For decades, India’s story of wildlife protection has been one of resilience — tigers were brought back from the brink, wetlands were restored, and communities coexisted in harmony with the wilderness. Yet beneath this surface lies a quieter shift towards privatisation.
Across the country, private investors, corporations, and “conservation entrepreneurs” are entering spaces once guarded by the state. The language of efficiency, profits and partnership has replaced the older rhetoric of duty and preservation.
On the face of it, the argument is persuasive: conservation requires funding, and private donations can help bridge the gap. But the moment wildness becomes an “asset class,” something essential begins to change. What was once seen as a public trust starts to resemble a business venture.
India’s wildlife laws are among the most ambitious in the developing world. The Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 established a network of sanctuaries and national parks that now encompasses millions of hectares. These landscapes shelter the tiger in the central plains, the elephant in the southern forests, and the rhinoceros in the floodplains of the northeast.
However, despite their symbolism, many of these parks face chronic staff shortages, inadequate funding, and a lack of field expertise. Rangers are spread thin across large territories. Research budgets shrink, and community programmes stall.
The state’s limitations have opened the door for private participation. In several regions, corporations are now sponsoring anti-poaching patrols, financing “eco-lodges,” and supporting habitat “restoration” projects. Some efforts have been successful in reviving degraded land and generating income for local people.
Others, however, have blurred the boundaries between protection and profit. When conservation is guided by market logic, success is often measured in terms of visitors, revenue, or brand visibility, rather than ecological recovery.
Tourism has become the most visible expression of this new model. Safaris, retreats, and boutique wildlife experiences promise both adventure and conscience. The income they generate supports park maintenance and local employment, but also carries risks.
Roads are widened to accommodate jeeps. Hotels press against buffer zones. Noise, waste, and traffic disturb fragile habitats. A reserve that depends on constant visitation begins to serve its audience rather than its ecosystem.
For people living near protected areas, the pressures are even more complex. Villages that border sanctuaries often rely on forest products, grazing land, or fishing grounds for survival. When these resources are restricted, resentment can grow.
In the Sunderbans, honey gatherers and fishermen share territory with crocodiles and tigers. Each trip into the mangroves is both a livelihood and a risk. Conservation laws written in distant offices do not always reflect these daily negotiations with danger.
The result is an uneasy coexistence. Wildlife sometimes destroys crops or threatens livestock. Retaliation follows, and sympathy for conservation weakens. A single act of violence — a poisoned leopard, a snared elephant — is often the symptom of deeper frustration.
In such settings, privatised conservation can worsen divides. When outsiders manage local landscapes, communities may feel excluded from decision-making and alienated from land that has sustained them for generations.
Supporters of private involvement argue that without innovation, India’s parks cannot survive. They point to pilot projects where private landowners maintain grasslands for endangered species or where corporate foundations fund scientific surveys.
However, critics see a different pattern emerging: the quiet transfer of ecological control from the public to the private sphere. Forests and wetlands are not factories; their rhythms cannot be standardised. Once profit becomes part of the calculus, it rarely steps aside.
India’s biodiversity reflects the tension between protection and exploitation. While tiger populations have risen after decades of decline, many other species have slipped into obscurity.
Amphibians in the Western Ghats, once abundant, are vanishing as streams are dammed and plantations spread. Orchids and medicinal plants face illegal collection. Insect populations are falling, with consequences that ripple through entire ecosystems. Yet these smaller losses attract little funding or attention. Conservation has become uneven, generous toward what can be photographed, indifferent to what cannot.
Private actors, when focused narrowly on marketable wildlife, risk amplifying that imbalance. They tend to protect what is visible and profitable — the big cats, the elephants, the iconic birds — while the rest of the forest fades into the background.
The health of an ecosystem depends on its least noticed members. Without the understory plants, the soil fungi, the unglamorous scavengers, no wilderness can survive.
The danger of commodifying conservation lies not only in what it excludes but in what it encourages. Once wildlife is framed as an opportunity, the temptation grows to create more of it for consumption.
A safari needs spectacle. A private reserve must deliver encounters. Animals, once symbols of freedom, become instruments of experience. The subtle balance between distance and respect—the heart of genuine conservation—begins to erode.
India’s conservation story is inextricably linked to its people. In some parts of the country, local communities manage community reserves under shared governance models.
These experiments, modest in scale, suggest that coexistence can work when residents are treated as partners rather than trespassers. Participation strengthens protection. When people see the forest as their own inheritance, they guard it more fiercely than any outside authority or corporation could.
The challenge is to reconcile this participatory approach with the rising tide of private capital. Corporate funding can supplement public resources, but it should not replace them.
The role of the state remains essential: setting limits, enforcing law, maintaining scientific oversight, and ensuring that conservation serves the public good rather than private interest. Once the public mandate weakens, the idea of collective stewardship begins to fade.
What India faces is not a failure of ambition, but a failure of attention. Conservation has become visible, even fashionable, yet its meaning is quietly changing. A project launched with good intentions may still have unintended and irreversible consequences.
A road built to connect tourists to a tiger reserve can split an elephant corridor in two. A lodge designed for “eco-luxury” may drain groundwater faster than a village. Each intervention, however small, alters the pattern of life that makes these places wild.
Today, the country stands at a threshold. It can treat its natural heritage as a shared trust, renewed through law, science, and community effort. Or it can hand it, piece by piece, to markets that trade in experience and image.
The first path is slower and more demanding. The second is seductive, with quick returns and visible results. But the forest does not move at market speed. Its logic is older, deeper, patient beyond human measure.
Conservation, at its core, is not a service to be delivered but a relationship to be maintained. The success of India’s wild future will not depend on how much it earns from its parks, but on how much care it invests in what cannot be priced. The test of India’s stewardship will be whether the forests can still whisper in their own language — one that speaks not of ownership, but of endurance.
-30-
Copyright©Madras Courier, All Rights Reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from madrascourier.com and redistribute by email, post to the web, mobile phone or social media.Please send in your feed back and comments to [email protected]
