​Out of the fortress: On protecting India‘s tigers

A new Union Tribal Affairs Ministry policy framework is a reminder that India’s conservation strategy is not a fortress conservation model but one in which protecting the country’s tigers is a social contract. The policy’s foremost virtue is reiteration that people living near or inside forests cannot be relocated until the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 process has been completed, affirming that they are stakeholders, not trespassers. This view has sadly been falling out of favour with a government that is increasingly seeing forests solely for their climate utility and a judiciary keen to settle long-standing disputes. The policy casting relocation as an “exceptional” measure also overturns the 2024 National Tiger Conservation Authority directive to remove villages en masse from tiger reserves. Instead of treating humans and tigers as mutually exclusive, the framework promotes research and pilot projects on sustainable co-habitation that could help redefine tiger conservation through a more socially legitimate, and possibly more resilient model. Its invocation of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for unlawful evictions and a three-tier system for redress also provide a safety net rarely available to these communities.

This said, forest-dependent communities have varied needs: some expect hospitals and schools while others fight to preserve traditional lifestyles. Equally, tigers are sensitive and the reason many conservationists believe human-free core zones are essential to conserve apex predators. A national mission to protect tigers on scientific terms needs to ensure such tracts. Fundamentally, while a national policy protects rights, fine-grained mechanisms sensitive to particular local conditions are crucial for people and tigers to sustainably coexist. Such mechanisms are however beyond the ability of top-level Ministries. The conservation establishment is likely to resist the new policy because it could slow efforts to consolidate tiger habitats and increase the implementation burden, potentially leading to dual policies on the ground. In fact, conservation in India is largely controlled by Forest Departments under the Environment Ministry and States have wide latitude in implementing the FRA. Even in places where local departments wield significant control, forced relocations may continue in States that do not enforce the proposed National Framework for Community-Centred Conservation and Relocation. While existing policy defines compensation criteria and the minimum inviolate area for a sustainable population, their implementation often violates established principles. Just as the fortress model has often been insensitive to people’s rights in practice, exiting it should not mean entering one in which India’s natural riches can be forsworn.