Bangladesh’s disappearing wildlife, biodiversity elements
The loss of wild animals can be attributed to such factors as excessive and unplanned utilisation of wildlife wealth of the country, misuse and misinterpretation of existing Wildlife and Environmental Acts, Inter-Ministerial or Departmental wrangling in handling the wildlife wealth and its ownership and total absence of wildlife or biodiversity management. Management tools such as those needed in creating and managing national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, game reserves, etc., are present on paper but not in practice, while the idea of eco-tourism has failed to pick up the needed global fervour, writes Dr Reza Khan
Bangladesh used to be a great place for wildlife till the end of the 1950s. At that time we had larger forms of wildlife such as mammals like the Bengal Tiger, leopard, bears, wild boar, common langur, rhesus macaque, fishing cat, large Indian civet and birds like the large malkoha, nakta or comb duck, spotbilled duck, pittas, flycatchers, warblers, woodpeckers, vultures, eagles, falcons, cranes, storks, many species of herons and cormorants, and reptiles like the monitor lizards, pythons, cobras, kraits, rat snake, green pit vipers, and turtle-tortoises, and amphibians like bull frog, tree frog, burrowing frogs, etc., in the countryside. Areas like Banglabandha (where General M.A.G. Osmani shot a Bengal Tiger as late as in 1962), Panchagarh, Nilphamari, Shushanga-Durgapur, Jhenaigati, and many other parts of the country as well as areas of Dhaka, Tangail, Jamalpur, Mymensingh, Dinajpur and Rangpur bordering the Sal forest belts were home for many wildlife species.
Even between 1920 and 1940, we had buffalo, rhinoceros, gaur or Indian bison, banteng and goyal, Indian peafowl, green or Burmese peafowl, Burmese peacock pheasant, hornbills either in the Sunderban, Sal forest or in Semi-evergreen forests of the north-east and eastern parts of the country. We have lost almost of all of these due mainly to the faulty forestry policy of clear-felling (clear-cutting) mechanism involved in removing entire forests of a particular belt and replacing the same area with monoculture of indigenous or foreign trees, such as acacia, eucalyptus, rubber, oil palm, etc. The old Forestry Department began this destructive process as early as the 1860s during the period of British rule. This business of clear felling is so popular and rewarding that Forestry Department is still pursuing the process although we have driven out both the British and the Pakistanis from our soil.
Past misdemeanours
(That needs immediate rectification through the lessons learned)
Factors other than wholesale destruction of forests that has contributed to the loss of major biodiversity wealth from the country could be summarised as follows:
Destruction as well as shrinkage of forests and loss of biodiversity resulted from the following facts-
Plants and habitats
An excessive growth of human population that is demanding an increasing quantity of land for house building, development of road network, etc.; conversion of forested areas into cultivable land; settling plain-dwelling people in the forest holding hilly areas in the Hill Districts; practice of Jhoom cultivation by the tribal people of the Hill Districts; tribal insurgencies; construction of Kaptai Dam; negative impact of Farakka Dam in India on our river systems; failure to take proper action by the policymakers and water related technocrats that has resulted in the diversion of water by the riparian countries above Bangladesh and deforestation there, which are ultimately depositing excessive silt in our country; restriction or diversion of the movement of natural water courses due to the faulty development of road systems, structurally developed embankments, dams and bridges which are nothing but engineering misfits; habitat alteration and degradation; fragmentation of forested areas thereby creating many “mini forest islands” where animals and plants are becoming physically isolated. There have appeared many impassable barriers between these “islands” due to human settlement or other activities related to the daily life of people.
So, the biodiversity of these “islands” has become genetically isolated from that of their next-door neighbours. There is no continuous flow of genes between these mini populations.
Loss of habitats and excessive reduction in grazing areas, grazing material as well as number and quantity of prey animals have also been an important factor.
Loss of wild animals
The loss of wild animals can be attributed to such factors as excessive and unplanned utilisation of wildlife wealth of the country, misuse and misinterpretation of existing Wildlife and Environmental Acts, Inter-Ministerial or Departmental wrangling in handling the wildlife wealth and its ownership and total absence of wildlife or biodiversity management. Management tools such as those needed in creating and managing national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, game reserves, etc., are present on paper but not in practice, while the idea of eco-tourism has failed to pick up the needed global fervour. Moreover, public awareness and involvement of grassroots people in the conservation and sustainable management of the Biodiversity are still in their infancy and in total disarray.
Ways and means to save the remaining wildlife
A separate wildlife/biodiversity bureau needs to be created as an autonomous body or a wildlife/biodiversity management board to be set up under the Ministry of Environment and Forests for management and sustainable utilisation of the wildlife and biodiversity resources through community participation.
All top-level managers of the bureau should be recruited at the national level. These posts are to be filled by people with sufficient field experience both with wildlife and captive breeding. Rest of the people are to be local recruits, as for example Wildlife Sanctuary in the Sunderban, most field level people are to be recruited from areas around the Sunderban. Only local people to be involved in the field activities within such wildlife/biodiversity areas. No foreigners to be incorporated in the activities of the bureau. However, foreign advisors can help the bureau in future planning and project designs.
All zoos, wildlife research institutes, natural history museums and captive breeding centres, biosphere reserves, world heritage sites, etc., existing in the country must be incorporated under this wildlife/biodiversity bureau.
All lands declared previously as national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, game reserves, nature reserves, deer park, or other wild animal parks, ecologically critical areas, etc., must be handed over to this new wildlife/biodiversity bureau for their total management. These areas will have no tie with the forest or livestock department so far their management is concerned. Wildlife/biodiversity bureau must develop a protocol to maintain an excellent and cordial relation with ministries and departments such as environment, forest, fisheries, livestock services, agriculture, land revenue, tourism, home and defence.
Wildlife/biodiversity bureau must have power to declare more areas as wildlife or biodiversity sanctuary/reserve/national park etc., establish new zoos or breeding centres.
Wildlife/biodiversity bureau must have the right to sell surplus captive-bred animals, procure new animals and plants needed for the captive breeding facilities.
Wildlife/biodiversity bureau will streamline the activities of all the zoos and captive breeding centres.
Wildlife/biodiversity bureau is also to be banned from alteration of existing habitats for commercial purpose but scientific and sustainable management of biodiversity.
Ecotourism must be encouraged in all managed areas but not in the core conservation zones.
Wildlife/biodiversity bureau must enrich the spoilt or degraded habitats by planting suitable indigenous tree species, especially those with soft, fleshy fruits, colourful and nectar producing flowers, various fig species and soft wood trees suitable for hole-nesting birds.
Wildlife/biodiversity bureau must have its own plant nursery to cater towards enriching the forest and wildlife (this will be contrary to what forest department is practicing now. It is developing saplings of commercially viable tree species). Best example is the Singapore Zoological Gardens and Jurong Bird Park in Singapore. Both these organisations have their own plant nurseries where they produce not only forest enriching plants but also fodder plants as well as sprouts needed for both captive and free-ranging animals.
Wildlife/biodiversity bureau must be very active in raising public awareness campaign. It must popularise biodiversity conservation in the country and take part in all activities of international bodies like the CITES Authority, IUCN, WWF, UNEP, UNDP, etc.
Wildlife/biodiversity bureau must become a member of the World Zoo Organization (WAZA, former IUDZG), ISIS-International Species Information System, CBSG-Conservation Breeding Specialist Group), IUCN, WWF, etc.
Wildlife/biodiversity bureau will not only mange the declared protected, endangered areas and captive breeding facilities but it would also be responsible for the implementation of the Bangladesh Wildlife Preservation Act and all the other national acts related to wildlife/biodiversity conservation.
Wildlife/biodiversity bureau will be partners of all the UN bodies and conventions such as Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), CITES, Ramsar/CMS concerning migratory species, etc.
Wildlife/biodiversity bureau to be finally converted into a full-fledged department equivalent to environment or forest department.
In a decade time the wildlife/biodiversity department could be a self-financed independent body. In due course it might even become an autonomous institute or a national NGO with the government backing.
The writer is Head of Dubai Zoo, UAE, and former associate professor of zoology, Dhaka University
This is about real victims
Minority identities need affirmation and recognition in the public sphere of the state and its institutions; identity is never a private issue but one that must have a public resonance to be meaningful,
writes Madeleine Bunting
‘Save Our Christmas,’ screams the Sun, in what must surely rank as one of the oddest campaigns ever to be run by a newspaper. Just as houses are coming out in rashes of bright, sparkling lights, just as the shop windows clog up with fake snow, weird electronic Father Christmases and children are chorusing Away in a Manger, the Sun takes it upon itself to warn us of the dire threat that our Christmas is under.
There’s a curious phenomenon in the complex politics of identity that is increasingly evident, and the Sun’s campaign is a superlative example: it is how the established majority inverts its status to one of victimhood. So while the odd mishmash of Germanic tribal customs and vestigial religious meaning that gives us Christmas goes from strength to strength in a secular consumer society, we are now told by the Sun that it is under attack by the political correctness of local government’s multicultural policies.
The same phenomenon of inverted victimhood is evident in another campaign - that run by Rowan Atkinson against David Blunkett’s proposal to extend the law against incitement to racial hatred with a clause to cover religious hatred. Atkinson’s intervention has, of course, garnered more coverage in which to explain his muddled grasp of the clause than Blunkett has ever had to explain the very limited measure he is, in fact, proposing. So most people will have been left with a vague but profound sense of unease that our freedom of speech is being curtailed, and that humour and wit about the iniquities of religions will be restricted.
That inverted victimhood quickly takes grip: a Telegraph commentator rallied to the cause this week, accusing the government of “cravenly allowing so-called leaders of the British Muslim minority to alter our fundamental laws”. From there, it’s a quick slide into absurdity: the British legal system has no competence, the article continued, to “establish when the legitimate expression of fundamentally incompatible faiths tips over into incitement to ‘religious hatred’”.
So let’s take a deep breath, get a grip on the paranoia that lurks in this territory, and be far more realistic about what closing this loophole and making a criminal offence of “incitement to religious hatred” will - and won’t - do.
For starters, “religious hatred” is not about having a laugh, or criticising aspects of a religion: it is far more grotesque, and we can’t pretend that we don’t know the difference; most continents have been scarred by the millions of lives cut short by religious hatred, from Bosnia to Nigeria and India. However, as a legal concept, incitement to religious hatred is complex, which is why it will be the attorney general who considers whether cases meet several criteria before deciding whether to bring a prosecution.
Secondly, the measure (short of a dramatic deterioration) is likely to result in very few prosecutions in this country. The comparable crime of incitement to racial hatred has led in the last three years to 84 cases, of which only four were prosecuted with two convictions. But its value does not just lie in these statistics, but in how the measure has helped to prompt a shift in culture and a new social norm.
The clause on religious hatred lays down the kind of crucial boundary necessary for ordering relations in a multicultural society; as Muslim has become an increasingly important and visible political identity in this country, the state has an urgent responsibility to provide that boundary. With 38% of British Muslims saying they or their family members have experienced Islamophobic comments and insults - this particularly affects women because the hijab makes them easily identifiable - a public association of the state with the unacceptability of Islamophobia is essential.
This clause has an important symbolic role at another level. Minority identities need affirmation and recognition in the public sphere of the state and its institutions; identity is never a private issue but one that must have a public resonance to be meaningful.
Finally, the law provides another weapon in the armoury to combat racism - even if it is one that is rarely used - in all its mutant forms. If this clause does anything constructive, it will choke off that stream of virulent racist propagandathat uses Islamophobia as a cover. If it makes the British National party think twice about its pamphlets, that has to be chalked up as a major merit.
So this clause will serve several important purposes, but I fear that it is increasingly being weighted down with inflated expectations that will ensure, in the end, a measure of disappointment within the Muslim community. In our poll of British Muslims last week, it was interesting how confused respondents were; a huge majority (81%) wanted a law on incitement to religious hatred, and 58% also wanted those who insult or criticise Islam to face criminal prosecution. I suspect that many Muslims hope that the clause will do far more to protect their faith from contempt and abuse than it will.
All religious groups experience the contempt for, ignorance of and lack of interest in religious belief and practice in contemporary, secular Britain, but it weighs particularly heavily on Muslims, whose community is desperately economically deprived (70% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children live in poverty), and increasingly beleaguered by anti-terrorist legislation. It resonates with their personal experiences of life in marginalised communities and their perception of a suffering Ummah (the international Muslim community) from Chechnya and Iraq to Palestine. What this clause will not do is resolve the vexed issue of the respect for Islam for which many yearn, nor provide relief from the sense of a faith being humiliated and under attack around the globe.
One last set of inflated expectations likely to be disappointed is New Labour’s. The clause is part of the government’s attempt to shore up its rapidly dwindling Muslim support - the bitter falling out after a generation of political allegiance. That doesn’t undermine the clause’s validity, only explains the timing. A few vulnerable constituencies (such as Oona King’s in Bethnal Green and Bow) are at stake, but Tony Blair also seems to have a personal commitment to trying to neuter the strength of the “clash of civilisations” concept at home (abroad is another issue). He sets aside a surprising amount of time for meeting British Muslim leaders.
It doesn’t wash on the streets of Bradford or Bethnal Green, where the anger directed at this government grows daily. Blair is too tainted by his close association with George Bush to ever have credibility with the majority of British Muslims; meanwhile the anti-terrorist measures, detainment, sharp rise in stop and searches, the arrests that rarely lead to charges ... all these are in danger of profoundly alienating Britain’s Muslims - and weighed against that, the incitement to religious hatred is a piece of crucial legal housekeeping, but it will do little to win favour, let alone votes.
This article first appeared in The Guardian
The revolt that never was
Both the largest political party, the National Conference led by Sheikh Abdullah and the Maharaja opted for accession to India, writes Akhilesh Mithal
Did the Gilgit Scouts "revolt" against Brigadier Ghansara Singh of the J&K Army and opt to join Pakistan in August 1947? This is the story being put out by the Pakistanis and it appears to be pure post facto fabrication.
The British divided and quit India at Independence in 1947. Each British ruled province and Indian princely state had to join either India or Pakistan by August 15. The choice lay with the elected ministry of the province or the ruler of the state. J&K, third largest of the 565 states, did not exercise either option by the due date. On October 22 some thousands of Pakistani soldiers "on leave" led tribals (Swatis, Waziris, Masuds and Afridis) to invade the state with the intention of celebrating Id at the Ja’ama (congregational) Mosque at Srinagar.
General Akbar Khan of the Pakistan Army masterminded the operation under the sobriquet "Taareeq," after the Arab commander of the forces that conquered Christian Spain for the Moors in 711 AD and lives on in the name Gibraltar (Jabal al Taareeq).
The instrument of accession to India was signed by Maharaja Hari Singh only on October 30, 1947 and Sheikh Abdullah made "Head of the Administration." On October 31 Sheikh Abdullah said, "I … request Mr Jinnah to accept the democratic principle of the sovereignty of the people of our state including as it does 78 per cent Muslims, whose free and unhampered choice must count in the manner of final accession."
Both the largest political party, the National Conference led by Sheikh Abdullah and the Maharaja opted for accession to India.
The story that the Army at Gilgit revolted against Brigadier Ghansara Singh of the J&K Army and handed it over to the Pakistan Army is untrue. The British colonel in command of the Gilgit Scouts did not hand over the station to the brigadier of the J&K Army, as he was required to do under the law. Instead, he arrested the brigadier and held him in the Quarter Guard while he waited for the Pakistanis to come and take over.
This was the same overall plan for the area according to which the governor of the adjacent province, the North West Frontier Province, spurned the advice of the popular ministry headed by Dr Khan Saheb and refused accession to India. Elsewhere in India and Pakistan the princely ruler or the elected ministries decided on the accession of the state or province. In NWFP a most doubtful plebiscite was held to get a pro-Pakistan vote. Dr Khan Saheb, elected chief minister of the province, was arrested. His brother Khan Abdul Ghaffar "Badshah" Khan spent more years in jail than Nelson Mandela.
Gilgit’s Pakistani status was a part of the overall British plan of having a hold on that area even after freedom and not an achievement of the people’s aspiration.
This article first appeared in The Asian Age
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
