This article presents the first Ravi Sankaran Memorial Lecture, by Mahesh Rangarajan, Bangalore, 2 August 2012: "Conservation as if Democracy Mattered". The lecture forcefully argues that the goals of both democracy and wildlife conservation are linked, and need to be addressed together.

TR Shankar Raman begins with an overview of Ravi Sankaran's life. Ravi Sankaran was an ornithologist and field biologist. Shankar Raman talks of his research and work, especially his popular and scientific writings on floricans. Sankaran also worked on endemic species in the Andaman and Nicobar islands. The video shows a short clip of Ravi working with nest collectors to conserve edible nest swiftlets.

MD Madhusudan introduces Mahesh Rangarajan as a historian, a researcher, an author and a political analyst. Rangarajan is currently director of the Nehru Memorial museum and library in Delhi.

Mahesh Rangarajan begins by talking of the multiple facets of Ravi Sankaran's life from student to engaging with policy. Leadership roles involve stepping away from one's own research. Nevertheless, this is important. He narrates the story of Uma Mansing and quotes her 'I do not know if it is possible to save the Himalayas, but I am convinced I want to spend the rest of my life doing so'

Going further from this inspiration, the picture of conservation in India can appear depressing to one person and inspiring to another. At the same time, India cannot be considered separate from the sub-continent. Our view of the Indian landscape is that of a village encircled by a forest. This view excludes other important landscapes such as grasslands and mountains. In this landscape of various ecosystems, we are living through great upheaval. The 60s and 70s saw great political events. This was also reflected in the environmentalist movement.

In India, this period and this upheaval led to some significant changes in government policy. These began with the nationalisation of banks and abolishment of privy purses. Nationalisation of banks freed up credit, and made the green revolution possible. This is important, because in mergers, many princes retained hunting rights. This was lost with the abolishment of privy purses.

The initial conservation policy as stated during the initiation of Project Tiger was ' not to do anything, and not to let anyone do anything'. This meant abolishing all human activity and rendering nature inviolate. This is a significant turning point in Indian forestry, which till then involved maximising use of forests to contribute to revenue generation. This change in policy indicates that a sense of environmentalism had crept into the forest department.

Rangarajan also discusses the issue of nationalism, which deals with the unity of a very diverse people. The impact of this duality is seen in conservation, where sanctuaries were created not only be excluding industries from these lands, but also excluding local peoples who are dependent on these resources.This view of exclusionary conservation had its birth during colonial times, as is proved by a quote from Rudyard Kipling. Democracy released aspiration for equality. It also saw the decay of feudalism and the rise of the small holder. However, this New India stopped at the threshold of the Reserve Forest, where the forest department acquired princely forests within its umbrella. It also acquired power as it was now seen as a safeguarder of forests.

In the 1980s, India began to live through a new democratic upheaval where no single party came into power. The Forest Conservation Act was launched at this time, partly spurred by the new satellite images that demonstrated the actual forest cover vis-a-vis the land under the forest department. Initially, this slowed the rate at which forest land was transferred to non-forest uses, and so slowed the denudation of forests. Literal implementation however, soon led to all forest dwellers being termed encroachers. This impacted people who did not benefit at all from the agricultural reforms of that time.

The Forest Rights Act of 2006, recognised that forest dwellers have suffered injustice. This will have both positive and negative dimensions which will be evident in the course of time. However, it is interesting that the same groups who lucidly argued against this act are now arguing against the recent Supreme Court order against tourism in core areas of National Parks. While tourism is not obviously consuming resources, Dr.Rangarajan points out the impact of water withdrawal, infrastructure and construction. In addition, most visitors are urban affluent people which alienates local people and further lessens their sense of ownership of the forest. Increased consumerism that follows increased growth, damages the larger ecological fabric. This is exemplified by the plight of vultures, groundwater, fish biodiversity, change of NPK balance in the soil.

Rangarajan argues that the perceived 'development vs environment' dilemma is not inevitable. Democracy is one of the reasons why this is not an either/or choice. In the 1970s, population growth was a raging concern in both India and China. Both the countries, nearly at the same time, opted for a small family norm. In India, compulsory sterilization was quickly rejected proving that democracy provides a check against the arbitrary use of power. The danger of 'conservation' is that it can be considered akin to keeping something- either an ecosystem or a social order- in stasis. Conserving nature in the operational sense must necessarily take cognizance of the following:

• It is necessary to make some spaces for nature
• The process of making these spaces needs to be aware of events outside which may negate conservation efforts within the space.
• This process needs to be carried out in a law-governed and just manner.

The example of firewood collection in national parks is used to explain the diversity of issues related to conservation. In addition to setting aside spaces for nature, for these spaces to fulfil their potential, it is necessary to tackle the larger social issues that may threaten the forest.

Conservation today requires us to move beyond a blind faith in either the State, the market or the community. One of the great challenges of our time is to empower people while also crafting spaces for nature. Democracy allows one to carry out a range of experiments that embrace diversity in statecraft, societal experiment, and cultural expression.

Question & Answer session

The following questions were raised:

• Srikanth of CES points out that the necessity of a conference on conservation is itself a matter of concern. One reason is the increasing population. Why  is it that environmentalists do not address the issue to a greater degree?
• There is a great extent of state involvement in conservation. Are the various Acts necessary? Community forestry is successful in Orissa, notably in the case of black buck. Recognising the co-existence of wildlife and humans may negate the necessity of new laws.
• Mrs.Gandhi was instrumental in passing some dictatorial laws aimed at conservation. Which of the two- democracy or dictatorship- work better for conservation of wildlife? Does it make sense to split environment and forests, as is being contemplated in the Ministry?
• The forest rights Act is considered to be good for democracy but bad for wildlife. Are there any social disadvantages of the Forest Rights Act?
• How is the government going to agree with empowering the villagers that collect firewood and dung from the Bandipur sanctuary?

Rangarajan began his replies by first stating that at the centre of all our decisions lies the fact that India is a society of people who are largely players in the unorganised sector, with a corresponding dependence on biomass for fuel. This dependence cannot be done away with, but may be reduced. One way is to shift to gas, which is a capitalist approach. How can we use people's desire for a better future to make space for nature? The Economic Times was the only English daily to applaud the Forest Rights Act, and it did so on the basis that property was being transferred from the state to the individual. The notion that every individual works for his/her own good, and this results in societal good is a deeply held belief. Our dilemma that every action needs to benefit the individual also needs to benefit the collective, and this is an area in which the Forest Rights Act might fall short of the ideal.

Is dictatorship or democracy better, is a large question which needs a reading of the book 'When a billion Chinese jump' by Watts. we are living through an experiment in democracy. One indicator of its success is that Indians who do not agree on any matters of policy are unanimous in wanting this experiment to continue.

Do we need the state? Community conservation without laws works with smaller groups, and need to be studied and celebrated. However, at a national level, the structure and clarity provided by laws and acts are necessary.

Are we avoiding demographics? Yes, but for a reason. A large part of  India, especially the coastal states are gradually trending towards net replacement. The question that remains is that of northern India. Decrease in family size is closely linked to gender empowerment. These issues are closely linked with environment, and need to be discussed.

Conclusion:

While conservation efforts are aimed at rescuing endangered species, it is also true that all vulnerable groups are endangered. With this viewpoint, we need to think of democracy as a conservation matter, and of conservation as a democracy matter. How to do that is the challenge- and the excitement. Collective endeavours, through reason and debate, are the stuff of democracy.

This lecture was organised by Ravi Sankaran Foundation , Inlaks Shivdasani Foundation, and the Student Conference on Conservation Science -- Bangalore .