Today, I received the following message from a new member.
View attachment 580251View attachment 580252
I told him that I would happily assist him in his research if he provided me with a photograph of his University of Cambridge ID card. But the poor fellow must have lost or misplaced it somewhere.
When someone joins a hunting forum, specifically to talk about colonialism... Well, then you know that this is a major red flag. Needless to say, I got in touch with
@BRICKBURN who immediately took the requisite action.
Nevertheless, I do have a very public answer for him. An answer which I believe that every anti hunter should read, before they try to look for the colonialistic angle to defame hunters:
"Dear Mr. Towhid,
To answer your question, one must first address the different kinds of hunting practices in & of themselves. Broadly speaking, these are two categories:
i) Sustainable Regulated Hunting- This is the form of hunting that is practiced by virtually all civilized nations in modern times (the United States of America, Canada, South America, United Kingdom, All European countries, several African countries, Australia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Pakistan and many other nations). There are a set of laws which (when enforced properly) makes hunting an extremely critical tool for wildlife conservation and ecological management. The laws dictate what species of game may be hunted, the quantities in which they may be hunted, the timing in which they can be hunted & how they can be hunted. Every season, a certain number of hunters pay fees to hunt wild game, in accordance with these laws. These fees go towards funding wildlife conservation and also aiding rural local communities. What this does is keep game numbers within a certain level which is harmonious with an ecosystem’s L.C.C (Land Carrying Capacity) thereby reducing human-wildlife conflict, while also permitting people to use the meat from the harvested game as food (be it the hunters themselves, their family/friends or simply members of the local community). As an aside, a source of funding is generated for local communities (giving them further incentive to preserve the wildlife which they previously considered to be vermin). This form of hunting has (if anything) contributed to the populations of many game species (which were shrinking in the past) to actually increase.
ii) Unsustainable Uncontrolled Hunting- This is the form of hunting where no rules are observed in regards to the hunt. The hunters hunt whatever they like, whenever they like & however they like. It is fortunately not practiced anywhere in the civilized world for almost a century, and with good reason. Wantonly killing wildlife without exerting any sort of moral restraint is nothing but a form of butchery that destroys entire ecosystems and drives fauna towards extinction. I know that I am oversimplifying things with my statement, but this is the sort of hunting which was practiced during the time when India, Pakistan & Bangladesh were British colonies (then known as British India).
To answer your query in further detail, Great Britain (now United Kingdom) and most European countries began to grant independence to their colonies shortly after the Second World War. This included India in 1947 (but also places like Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Malaysia, the Congo, Vietnam other countries). Around the same time, sensibilities began to arise worldwide about imposing sets of regulations in order to control hunting. The American President Theodore Roosevelt (an avid hunter himself) was one of the pioneers of the movement to keep hunting practices sustainable through legal regulation in order to conserve wildlife. But there were others, as well (such as Jim Corbett and Yousuf Salauddin Ahmad). By the late 1940s, game laws had already started getting enacted in most countries (including former European colonies and countries which were still European colonies at the time).
Colonialism slowly ceasing (in and of itself) did not have anything to do with this, but was a phenomenon which was occurring concurrently with the increasing sensibilities that wildlife is not an indefinite resource (unless it is managed properly). An example is Mozambique where commercial ivory hunting was banned and legally regulated hunting was enacted in 1952 (a full 23 years before the country became independent). Another example is India where the hunting of elephants (barring rogues) was banned in 1873 (a full 74 years before the country gained independence) and the hunting of rhinoceroses was banned in 1932 (a full 15 years before the country gained independence). By 1950, India already had a very strict set of regulations in place for hunting most species of game.
When the Sundarban mangrove forests (located in modern day West Bengal, India & Bangladesh) was a British colonial possession, the British Imperial Forest Service did impose a very ecologically unsound policy which was extremely detrimental to the indigenous population of Royal Bengal tigers. They imposed a permit-based system for hunting Axis deer in that territory, which was a very wise decision. But for unexplained reasons, they opted not to set any legal regulations in place for the hunting/killing of Royal Bengal tigers. On the contrary, they would dole out generous financial rewards to anybody who would present the hide of a Royal Bengal tiger to them. You can imagine what impact this might have on a forest range’s Royal Bengal tiger population. This policy unfortunately carried through the entirety of the time while the Sundarbans was a part of East Pakistan (1947-1970).
Things in the Indian subcontinent took a drastic turn when Indira Gandhi came to power. In 1972, she enacted the “Wildlife Protection Act” which (more or less) put an end to legal hunting in India. This was not entirely out of her own initiation, however. This was at the persuasion of British anti-hunter and author of “Vanishing Jungles”, Guy Mountford (one of the founders of the “Word Wide Fund For Nature” or “WWF” in short). While Mountford was a self-proclaimed “Conservationist”, “Anti-Hunter” would be a far more accurate terminology to describe him. Because he never could see that hunting (in a regulated form) is actually a very critical component of ecological management. But more on that later. Indira Gandi’s ban on hunting was also enacted as a token of good will to appease many of her supporters (who belonged to a faction of Hinduism where the consumption of any animal products is taboo). What her cabinet then did, in order to get members of the general public to support her hunting ban… was to publicly begin likening hunting with “British Colonialism”. Because they were well aware that the Indian public still harbored an immense grudge against the British colonizers.
After the Indo-Pak war in 1971 (where several Royal Bengal tigers in the Sundarbans were indiscriminately killed by soldiers from both sides out of fear for their lives), East Pakistan became Bangladesh. Since India was a larger country, aided Bangladesh in becoming independent and surrounded the country in the Northern & Eastern & Western sides (amongst other reasons)… They came to unofficially view Bangladesh as a neo-colonial possession of theirs. This (along with increasing pressure from the IUCN) led to Bangladesh enacting the “Wildlife Conservation Act” in 1973. The act granted complete legal protection to endangered species (including Royal Bengal tigers). Small scale hunting of standard game species that are hunted for human consumption (such are deer, birds, hares & boars) was permitted, based on the discretion of local forest departments (such as in areas where the number of game exceeds the ecosystem’s L.C.C and must be controlled in order to avoid human- wildlife conflict).
But India’s complete ban on hunting has (in recent years) proven to be counter-productive. Following the ban in 1972, commercialized poaching became rampant. Licensed hunters (using rifles & shotguns to hunt limited quantities of wild game per season for a fee) got replaced by commercial poaching outfits (using poison and traps to kill massive quantities of wild game for profit). As a matter of fact, wildlife in many areas reduced even further than when licensed hunting in India was permitted (1948-1971). The same phenomenon has occurred in Kenya, where all legal hunting was banned in 1977.
Another problem has also manifested itself, in the form of wildlife in many regions beginning to far exceed their ecosystem’s L.C.C. This is evidenced by the fact that incidents of man eating tigers & leopards, irate Asian sloth bears and man-killing jungle elephants are strictly on the rise. As are the depredations of crop-raiding animals such as Nilgai and wild boars. In 2015, the Indian government was finally forced to concede that wildlife populations definitely need to be controlled. And they have begun to authorize the culling of Nilgais and wild boars on a very large scale. But the Indian public is so opposed to the phenomenon of hunting (it having been approximately half a century since the 11972 hunting ban) , that the word “Culling” is used so as not to stir up any controversy.
Regardless of what the practice is called, I personally find something very disagreeable about the Indian government’s policy. Hundreds and thousands of Nilgai and wild boar are shot every year, but the carcasses are all either burnt or buried under the ground. As a result, hundreds of thousand of pounds of prime Nilgai venison and wild pork goes to waste. In a country where thousands of impoverished locals in the rural communities still struggle to have a meal, I personally consider this to be absolutely criminal. The meat would be far better utilized if it was distributed amongst said impoverished local communities. I know that followers of a certain interpretation of Hinduism are predominantly vegetarian, but there are several other followers of other interpretations of Hinduism who would happily consume the wild game meat. And this does not even begin to take into consideration, the population of Indians who are not Hindus at all (such as Christians, Muslims & tribal people).
In recent years, there are more than a few ongoing debates as to whether or not hunting should be relegalized in India in a very controlled & sustainable manner (including for Royal Bengal tigers). Many politicians (hearing complaints from local communities that are frequently plagued by human-wildlife conflict) are actually supporting relegalization in a small controlled scale. Those who are opposed to this, are mostly followers of the faction of Hinduism where consumption of any animal products are taboo. They also love to keep reminding the general public of how hunting is a symbol of “British colonialism and the cruel white man’s exploitation”.
In my humble opinion, it is high time for us Asians to stop blaming the British colonialists (who basically withdrew from the Indian subcontinent 77 years ago) and to take responsibility for our wildlife ourselves. And we also must stop blaming the white men of 77 years ago for the problems which challenge us today. Industrialists are building shopping malls where forests used to be, and we are still busy blaming the colonialists of the past. We must also be very careful about what sorts of foreign groups we permit to have any sort of say in our domestic policies. There is a very significant difference between foreign groups who genuinely wish to conserve wildlife (such as IUCN) and those who are blatantly opposed to all forms of hunting for purely sentimental reasons (such as PETA).
Many former British colonies use hunting as a sustainable conservation tool and they have thriving populations of wildlife. Look at Pakistan, Australia, Namibia, Tanzania, Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia and the like. Pakistan is an extremely interesting example in that they were actually able to INCREASE the population of the once critically endangered Markhor antelope AFTER they began permitting the licensed hunting of Markhor (on a small scale and for a fee).
Well… That is my perspective anyway.
Warmest Regards,
Habib"
