Redpath et al. define conservation conflicts (aka human-wildlife conflicts) as “‘situations that occur when two or more parties with strongly held opinions clash over conservation objectives and when one party is perceived to assert its interests at the expense of another” (100). This definition suggests that human-wildlife conflicts are largely composed of human-human conflicts. What was thought of as a conflict of interest between all wildlife and all humans, now becomes a conflict of interest amongst human actors. While the leopard, as a non-human entity is still relevant in talking about goat killings in Limbuguri Tea Estate, the backgrounds and agendas of the different human actors involved become equally important subjects of study under this new framework.
Biology remains an important way of thinking about these conflicts, but it seems that the emphasis on conservation biology has kept the whole picture from being developed. Our understandings of humans and leopards have developed independent of each other because conservation biology has traditionally treated the human and non human as separate (Ghosal et al. 2674). Moreover, in India at least, predators are only studied in terms of large charismatic carnivores like tigers living in pristine protected areas. The canon of conservation biology has “purified” landscapes (Ghosal 2675), and thus removed humans from conversations and decisions about how non-humans affect humans and vice versa. Thus, scholars like Redpath and Athreya call for interdisciplinary studies to be conducted on this subject because “conservation conflicts cannot be fully understood from a single paradigm, but require integration of conceptual approaches developed by many disciplines” (Redpath 101). It seems that conservation scientists have begun to recognize this. The scientists I interviewed agree that humans are an essential piece of the puzzle (if not the whole of it). They agree that it is essential that scientists “understand the larger social, cultural and political contexts in which these negative interactions take place” (Athreya, interview). There is a need for research to include the human dimension.
New ways of addressing leopard-human conflicts stem from the development of this school of thought.
Vidya Athreya talks about the existence of a social carrying capacity, in addition to the ecological carrying capacity when it comes to leopards. This capacity is a measure of the human acceptance of situations in which humans and wildlife share multi-use landscapes (Athreya et al. 6). While ecological carrying capacities have to do with limited resources, the social carrying capacity is something else altogether. In my interview with Athreya, she explains, “the social carrying capacity has nothing to do with human population density or [physical] space, rather it resides within the mind space of people. If people accept the animals, they will do it despite their high population density; if they do not want the animals, they will kill them even if human density is very low.” The solution to the conflicts then lies in increasing this human capacity to co-exist with animals.
It seems that the social carrying capacity is quite high among the workers in tea estates with few leopards like Ethelwold Tea Estate. “I do feel a little afraid”, Suraj, a worker in this plantation said, “but they don’t really cause many problems here”. However, workers who have personally faced a leopard seem to be quite unaccepting of these animals living in the plantation.
There is also an increased emphasis in integration of local knowledge into scientific studies. Doug Bolger says, “You can learn a lot about [leopards] from the people who have been living with them for a long time”. In a similar vein, Vidya Athreya thinks that biologists have not been humble enough to learn about the “zillion” traditional practices geared towards dealing with wild animals that are time tested. In response to the possibility that the interests of the local people who hold this traditional knowledge may be incompatible with the conservationist’s agenda, she said, “that local people are against the aims of the scientist is a misconception”. She said that scientists have to take the initiative to understand local interests and get their hands dirty in real conservation work.
Project Waghoba is one such step Vidya Athreya and her colleagues have taken towards getting their hands dirty. The Project is built upon the idea that Waghoba, a feline deity for certain tribes in Western India, is an illustration of the fact that alternative [to the western scientific] conceptions of leopards do exist (Athreya, The Indian Express). Conceptualising the leopard as a deity helps people build their social carrying capacity for leopards, and creates space for a more peaceful co-existence.
Understanding traditional practices like these in Assam could be very helpful in understanding leopard human conflicts here. In fact, Suraj touched upon a way the local community may understand the presence on leopards in the plantation. “Maybe they [leopards] can be helpful as well… maybe they can protect us against other animals or even humans that try to enter the garden… If foreign entities come inside the garden, then the leopards will maybe protect us”, Suraj said. This idea can perhaps be explored in further study in the region.
I have talked about two broad ways people think about leopards- as biological entities separate from humans, or as an entity with social agency (as in the case of believers in Waghoba). Ghosal and Kjosavik say that people can be subscribers of both these ontologies (1092). My interviewees too seemed to be influenced by both these ways of thinking. While the Manager of Limbuguri Tea Estate thought that leopards should live in forests and not in human populated areas, he also described the leopards he had seen in very human terms. He said that one of the leopards that had been trapped was beautiful, but agitated. Similarly, most of the interviewees seemed to be very excited when talking about their personal interactions with leopards and animated them with human emotions and motivations.
Leopards exist in tea plantations and will continue to live here in the near future. While conflict resolution remains complex, it seems that one of the first steps reaching a resolution is for the actors in this conflict with the most decision making power to understand the ontologies of the other actors. Of course, this project is not meant to provide recommendations, but only to collate different perspectives and ideas in a single platform. I hope that in this, it has been at least partially successful.