Critically examine the critique of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, as articulated by Madhav Gadgil. To what extent do institutional conservation frameworks risk marginalising indigenous communities in the pursuit of ecological protection?

Question

PocketIAS · Accepted Answer

Context

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: primary law for biodiversity conservation in India.
Critiqued by Madhav Gadgil for centralised, exclusionary conservation approaches that marginalise local communities.

Critique of the Act (Gadgil’s Perspective)

Centralised Governance: State-dominated decision-making, minimal local involvement.
Eviction and Displacement: Creation of sanctuaries and national parks often forced relocation of indigenous populations.
Limited Participation: Traditional custodians and Gram Sabhas excluded from planning and management.

Risks to Indigenous Communities

Livelihood Loss: Restrictions on grazing, hunting, and forest-based subsistence practices.
Cultural Erosion: Sacred groves, rituals, and traditional ecological knowledge threatened.
Conflict Potential: Alienation may increase local opposition, poaching, and unsustainable resource use.

Implications and Way Forward

Community-Based Conservation: Co-management and participatory governance to integrate local knowledge.
Decentralised Decision-Making: Empower Gram Sabhas and village institutions in ecological planning.
Policy Reforms: Recognition of Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) and flexible regulations balancing conservation with human well-being.
Sustainable conservation requires aligning ecological protection with social equity, validating Gadgil’s concerns that exclusionary frameworks risk undermining both biodiversity and community resilience.

✍️ Practice Mode

Write. Evaluate. Improve. Repeat.

The model answer is ready.

Comments (0)