The Fourth Plate

India’s approach to wildlife conservation has evolved significantly over time through its forest policies. The British authored 1894 Forest Policy didn’t mention wildlife at all, rightly so, as wildlife was “game” then. The colonial policy was largely focused on commercial timber production rather than biodiversity or animal protection.

It was not until the 1952 Forest Policy that wildlife began to receive serious attention. This post Independence policy recognized the urgent need to protect the animal kingdom, especially rare and endangered species like the lion and the one-horned rhinoceros, which were rapidly declining. It called for stronger laws to regulate bird and animal life and recommended creating sanctuaries and large national parks to preserve rare fauna. To coordinate these efforts, a Central Board for Wildlife was established. 

A paradigm shift came only with the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, which was India’s first comprehensive wildlife law. It banned hunting for sport across the country and laid the foundation for a legal framework to protect various species.

However, in cases of man-animal conflict, the Act allows the government to declare certain species, excluding those in Schedule I and some in Schedule II, as vermin for a limited period. This means they can be hunted to manage conflict, with the idea that targeted culling may offer a short-term solution.

Integrating Wildlife Conservation into Forest Management: The 1988 Policy

The 1988 Forest Policy took wildlife conservation to a different dimension. It clearly stated that forest management must prioritize the needs of wildlife and emphasized integrating wildlife protection measures directly into forest management plans. Importantly, the policy highlighted the need for creating wildlife corridors, natural pathways linking protected areas, to maintain genetic flow between fragmented populations and help species move safely between habitats.

These policies show a growing recognition of the importance of wildlife conservation in India’s evolving forest governance, moving from near neglect to integrated, science-based strategies.

India’s Vision for Wildlife Conservation by 2047: Goals and Challenges

In India’s vision of Viksit Bharat by 2047, wildlife conservation is a key part of the journey. The country has already set up around 1,000 protected areas, which include 106 national parks,573 wildlife sanctuaries,58 tiger reserves, and 33 elephant reserves. Altogether, these cover nearly 5% of India’s land area, a solid foundation to build on. By 2047, India is aiming for zero poaching, healthy,stable populations of all Schedule-I species, and 33% forest cover. Achieving this requires integrating wildlife protection into every major development plan.

Kerala recently tabled the Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and it’s making waves as possibly the first state-level attempt to tweak the central Wildlife (Protection) Act. The main goal? To cut down the response time when wild animals, like wild boars or elephants, pose a danger to people, especially in public spaces. The Bill proposes steps like wildlife birth control and even gives the state the power to classify certain Schedule II animals as ‘vermin’, which would make it easier to manage conflict situations more quickly.

More recently, Kerala’s Agriculture Minister has also suggested that the wild boar problem, which has been a growing headache for farmers, could be tackled more effectively if people were allowed to consume the meat of these animals killed in agricultural fields. Right now, these crop raiding animals are selectively culled, but not consumed.

According to recent forest stats, Kerala had 2,386 elephants and 213 tigers in 2023. But the bigger issue grabbing attention is the wild boar menace. By July 2025, the state had culled 4,734 wild boars that had strayed into farms and villages, damaging crops and threatening lives.

Local Governance and Real-Time Wildlife Conflict Management in Kerala

Local self-government bodies were given the go-ahead to handle the situation directly, showing just how urgent and localised the conflict has become. Interestingly, as per a recent survey report released by the state’s Economics and Statistics department, there is a 33% increase in “farming families” in the state over a period of 5 years (2018-19 to 2023-24), which points to an “increased interest in farming”. However, there is no data to prove any increase in cropped area. 

Now, with the state stepping in to address real-time human-wildlife conflict, are we seeing the next step in that evolution? Kerala’s amendment signals a need to shift toward more localized, responsive solutions, especially important in a state where wildlife and humans often share tight spaces

Management of wildlife has to be part of the blueprint for development. What Kerala is doing or is perhaps trying to do is bring wildlife concerns into local governance and enable real-time decisions to handle human–animal conflict. This also signals an assertive local governance model, one that seeks real-time, context-specific responses to human–wildlife conflict rather than relying solely on distant, one-size-fits-all policies.

Before the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) came into the picture, India had a patchwork of wildlife laws spread across different regions, which actually made sense for a country as vast and diverse as ours. After all, a species that’s common in one state might be rare in another.

But the problem with the current system is that it doesn’t really allow for this kind of local nuance. As one expert put it, you can’t fairly label a species as ‘endangered’ or ‘abundant’ across the entire country, because that status can vary hugely depending on the region. Yet, that’s exactly what the WPA tries to do, paint all of India with the same broad brush.

Conservation vs. Coexistence: Balancing Wildlife Protection and Human Needs

This brings us to the bigger question: Are wild animals beings to be protected, or resources to be managed? It is the core of the whole conservation vs. coexistence debate. Some argue that the Wildlife (Protection) Act is too rigid, treating all animals as untouchable, regardless of context.

Others suggest that something like a Wild Resources Management Act might be more realistic, one that balances conservation with the needs and safety of people who live near forests. The real challenge isn’t just saving animals, but figuring out how to share space with them in ways that work for everyone.

India’s relationship with nature has always been rooted in the ethic of coexistence. From ancient texts such as the Atharva Veda, where sages prayed, “What of thee I dig out, let that quickly grow over, Let me not hit thy vitals, or thy heart,” the message is clear, we’re meant to live with nature, not against it.

Co-Management as the Future of Wildlife Conservation in Kerala

This idea of “live and let live” holds even more meaning today, especially in land-scarce states like Kerala. The produce of real farmers living on the edge of forests has social and economic value far beyond market prices. But as they also face the brunt of wildlife conflicts, often losing crops and livelihoods overnight, the state has a social responsibility to stomach the negative externalities of wildlife conservation.

Wildlife conservation is vital, but we must also face its real-world costs. For those living in forest fringe areas, the issue isn’t about wiping out species, it’s about finding smarter, fairer ways to live with them. The goal isn’t to choose between people and wildlife, but to ensure that both can survive and thrive. Real conservation is not just about protecting species, it is about maintaining ecological balance.

The way forward lies in co-management, combining local wisdom and quick decision-making with the broader ecological vision and safeguards of national frameworks. That is how Kerala can continue to stand out as a model of both conservation and compassion.