Friday, March 25, 2011

The conflict between haves and have nots

The conflict between ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-nots’

Terms ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-nots’ mentioned in the title above are not used here in the conventional sense along the line of ‘wealth’ as it is the common practice, instead, they are used to imply the ‘Haves’ of common sense (human being) and ‘Have-nots’ of common sense (animals). The topic discussed here is related to the escalation of menace of wild animals both in the form of human causality and agricultural destruction reported from various parts of the country in general and Kerala, in particular. According to the latest estimate, about seventy five people have lost their lives in the wild animals attack and losses of human property to the tune of crores of rupees in the state of Kerala. Interestingly, farmers from the hilly areas of the Kasargod district even organised a formal agitation in front of the office of the district administration to protest against the inaction of the district administrative authorities to protect their life and property from the attack of wild animals. Given this scenario, it is pertinent to ask the question that who is actually responsible for this kind of an unfortunate situation?

To answer this question we have to first identify possible stake holders in this conflict. Obviously, there are only two players involved. On the one hand, there are innocent wild animals and on the other hand, there are the so called ‘civilised’ human beings. Then, can we find fault with animals that indulge in the destruction spree and thereby seek action against them? Undoubtedly we can say that no. Before embarking upon deliberating why wild animals should never be held responsible for this issue, we have to concede in advance that the very human is invariably responsible for the development of this situation. Now let us look at the plausible reasons or factors which force animals to resort this type of extreme steps. Essentially two possible factors can be cited in defence of animals. One is in the form of what is called “pull factor” in the form of environmental degradation which drove wild animals out of their natural habitat in search of substance for their survival in the form of food and water. The second one is the “push factor” in the form of invasion of forest land by the human being to quench their pecuniary greed or to ward off the pressure form uncontrolled population growth.

To dwell upon the “pull factor”, it is quite evident that if wild animals are ensured of decent living condition or put otherwise, if their already existing decent living condition is not trampled upon by an external force, they are no longer expected to even to come close to the human habitat, let alone claiming human life and destruction of their property. Hence, we have to deduce that the habitat of wild lives might have got disturbed to the extent that animals find it difficult to survive there. It is in order to pose another question here that what actually might have resulted in the shaking up of the traditional ecological habitat of wild animals. Undoubtedly one can argue that it is the brutal consequences of the so called development agenda initiated by human being in a variety of forms including rapid industrialisation. We, the human being, embarked upon a development strategy to serve our wicked market oriented capitalist whims and fancies disregarding its possible fall out on the environment and ecological system. Recent developments at the global level in the form of global warming and subsequent climate change hold testimony to this argument. Specifically, Kerala like many other states in India has witnessed hither-to unfamiliar climate conditions such as unseasonal heavy rain destroying vast swaths of agriculture and allied activities. Given this, how can we repudiate the possibility of a crisis caused by this kind of an erratic climate over wild life in the form of the destruction of sources of their livelihood and other means of life? Thus, the larger issue of threat of wild animals to human life as well as human property has to be taken up in this specific context. For, it is a known truth that many herbal plants extensively spotted in the paddy fields of Kerala at a time when paddy and other agricultural varieties like vegetables were routinely cultivated and eco-friendly fertilizers were used have been surprisingly disappeared from the paddy fields when the same land had been used for the cultivation of commercial crops using toxic chemical fertilizers. Besides, this practice had badly affected the ecological system of such areas which was overwhelmingly manifested in the form of wounds among fishes and gradual disappearance of species like earth-worms. Therefore, this incursion of wild animals to the human habitat ought to be seen as a means of their subsistence in the face of danger caused by the same human being rather than being looked at thought the conventional prism of animal threat.

Secondly, the “push factor” deemed to be responsible for this episode emanates out of the unbridled growth of population and subsequent pressure on limited land. The ever increasing population in our country seemingly results in a situation in which people are forced to trespass into the forest areas both for agricultural as well as dwelling purposes. This trend ostensibly exerts pressure and strain upon the smooth flow of the wild life forcing them to retaliate in their own way. However, these jungle folks bear the brunt of mistakes committed by human being.

Thus, the issue of threat of wild animals can be compared with the historical labour migration. Labour migration takes place at the instance of either push factors or pull factors. Animals are facing threats to their life, for instance, in the form of shortage of food on account of the senseless intervention of the human beings in the proper functioning of ecology. Besides, they are getting sidelined by human being due to want of land to ease the pressure of growing population. Therefore, this problem of wild animal threat to human beings clearly presents a situation where in the lop-sided market driven development agenda of the human beings has boomeranged on themselves. But, this is not say that people like poor farmers, whose agricultural products get destroyed under wild animal attack, deserve this kind of treatment from animals. Instead, this is an attempt to analyse this issue with a critical perspective on our development path. Because it is not fitting to common sense to expect hungry wild elephant remain calm as plenty of plantine cultivation exists.

No comments:

Post a Comment