Legitimacy,access, and the gridlock of tiger conservation: lessons from Melghat and the history of central India

Though tiger conservationists almost ubiquitously acknowledge the necessity of landscape approaches and the involvement of local people for effective tiger conservation, reconciling these two needs presents certain challenges for practitioners. Seeking to address both local exigencies and conservation goals, state-sponsored ecodevelopment initiatives have become commonly associated with Project Tiger reserves in India. However, in this essay I argue that by focusing on the proximate sources of tension between tiger conservation and local people (i.e., human–tiger conflict, habitat degradation, and prey depletion), these programs have reinforced the ultimate causes of such tension: the structural inequalities that exists between local people and state organizations. By linking the historical literature with my own fieldwork in the Melghat Tiger Reserve of the Central Indian Highlands, I show how the current structure of ecodevelopment largely mirrors that of colonial forestry by attempting to enforce natural resource property rights in a way that privileges the state and delegitimizes local relational mechanisms of access to natural resources. In doing so, ecodevelopment reflects the political structure that facilitated the rise of conflicts between tigers and people and reinforces the “gridlock of tiger conservation” (Rastogi et al. 2012). With this political ecology perspective, I advocate solidarity between conservation practitioners, local people, and state organizations in addressing these structural problems to further conservation efforts. Emphasizing co-management’s ability to accommodate multi-scalar forms of authority, I end by offering three lessons for conservation from Melghat’s experience with colonial forestry and ecodevelopment.