1666013226
1666013226
1666013226
https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2124609
ABSTRACT
The Kaziranga National Park (KNP), a World Heritage Site in the
state of Assam, India, represents an area of unique importance
to global rhinoceros conservation. It is home to the world’s
largest population of the famous black Asiatic one-horned rhi-
noceros, which remains an endangered species, and one that
has been closely threatened with extinction. This article explores
the conservation strategies for the great endangered Indian
one-horned rhinoceros in Kaziranga by situating it in a regional
spectrum of conservation and regimes of ecological gover-
nance. It considers the crucial issue of rhinoceros poaching and
the current anti-poaching mechanisms in KNP in the light of
global wildlife conservation efforts and domestic anti-poaching
mechanisms in India. It further identifies the gaps between
policy formulation and implementation of conservation strate-
gies regarding the rhinoceros of KNP, a species that holds a
unique geopolitical importance, both in the global context of
the conservation of endangered species generally, and more
locally as the national symbol of the state of Assam, India.
1. Introduction
While many animals have become extinct throughout the previous cen-
turies, a growing number of long-standing species, such as the rhinoceros,
are becoming increasingly threatened by modern conditions. Scientists
remain apprehensive about a possible sixth mass extinction of species,
with concerns raised over the environmental vulnerabilities facing mega-her-
bivores like the rhinoceros, as were evident in the earlier events of mass
extinctions that had begun in the late Pleistocene era itself. Kaziranga
National Park (KNP) of Assam, India, recognized as a world heritage site
CONTACT Biplob Gogoi biplob.edu1@gmail.com Department of Political Science, Debraj Roy College,
affiliated to Dibrugarh University, Golaghat-785621, Assam, India
© 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 D. GOGOI AND B. GOGOI
1
F. Lacombat, The Evolution of the Rhinoceros, in Save the Rhinos: EAZA Rhino Campaign 2005/6 46–49 (R.
Fulconis ed., European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, 2005).
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 3
testify to the fact that the Rhinocerotidae, the ancestors of today’s surviving
rhinoceros, emerged in the same age and had developed into a variety of
groups of sub-species towards the end of that era.2 Some 2.5 million years
ago the first sub-species of one-horned rhinoceros emerged in the forested
habitats of Siberia, Russia, and Germany and is considered to have pre-
ceded the arrival of the Indian one-horned rhinoceros, which later made
inroads into the fertile grasslands, wetlands, and riversides of the Indo-
Gangetic and Brahmaputra Basins and neighbouring Nepal, and crossed
across the Indo–Myanmar border to enter into Bhutan and neighbouring
areas.3 Almost five thousand years ago, in the Mohenjodaro era, the Indian
rhinoceros inhabited the plains of West Sindh province, which extended
up to the northwest of Peshawar in today’s Pakistan.4 By the end of the
twentieth century the Indian rhinoceros, with its fragmented population,
became confined to the Terai Grasslands of Nepal, northern regions of
Indian states like Uttar Pradesh (UP), Bihar, and Bengal, and forested
tracts of Assam like Kaziranga, Manas, Pobitora, and Orang, prompted by
a variety of factors including poaching, environmental change, habitat
erosion, water and soil pollution, and population implosion.5 The Indian
one-horned rhinoceros found in Kaziranga National Park is now one of
the rare five existing sub-species of rhinoceroses, with the other four being
the African black two-horned rhinoceros, the African white rhinoceros,
the Javan small one-horned rhinoceros, and the Sumatran two-horned
rhinoceros.6
Kaziranga (Figure 1) was first transformed into as a reserve forest in
1908 to protect the great Indian one-horned rhinoceros and other wild
animals and was declared a National Park in 1974 by the Government of
India. It is now designated as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO and it
has an impressive, yet also disturbing, conservation history. In fact,
“Kaziranga has been heralded as a success story in bringing the one horned
rhinoceros from the brink of extinction and building up a viable popu-
lation during the last one century.”7 Kaziranga was started in 1905 as a
2
W. A. Laurie, E. M. Lang and C. P. Groves, Rhinoceros Unicornis. Mammalian Species, 211 American Society
of Mammologists 1 (1983).
3
T. Foose and N. Van Strien, Asian Rhinos—Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan (IUCN, 1997).
4
E. P. Gee, The Great Indian One-horned Rhinoceros, 5 Oryx 224 (1952).
5
A. U. Choudhury, Distribution of Indian One-horned Rhinoceros, 12 Tiger Paper 25 (1985).
6
L. N. Sangmo et al., eds., National Study Book of One Horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros Unicornis) (Third
Edition, Wildlife Institute of India, 2016).
7
Report of The Rhino Task Force (2015), submitted to the National Tiger Conservation Authority (2015),
Government of India.
4 D. GOGOI AND B. GOGOI
game reserve by the then British Viceroy Lord Curzon to guard and protect
an approximate 100 individuals of the great Indian one-horned rhinoceros,
along with some other endangered wild animals. A few leading Assamese
intellectuals like Pitambar Dev Goswami (1885–1862) also made use of
legislative assembly and the vernacular press to create social pressure,
which played a vital role in changing the official stance of the colonial
government towards wildlife.8 Kaziranga was declared a “game reserve” in
1908, which meant that “privileged hunting” for colonial officials, European
planters, local Assamese elites, and the conservation programme coexisted
inside the reserve.9
Figure 1. Political map of India showing the location of the Kaziranga National Park, Assam,
India.10
8
See further A. Saikia, The Kaziranga National Park: Dynamics of Social and Political History, 7 Conservation
and Society 113 (2009).
9
Id. at 115.
10
Adapted from the UNESCO World Heritage Centre site, https://uhc.unesco.org.
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 5
identity and the KNP. The next decades saw a coalescence of nationalist
sentiments towards rhinoceroses, following which Kaziranga was declared
a national park in 1974 by the Government of India, pursuant to the
Assam National Act Park of 1968.
At present, the accreditation of Kaziranga as a World Heritage Site
allows it to benefit from conservation focus at the global, national, and
local levels, which subsequently contributed to the securitisation of the
entire region for “maximum protection” under the patronage of the state.
At least 12 acts and legal safeguards, ranging from the Assam Forest
Regulation of 1891 to the Biodiversity Conservation Act of 2002, provide
the legal ambit of protection to the National Park. A sound management
plan for Kaziranga (2003–2004 to 2012–2013) has been implemented at
the behest of the state with defined objectives and strategies aimed at the
protection of wildlife in the park. The park provides sanctuary to almost
two-thirds of the total population of one-horned rhinoceroses in the world.
According to the 1966 census, Kaziranga had only 366 rhinoceroses. After
three decades, the censuses in 1999 and 2006 provided more optimistic
results, as the number of rhinos had increased to 1,552 and 1,855 indi-
viduals, respectively. The Census in 2013 recorded 2329 individuals, and
the last census of 2018 reported it as 2413, a marginal increase of 84
rhinoceroses over a period of 5 years (Figure 2).11
Performance Audit of Kaziranga National Park—Issues and Challenges Report (No. 3), of the Comptroller
11
13
R. H. Emslie et al., African and Asian Rhinoceroses: Status, Conservation and Trade: A Report of the
IUCN Species Survival Commission, African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups and TRAFFIC to the CITES
Secretariat pursuant to Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev.CoP.15); reproduced at http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.
com/pdf_files/156/1560170144.pdf.
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 7
keratin, which constitutes the fibrous nasal bone of the rhinoceros horn,
has no medicinal or aphrodisiac properties.14
The myriad conservation strategies and policies in KNP have neverthe-
less left remarkable loopholes in the conservation of wildlife and ecology
of the Park. Publicly available statistics confirm that the park lost around
567 rhinoceroses to poachers between 1980 and 2005. Most of the poaching
cases concerning rhinoceroses were recorded in between 1980 and 1997.15
In more recent years, poaching trends have reduced dramatically, in the
light of a major investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation ini-
tiated by the Assam Government, against the backdrop of a massive outcry
from civil society organizations and the Advocacy groups for wildlife
protection in the state. Assam lost 40 rhinoceroses in the intervening
period from 2010 to June 2012, although 41 were poached in 2013, the
highest in a year.16 However, there has been a decreasing trend, with 30
and 20 individuals taken in 2014 and 2015, respectively.17 This has since
dwindled further from 22 in 2016 to only 3 in 2019,18 following concerted
antipoaching efforts by the Assam government (Figures 3 and 4).
14
F. Patton, The Medicinal Value of Rhino Horn—A Quest for the Truth, reproduced at http://www.rhi-
noresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/132/1323815303.pdf.
15
Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 2014.
16
Report of CITES (Conservation on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora) 2016.
17
The Telegraph,12 September 2016.
September 2020.
19
The Times of India, accessed on 4 July, 2020.
8 D. GOGOI AND B. GOGOI
Profiling poachers has always been a difficult task for the law enforcement
agencies, as categorization in terms of race or of social or economic class
is increasingly becoming difficult in the light of the various interests,
individuals, or groups involved in poaching. A typical poaching gang
usually involves three to five people, belonging to ethnic tribal groups like
Nagas, Bodos, and the local Karbis.21 The Nagas hail from the neighbour-
ing state of Nagaland, and Bodos from the lower plain areas of Assam,
while the Karbis are as locals familiar with the area and helpful in carrying
provisions. The Nagas generally bring rifles from Dimapur, a trading town
on the Assam–Nagaland border. However, others like Nepalese, Bhutanese,
Assamese Hindus, Muslims, and local Mising tribals also account for a
sizable percentage of the apprehended poachers.22 Earlier, there were
instances of involvement by outlawed Indian militant separatist outfits in
the region, and many of the poachers were financed by opportunistic
traders, particularly during periods of civil unrest, and might sometimes
be helped by an unscrupulous employee of the forest department or local
villager.23
20
Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (n 15).
E. Martin, B. K. Talukdar,
21
and L. Vigne, Rhino Poaching in Assam: Challenges and Opportunities, 46
Pachyderm 25 (2009).
The modus operandi of the poachers has generally been pursued through
a syndicate-style organizational structure operating in tandem with local
informers and supported through various agencies of financial and com-
modity transactions.24 Poachers have clandestine camps at Dimapur in the
neighbouring state of Nagaland, as well as along the riverine shores of
Brahmaputra in the northern part of KNP, with a majority of the poachers
using riverways as paths of travel and communication. The verification of
the police sources of the state by the authors revealed a close association
between these poachers and the extremist groups of the neighbouring locality
24
A. E. Brener, An Anti-Poaching Strategy for the Greater One-Horned Rhinoceros in Kaziranga National
Park, Assam, India (unpublished master's thesis, University of Calgary, 1998).
10 D. GOGOI AND B. GOGOI
Four methods of poaching in KNP have been identified from the available
reports and the authors’ own observations during field investigations in
the park with the forest officials and other stakeholders (Table 1).26
25
Emslie (n 13).
26
From the account of the authors’ field investigation notes, 20192020. Similar findings are available
in Brener (n 24) and Menon (n 22).
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 11
Box 1
Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF): This force was created in 1985 under an Assam legislature act
and has a total of 425 personnel, including CCF, Addl. CCF, CF, Commandant, Dy. Commandant,
Company Commander, Platoon Commander, Havildars, and Constables. The force operates under the
direct command of the Commandant subject to general supervision of the Forest Range Officers of
KNP Authority.
Available Equipment and Arms: Elephants, country boats, speed boats, fibreglass boats, motor
launchers, jeep, van, walkie-talkie, fixed radio transmitter, mobile radio transmitter, binocular, night
vision, drones.
Arms (Old Type): 193 .315 and 164 .303 double-barreled guns, 10 revolvers, DBBL-41, SBBL-01. (New
Type): 272 INSAS rifles, 91 Ghatak rifles, 954 SLRs, 133 12-bore pump-action guns, 20 9-mm pistols.
27
Compiled by the authors from the field investigation notes, 2019–2020; see also Report of the Rhino
Task Force (n 7) and Comptroller and Auditor General of India Report (No. 4) (n 15).
28
This was confirmed to the authors by the park authority.
29
From the authors’ field investigation notes, 2019–2020.
12 D. GOGOI AND B. GOGOI
There are several factors responsible for the current concerns over the
conservation mechanisms for rhinoceroses in the KNP. The Rhinoceros
Task Force Report 2015 identified several such lacunas in the present
conservation strategy. Moreover, the earlier state government had adopted
an ad hoc and indifferent approach towards protecting the one-horned
rhinoceros and its habitat in the park. State government showed general
apathy to providing timely support, compounded by a lack of political
will to take up adaptive strategies while they were of utmost necessity.
30
This was confirmed to the authors by the park authority during field investigations in 2019.
31
Rhino Task Force Report (n 7).
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 13
the region.32 Civil society and the educated urban middle class have lent
their voice to the fight against rhinoceros poaching, but ultimately their
support is motivated more by concerns for the preservation of a symbol
of national pride than for the protection of nature. For the political parties,
the rhinoceros became the election plank during a 2014 election campaign
to draw in new political battlegrounds in the state, and for activist groups
such as the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), Krishak Mukti Sangram
Samiti (KMSS), and the Hindu nationalists, an anti-poaching ticket became
a novel tool to articulate their own socio-political goals. The roles played
by the stakeholders in the fight against poaching of the rhinoceros has,
by and large, only substantiated the rising trend of utilizing ecological
degradation as a metaphor for cultural degradation.33
32
A. A. Lopes, Civil Unrest and Poaching of Rhinos in Kaziranga National Park, India, 103 Ecological Economics
20 (2014).
33
J. Smadja, A Chronicle of Law Implementation in Environmental Conflicts: The Case of Kaziranga National
Park in Assam (North-East India), (2018) 17 South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal 1 (2018).
34
Detailed Report on Issues and Possible Solutions for the long-term protection of the Greater One-
Horned Rhinoceros in Kaziranga National Park, pursuant to the order of the honourable Gauhati High
Court, 2014 prepared by M. K. Yadava, Director, Kaziranga National Park.
35
Id.
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 15
Analysis of call data records (CDR), mobile tracking, and the use of drones
ought to be put into extensive use to supplement the efforts of the forces.
Intelligence-based enforcement needs to be put in place, which should be
focused on inter-agency coordination and transboundary oversight, training
for enforcement agencies, access to the data of mobile subscribers, DNA
indexing of rhinoceroses so as to connect their horns with a broader DNA
database, the realignment of anti-poaching camps, and the enhancement
of infrastructure for effective river patrols in the north bank tributaries
of the river Brahmaputra.36
The role of major stakeholders, such as the state government, local park
authority, fringe dwellers, and third-party organizations, is of enormous
importance in the fight against rhinoceros poaching. It is challenging for
the government to ensure that the anti-poaching efforts of the authorities
are able to overcome the legal problems raised concerning landownership
that were generated by attempts to extend the boundaries of the national
park. The Assam government has set up many forces (i.e., Assam Forest
Protection Force, Anti-Poaching Task Force, Rhino Protection Force) in
addition to the administrative and legislative tools being brought in to
strengthen intelligence gathering and law enforcement in support of
anti-poaching activities. In view of the steady multiplication of anti-poach-
ing measures involving these law enforcement agencies, it is imperative
that the state government recognize that an increasing militarization of
the park does not undermine the spirit of conservation itself. Better coor-
dination between the various stakeholders and the security forces is
required in order to uphold an effective conservation strategy, which is
missing at present.
Since wildlife crimes committed in the park have a transnational dimen-
sion, it is necessary to harness the assistance of global investigatory agen-
cies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Interpol for
the prevention and apprehension of such crimes. Ultimately, there is a
limit to what can be achieved on the ground in the KNP: Unless the
wider transnational network of illegal trade in wildlife that fuels poaching
activities in the first place is dismantled, the KNP authorities will continue
to face extensive challenges in their efforts to protect these species. In
this regard, the empowerment of the CBI by the state government in 2013
was a welcome step in investigating the international and interstate
36
As suggested by the Rhino Task Force Report 2015 (n 7).
16 D. GOGOI AND B. GOGOI
7. Conclusion
Kaziranga represents a rare environment with moist, fertile grasslands and
an aquatic terrestrial environment where mega-herbivore “eco-system engi-
neers” such as the elusive rhinoceros find optimal habitats for themselves.
At a time at which the dwindling ecosystem has been affected by invasive
exotic floral species and compounded by a steady shrinkage of its core
area over an extended period of time, the rampant poaching of rhinoc-
eroses has rendered the expansion and protection of the fringe areas of
the KNP an immediate necessity to secure grazing, breeding, and shelter
grounds for the increased numbers of animals. The first effective synergy
in regard to ecological governance in KNP was observed as a tripartite
collaboration between the Assam government, World Wildlife Fund, and
the International Rhino Foundation, following which a task force for the
translocation of rhinoceroses within Assam, that is, between the three
reserved forests of Kaziranga, Orang, and Manas, was formed in November
2005, aimed at the long-term growth of populations of the one-horned
rhinoceros and the improvement of their habitats.
While the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic seem to have brought
about short-term disruptions to wildlife crime and wildlife trafficking
worldwide, trade channels are likely to open up online or through related
mechanisms.38 A prelude to the possible future adaptive strategies in the
KNP therefore may include the digitalization of anti-poaching activities,
37
Order by the Governor Notification, Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department.
dated 14 July 2010.
38
World Wildlife Crime Report, 2020 (Geneva, UNODC, 2020)
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 17
39
Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, India, Newsletter, January–March 2021.
40
See further https://forest.assam.gov.in/information-services/indian-rhino-vision-2020-0.