Why wildlife activists have criticised Chhattisgarh forest wing's call to boycott poaching accused
A Raipur-based activist has written to the Chhattisgarh CM and state chief secretary to stop the forest department's proposed social boycott of wildlife offenders
Chhattisgarh’s forest department has called for a ‘social boycott’ of those accused of wildlife crimes, such as poaching, in the state as part of a strategy to deal with the problem.
The rationale behind the move, according to critics akin to decrees by ‘khaap panchayats’, has been questioned by wildlife activists on grounds that it violates constitutional rights and guarantees and could foment unrest.
During a meeting chaired on December 24 by the state’s chief wildlife warden A.K. Pandey and attended by Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers, including those heading field formations in tiger reserves, it was decided that the forest department would take the help of village heads, religious leaders, influential persons and social organisations to create awareness against poaching.
It was also decided that during meetings to be held with such figures, photos of poaching cases would be shared and an appeal made to penalise and socially ostracise the accused (mentioned as ‘criminals’ in the minutes of the meeting). The first such meeting was proposed at the Sitanadi Udanti Tiger Reserve and Kawardha forest division, which includes the Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary, since these areas have more poaching cases.
Raipur-based wildlife activist Nitin Singhvi sourced the minutes of the meeting through RTI and wrote to the Chhattisgarh chief minister and state chief secretary for their intervention to stop the planned social boycott of wildlife offenders.
“Social boycott means cutting someone off society, culture, economic activity and family. It also means to embarrass them publicly. In rural areas, and especially tribal settings, this kind of boycott could have serious ramifications on an individual’s life,” said Singhvi, adding that it could even drive one to taking their life.
Social boycotts are severe in tribal and rural societies and also have a direct bearing on the family of the person being subjected to it. Singhvi said that prima facie such a call for boycott appeared to be in violation of protections and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. “What happens if the accused is found not guilty by the courts? How would the person be compensated for the loss suffered from the social boycott?” asked Singhvi.
Subscribe to India Today Magazine