Colonising Elephant Hunting in Assam (1826–1947)

Kheddah Department

Kheddah department was the institution through which the colonial government monopolised the access over the elephant. The British government entrusted the task of elephant catching and its management to either the kheddah department or private lessees. The government auctioned the hunting rights in elephant mahals (jungles were divided in various mahals for capture of elephants) to private lessees. The right of hunting and catching wild elephants in the jungles of Assam was a state monopoly. ⁹ The kheddah department was established in Dacca (presently part of Bangladesh) in the early part of the nineteenth century. The kheddah department monopolised not only the capture of elephants but also their training and sale. Initially, the kheddah department was run by private contractors for the service of the commissariat department in Bengal.

By the mid-nineteenth century, elephants were transported from Burma to Dacca by either sailing vessels or sometimes overland, but in these cases the mortalities were in large numbers, and so the European management system was introduced to lessen the fatalities.

Thus, at least initially the kheddah department was not profitable for the British government, and therefore the department was abolished in 1862 for some time. It was only after 1866 that the department started working smoothly and self-supporting them. The forest of Garo hills in Assam was considered to be the best place for elephant hunting.

Elephants were normally captured in the cold season. The kheddah department with the help of native hunter and koonkies (trained elephant) used to catch the elephant from the jungle of Assam. Once the elephants were captured, they had to march towards Dacca, before the commencement of rain in the month of May. These elephants were given training at the Dacca elephant department until the month of November. Once trained, they were sent to Barrackpore; from there, they were allotted to different commissariat stations. But the number of elephants in Assam were decreasing under the Dacca kheddah department at least at initial stages. E.P. Stebbing, a British sportsman and naturalist, viewed that,

Although protected now by Government their numbers were sadly thinned by the Kheddah Department, a Department which has probably done more to destroy game and thin out elephants during the last score of years dozens of British sportsmen could do in double the period of time. ¹⁰

Though the kheddah department worked on self-supporting basis and profitably contributing to the imperial revenue, but the Dacca kheddah could never established its credentials, as it was running on the support of the state exchequer. G.P. Sanderson, officer in charge of government elephant catching at Mysore, and his successors had to consistently articulate justification for the existence of the department. The following factors contributed to the existence of the kheddah department and its operation in Assam. First, because of the kheddah department, Assam used to provide a good number of elephants for the government services and it also helped in keeping the market price of the animal low. Second, the kheddah department also formed a reserve of transport, and it was maintained at no extra expanse. The kheddah department was also supplying elephants for military expedition and was quite helpful for military expedition in the north-eastern frontier since 1864. Third, the existence and working of the department since long time made it expertise of capturing, training and managing elephants. ¹¹ But in spite of all these arguments, local officials questioned the existence of the department and demanded its abolition. They argued that elephants could be obtained from private lessees at much lower prices, and elephant mahals could be temporarily given to the private lessees for meeting the loss of revenue from elephant. Thus, the kheddah department worked as a British establishment which controlled and regulated the elephant catching and hunting to fulfil the government’s need of elephants.

Private Lease System

Not only the Kheddah department, but also the private lessees played an important role in elephants hunting of the province. The free-to-hunt-and-catch policy continued until 1874. ¹² After 1874–1875, British government created elephant mahals by dividing the forest areas of various districts to catch elephants. Elephant mahal was defined as areas of the jungle inhabited by elephants. The right to capture elephants in these elephant mahals was sold to the highest bidder by public auction. It brought a new regulation concerning the elephant catching to sell the elephant mahals. ¹³ These elephant mahals were open for a certain period only and then closed, so that it does not affect the elephant population. Such as, in the year 1917–1918, mahals or each hunting area was opened for a period of two years and was then closed for eight years. ¹⁴ Licence for hunting in any mahal was granted for only one particular hunting season. The hunting season was usually supposed to be from October to March. Each elephant mahal was supposed to give simultaneous rest after hunting. Thus, it would not be wrong to say that the private lease system was an extension of the kheddah department. Both kheddah and the private lease system were entrusted with the task of the supply of elephants to the government commissariat department in Bengal, and then the elephants were distributed to various parts of the country. They both functioned as a complement to each other. But conflict between the two could not be ignored over the issue of their access right in any particular elephant mahal or their strategy in regard to elephant catching.

Under the kheddah system, licences for hunting in any particular elephant mahals were granted to the natives by superintendent of the kheddah department. But under the private lease system, lessees were subjected to the rules and conditions prescribed by the elephant preservation policy. Licence holders also had to abide by the forest department rules while catching elephants in reserved or protected forests falling within elephant mahals. ¹⁵ Lessees could hunt elephants only in those forests not worked upon by the government kheddah. The lessees were supposed to pay a royalty of ₹100 on every elephant caught and a sum of ₹50 for every calf captured in elephant mahals. ¹⁶ Not only that, the first right of purchase of any or all elephants from the owner of the mahal lay with the British government on payment of ₹600 for each elephant. ¹⁷ Mahal owners were supposed to first offer the captured elephants, measuring 7 feet and over in height, for sale to the government, and only after the government declined to exercise its right of purchase, they could offer the elephants to any authorised person. ¹⁸ But elephants measuring (in height) below six feet or above eight feet were allowed to remain in the possession of the elephant lessees; however, colonial government always had the advantage of purchasing any of the elephants in possession of the lessee and that too at a much lower price. Licence holder were supposed to report to the deputy commissioner about the number of elephants caught by them at the end of every month, failing which their licences were liable to be cancelled. ¹⁹ A fee of ₹20 for each elephant, per year, was also collected by the deputy commissioner, from the elephant’s owner, if their elephants were used for dragging timber. ²⁰ The lessees of the elephant mahals were also supposed to give half of the number of elephants measuring over six feet and below eight and a half feet, at the shoulders, as rent to the colonial government. However, if for any reason the lessee could not capture any elephant from the mahal, he had the right to claim the refund of his money. Mahadev Saikia, a lessee of an elephant mahal in Jainta, was given refund of ₹4275 as he could not catch any elephants from the Mahals Jaintia. ²¹ As far as the method of elephant catching is concerned, the licence holders were not allowed to use the noosing method. They were also not allowed to destroy or kill any elephant for the sake of its tusk, and if any elephant was found confiscated or killed, they had to pay a fine of ₹500.

Though it was a private leased system, but it was controlled and supervised mainly by the government authority. Even the local rulers were also not permitted to hunt in their own elaka or estate without the permission of the colonial government. This is because forest and forest resources were supposed to be the governmental property. Not only that, they had to pay royalty for each elephant captured by them. ²² The kheddah department and the private lease system were instrumental in carrying the elephant-catching operations during colonial rule in Assam. Elephant hunting was also justified to keep down the number of elephants to save the crop as the herd of elephants could destroy the agriculture field. For this reason, it was very important to keep the number of elephants down and, thus, hunting rights were continued to be sold. ²³

Colonial Assam was divided into blocks by the Chief Commissioner to facilitate elephant hunting. Elephant hunting in these blocks was carried out for two consecutive years, and then the block was supposed to give rest for two or more years. This was done to ensure that each year a certain number of elephant mahals in Assam proper could be given on lease and for the continuous employment to the professional shikaries to maintain a good number of elephants. ²⁴ It was mostly the British official and local chiefs who used to buy the lease of elephant hunting grounds or elephant mahals. ²⁵ Hunting was granted for a particular hunting season, and then simultaneous rest was given to each elephant mahal for a period of two years. ²⁶

As discussed, the existence of the kheddah department was always in question and, occasionally, the responsibility of elephant hunting was handed over to the military department. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the administration of elephant hunting and the privilege of capture of elephants were given to the military department by the government of India. It was basically for its demand in the military. The military department was authorised to supervise all the activities related with elephant hunting, catching and management. The department was also supposed to receive and supply the required elephants to the colonial government of India as well as to the provincial government.

Methods of Elephant Catching and Its Management

The kheddah system and Mela Shikar were the two important methods used for elephant catching in colonial Assam. ²⁷ Under the kheddah system, the elephants were captured mostly during the months of October and March. In this method, kheddah or stockades were built around water bodies or in some strategic locations where herds of wild elephants can be driven into and trapped in such stockades. By this method, it was possible to capture a herd of elephants at a time. There is evidence of capturing of forty, sixty and even eighty elephants at a time in the Sylhet forest. ²⁸ About 20 to 25 people were required to construct the stockades. These people were placed in close proximity to any pung or site which showed the signs of being visited by wild elephants. The process of elephant hunting took around five to six weeks. After that, these people had to wait patiently for the advent of the herd of elephants at the lick. This wait might sometimes exceed two to two months, but sooner or later one night a herd would turn up. The firing of one or two guns and the blowing of a few hours would be enough to make elephants rush off in the required track. Thus, elephants were captured itself inside the stockades and they would be lost to the jungles forever. Kheddah work required a primary expense of ₹8,000 to ₹10,000, and the lessee was required to have in possession a large number of elephants to tame the wild elephants so that they could be used for various works. Sanderson viewed that such a huge investment was practicable only for the government and native princes. ²⁹ The kheddah system of elephant capturing was similar to that of the gurh shikar as it also implies the capture of the wild elephants by decoying them into stockade enclosures called gurhs. ³⁰ The kheddah method was also used in other regions like Mysore for capturing wild elephants. ³¹

The second method of elephant catching is known as mela shikar, one of the oldest methods of elephant catching along with the pit fall system. ³² ‘The process adopted under this system is that the wild elephants are pursued by men mounted on tame elephants and are hunted down and noosed.’ ³³ Though the process under ‘mela shikar’ sounds simple, but in reality elephants were captured in a very dangerous situation. Koonkies (trained elephants to help in elephant-catching operation specially the wild ones) were used in the process of elephant catching. Two parties consisting of three koonkies, two of which selected for speed and endurance, called uthanee and one for its strength, named khoonti, were sent to the resorts of the wild herds. ²⁹ Sometimes the catching is possible with only one khoonti and if the quarry is a small one but it is better to do with two or three khoonti to catch and master a big one. These parties mainly reconnoitre in open places at early morning or in the evening for the wild elephants always keep to heavy forest during the hot day and come out in the open only in the morning and evening times. These, on nearing a Khanja or herd, put on full speed to single out an elephant and then give an immediate chase. The khoonkies chased the animal until one khoonkies gets along side of the wild elephants. The noose men noosed the wild ones. Initially, these animals struggle violently but once tired they get settled. After the animal was choked, the running nooses were loosened to give breath to them and a stopper was put on each to prevent their running. Two khoonkies were again pressed on each side and one or two more pushing them from behind forcibly dragged away the captured animal to a kheddah, where it was strongly picketed and starved into tameness. After a month or two, these animals became ready to be tractable enough to be marched homewards. Subsequently, with the help of koonkies, they were trained and gradually became accustomed to a rider. M’Cosh astutely describes the catching of wild elephants. In his words,

The plan adopted for catching them is by female elephants, called Koonkis. The females are driven into the haunts of the wild ones, where they are joined by the wild ones, where they are driven into the haunts of the wild ones, where they are joined by the wild males. In the course of the courtship the Mahouts so contrive shackle the unsuspecting gallants to some convenient tree, that they are fixed to the spot immovably, and thus are allowed to remain till confinement and want of food render them easily tameable. ³⁴

The fresh elephants become thin and weak during the first six months. During the first rainy season, there are most chances of the elephant being ill and then die. If the elephant passes this stage, the chances of their demise decrease, after which they were called pucka, i.e., safe and acclimatised. There is no certainty about the mortality of fresh elephants, and it is therefore always attributed to kismet or chance. This is why a kheddahwala or an elephant catcher is called to be an ameer (rich) or fugeer (poor/beggar), so proverbially his gains were uncertain and his trade was full of risks. ³⁵ This is because many of the elephants used to die before they were domesticated. ³⁶ A well-known appellation Hati-dhani, i.e., ‘rich in elephant wealth’ became very famous during British rule. There were many who made their pile out of earning from elephant hunting. Notable among them were Gangagobinda Phukan, Bhagyamalla Barua, Earl Grey, Kingsley, Radhakanta Phukan, Dhanbar Gam, Sadhanchandra Hazarika, Lankeswar Gohain and Manik Hazarika. ³⁷ Tarunram Phukan earned fame and money by hunting elephants.

Besides these two methods, there was minor mela shikar arranged since 1934 onwards. It was the name given to the system under which a few koonkies were stationed with fixed camps near paddy fields which were likely to be raided by herd elephants. Permanent protection could only be given to crops by the removal of the offending herds by the means of kheddah operations, but mahals could only be opened in rotation on account of the market for elephants being limited. Koonkies stationed nearby are a positive safeguard to crops, but this new system is unpopular for the elephant catchers, who naturally would prefer to go and seek for the herds instead of waiting, without any certainty, for them to approach the fields. ³⁸ This system was more popular because of its low capital investment. The people who keep koonkies and supply the funds for catching elephants were known as kheddahwalas. An elephant catcher or kheddahwalas’s establishment consists of the following things. First, koonkies, i.e., tame elephants trained to hunting and catching wild elephants; second, phanaits, i.e., noose men; third Lohattias, i.e., elephant driver; fourthly, mates, i.e., under drivers; and fifthly, an abundant supply of ropes and cables for catching and tying up their massive quarry. ³⁹ Thus, though the process sounds easy, but it was not like that. It took tough work and patience for capturing herd of elephants at a time.

The pit fall system of elephant catching was also prevalent, the oldest method of trapping wild animals. ⁴⁰ Sometimes even a ‘rogue’ elephant was captured by this method. ⁴¹ Later, the British government restricted the elephant catching by this method. The government ignored those methods in which the chances of death of elephants were more. They preferred to capture them alive than dead. But rogue elephants were preferred to be shot. Sometimes it was necessary to shoot one that went must and was pillaging the crops and attacking villages. ⁴² The progress report of the forest administration in the province of Assam for the year 1937–1939 accounted one such killing of elephant in Haltugaon division by Mr Gyles Mackrell (see Figure 2). The elephant reportedly killed several people and had caused a good deal of damage to timber extraction carts. The report says ‘one particularly large and troublesome bull (male elephant) known locally as the ‘Bishmuri goonda’ was accounted for by Mr Gyles Mackrell, who was good enough to report details of its measurement as follows: circumference of forefoot 5′–4¾″, height 10′–9½″, tusks 6′–0½″ and 4′–11½″ (the latter having been broken off) and girth of tusks 17¾ and 18″. This animal was known to have killed four people and had been followed up by Mr Mackrell on nine separate occasions, but he had only seen it once. ⁴³ It was very difficult to kill a rogue elephant. Colonel Pollok remarked that nothing could be worse than a rogue elephant. ⁴⁴

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Source: Reproduced from the Annual Progress Report on Forest Administration of Assam (1937–1938).

Elephant Protection Policies and Conflicts over the Access of the Animal

Though the preservation of wild animals started much later, the attempts at preservation of elephants started in the mid-nineteenth century. Various strategies and techniques were adopted by the government to exclude the local people, from the high-ranked zamindars and native chieftains, to the local inhabitants and forest dwellers, to gain the maximum profit from elephant hunting. The creation of a kheddah department and the private lease system were to get institutions through which laws could be forced upon the open access of the animal. However, this monopoly over the animal was of utilitarian ⁴⁵ nature.

The first attempt at the preservation of wild animals or to put some restriction was started only in case of ‘Elephant’, that was only because of its strategic needs, as no restriction was put on the killing of other wild animals. On the other hand, a good sum was expended on the killing of wild animals. Reward giving and appointment of professional shikaries for extermination of wild animals were features of the colonial rule. The ‘Elephant Preservation Act of 1879’ is supposed to be the first legal attempt at the preservation of the animal, but even according to sections 4 and 5 the Forest Act of 1865, a fine of ₹500 might also be inflicted for the infringement of forest rules, one of which might provide for the ‘collection and removal of elephants’ tusk’; but the rules would only applied to ‘government forests’, declared to be such under section 2 of the Act, and not to open forests generally. But as the rule was not applicable to open forest, an immoral trade was found to have grown in the province. Many people for the sake of ivory were seen engaging in wilful destruction of the animal. ⁴⁶ Apprehending that the indiscriminate killing would increase the chances of the extinction of this useful animal, the commissioner ordered the board of revenue for the adaptation of certain preventive measures with immediate effect. ⁴⁷ Hopkinson submitted a draft embodying certain provisions of law to restrain the capture and killing of elephants. He recommended a fine of ₹200 on those who intentionally kill or maim or capture an elephant in Assam. ⁴⁸ The draft underlying the penal provision was as follows:

whoever, without the written permission of the officer’s authorities by government, to grant such permission, in any way intentionally kills or maims or captures an elephant in Assam, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 200 for each animal so killed, maimed or capture; and any animal killed or captured shall be confiscated to government. ⁴⁹

But before the British obtained possession of any province or so long as the province was governed by its own Rajah, as seen in the case of Cachar, there was an immemorial custom of giving the sole right of catching wild elephants to the Rajah, until it was ruled by its Rajah. Without his authority, no person dared to catch one, indeed no person had even a right to keep one except the Rajah, unless it was given to him. ⁵⁰ Even in some cases, the attempts made by British officers to capture elephants in Cachar were failed. ⁵¹ The Rajah had not only right over the catching of wild elephants but also all elephant teeth found in the district belonged to the Rajah, and all parties finding them were obliged to give them up. It also appears from the records of 1830 that the parties allowed to keep the ‘elephant teeth’ were required to pay three annas on every rupee’s worth of ivory to the government. ⁵² Thus, the restrictions on the elephant hunting were only for generating revenue from it and not for the preservation of the animal. Though these hunting regulations later became an important adjunct to the forest conservancy, earlier it was only an attempt to generate revenue.

The Elephants Preservation Act of 1879 can be called as the first attempt for the preservation of fauna in colonial India in the late nineteenth century. It came into force on the first day of April 1879. The increasing awareness of the decline in wildlife and the fear of elephant extinction led to the passing of the act, which restricted the killing and capture of the elephant. With the extension of this act, elephants became one of the earliest species of wildlife or most probably the first wild animal that was transformed from an open access resource, whose use had been loosely regulated by native rulers and landed classes into an exclusive privilege of the colonial rulers. The gist of regulation mentioned in the act clearly distinguished between the act of shooting and that of hunting. Licence holders could hunt the elephants but not shoot. However, the rogue elephant or elephants that became dangerous to human life and property could be shot, but at the same time the wild elephant captured and the tusk of wild elephants killed by any unlicensed person should be the property of the government. The licences for killing or capturing wild elephants could be granted to any person by the collector or the deputy commissioner in their district but no such licence shall authorise anyone to enter upon any land without the consent of the owner or occupier thereof. The act also put a fine of ₹500 or more if any one violates the above condition for the hunting of wild elephants. ⁵³

In Assam, the act had been extended to the district of Kamrup, Darrang, Naugon, Sibsagar, Lakhimpur, Cachar, the Naga hills, the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, the Garo hills (with the exception of certain portion of the estates of the Zamindars of Bijni), the Eastern Duars in the district of Goalpara, that part of the district of Sylhet which has not been permanently settled, Makokchang subdivision of the Naga Hills district and the Lushai Hills. ⁵⁴ Bijni Tract was regarded useless for the purpose of kheddah operations and the government of India did not, therefore, wish to interfere with the rights of the owners to catch elephants in it. ⁵⁵ In case of Mechpara and Karaibari estates (transferred to the Garo hills from the Goalpara district), the government failed to make any settlement with the zamindars and that led to conflicts between the zamindars and the British administration over the access of elephants in the mentioned estate.

The growing number of wild elephants in the later part of the nineteenth century necessitated a conscious policy to regulate the animal. In spite of meeting the requirement of the state, a need was felt to regulate their hunting in order to defend the local inhabitants from the havoc caused to their lives and property by the wild elephants. In the meantime, the decreasing number of the wild elephants in the south necessitated the protection of elephants. Sanderson ardently admitted that ‘protection and utilization should go hand in hand’. ⁵⁶ Thus, though the state’s control over the extension of the Elephant Preservation Act was necessitated for the protection of the life and property, it was not without the colonial interest of accreting state control over the access of the elephants. ⁵⁷

Revenue from Elephants

The British government used to get revenue from certain miscellaneous sources. One of the important sources was the elephant mahals. ⁵⁸ The Administrative Report of Assam (1892–1893) mentions that among the ‘commercial Staples’ of Assam, elephants should also be mentioned. ⁵⁹ The colonial officials marked the abundance of elephant in this region. John M’Cosh mentioned in his book Topography of Assam that about 700–1,000 elephants were exported every year at an average value of ₹300. ⁶⁰ The elephants were largely captured by the private contractors and were bought by the Bengal government for the commissariat department. The revenue derived from this source was originally not very significant. Gradually more and more speculators engaged in this profession, and capitalist from outside began pouring into the province with a view to obtain licences from the government. ⁶¹ The amount of revenue from elephant hunting thus derived in year 1866–1867 amounted to ₹1,623, in Cachar, ₹200 in Khasi and Jaintia Hills, ₹220 in Darrang, ₹340 in Goalpara, ₹60 in Lakhimpur, ₹180 in Kamrup, ₹340 in Nowgaon and ₹1558 in Sibsagar. ⁶² The amount decreased considerably in 1871–1872 and a sum of ₹1,420 only was collected from the licences issued to catch elephants in Assam proper. ⁶³ Since then, the revenue increased considerably, as shown in Table 1. The revenue from elephants mahals was always shown as ‘miscellaneous land revenue’, but after Assam was separated from Bengal, the revenue from elephant mahals was included in the forest branch by Gustav Mann, Deputy Conservator of Forest, Assam. He again mentioned that if this revenue had to transfer under land revenue, it would seriously affect the forest budget. ⁶⁴ And finally in October 1876, authority of the revenue from ‘elephant mahals’ and ‘royalty levied on its capture’ was transferred to the department of ‘forest’ by the Government of India. ⁶⁵ A large sum was collected from elephant hunting each year. Table 1 shows the number of elephants captured and revenue earned from elephant catching during each successive year from 1875 to 1938.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Statistics of Elephant Captured and Revenue Collected from Elephant Hunting during 1875–1938

Year	Number of Elephants Captured	Total Revenue	Year	Number of Elephants Captured	Total Revenue
1875–1876	Not available	₹55,137	1911–1912	359	Not available
1877–1878	264	₹31,870	1914–1915	195	Not available
1878–1879	332	₹108,656	1915–1916	270	Not available
1879–1880	265	₹45,177	1916–1917	424	Not available
1880–1881	Not available	₹63,108	1917–1918	500	₹105,450
1881–1882	187	₹39,269	1920–1921	104	₹32,000
1882–1883	475	₹85,735	1922–1923	292	₹230,301
1883–1884	Not available	₹83,891	1923–1924	524	₹202,922
1884–1885	469	₹87,160	1924–1925	130	₹67,340
1885–1886	338	₹51,654	1925–1926	Not available	₹63,872
1886–1887	323	₹68,335	1926–1927	Not available	₹58,170
1887–1888	270	₹43,412	1927–1928	411	₹195,700
1888–1889	321	₹38,547	1928–1929	476	₹184,250
1889–1890	188	₹28,899	1929–1930	299	₹125,000
1890–1891	259	₹35,677	1930–1931	490	₹77,300
1892–1893	Not available	₹18,102	1931–1932	146	₹24,600
1893–1894	105	₹47,592	1932–1933	136	₹26,900
1894–1895	369	₹50,452	1933–1934	324	₹44,050
1895–1896	238	₹39,155	1934–1935	208	₹32,562
1896–1897	280	₹45,701	1935–1936	394	₹63,000
1897–1898	328	₹48,019	1936–1937	437	₹58,000
1898–1899	213	₹30,750	1937–1938	209	₹40,000
1899–1900	176	₹23,390	1938–1939	395	₹63,000
1903–1904	Not available	₹54,997

Source: Report on the Administration of the Province of Assam during the year 1877–1940 (collected from Secretariat Library, New Delhi, Directorate of Assam State Archive, Guwahati).

The catching of elephants continued throughout the British rule in Assam. In the Legislative Assembly session of 1947–1948, answering to the question of Mr E.W.B. Kenney, the Revenue Minister J.J.M. Nichols-Roy replied that a total of 233 elephants (141 female, 47 tusker, 45 Makhana) were caught during the year. ⁶⁶ Thus, a large number of wild elephants were caught under the British rule.

The monopoly over strategic natural resources, though not direct but contested, also strengthened the administrative power of the British over the province. The clearance of the jungle including wild elephants was to meet the need of extension of agriculture, on the one hand; it was also for the territorial extension of the colonial rule. The control over the access right over the elephant hunting was also a sign of dominance over the nature. The control or monopoly over the animal by the colonial government was to facilitate the hauling of timbers, as a part of military, clearance of jungles, means of transport in jungly areas and plantation fields, etc., but it also led to the starting of the formation of the policies for the protection of the animal. As rightly pointed out by Mahesh Rangarajen.

Though initially the laws related with wild-elephant preservation were to facilitate the access of the animal by the British government, it cannot be denied that later on it became instrumental in fostering the protection of the animal. So, be it for any reason, the colonial government started the preservation policies in case of elephant hunting; it also led to the starting of the fauna preservation movement in India and subsequently in Assam. Thus, the contest over a strategic wild animal and the process of colonisation of elephant hunting gradually led to the development of the fauna preservation movement in India.