With the recent addition of two new big cat sanctuaries, Madhya Pradesh has taken its tally to nine—reaffirming its title as India’s ‘Tiger State’. The move reflects the state’s continued commitment to conservation, but it also brings protected forests closer than ever to human settlements.
The effect of this growing proximity is beginning to show. On April 21, Rajbali Baiga of Kusmaha village was attacked by a tiger while working in his field. The tiger, possibly drawn to a tubewell, struck just as Baiga paused for a drink. He survived with injuries to his leg. Earlier this month, a woman lost her life in a similar incident. With four attacks reported in Bandhavgarh in just two months, questions are being raised—not about the importance of conservation, but about how to ensure it works in harmony with those who live nearby.
Subsequent to the latest attack in Bandhavgarh, the state government has announced a Rs 145 crore outlay to install chain link fences across buffer zones in the state’s tiger reserves. The project will be completed over the next three years.
Aside from the attacks, much of the state’s conservation legacy is a success story. Reserves like Kanha and Bandhavgarh have become models for wildlife protection. But as new areas are brought under the conservation fold, they sometimes overlap with spaces that people already inhabit, cultivate, and rely on. These landscapes are not empty—they are home to communities whose lives are deeply intertwined with the forest.
One visible impact of this expanding footprint is the rise in encounters between wildlife and humans. Livestock losses have become more frequent, and in some tragic cases, human lives have been lost. While compensation and mitigation efforts are made, the challenge lies in maintaining a safe and healthy distance between wildlife and people—one that respects both.
Forest-dwelling communities, especially Adivasis, have traditionally shared a symbiotic relationship with nature. Their knowledge of the forest is generational, their dependence on it is an everyday routine. However, in efforts to create inviolate zones, some families have been relocated. For many, this transition is difficult—socially, economically, and emotionally. Others who remain face limitations on activities central to their way of life.
These changes are not without consequence. Over time, such restrictions can affect livelihoods, disrupt cultural practices, and lead to a sense of alienation. While the intent behind conservation is undoubtedly positive, the approach must be inclusive and sensitive to the people it touches.
There are ecological concerns too. In some reserves, a rising predator population has led to unusual patterns of movement. In others, tourist activity has surged, putting pressure on park infrastructure and sensitive habitats. Resorts have mushroomed near park gates, and vehicle traffic in some areas exceeds sustainable limits.
Meanwhile, forest officials often find themselves stretched. Announcing new parks is one thing; managing them effectively is another. Without adequate staff and resources, it becomes challenging to enforce rules, monitor wildlife, or respond swiftly to emergencies.
Outside the parks, conservation efforts occasionally intersect with development plans. Infrastructure projects—like roads, railways, and renewable energy—must undergo ecological scrutiny. While safeguards are necessary, finding a way to align ecological priorities with local development needs remains a delicate task.
In an era where climate change and resource depletion are pressing global concerns, expanding protected areas may seem like a step in the right direction. And often, it is. But conservation must go hand in hand with thoughtful planning. It needs to account not just for biodiversity, but for the people and communities who share the land. It’s a balance worth striving for.