in his write up about the conflict between man and Tiger “On rare occasions, tigers may accidentally attack persons moving in dense cover, mistaking them for prey, or in self-defense, when surprised. Sometimes they may even consume the victim. But if they do not subsequently prey on humans, these tigers also cannot be called “maneaters.” However, attacks occur when uncontrollable mobs surround and harry “problem tigers” when they venture out of reserves. Such tigers are not “man eaters.”
Given this inevitable annual loss of 20 per cent in thriving populations, trying to “rescue” a few man-eating tigers is irrelevant to accomplishing the conservation objective of expanding and stabilising wild tiger populations. Tigers involved in conflict incidents are often seriously injured, infirm or old. If captured and removed to a zoo, they suffer a life of perpetual stress from years in captivity. Caring for these doomed tigers misdirects scarce resources that could be used for conserving their wild relatives. Sadly, for old and injured “conflict tigers,” a humane and quick death may be the best option.
Well-meaning animal lovers often do not understand that in high-pressure conflict situations, safe chemical capture of a free-ranging tiger is difficult or even impossible. Darting a stressed out animal playing hide-and-seek is an extremely difficult task. On the other hand, shooting the animal with a gun is often far easier, and saves human lives”.
Dismissing the allegations of a hasty relocation bypassing authorities, Chief Wildlife Warden R K Tyagi told the Indian Express, “We did inform the NTCA and due procedure was followed.” Sahoo cites a provision in the Wildlife Act 1972 that empowers the chief wildlife warden to declare a tiger a ‘threat to human life’ and order its relocation, captivity or shooting. Citing the shooting of a tiger in the Nilgiris after it had killed two people, forest officials say “we showed more sensitivity by just sending Ustad away”.
However this is not the first time that such a translocation has taken place. A five-year-old male tiger, was translocated from Ranthambore to Sariska in June 2008 with disastrous results – it was later found dead in the Sariska reserve.
Wildlife tourism – part of the problem
Overcrowding of popular national parks and reserves have damaged the landscape and disturbed the wildlife migration and mating patterns, creeping closer and closer to wildlife. Madhusudan, the photographer, says “in every reserve, safaris are conducted in an unethical way and the biggest problem with safaris is that photographers follow the animals into their environment in the hope of capturing photographs and disturb the animals. Ban on Safaris in reserves will be a good idea in order to save wildlife for long time he added”.
Indeed, the Supreme court, following a public interest litigation, imposed a ban on Safaris in reserves in mid-July 2012 but after 4 months, it restored the status quo.
Former chief wildlife warden R N Mehrotra blames the spurt of tourists for changing T24. “Before T24, there was barely any sighting in Zone 1. But once it came, visitors and tourists were unleashed on this tiger, causing it to change its behaviour,” he says. T 24, Mehrotra adds, is a “a bold and fearless animal, a beautiful specimen the reserve should have never parted with”. Officials “succumbed to pressure of hoteliers and relocated T24 in haste”, he claimed, implying that some feared his reputation would scare tourists away.
T24 now in the Supreme Court
Chandra Bhal Singh, a tiger lover, filed a petition in the Rajasthan High Court, requesting the court to direct repatriation of T24 to his home turf. The court refused to give an urgent hearing to his PIL on the issue, and the disappointed Singh approached the Supreme Court. Even as the SC asked officials to maintain status quo, it directed the High Court to hear the petition, which it has now agreed to do on May 28th.
Many Big Cat lovers are awaiting the outcome of the petition.
