Embodying a Preparedness to Die: Why Bishnois of Western Rajasthan Rise in Defence of the Blackbuck and the Chinkara?

Abstract

Often referred to as the custodians of nature, the Bishnois have been taking initiatives to curb the illegal hunting/poaching of animals such as the blackbuck and the chinkara that are fully covered under the provisions of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA, 1972). From within the realms of their philosophical engagement with nature, the Bishnois imagine the law offenders from hunting communities, such as Ban Bawri and Bhil, and those who come to be defined exclusively as poachers as the ‘violent’ other. While the hunting tribes heavily contest such a viewpoint, the contours of a grass-roots debate as well as Bishnoi activism against destruction of natural resources continue to fortify in western Rajasthan. The growth of an organised protest movement of the Bishnois, spearheaded by the Bishnoi Tiger Force (BTF), since the past two decades has also coincided with an embodiment of the community’s general preparedness to die in defence of the wildlife. What fuels the spirit and the sentiment behind this rising defence of the endangered wildlife, amidst other creatures of the desert? How do Bishnoi repertoires of protest influence the discourses of other involved communities and manage to keep the democracy of India on constant alertness in the great Indian Thar?

Keywords

Western Rajasthan Bishnois blackbuck chinkara Wildlife Protection Act 1972

Part I: Introductory Themes—Contested Ecology and the Social Terrains of Western Rajasthan

This article is about the Bishnois of western Rajasthan, and their relationship with three crucially interrelated factors: first, the ecological worldview of the Bishnois central to which stands their vegetarianism alongside which, particularly since the close of the 20th century, has emerged an organised defence of the wildlife in their territories. Next, we juxtapose a few transforming practices and newly emergent repertoires of protest taken up by Bishnoi activists for changing wildlife laws in India. Finally, keeping in mind this rising activism in favour of checking environmental crime in western Rajasthan, we analyse another parallel development: the contours of a fractious relationship between the Bishnois on one side and the Bhils as well as the Ban Bawris on the other side of the debate.

The Bishnois’ defence of the desert habitat as a holistic space and the emergence of their organised activism become clearer against the corresponding practices and concerns of the Ban Bawri and Bhil communities who live in their vicinity. The Bhils and Ban Bawris, for whom meat eating constitutes a part of their existence, pertain to the hunting populations of western Rajasthan. Sharing a penchant for meat eating with other non-vegetarian communities like the Rajputs, these hunting tribes stand out in their knowledge and skills about the deep desert, hunting and game which can often allure them into poaching networks. This article demonstrates how Bishnoi activism, while rising in defence of endangered species, exerts an inadvertent pressure on hunting communities. Nonetheless, what redeems the spirit of this activism is the mode in which it breaks fresh grounds of democratic participation and partnership with the Indian state. At the same time, it provides us a critical window to review the dynamics between changing social practices and emerging environmental laws in India.

The significance of this brief ethnographic glimpse is twofold. In the first instance, the study helps us understand how despite the smallness of their size as a localised group, Bishnoi activists have acquired a noticeable visibility and confidence to challenge nexuses between hunters and poachers. In documenting the unease between the three communities on the ground, namely the Bishnois, Bhils and the Ban Bawris, our article suggests that these positionalities do not accrue or flow from purely religious and ecological philosophies/perspectives alone. It has as much to do with the communication, knowledge and integration gaps between the state, administration and the people as with the depletion of environmental resources.

When parts of this research were presented in their preliminary form at the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) Inter-Congress in Japan in May 2014,¹ examples used in them related exclusively to the blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra, also known as the Indian Antelope). However, an avid interest was expressed by the audience and the discussants to know more about other animals that have spawned off this Bishnoi activism. The article has now been finalised and revised to include information on the Bishnoi struggles vis-à-vis the Indian chinkara (the Indian gazelle) as well.

Methodology and Central Concerns

To map the many actors, practices and discourses visible in this example of contested ecology and social terrains of western Rajasthan, we have used the qualitative emic evaluation approach (EEA) (Föerster et al., 2011). Based on a circular research methodology and with links to grounded theory, the EEA envisages three important steps: an identification or mapping of various social actors involved in a situation in a particular context, a discourse analysis of how they relate to each other and an analysis of their respective social practices.

Our work is inspired by two central questions: why has the Bishnois’ defence of the ‘endangered’ wildlife, amidst other creatures, escalated in western Rajasthan? How do Bishnoi repertoires of protest reflect an embodiment of a preparedness to die and keep the democracy of India on constant alertness in the great Indian Thar? In search of some probable answers, we present a case study of the Bishnois of western Rajasthan in relation to the Bhils and the Ban Bawris—their two compatriot communities who share the resources of the desert with them.

To answer our central questions, we undertook an ethnographic study of the western Rajasthani cities Jodhpur and Bikaner and the areas spread between these two. For documenting the protest actions of the Bishnois, we conducted field work among a group of twenty-five activists and leaders connected to the Bishnoi Tiger Force (BTF) and two extended family groups of Bhils and Ban Bawris comprising around twenty-five members each. Through ethnographic interviews, observations and reflections, these studies explore multiple modes of positioning in intra- (Bishnois) and intercommunity (Bishnois, Bhils and Ban Bawris) relationships over the issue of wildlife protection and poaching. The resultant processes of articulation, both for and against the Bishnoi protest movements in defence of the blackbuck and the chinkara, reveal how the gap between the key instruments and the key mechanisms of power and democracy in India is creatively negotiated by political imagination of the Bishnois and various others actors in western Rajasthan (Luthra Sinha, 2016a, 2016b).

In our view, the ‘life-texts’ of the Bishnois’ politics, which become the central case study for this article, offer a storehouse of information by not only pointing out how far apart the key instruments (such as voting) and key mechanisms (such as procedural justice) may lie in the Indian democracy but also suggesting possible ways to bridge this gap (see Przeworsky, 1999; Agrawal, 2005; Jha, 2013). Our article, hence, aims at providing an ethnographically thick (Geertz, 1973) glimpse into the Bishnoi lifeworld and the contestations bought in by the activists organised under the auspices of a local organisation called the ‘BTF’ (more details in Part II). The article concludes with some contextually important questions and interpretations in the hope of encouraging further debates on the issue.

Part II: Blackbuck and Chinkara—Protection Under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 and Social Practices

Blackbuck

Native to the whole of the Indian subcontinent, the blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) which is a medium-sized ungulate (hoofed animal) species of antelope, is now regionally extinct in Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan (Rahmani & Mallon, 2008). Fully protected by law in India, it stands qualified as near threatened (NT) by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (IUCN, 2017).² From among the thirteen states of India in which it is found, a large number of its population are concentrated mostly in the arid regions of western Rajasthan that count as its principal habitat (Goyal, Bohra, & Ghosh, 1986; Jhala & Isvaran, 2016; Kumar, 2016).

The sportsman term ‘blackbuck’, which characterises the animal’s striking sexual dimorphism, is synonymous with the Hindi name kala hiran, translated as ‘black deer’ or ‘blackbuck’, (Kumar & Niraj, 2016) and refers to the black colour on the dorsal (upper) part of the coat of the male (Bashistha, Neupane, & Khanal, 2012; IUCN, 2017; Meena & Chourasia, 2017; Meena & Saran, 2018; Rahmani, 2001, pp. 178–187). Blackbucks, the only living species of the genus Antilope are primarily grazers and steer clear of forested areas but prefer grasslands and lightly wooded country. Their requirement of water everyday restricts their distribution to areas where surface water is available for the greater part of the year. Mainly sedentary creatures, they can move long distances, in herds of five to fifty in summers, in search of water and forage (Mallon & Kingswood, 2001; Rahmani, 2001).

From being hunting trophies, the blackbucks came to be recognised as vulnerable/under threat and hence protected animals under the Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA), 1972.³ The WLPA,⁴ 1972 affords protection to many dwindling species (The Hindu, 2018, April 6) and prohibits their hunting. Among other reforms, the WLPA established schedules of protected plant and animal species whereby hunting or harvesting these species was largely outlawed.⁵ Under this Act, although the blackbuck stands fully protected, it still continues to face newer challenges that include the rising networks between ‘hunters’ and ‘poachers’, the dwindling of the natural habitat as well as the loss of common grazing spaces. Increasing construction and fenced areas, traffic and automobiles as well as susceptibility to feral dog bites (India Today, 2018; Sebastian, 2010) further compound the issue.

Climate change, the accompanying crunch on resources (for both humans and animals) and changing environmental laws and needs in India breed a context of contentious social relations in western Rajasthan: the Bishnois revere blackbucks and chinkaras (like they do all animals and plants) and let them graze on their land, while other communities do not take kindly to such ‘harm’ to their fields and crops. In perpetual search of alternative sources of food and water owing to the shrinking of natural resources, the chinkaras and blackbucks have no other alternative but to rely on cultivated fields. Overgrazing by these herbivores leads the farmers (non-Bishnoi communities) to devise new mechanisms to protect their fields, which may include resorting to killing the trespassers.

If blackbucks are spotted grazing private fields, they are likely to get shot by Ban Bawri and Bhil field guards who are recruited to the job by land owners reliant on the expertise of these communities. There have been a number of cases wherein blackbucks have been shot illegally, especially in areas where their population has shot up and the animals share the same habitat with the nilgai. Despite the ban on hunting and the animals’ protected status, the Bhils and Ban Bawris, in pursuit of basic liquidity and food,⁶ are often tempted to work on the orders of their employers or actively assist commercial poachers for meat and adventure tourism (Goyal et al., 1986). Our key informants from the BTF explained⁷ how, irked by the grazing tendencies of these animals, some farm and field owners recruit hunting communities such as the Bhils and Ban Bawris (also see, Mallon, 2008) as guards and watchmen.

Unlike the hunting communities, the Bishnois’ ethos and lifeworld require them to be vegetarians, taking active care of the flora and fauna around them. Giving the grazing antelopes and fawns a free passage into their homes, temples and fields, they believe, since the inception of their sect in 1485 AD, that it is important to share the bounty of nature (Menon, 2012).

Our key informants in western Rajasthan were youth activists and volunteers from the Bishnoi Tiger Force (BTF). The BTF, which is a Bishnoi youth-led organisation, wages a protest movement and politics against poaching,(for more on the origin and nature of work of the BTF, see Luthra Sinha: 2018). The BTF members (both leaders and other volunteers) informed us that not those resistant to the onslaught of the grazing creatures recruit night- watchmen in their fields to prevent damage to the crops. The watchmen mainly belong to the hunting communities who are hired for their natural courage as well as expertise.⁸ With their trained eye and a penchant for meat, they are ‘expected’ to spot the encroacher, trap it and shoot/kill it instead of merely chasing it away. Some of the meat (if it pertains to protected species) so obtained is sold clandestinely to commercial networks or to representatives of food businesses from other areas in Rajasthan, while some of it is used for domestic purposes.

A Vignette

We visited a Ban Bawri (extended) family⁹ that had put up a temporary abode in a village located at a distance of 120 km from Jodhpur city in 2013. During our group interviews and informal interactions, we witnessed the sudden arrival of two motorists who, on being told about our presence, fled the scene. The BTF informants with us later told us that the ‘teenaged, jeans- and T-shirt’-clad motorists probably came into the remote Ban Bawri dwelling on that cold evening to collect ‘prohibited meat’ of which they must have been informed beforehand. Even if this may have been only an assumption, as we never saw the meat or asked the Ban Bawris about it, yet this is how hunting–poaching networks operate in remote areas of the desert when/if poaching occurs. Next, the Bishnoi interpretation of the situation emphasizes the direct rift setting in between the two communities. Simultaneously, the growing resentment of the Bishnois against commercial poachers (who create demand for prohibited, ‘exotic’ meat) opens up yet another ground of contention in Western Rajasthan.¹⁰

Chinkara

Besides worrying about and waging protests for the prevention of illegal hunting, Bishnoi villagers remain vigilant on providing shelter to the chinkara,¹¹ which is also known as the Indian gazelle (Gazella bennetti) (Dhookia, 2009). The chinkara, a globally threatened ungulate, once a widely distributed antelope in India, is now facing threat due to increasing human population, mechanised agriculture and hunting by locals. Other threats include habitat loss due to urbanisation and industrial expansion. Being shy and timid animals, the chinkaras avoid human habitation. Nevertheless, just as the blackbucks that stay in the wild yet feel secure in the vicinity of the hospitable Bishnoi community (The Hindu, 2018), the chinkaras too roam freely in fields and spaces belonging to this sect of Vishnu worshippers and graze in their fields.

Accustomed to surviving in the desert, the chinkaras may go without water for long periods as they get sufficient fluids from plants and dew, unlike the blackbucks. Although most are seen alone, the chinkaras can sometimes be spotted in groups of up to four at a time. They share their habitat with other herbivores, such as the nilgai (blue bull), blackbuck, chausingha (Tetracerus quadricornis), wild goat and wild boar (Mallon, 2008). The chinkara is threatened by extensive hunting for meat and trophies in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. However, the situation in India is not so grim as it has a stable population trend. Western Rajasthan (especially areas such as Jodhpur, Jaisalmer and Bikaner) is home to more than 7,000 chinkaras. During the region’s scorching summers, these animals venture out to nearby village abodes in search of water and food. Hence, they become vulnerable to being frequently predated upon by feral dogs (Ahmad & Bothra, 2017) that cause as much damage as poaching and ‘hunting’ for exotic or customary meat.

One challenge to the protection of endangered and vulnerable species accrues from natural predators and the other from the rule of law offenders. These two dangers, man-made and otherwise, to the protected and threatened animals can be interpreted as follows: first, from the viewpoint (s) of the local communities such as the Bishnois, Bhils and the Ban Bawris, and second, from the lens of an emerging discursive dialogue around democracy, justice and rule of law in western Rajasthan. What is important to note is that blackbucks have disappeared from many areas due to habitat destruction¹² and additional causes of vulnerability as stated above. Blackbuck numbers have been increasing in either many protected areas or areas dominated by Bishnoi communities in Rajasthan and Haryana (Rahmani, 2001). Where the Bishnois do not reside, a sharp increase in poaching of the chinkara has been taking place despite it declared as an endangered animal with highest protection granted under the Schedule I of the WLPA. Disillusioned by the situation, Bishnoi activists question the relationship between law, justice and democracy in India while building a strong information network across western Rajasthan and staging anti-poaching protests.

Ironically, the social interventions of the Bishnois in checking crime provide an incidental, theoretical bridge between the community and the changing state policies and laws on endangered species in India. But the overall relationship between the community and the administration, in practice, still remains fractious due to the state’s apparent silence on high-profile poaching cases, lack of arrests as well as delays in the way of procedural justice against such crimes.¹³

Part III: Bishnois—Their Transforming World Views and the Embodiment of a Preparedness to Die

Described predominantly as a peasant community (UNDP & HDRC, 2004, pp. 19–32), the Bishnois are a Hindu sect of Vishnu worshippers. They reside in parts of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana in India. Since the social disruptions and evolutions that colonialism and modernisation have brought with them to India, the Bishnois have diversified into a variety of professions. From farming, selling milk and owning transport and property businesses to working with forest departments and becoming bureaucrats, leaders and teachers, the Bishnoi community is transforming its profile steadily.

Historically, the Bishnoi sect was formed by Guru Jambheshwar in the aftermath of a severe drought in the Marwar (erstwhile Rajasthan) region of north-western India in 1485 AD. The Guru set out twenty-nine essential principles of which eight pertain to conserving the ecology, vegetarianism, protection of wildlife and living with a practised compassion towards all living beings. Advocating the worship of Lord Vishnu, Guru Jambeswar prohibited animal killing and cutting of trees (Khan, 2004; Maheswari, 2011; Menon, 2012; Tobias, 1988). Continuing to carry forth their tradition of compassion for all living beings, the Bishnois have acquired a reputation as guardians of the entire ecosystem around their villages and hamlets (Menon, 2012).

Keeping their diet simple, the Bishnois rely on fresh and dried desert foods as well as milk, ghee (clarified butter) and curds and depict practised compassions towards plant and animal life. Despite being Hindus, their treatment of the dead is in opposition to the practice that is popular among the religion—they perform burial rituals to avoid burning trees. Instead, they choose that the bodies get decomposed to enhance the soil (Jain, 2017).

Memories of Martyrdom as Inspiration of an Embodied Protest and a Spirit of Sacrifice

Back in the year 1731 (AD) when the Maharaja Abhay Singh of Jodhpur needed wood for the construction of a new fortress, the ruler sent his soldiers out into the village of Khejarli with the order to chop down Khejri trees (Prosopis cineraria). When a brave Bishnoi woman Amrita Devi heard of the imminent order, she rushed to the village of Khejarli—a place at which the Khejri trees grew in abundance—and challenged the royal army (Ghose, 2008). Followed by relatives and neighbours, she tried her best to prevent the soldiers from felling the trees en masse. However, when all reasoning failed, she hugged the first tree to be cut in order to protect it. The soldiers beheaded the woman whose last words, sir saanthe runkh reho to bhi sasto jaan (if a tree is saved even at the cost of one’s head, it is worth it), have become history.

Her three daughters followed her example just as other men, women and children who stepped forward, embraced the trees and let themselves to be axed to death one after the other. The village of Khejarli in this way became the site of collective sacrifice. A total of 363 Bishnois are said to have sacrificed their lives in 1731 AD while protecting the green Khejri considered sacred by their community (Gottlieb, 1996, p. 159).¹⁴ The echo of Amrita’s slogan, sir saanthe runkh reho to bhi sasto jaan, still resonates among the Bishnoi community. Memories of bravery and self-sacrifice enacted at Khejarli serve as profound instances of the earliest commitments to environmental protection and continue to inspire a passionate defence of nature by the community ever since. Why do Bishnoi activists and the everyday actors eulogise this historical embodiment of a preparedness to die? In order to answer this question and understand cultural variations in an ‘ever-transforming world’ (Eriksen, 2004), placing Bishnoi activism in its immediate context becomes pertinent.

For generations, the Bishnois have engaged in nature protection as a social expectation in their community life. The current environmental changes and the provisions of WLPA 1972, however, have inspired the Bishnoi towards taking up organised activism. Challenging the state forest and justice departments over the poaching and state apathy to salvage the condition of vulnerable wildlife species since the mid and late 1990s (Luthra Sinha, 2016a), Bishnoi activists formed BTF (Luthra Sinha, 2018a) that fights non-violently on three fronts:

It presses that details at times of arrest be recorded correctly and poachers are tried under provisions of the WLPA, 1972.

It demands and helps the forest and administration departments in western Rajasthan to become empathetic towards nursing the injured blackbucks and chinkaras.

It spreads awareness on state responsibility to integrate the welfare of hunting communities with mainstream laws.

Despite threats to their well-being, Bishnoi activists remain fearless as they go about their tasks in the desert. A change is therefore visible in the Bishnoi modus operandi and the projection of their world views. It is about values of a communicative and vibrant participation towards saving their environment within the backdrop of India’s evolving democracy. Our observations and interviews with the community indicate that the sociopolitical rage of Bishnois against poaching moves a bit beyond their religious imagination.¹⁵ Cherishing the qualities of the blackbuck and the chinkara, as those of a non-harmful, timid and herbivore nature, the Bishnois have developed an affectionate concern that allows these animals a passage not only into their fields and dwellings but also opens up their sacred spaces like temples, if necessary, to nurse injured and weak animals and even birds.¹⁶

We suggest that through the application of social memory, the Bishnoi worldview is witnessing an expansion into newer repertoires of protest politics such as dharnas (sit-ins), demonstrations, silent marches, issuing of memorandums and press statements, informing the police and setting up rescue centres at their community spaces such as temples and animal shelters in villages (Luthra Sinha, 2016a, 2016b). Any incident, within or near the Bishnoi areas, that results in the killing/poaching of these revered animals makes them feel responsible for this loss of wildlife, igniting passionate and determined responses to reach to the bottom of these crimes.¹⁷ Such a concern for checking crime goes hand in hand with an actual bodily courage that prompts the protagonists to ‘do or die’¹⁸ in the obtainment of their cause, whichever becomes an imperative. Acquiring knowledge about poaching, keeping a track of all tip-offs from within the BTF networks with respect to suspected poaching operations, remaining constantly vigilant and rushing to chase poachers where need be are all part of this inspiration to ‘do or die’.¹⁹

A forest officer²⁰ belonging to the Bishnoi community of Rajasthan analyses that Bishnois, backed both by a historical and environmental zeal, memories of sacrifice and an emerging legal knowledge, do not fear pursuing armed poachers, capturing them and handing them over to the forest authorities (Mishra, 2011). This rising bravado is reminiscent of ‘silted memories’ that Connerton (1989) theorises on. Memory for Connerton is a deeply social activity. In contrast to being an individual faculty, it becomes silted into a corporeal daily practice influencing performances of cultural and social life that proves that past is, as it were, a sediment in the body (Connerton, 1989, p. 22).

The vivid embodiment to die portrayed by the Bishnois is definitely derivative of their sedimented past and historical experiences. However, we propose that this silted memory (the spirit of sacrifice like the one depicted in the Khejarli narrative) of the community is not in search of mere mechanical replications because times have changed. There are no ‘Amritas’ waiting to address a distant royalty or to helplessly witness the attack on their lives and resources. Rather, the Bishnoi activists have learnt by experience and over the years post India’s independence in 1947 that democracy has been added to the vital world of their customs and memories. Instead of passively resisting a king’s order as in the past, it is possible to actively chase the poachers away and foil attempts at environmental crimes. Emboldened as they are by the rationale of the WLPA and their own growing legal know-how, the Bishnois have emerged as unwavering saviours of the endangered species (Mathranj, 2017; Mishra, 2011).²¹

At times, Bishnoi activists are accused of being violent and obstructive by other communities whom they endeavour to deter. But a senior police officer from Jodhpur confirms for us:

Bishnois have over the years become our partners, especially the leaders and volunteers of the BTF. They help us like key informants and maintain information networks to bust poaching all over western Rajasthan. At times, they accompany us to remotest desert areas owing to their familiarity of the terrain and give us a good hand to maintain vigil against environmental crimes. However, we do not know of any incident where any Bishnoi has ever turned violent²² or used a weapon while chasing away the criminals/poachers.

The Bhils and the Ban Bawris for whom hunting of the blackbuck continues to hold a customary appeal,²³ the belief that their engagement in hunting does not cause the depletion of the species and its impact must therefore be separately examined. The hunting communities assert that their perspectives as well as practices remain ecological and they have not endangered the species or bought on loss of biodiversity. On the contrary, they point out how they too face the environmental resource crunch for which other more powerful forces are responsible.²⁴

Nevertheless the two ‘groups’—the vegetarian Bishnoi communities and the traditional meat-eating groups such as Bhils and Ban Bawris,²⁵ do not enjoy a comfortable relationship as there is a dearth of dialogue between the two. While Bishnois register their protest in the public domain, the Bhils and Ban Bawris, who may derive partial sustenance from selling meat like venison, prefer to remain silent on the issue unless the exigencies of the situation demand it (see, Tiger Trust, 2012). If welfare concerns of multiple actors at different sides of the debate are not addressed, it might well become a worse source of ‘internal strife’ (Sivaram) between communities than the issue already is.²⁶

What irks the Bishnois is that in the garb of belonging to and/or an incidental overlap with hunting communities, some criminals also get away and are seldom subject to punishments or a rule of law scrutiny.²⁷ Besides, forest officers who investigate these cases are often unable to build watertight cases against influential poachers which results in low conviction rates.

Part IV: Does Bishnoi Environmental Activism Hold a Message for the Indian State and Democracy?

The WLPA of 1972 declares the blackbuck and the chinkara as Schedule I animals granting them total protection under Indian law. On the one hand, the Act offers incidental support to ongoing Bishnoi discourses against hunting or harming of blackbuck and chinkara. On the other hand, it is seemingly opposed to the hunting communities whose customary practices have, by the stroke of a pen, been declared/come to mean ‘poaching’. Gaps between administrative management of ecology and diverse modes of peoples’ comprehensions of it have made the ground applicability and meanings of the Act contested. Besides, it is not the law per se, but the Bishnoi activism around it that contributes equally to raising the stakes for poachers.

Work undertaken by the Bishnois to buck the state up or deter commercial environmental crimes remains unparalleled in its spirit of youth voluntarism. It ends up inspiring other local communities and groups to contribute significantly towards conservation of nature and wildlife (Menon, 2012). Bishnoi activism against poaching is representative of peoples’ participation and alerts the state towards accountability over and above from the rut of electoral representation cycles. The movement which stems from an initial ecological empathy leaves us with two lasting questions: Is there no credible way of distinguishing hunting from poaching given that under the WLPA, they can often become entangled in and/or subsumed into a single category? (also see, Tiger Trust Report, 2012); meanwhile, can the hunting communities be redeemed from pressures of the Bishnoi protest politics in tandem with the wildlife resource crunch and the WLPA of India?

By bringing in the voice of multiple actors on these hunting–poaching debates in western Rajasthan, our article points to the challenges of subsuming the hunting communities and the poachers in the same legal framework. We reiterate the need to start an informed discourse on the nuanced differences between the ‘hunting’ and ‘poaching’ incidents, even if by virtue of the changing environmental laws in India, one act seems no different from the other. Meanwhile, a good way to understand how the Indian state and democracy are kept on their toes in western Rajasthan is to follow the anti-poaching activism of the Bishnois.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Agrawal

(2005). The Indian Parliament. In Kapur

and Mehta

P. B.

(Eds.), Public institutions in India: Performance and design (pp. 77–104). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

Ahmad

, & Bothra

(2017, May 12). Heat, thirst and dogs killing Rajasthan’s protected chinkaras. Hindustan Times. Retrieved from https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/heat-thirst-and-dogs-killing-rajasthan-s-protected-chinkaras/story-U1BE3E6D2mWBsPeUyKhu8I.html (accessed on 23 January 2020 ).

Bashistha

, Neupane

B. K.

, & Khanal

S. N.

(2012). Antilope cervicapra blackbuck in Nepal: Population status, conservation and translocation issues of blackbuck in the blackbuck conservation area, Bardiya, Nepal. Saarbrücken, Germany: LAP Lambert Academic.

Blanford

W. T.

(1888–1891). The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.

Connerton

(1989). How societies remember. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Daniel

J. C.

(1967). The Point Calimere Sanctuary, Madras state. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 64(3), 512–513.

Eriksen

(2004). What is anthropology? London, UK: Pluto. Retrieved from http://hyllanderiksen.net/Whatis.html

Föerster

, Heer

, Engeler

, Kaufmann

A. A.

, Bauer

, & Heitz

(2011). Emic evaluation approach-epistemologies, experiences and practice. Basel Papers on Political Transformations, No. 3, Institute of Social Anthropology. Basel, Switzerland: UNIBAS. Retrieved from https://ethnologie.philhist.unibas.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/ethnologie/Publikationen/Basel_Papers_No_3.pdf

Ghose

(2008). Khejarli village of Bishnois, an offbeat destination from Jodhpur. Retrieved from https://isharethese.com/khejarli-village-of-bishnois-jodhpur/

10.

Goswami

(2018, April 6). How Bishnois’ compassion for wildlife led to Salman Khan’s conviction in blackbuck poaching case. Hindustan Times, Jaipur.

11.

Goyal

S. P.

, Bohra

H. C.

, & Ghosh

P. K.

(1986). Food preferences of the Indian antelope (Antelope cervicapra) and the, Gazelle (Gazella dorcas) in a desert environment. My Forest, 22(3), 153–158.

12.

Hemsingh

, & Jakher

G. R.

(2007). Distribution status and conservation of blackbuck (Antelope cervicapra) in the Thar Desert of Rajasthan. Tiger Paper, XXXIV(4), 19–23.

13.

Hoffman

(2013). Ginseng: ‘Good money, fast money’ can lure poachers. WI: LaCrosse Tribune. Retrieved from https://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/ginseng-good-money-fast-money-can-lure-poachers/article_f8304248-a649-11e2-8800-0019bb2963f4.html. (accessed on 23 January 2020 ).

14.

India Today (2018, April 5). 7 facts about blackbucks you need to know now: Why are they endangered? India Today, New Delhi. Retrieved from https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/blackbuck-facts-and-why-they-are-endangered-html-1205359-2018-04-05 (accessed on 23 January 2020 ).

15.

IUCN (2008). The IUCN red list of threatened species: Antilope cervicapra. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T1681A6448761

16.

IUCN (2017). The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2017–2. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Retrieved from www.iucnredlist.organdhttp://vsjttyk.blogspot.com/2019/04/blackbuck.html. Retrieved on January 24, 2020.

17.

[Also see, Rahmani

A.R.

(2001). India. In: Mallon

D.P.

& Kingswood

S.C.

(Ed.), Antelopes. Part 4: North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Global Survey and Regional Action Plans (pp. 178–187). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.]

18.

Jain

(2017). Bishnois Tribe of India. Blog. Retrieved from https://buoyantfeet.com/2017/04/14/bishnois-tribe-ofindia/

19.

Jain

(2013). Democracy in India: The state–institutional domain. Paper for state of Democracy in South Asia. New Delhi, India: Lokniti-CSDS. Retrieved from http://www.democracyasia.org/qa/india/Shefali%20Jha.pdf

20.

Jhala

Y. V.

, & Isvaran

(2016). Behavioural Ecology of a Grassland Antelope, the blackbuck Antilope cervicapra: Linking Habitat, ecology and behaviour In Ahrestani

F. S.

& Sankaran

(Eds.), The ecology of large Herbivores in South and Southeast Asia (pp. 151–176). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Nature.

21.

Khan

D. S.

(2004). Crossing the threshold: Understanding the religious identities in South Asia. London, UK: IB Tauris.

22.

Kumar

, & Niraj (2016). Distribution pattern of blackbuck (Antelope cervicapra) at Gajner wildlife sanctuary, Bikaner (Rajasthan). IJSRR, 5(1), 26–34.

23.

Luthra Sinha

(2016a). Protestas de Bishnois en Rajasthán occidental. Interpretando la política de los Nuevos Movimientos Sociales (NSMs), con respecto a la democracia India. [Bishnoi protests in western Rajasthan: An interpretation of New Social Movements with respect to Indian Democracy.]In Rodriguez de la Vega, L. y Lavolpe, Francisco (Comps. Perspectivas Sobre La India: Pasados y Presentes. (Digital Book, soon in Paperback). In Spanish—Lomas de Zamora: UNICOM, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora Colección UNI-COM, Año 4, Número 7. Enero 2016. pp. 123–162 (in Spanish).

24.

Luthra Sinha

(2016b). Micro social movements in India and South Africa: Of twin imaginations and layered discursivities (unpublished PhD thesis). Submitted to the Department of Anthropology and Centre for African Studies, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland, 2016 in partial satisfaction of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Basel, Switzerland.

25.

Luthra Sinha

(2018a). Bishnois of western Rajasthan: A culture of nature conservation. Published as a Sahapedia Online Module. Retrieved from https://www.sahapedia.org/the-bishnois-of-western-rajasthan

26.

Luthra Sinha

(2018b). A film on Bishnoi traditions of conservation Green Warriors of the Thar Desert: Bishnoi Traditions and Activism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdAXcVKv_GI

27.

Luthra Sinha

(2018c). A film on everyday practices, rituals and traditions related to conservation among the Bishnoi community: The Everyday Life of the Bishnois: Rituals and a Culture of Protest. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeIenm4qmwo

28.

Maheswari

(2011). Shabadvani. Jaipur, India: Jaipur Publishing House.

29.

Mallon

D. P.

, & Kingswood

S. C.

(Compilers). (2001). Antelopes: Global Survey and Regional Action Plans (vol. 4, p. 184). IUCN. ISBN 2-8317-0594–0.

30.

Mallon

D. P.

(2008). Gazella bennettii. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017–3. IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group. UK: International Union for Con-servation of Nature.

31.

Mander

(2013). Rise of the drones. Africa Geographic, 52–55. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20150402124230/http://www.iapf.org/images/documents/riseofthedronesjan2013.pdf (accessed on 23 January 23 ).

32.

Mathranj

(2017, December 26). Two arrested for poaching Chinkara in Barmer. Hindustan Times, Jaipur. Retrieved from https://www.hindustantimes.com/jaipur/two-arrested-for-poaching-chinkara-in-barmer/story-47raShyYSiRKmQz1cHuOzK.html

33.

Meena

, & Chourasia

(2017). Forage availability and feeding preferences of Blackbuck Antelope Cervicapra (Linn) in Sorsan, Rajasthan, India. International Journal of Current Advanced Research, 6(11), 7370–7373.

34.

Meena

, & Saran

R. P.

(2018). Distribution, ecology and conservation status of blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra): An update. International Journal of Biology Research, 3(1), 79–86. ISSN: 2455-6548. Retrieved from www.biologyjournal.in

35.

Menon

(2012).Where conservation of wildlife is a religion. Retrieved from http://www.thebetterindia.com/5621/the-land-of-the-bishnois-whereconservation-of-wildlife-is-a-religion/

36.

Mishra

(2011, December 22). Bikaner: Army Jawans booked for Poaching. India Today. Retrieved from https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/army-jawans-booked-for-blackbuck-poaching-inbikaner-149595-2011-12-22/ (accessed on 23 January 2020 ).

37.

Musgrave

R. S.

, Parker

, & Wolok

(1993). Status of poaching in the United States: Are we protecting our wildlife? Natural Resources Journal, 33(4), 977–1014.

38.

Rahmani

A. R.

(2001). India—Antelopes. Part 4: North Africa, the Middle East and Asia. In Mallon

D. P.

and Kingswood

S. C.

(Eds.). International union for conservation of nature and natural resources (pp. 178–187). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

39.

Rahmani

A. R.

, & Mallon

D. P.

(2008). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Antelope Red List Authority 2014. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/1681/0

40.

Religion and ecological consciousness. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITIxtHyYHeA

41.

Sebastian

(2010, July 7). Indian Gazelle facing threats from stray Dogs. The Hindu, Jaipur. Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/indian-gazelle-facing-threat-from-stray-dogs/article520097.ece

42.

Sivaram

(2016, November 17). Community initiatives in environment management: A case study of Bishnois in Jodhpur district. Indian Panchayati Raj Knowledge Portal: PDF Online. Retrieved from http://www.panchayatgyan.gov.in/documents/30336/0/4.+Article.+Bishnois.pdf/af465a78-dab9-403f-a2f7-4949644848b8 (accessed 23 January 2020 ).

43.

Srivastava

V. K.

(2001). ‘Religion and environment—A perspective from the community of Bishnois’ in Human Ecology in the New Millennium. Human Ecology 10(23), 249–254 ( Bhasin

Veena

, Srivastava

Vinay K.

and Bhasin

M. K.

, Guest Editors, vol. 23, pp. 250–254).

44.

The Hindu (2018, November 23). Bishnois protest against chinkara poaching in Rajasthan. The Hindu, Jaipur. Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/bishnois-protest-against-chinkara-poaching-in-rajasthan/article20670235.ece

45.

The Hindu (2018, April 6). From being hunted trophies to protected species. The Hindu, New Delhi. Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/from-being-hunting-trophies-to-protected-species-the-lure-of-blackbucks/article23458355.ece

46.

Tiger Trust. (2012). Hunting the hunters—Report II, Capacity Building Programme on Wildlife Crimes for the Forest Department. New Delhi, India: Tiger Trust (see Foreword, p. 3).

47.

Tobias

(1988, December 17). Desert survival by the book. New Scientist, 120(1643), 29–32. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/books?id=PfHEmTgmHacC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Desert+Survival+by+the+Book.+New+Scientist.+No.+1643&source=bl&ots=zkZgDYu8Ql&sig=ACfU3U26RHzHhlxw0efjmcKMsQdstBer-w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiowMqoh5jnAhUx4nMBHSy_AG0Q6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Desert%20Survival%20by%20the%20Book.%20New%20Scientist.%20No.%201643&f=false (accessed on 23 January 2020 )

48.

UNDP & HDRC (2004). Aajeevika livelihoods Rajasthan: Status, constraints and strategies for sustainable change. ARAVALI. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Research Centre. Discussion Paper, Series No. 6. New Delhi, India, pp. 19–32. Retrieved from http://www.in.undp.org/content/dam/india/docs/aajeevika_livelihoods_rajasthan_status_constraints_strategies_sustainable_change.pdf

49.

Wildlife Protection Act (1972). Retrieved from http://www.moef.nic.in/legis/wildlife/wildlife1.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_Protection_Act_of_1972