Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T07:18:00.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE RAJ AND THE PARADOXES OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: BRITISH ATTITUDES AND EXPEDIENCIES*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2015

VIJAYA RAMADAS MANDALA
VIJAYA RAMADAS MANDALA*
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
*
School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester m13 9plvijayamandala@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article throws light on how the issue of conservation stood in tension with imperial hunting and exploitation in colonial India. The indiscriminate slaughter of wildlife and the declining numbers of game species in nineteenth-century India gave rise to a need for conservation, but with a caveat. Wildlife conservation, consequently, was aimed at the expansion of colonial economy and infrastructural development. Thus, in colonial India, wild predators that posed a threat to such interests were ruthlessly decimated and those animals that were useful for the smooth functioning of the British colonial rule were overlooked. This, in part, was also necessitated by the British seeking to establish their credentials as rulers, which explains the reason the colonial government's conservation programme was fundamentally selective and guided by expediency. The comparative perspective on elephants and tigers elucidates how the former were protected by the law because of the critical role they played in the colonial economy and administration, whilst the latter were ruthlessly exterminated for the threat they posed to the same. This article especially argues that the reasons for conserving elephants and decimating tigers in colonial India were more practical and economic than a mere reflection of cultural sensitivity on the part of the colonizers.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 75 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Dr Anindita Ghosh at the University of Manchester, Dr Andrew Preston, the editor, and four anonymous referees of the Historical Journal for their comments, questions, and suggestions on early versions of this article.

References

1 Journal of the Society of Arts, 49 (1901)Google Scholar, p. 482. A paper presented to the Society of Arts, London, in the 1900s stated that the Indian tiger should be given state protection: the ‘animal which requires protection is the tiger. The indiscriminate offer of rewards by Government for killing this beautiful creature should be withdrawn.’ Also see Govt of India (Foreign Dept), ‘Correspondence on 11 May 1874’, Home (Public), Jan. 1911, Home (Public) A, No. 193–212, pp. 125–6, National Archives of India, New Delhi (NAI).

2 Birkett, A. I., Battling and building amongst the Bhils (London, 1914)Google Scholar, p. 12.

3 Guha, Ramachandra, The unquiet woods, ecological change and peasant resistance in the western Himalaya (Delhi, 1989)Google Scholar, p. 29; Sivaramakrishnan, K., ‘Colonialism and forestry in India: imagining the past in present politics’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 37 (1995), pp. 3–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See various arguments by the following authors mostly related to ecological issues and Indian forest resources use under the British as a means to fulfil the mission of colonial commercial exploitation. Gadgil, Madhav and Guha, Ramachandra, This fissured land: an ecological history of India (New Delhi, 1992)Google Scholar; Guha, Ramachandra, ‘Writing environmental history in India’, Studies in History, 9 (1993), pp. 119–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grove, Richard, Damodaran, Vinita, and Sangwan, Satpal, eds., Nature and the Orient: the environmental history of South and Southeast Asia, Studies in Social Ecology and Environmental History (New Delhi, 1998)Google Scholar.

5 See Part 3: ‘Ecological change and social conflict in modern India’, in Gadgil and Guha, This fissured land, pp. 113–45.

6 Guha, Ramachandra and Gadgil, Madhav, ‘State forestry and social conflict in British India’, Past and Present, 123 (1989), pp. 141–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Ibid., pp. 145–6.

8 Richard Grove, ‘Conserving Eden: the (European) East India companies and their environmental policies on St. Helena, Mauritius and in western India, 1660–1854’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 35 (1993), pp. 318–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 331.

9 Grove, Richard H., Green imperialism: colonial expansion, tropical island Edens and the origins of environmentalism, 1600–1860 (Cambridge, 1995)Google Scholar, p. 473.

10 Barton, Gregory, ‘Empire forestry and the origins of environmentalism’, Journal of Historical Geography, 27 (2001), pp. 529–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 As evident in colonial endeavours in the appropriation of Indian forest lands through official legislation, commercialization of forestry, ‘vermin eradication’ programme, unrestricted activity of game hunting, and the subsequent displacement of hunter-gatherer communities, and the loss of natural habitat for Indian fauna.

12 See Arnold, David and Guha, Ramchandra, eds., Nature, culture and imperialism (Delhi, 1995), pp. 113–40Google Scholar, which deals with the nature of colonial exploitation in the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries in India that deprived many agrarian and forest communities of their rights and privileges. Guha, The unquiet woods, p. 29; K. Sivaramakrishnan, ‘Colonialism and forestry in India: imagining the past in present politics’, pp. 3–40.

13 Rangarajan, Mahesh, India's wildlife history: an introduction (New Delhi, 2006)Google Scholar.

14 Home (Public), Dec. 1890: A, No. 360–407, No. 363, pp. 37–9, ‘Results of the measures adopted for exterminating wild animals and poisonous snakes in British India during the year 1889’, No. 363, pp. 37–39, NAI.

15 David Hardiman, ‘Power in the forests: the Dangs, 1820–1940’, in Arnold, David and Hardiman, David, eds., Essays in honour of Ranajit Guha, Subaltern Studies, 8 (Delhi, 1994), pp. 89–147Google Scholar.

16 Sivasundaram, Sujit, ‘Trading knowledge: the East India Company's elephants in India and Britain’, Historical Journal, 48 (2005), pp. 27–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Taking the elephant as a point of focus, Sivasundaram emphasizes the importance of the correlation between the native popular traditions and colonial knowledge in the emergence of imperial science, and cautions against the reification of indigenous knowledge. His study elucidates the interchangeable nature of the colonial and indigenous knowledge systems.

17 Sivaramakrishnan, K., Modern forests: state making and environmental change in colonial eastern India (Stanford, CA, 1999)Google Scholar, p. 90.

18 Rangarajan, Mahesh, ‘The Raj and the natural world: the war against “dangerous beasts” in colonial India’, Studies in History, 14 (1998), pp. 265–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 299.

19 Annual report on the administration of the Bengal Presidency, 1863–1864 (Calcutta, 1865)Google Scholar, p. 159.

20 Bengal Rev (LP) 10 Sept. 1828, draft 472/1827–8, IOR/E/4/723, pp. 243–5, British Library (BL).

21 Bombay, Pol. 1, June 1842, draft 303/1842, IOR/E/4/1070, pp. 663–89, BL. Also see Seely, John B., The wonders of Elora (London, 1824), pp. 376–7Google Scholar.

22 Mosley, Stephen, The environment in world history (London and New York, NY, 2010), pp. 21–2Google Scholar.

23 Ibid., p. 22.

24 Walker, Brett L., The lost wolves of Japan (Seattle, WA, 2005)Google Scholar.

25 Flader, Susan, Thinking like a mountain: Aldo Leopold and the evolution of an ecological attitude toward deer, wolves, and forests (Madison, WI, 1974)Google Scholar.

26 Ranagarajan, Mahesh, Fencing the forest: conservation and ecological change in India's Central Provinces, 1860–1914 (Delhi, 1996)Google Scholar, p. 141.

27 MacKenzie, John M., The empire of nature: hunting, conservation and British imperialism (Manchester, 1988)Google Scholar; Mangan, J. A. and McKenzie, Callum, ‘Martial masculinity in transition: the imperial officer-hunter and the rise of a conservation ethic’, International Journal of the History of Sport, 25 (2008), pp. 1243–73Google Scholar; also see Mangan, J. A. and McKenzie, Callum, ‘Prologue: statement’, International Journal of the History of Sport, 25 (2008), pp. 1057–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Weil, Benjamin, ‘Conservation, exploitation, and cultural change in the Indian forest service, 1875–1927’, Environmental History, 11 (2006), pp. 319–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It was evident that the ecological change and deforestation that took place in India during the colonial period was a by-product of the British colonial expansion, correlated with trade and commerce, and increasing levels of agricultural production in fringe areas. Forest Acts were subsequently enacted in order to promote British hegemony over Indian forest resources, flora, and fauna. See Rao, V. S., 100 years of Indian forestry (Dehradun, 1961)Google Scholar, p. 75. Colonial government reports of the 1860s show that ‘large quantities of timber were supplied to the Navy, the Army, and Public Works Department’. Increasing demand for timber supply for multiple colonial needs necessitated the government to take up the programme of conserving forests.

29 Rangarajan, Mahesh, ‘Imperial agendas and India's forests: the early history of Indian forestry, 1800–1878’, Indian Economic Social History Review, 31 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 148. Although the origin of the Forest Service dates back to the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was the demand and the requirement for timber supply for the nascent Indian railways that ultimately paved the way for the establishment of the Imperial Forest Department in 1864. The rise of conservation initiatives and ethics in India had its origins in the latter half of the nineteenth century with the expansion of the Indian Forest Service. For the initial phase of recruitment, since trained men were unavailable, a taste for hunting was considered an eligible criterion for entering the Forest Service. The first chief conservator general, Dietrich Brandis, wrote that ‘officers were obtained from the Army and other sources, who in the pursuit of sport and adventure had acquired a love of forest life and an intimate knowledge of the country, the people, and their languages’. For more details, see Dietrich Brandis, quoted in McDonnell, J., ‘Early days of forestry in India’, Empire Forestry Journal, 8 (1929), pp. 85–97.Google Scholar

30 See Rice, William, Indian game: from quail to tiger (London, 1884)Google Scholar; Shakespear, Henry, The wild sport of India (London, 1860)Google Scholar; Forsyth, James, The highlands of central India: notes on their forests and wild tribes, natural history, and sports (London, 1889)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schaller, George B., The deer and the tiger: a study of wildlife in India (Chicago, IL, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Forsyth, The highlands of central India, pp. 230, 266–7, 273, 292.

32 Claverhill Jerdon, Thomas, The mammals of India (Roorke, 1867)Google Scholar, p. 262.

33 Weil, ‘Conservation, exploitation, and cultural change’, at p. 327.

34 Stebbing, Edward, Jungle by ways in India (London, 1910)Google Scholar, p. viii.

35 Mangan and McKenzie, ‘Martial masculinity in transition’, p. 1243.

36 Stebbing, E. P., The diary of a sportsman naturalist in India (London, 1920)Google Scholar, p. 241.

37 See Barnes, Lieut. H. E., ‘Notes on “The birds of Bombay”’, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 1 (Bombay, Apr. 1886), pp. 34–6Google Scholar.

38 Ibid., pp. 34–5.

39 Ibid., pp. 34–5.

40 The imperial gazetteer of India, vol. xi (Oxford, 1908)Google Scholar, p. 146.

41 Prendergast, David K. and Adams, William M., ‘Colonial wildlife conservation and the origins of the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire (1903–1914)’, Oryx, 37 (2003), pp. 251–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 By the turn of the early twentieth century, colonial hunters such as Jim Corbett and Colonel Richard Burton became the leading advocates of wildlife conservation while forging close alliance with local populace.

43 Francis Burton, Edmund, Reminiscences of sport in India (London, 1885)Google Scholar. Also see Toovey, Jacqueline, ed., Tigers of the Raj: pages from shikar diaries, 1894 to 1949, of Colonel Burton, sportsman and conservationist (Gloucester, 1987)Google Scholar, p. 5.

44 Burton, E. F., An Indian olio (London, 1888), pp. 276–7Google Scholar, 286.

45 Ibid., pp. 94, 206.

46 Rangarajan, Mahesh, India's wildlife history (Delhi, 2001), pp. 30–1Google Scholar.

47 ‘Tiger conservation in India, past, present and future’, Indian Forester, 131 (2005)Google Scholar, p. 1282.

48 Toovey, ed., Tigers of the Raj.

49 Ibid., p. 44.

50 Recently, the BNHS published a book, Natural history and the Indian army, signalling the contribution of Col. Richard W. Burton thus: ‘A valuable feature of this book is a pamphlet by Lieut. Colonel Burton sent to the Indian Government by the Army.’ Burton's ‘Preservation of wild life – India's vanishing asset’ was reproduced as the twenty-fifth article by the BNHS, as an acknowledgment that Burton was one of the leading naturalists in colonial India to campaign for the safeguarding of Indian flora and fauna. See Daniel, J. C. and Singh, Baljit, eds., Natural history and the Indian army (New Delhi, 2009)Google Scholar.

51 Corbett, Jim, Man-eaters of Kumaon (London, 1944)Google Scholar, p. xv. Corbett openly admired the tiger for its boundless courage, and wrote how ‘unless [there were] public rallies to his [tiger's] support – India will be the poorer by having lost the finest of her fauna’.

52 Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India, vol. 9, National Institute of Sciences of India, 1943, p. 32. Also see Mitra, Sangita and Choudhury, Tanmay, Trails of the tiger (Kolkata, 2006)Google Scholar, p. 13; Booth, Martin, A life of Jim Corbett (New Delhi, 1986), pp. 212–14Google Scholar.

53 Rangarajan, India's wildlife history: an introduction. The same park was chosen as the venue for the launch of ‘Project Tiger’ by the government of India in 1973. See Tiwari, P. C. and Joshi, Bhagwati, Wildlife in the Himalayan foothills (Delhi, 1997), pp. 208, 215Google Scholar.

54 Hawkins, R. E., Jim Corbett's India (Oxford, 1978), pp. 241–2Google Scholar.

55 Champion, F. W., With a camera in tigerland (London, 1927)Google Scholar.

56 Champion, F. W., ‘The preservation of wildlife in India in the United Provinces’, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 37 (1934), pp. 104–10Google Scholar.

57 Some of the photographs by Champion were published in the Illustrated London News, the Sunday Herald, Die Gartenlaubale (Germany), Familie-Journal (Copenhagen), L'Illustration (Paris), and St. Louis Dispatch (USA).

58 Hawkie (Gen. Richard Hamilton), Game (Madras, 1876)Google Scholar, see the preface.

59 Davidar, E. R. C. and Townsend, H. L., eds., Nilgiri wild life association centenary 1877–1977 (Ooty, 1977)Google Scholar.

60 Francis, W., The Nilgiris (Madras, 1908)Google Scholar, p. 33.

61 See the Nilgiris Game and the Fish Preservation Act of 1879, 1879: Tamil Nadu Act II. For statement of objectives and reasons and report of the selection committee, see Fort St. George Gazette (1878), p. 2.

62 The Wild Birds Protection Act, 1887 (10 of 1887), Govt of India, Legislative Department (Calcutta, 1887), NAI.

63 The Wild Birds and Animal Protection Act, 1912, Govt of India, Legislative Department (Calcutta, 1912); the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912 (Act No. 8 of 1912 dated 8 Sept. 1912), NAI; Stebbing, The diary of a sportsman naturalist in India, pp. 269–77.

64 Strahorn, Eric A., An environmental history of postcolonial north India (New York, NY, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 33.

65 Bengal Rhinoceros Preservation Act, 1932 (Ben. 8 of 1932) section 7; the India code 1, Indian Ministry of Law (Delhi, 1955), p. 58.

66 Stebbing, The diary of a sportsman naturalist in India, pp. 269–70; Schaller, The deer and the tiger, p. 5; Sivaramakrishnan, Modern forests, pp. 103–4.

67 Hunter, W. W., The imperial gazetteer of India (London, 1881)Google Scholar, p. 119.

68 See Saravanan, Velayutham, ‘Colonialism and coffee plantations: decline of environment and tribals in Madras Presidency during the nineteenth century’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 41 (2004), pp. 465–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This study demonstrates that the British administration disregarded the tribal system and encouraged British planters in establishing coffee estates. This process of commercialization of forests by the British in defining their colonial policy, the author argues, neglected the importance of ecology and environment as well as the livelihood of tribal communities. In addition, British planters enjoyed access to unlimited hunting and shikar while locals were prohibited from such rights that hitherto were a part of their livelihood for centuries.

69 See Guha and Gadgil, ‘State forestry and social conflict in British India’, p. 123.

70 The Indian Forest Act, 1878, Govt of India Legislative Department (Calcutta, 1894) p. 9, NAI; ‘Animals include elephants, camels, buffaloes, horses … dwelling in forest lands’ now constitute part of the government property.

71 Govt of India, the Indian Arms Act, 1878: as modified up to 1 July 1892 (Calcutta, 1892), NAI.

72 Neeladri Bhattacharya, ‘Pastoralists in a colonial world’, in Arnold and Guha, eds., Nature, culture, imperialism, pp. 49–85.

73 Lewis, Michael, ‘Cattle and conservation at Bharatpur: a case study in science and advocacy’, Conservation and Society, 1 (2003), pp. 1–19Google Scholar.

74 Eardley-Wilmot, Sainthill, Forest life and sport in India (London, 1910), pp. 30, 40Google Scholar.

75 Popular Science, 114 (1929), p. 57. See ‘Tiger and men fight to a draw in India’ which refers to the statistics issued by the government of India in 1929. It was reported that 1,033 people were killed by tigers. In retaliation, 1,368 tigers were shot or trapped during the period of twelve months.

76 Eardley-Wilmot, Forest life and sport in India, p. 140.

77 The power, publicity, and influence of Jim Corbett and Richard Burton, for example, owed much to their appropriately timed shift from hunting towards wildlife conservation.

78 Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the natural world’, p. 285.

79 Ibid., p. 298.

80 ‘Jubbulpore roads, Mirzapore, measures for destruction of tigers’ (1834–37), OR/Z/E/4/14/R495, BL; ‘Gratuities to families of victims killed by tigers and wild beasts’, IOR/Z/E/4/16/W177 and IOR/E/4/760, 345, 645, BL; IOR/E/4/794, 741; ‘Correspondence relating to rewards for destruction of tigers in district through which mail road passes, Bombay roads (1853–1854)’, IOR/E/4/838, 1000, BL; ‘Reward offered in Darjiling for destruction of tigers and wild beasts (1857)’, IOR/E/4/847, 196, BL; IOR/E/4/838, 1000 (BL); Foreign (Political), 19 Sept. 1845, No. 72, ‘Reward for killing tigers in Indore’, NAI; Home (Public), 16 May 1864, B, Nos. 86–7, NAI; ‘Orders regarding arms to be retained by villages suffering from the ravages of wild beasts’, NAI; Vermin, 1875, No. 303: Capt G. H. Trevor, Off. G. 1st asst. resident, Hyd. to secretary, Govt of India (Foreign Dept), 10 Mar. 1874, NAI.

81 Home (Public), Jan. 1875, A No. 286–311, No. 297, ‘Major Tweedie, Hyderabad to Secretary, Home 5 Jan. 1874’, NAI.

82 Indian Engineering, 7 Jan. 1888, p. 7. The project was halted subsequently as the workmen and the surveyor refused to return to work until their safety was guaranteed.

83 Indian Engineering, 26 May 1888, p. 413.

84 Storey, William K., ‘Big cats and imperialism: lion and tiger hunting in Kenya and northern India, 1898–1930’, Journal of World History, 2 (1991)Google Scholar, p. 152.

85 Rangarajan, India's wildlife history: an introduction, p. 32; West Bengal State Archives (Jud) P/140 A Progs: 179–80, 7 Feb. 1870, pp. 145–6.

86 Eardley-Wilmot, Forest life and sport in India, pp. 9–14, 22, 24–5, 89.

87 Ibid., p. 120.

88 Sramek, Joseph, ‘“Face him like a Briton”: tiger hunting, imperialism, and British masculinity in colonial India, 1800–1875’, Victorian Studies, 48 (2006), pp. 659–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 661.

89 GB/NNAF/P166538, London, The National Archives.

90 See Fayrer, Joseph, The royal tiger of Bengal, his life and death (London, 1875)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 40. Journal of the Society of Arts (London, 1878)Google Scholar, p. 198. Subsequently, a model trap for the destruction of tigers, invented by Captain Rogers, was exhibited at the South Kensington Museum, London. He also sent proposals to the colonial Indian government. See Home (Public), July 1875, No. 151–2: ‘Proposal of Major B. Rogers regarding the organization of a system spring guns for the destruction of wild animals in India, Aug. 1869’, NAI.

91 Fayrer, The royal tiger, p. 33; also see ‘Measures respecting prevalence of tigers along lines between Kedgeree & Raepore (Raipur) post office and daks (1852–1853)’, IOR/E/4/815, 1343, BL.

92 Fayrer, The royal tiger of Bengal, pp. 41–2.

93 Ibid., p. 32. Also see Gouldsbury, C. E., Tiger slayer by order, Digby Davies, late Bombay police (London, 1915)Google Scholar, p. 53. Digby Davies, the deputy inspector general of the Indian police, who later became the in-charge of the Office of Tiger Slayer to the government of Bombay Presidency, writes, ‘as Tiger Slayer to the Government in Khandesh, much of [my] time was necessarily devoted to the destruction of these animals [tigers], for to be successful in this work required a great deal of personal attention to preliminary details’.

94 Lewis Rice, Benjamin, Mysore: a gazetteer compiled for government (Westminster, 1897)Google Scholar.

95 Mukherjee, Pablo, ‘Nimrods: hunting, authority, identity’, Modern Language Review, 100 (2005), pp. 923–39Google Scholar, at p. 935.

96 See Fayrer, The royal tiger of Bengal; Gouldsbury, Tiger slayer by order.

97 Campbell, Walter, The old forest ranger (London, 1853)Google Scholar, p. 34; Campbell, Walter, My Indian journal (Edinburgh, 1864)Google Scholar, p. 162.

98 Sramek, ‘“Face him like a Briton”’, p. 659.

99 Munro Jr was killed by a Bengal tiger during a shikar outing near Calcutta. There was an eye-witness – a friend of Munro Jr – and he wrote a letter on 23 Dec. 1792 while he was on board the ship Shaw Adasier near Saugur Island, which exemplifies how this episode caught the British imagination. See Monthly Review, or, Literary Journal, 39 (London, 1802), pp. 25–6Google Scholar.

100 Campbell, The old forest ranger, pp. 2–3. See Stronge, Susan, Tipu's tigers, ‘A tiger's vengeance or, the death of Munrow’ (London, 1976; repr. 2006)Google Scholar.

101 www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/t/tippoos-tiger/, last accessed 27 Mar. 2012.

102 See Indian Engineering, 5 Feb. 1887, p. 65.

103 Sheffield, Frank, How I killed the tiger (London, 1902)Google Scholar, p. 9.

104 Denenholz Morse, Deborah and Danahay, Martin A., Victorian animal dreams: representations of animals in Victorian literature (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 229–30Google Scholar.

105 Rangarajan, Mahesh, ‘The Raj and the natural world – the war against “dangerous beasts” in colonial India’, in Knight, John, ed., Wildlife in Asia: cultural perspectives (London, 2004)Google Scholar, p. 207; Rangarajan, , ‘The Raj and the natural world’, Studies in History, 14 (1998), pp. 265, 267CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Indian Engineering – An Illustrated Weekly Journal, 3 (Calcutta, 1888), pp. 310–11Google Scholar.

107 Campbell, The old forest ranger, p. 345.

108 See Sivasundaram, , ‘Trading knowledge’; Jacobs, Joseph, ed., Indian fairy tales (London, 1892)Google Scholar.

109 Campbell, My Indian journal, p. 93.

110 Crooke, William (1848–1923), Popular religion and folk-lore of northern India, ii (Westminster, 1896), pp. 211–17Google Scholar; Crooke, William, Natives of northern India (London, 1907)Google Scholar; most notably, see Naithani, Sadhana, In quest of Indian folktales: Pandit Ram Gharib Chaube and William Crooke (Bloomington, IN, 2006)Google Scholar.

111 Crooke, Popular religion and folk-lore of northern India, ii, p. 214.

112 Ezra Rashkow, ‘The nature of endangerment: histories of hunting, wildlife, and forest societies in western and central India, 1857–1947’ (Ph.D. thesis, SOAS, University of London, 2008). For a detailed discussion, refer to the chapter entitled, ‘Resistance to hunting in pre-independence India: religious environmentalism, ecological nationalism or cultural conservation?’.

113 Hornaday, William T., Two years in the jungle: the experiences of a hunter and naturalist in India, Ceylon, the Malay peninsula and Borneo (London, 1885)Google Scholar, p. 1; quoted in Rashkow, The nature of endangerment.

114 In colonial India, Kheddah was a process of taking wild elephants into captivity. An operation usually organized by people using tamed elephants to drive off wild elephants into Kheddah (elephant enclosure) in order for them to be captured. Such elephants later were tamed, trained, and widely used in hunts, festivals, and forest works, and were given to different branches of colonial government. Also called Kheda, Khedah, or Keddah.

115 See Sivasundaram, ‘Trading knowledge’, pp. 33, 37. As the author puts it, ‘While learning how local peoples used elephants as gifts, Britons also appropriated modes of observing elephants which were indigenous to India.’

116 ‘Reward for destruction of wild elephants (1844–1846)’, IOR/E/4/786, p. 863, BL; ‘Rewards for destruction of wild elephants in Bhaugulpore (1834–1837)’, IOR/Z/E/4/14/B702, BL; ‘Acting collectors, Tinnevelly civil service, to grant rewards to persons who assisted in destruction of herd of elephants (1838–1842)’, IOR/Z/E/4/45/C629, BL.

117 Bevan, Major H., Thirty years in India, II (London, 1839), pp. 257–8Google Scholar. Also see another instance of elephant hunt in the presence of the collector of Tirunelveli: see Saturday Magazine, 3 (London, 1834)Google Scholar, p. 91.

118 Clinton Robertson, Joseph, The Percy anecdotes, iii (London, 1823), pp. 43–5Google Scholar.

119 Bevan, Thirty years in India, ii, p. 258.

120 ‘Reference to wild elephants hunt, Coimbatore (1830–1835)’, IOR/Z/E/4/43/E, 316, BL.

121 Bevan, Thirty years in India, ii, p. 266.

122 Caunter, Hobart, The oriental annual or scenes in India (London, 1836), pp. 270–83Google Scholar.

123 Ibid., p. 282.

124 ‘Local artillery for elephants, Debrooghur (1849–1850)’, IOR/Z/E/4/20/E166, BL; ‘Hire of elephants for magistrate, Tipperah (1856–1857)’, IOR/Z/E/4/28/T288, BL.

125 See ‘Elephants to be supplied to magistrates, Tipperah, judicial administration of India from commissariat department (1851–1851; 1852–1853)’, IOR/Z/E/4/23/J437, IOR/Z/E/4/22/J532, BL.

126 ‘Elephants supplied for surveys, Kumaon (1854–1855)’, IOR/Z/E/4/25/K266, BL; ‘Application for elephants, surveys, Meerut (1856)’, IOR/Z/E/4/27/M688, BL; ‘Elephants purchased for topographical survey (1856)’, IOR/Z/E/4/27/G30, BL.

127 Sir Hunter, W. W., The Indian empire: its people, history, and products (London, 1886; repr. New Delhi, 2005)Google Scholar, p. 521.

128 ‘An act to amend the Elephants' Preservation Act, 1879 (1883)’, IOR/L/PJ/6/92, File, 302, BL; ‘A paper relative to the bill to amend the Elephants Preservation Act, 1879 (1882)’, IOR/L/PJ/6/90, File 118: 26 Dec. 1882, BL.

129 Letter from collector of Coimbatore to chief secretary, government of Madras, dated 6 Feb. 1879, NAI.

130 Much before the letter from the collector of Coimbatore, the Madras government led the way in elephant conservation.

131 The Madras Wild Elephants Preservation Act, 1873 (Madras Act I of 1873), see Gazette of India (London, 1875)Google Scholar, p. 95.

132 Act No. VI of 1879, the Elephant Preservation Act, 1879, NAI.

133 Hunter, W. W., The Indian Empire: its history, people and products (London, 1882), pp. 519–20Google Scholar.

134 ‘Reward for destruction of wild elephants (1844–46)’, IOR/E/4/786, 863, BL.

135 Govt of India, Home Dept Proceedings, June 1886, ‘Regarding grant of licences for the capture of elephants in the district of Coorg’, NAI.

136 Rice, Mysore: a gazetteer compiled for government, p. 177.

137 See Govt of India, Home Dept Proceedings, June, 1886, NAI. If the licence was per exclusive right to capture elephants in a particular tract of forest during a year, the licensee was asked to deposit Rs. 5,000 in the treasury which was to be adjusted against capture of elephants according to the scale shown below:

0 to 20 elephants Rs. 2,000

21 to 30 elephants Rs. 3,000

31 to 40 elephants Rs. 4,000

41 to 50 or upwards Rs. 5,000.

It is noteworthy how wildlife conservation was moulded to fit an economic motif, in spite of administrative perils. In addition to profiting from these high licence fees, the colonial government's principal policy was to ‘capture’ wild elephants rather than to ‘shoot’ them, thus underlining economic imperatives.

138 See the Elephant Preservation Act, 1879, NAI.

139 Sukumar, Raman, The living elephants: evolutionary ecology, behaviour, and conservation (Oxford, 2003)Google Scholar, p. 33. Also see Lorimer, Jamie and Whatmore, Sarah, ‘After the “king of beasts”: Samuel Baker and the embodied historical geographies of elephant hunting in mid-nineteenth-century Ceylon’, Journal of Historical Geography, 35 (2009), pp. 668–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 679.

140 Barclay, Edgar N., Big game shooting records (London, 1932), pp. 18–19Google Scholar. As he bagged elephants both for sport and ivory, one of Bell's heaviest yields of ivory in one day's shooting ‘amounted to 1,643 lbs of soft ivory from 11 head containing 21 tusks, one being a single tusker. The average weight was over 77 lbs and the value £863.’ In one of his best safari hunts Bell sold 14,780 lbs of ivory for 7,300 pound sterling.

141 See Sutherland, James, The adventures of an elephant hunter (London, 1912)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barclay, Big game shooting records, pp. 24–5.

142 See Neumann, Arthur H., Elephant-hunting in east equatorial Africa (London, 1898)Google Scholar; Barclay, Big game shooting records, pp. 27–30.

143 Holder, C. F., The ivory king – a popular history of the elephant and its allies (New York, NY, 1886)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 220.

144 Sanderson, G. P., Thirteen years among the wild beasts of India: their haunts and habits from personal observation; with an account of the modes of capturing and taming elephants (London, 1879), pp. 68–9Google Scholar.

145 Ibid., p. 68.

146 Lyell, Denis D., The African elephant and its hunters (London, 1924)Google Scholar, p. 29.

147 Ibid., pp. 29–30.

148 MacKenzie, John M., The empire of nature: hunting, conservation and British imperialism (Manchester, 1997), pp. 205–83Google Scholar. The governor of German East Africa Hermann von Wissman through colonial correspondence had sent drafted proposals concerning the question of ‘creating areas suitable for reserves and game regulations’ to all British territories and India for comment. Later, Sir Graham Bower, the imperial secretary in Cape Town reacted unfavourably to the idea of creating reserves.

149 See Prendergast and Adams, ‘Colonial wildlife conservation’, p. 252.

150 See ‘Elephant meat for our native troops in Rhodesia’, Illustrated War in News, 25 Oct. 1916, p. 6, quoted in Hediger, Ryan, Animals and war: studies of Europe and North America (Leiden, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 66.

151 ‘Africa: correspondence relating to the preservation of wild animals in Africa’, Great Britain, Colonial Office (London, 1906), p. 41.

152 File No. 11/11/46, Govt of India, Police Dept, NAI; also see Letter No. 24/46, Part 2, G. F. R. dated 18 Apr. 1946, petitioned from Govt of Assam to Govt of India, NAI. This document refers to the damages caused by wild elephants to tea estates, plantations, and various complaints received from the public on elephants’ atrocities.