The Actors

So who are the actors and what can they do about this conflict? What do they want to do? Who gets to do what they want to do?

LEOPARDS

The leopards seem to be the most agentive actors in this conflict. They are solitary, territorial animals that have the ability to live near humans (Athreya & Belsare 27). They are also protected by the Wildlife Protection Act (1972), so cannot be legally killed or seriously hurt. Many scientists think that animals like leopards retain the right to live wherever they want to. One of the scientists I interviewed saw tea estates as encroachments into leopard habitat. “We have encroached into the leopard’s habitat and now question their presence here”, he said. Most of the workers I interviewed also did not seem disturbed leopards preying on their livestock occasionally so long as humans remained safe. Moreover, in some regions of India, leopards are thought of deities (ProjectWaghoba) and have social agency. Thus, it seems that the leopards are well placed to have their requirements of a territory and food fulfilled.

However, these animals are also at the mercy of the Government’s policies. Translocation, as explained in the previous section increases conflict; it also agitates the leopard. The leopard is traumatised by its sudden displacement, much as humans face culture shock (NatGeo). So it seems that the conservationists and the Government co-opts the leopard, and the leopard itself is not the social agent in this context. However, as I mentioned previously, leopards can have a different kind of social agency in the eyes of local people when it is seen as a deity or as a spiritual force.

 

WORKERS AND RESIDENTS

Workers of tea plantations seem to the most disenfranchised when it comes to making conservation decisions. This is apparent from the fact that while 2 of 3 of my worker interviewees said that they would rather have the leopards removed from the plantations, it is still illegal for a leopard to be harmed.

However, there are instances like during the 2014 worker strike in Limbuguri Tea Estate when the workers managed to make their voices heard. Even though the plantation worker force is a historically oppressed group of people, they can hold the management accountable if need be. Additionally, workers might possess idiosyncratic knowledge about leopards because they have to share land with these animals. This knowledge (as described in the next section) has become very valuable to scientists in recent times.

 

MANAGEMENT

The management has the role of seeing to the fulfilment of workers’ interests while also upholding the conservation policies set by the Government. According to Sajan Agarwalla, Manager of Limbuguri Tea Estate, leopards are not a concern for the management as long as it is not a concern for the workers.

The management has the power to set the internal policies of the estate, which can have a big impact on how the conflict plays out. The management of Ethelwold Tea Estate decided to get Rainforest Alliance Certified. As a result, signs were put up in the plantation that said things like ‘DO NOT HUNT WILD ANIMALS’. Suraj talked about these signs while responding to a question about whether or not leopards should be allowed to live in the plantations. Clearly, decisions taken by the management has influence over its employees. However, the management has to work with the Forest Department on everything relating to leopards, and cannot violate any of the Government’s policies on how conservation should be done.

 

SCIENTISTS

Science informs the government about how best to make conservation policies, and so the agency of the scientist lies in their position to make recommendations to policy makers. “Wildlife biologists and science can only tell what could be and should be done but the action on the ground has to come from the Government through the Forest Department”, said biologist AJT Johnsingh. Doug Bolger went further to say that it wasn’t the scientist’s place to make conservation decisions. In the end these decisions are political, he said, and need to be made by the political institutions of the area.

According to Vidya Athreya, scientists work as catalysts with the different stakeholders so that change can be brought about. In this sense, the scientists are the mediators between the various actors involved. However, scientists too have personal biases and cannot be completely objective mediators. Two of the three scientists I interviewed said that they thought that wildlife conservation was a moral imperative in their opinion, and that human interventions were necessary in order to save endangered species.

 

GOVERNMENT

The Government holds most of the decision making power when it comes to making conservation laws. Conservation has historically been the responsibility of the Government, and it seems that all wildlife is property of the Government. Unfortunately, my research on the Government’s interests is incomplete, as I did not get an opportunity to interview any Government officials.

A Human Leopard Conflict Management Guidelines’ booklet written by conservation scientists and published by the Government.