Kannaiyan Subramaniam,
President, Thalavady Farmers Association
On the morning of 13 December 2025, I received the distressing news that Almathan, a 60-year-old tribal farmer from Solagar Dhoddi, had been attacked by a wild elephant while returning from his ragi field. When I rushed to the village, I found the residents angry and agitated, protesting in front of the 108 ambulance, demanding some assurance that Almathan would receive support. Their distrust was palpable. They recalled the case of Ramasamy, a tribal anti-poaching watcher who had died in service nearly a decade ago without his family receiving any compensation. As one villager told me bitterly, “We are poor; the officials will treat us as nothing.”
Forest officials were present at the site, primarily focused on transporting Almathan to the hospital. The revenue authorities declined responsibility, stating that human–wildlife conflict (HWC) cases fall entirely under the Forest Department’s jurisdiction. Police personnel collected preliminary information, yet no FIR has been registered at the Thalavady police station, despite the case being treated as a medico-legal one in Chamarajanagar. These bureaucratic gaps, combined with the routine insensitivity of officials who cite rules rather than offer assistance, reinforce a deep sense of helplessness among tribal communities.
Only after I appealed to the protesting villagers was Almathan taken to the Chamaraj Nagar Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) and later referred to the Mysore Institute of Medical Sciences (MIMS), where he is still undergoing intensive care in the ICU. He suffered life-threatening injuries, including fractures, damage to vital organs, and internal bleeding. Both hospitals provided critical interventions, including surgical procedures and blood transfusions. Ordinarily, such treatment is not free for non-Karnataka residents. However, due to the intervention of the Thalavady Farmers Association and the Karnataka Rajya Ryotha Sangha (KRRS), Almathan’s treatment is being provided free of cost, courtesy of the Government of Karnataka under Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
Even after hospitalisation was secured, institutional support remained minimal. Only upon my insistence did a Forester and a Watcher assist with hospital admission formalities. Almathan’s wife and daughter, Sundhari, have been attending to him throughout his hospital stay. In similar incidents of human–wildlife conflict, such humane responses from the system are rare.
In Tamil Nadu, compensation for human–wildlife conflict was revised through GO(D) No.33 dated 21.02.2024, doubling the solatium for death and permanent incapacitation from ₹5 lakh to ₹10 lakh. While this revision was welcome, victims who survive with serious injuries remain unprotected. In Almathan’s case, the Forest Department informed me that medical reimbursement is capped at ₹59,000. For most tribal families living in forest and fringe areas, this mechanism is impractical. They cannot afford upfront medical expenses, preserve bills, or repeatedly travel to forest offices to seek reimbursement. In reality, the free treatment provided by Karnataka’s government hospitals rendered reimbursement meaningless. What victims need is adequate solatium or compensation, not procedural charity.
On 17 November 2025, the Supreme Court of India directed States to consider treating human–wildlife conflict as a natural disaster, recognising the scale and gravity of the crisis. However, beyond the legal declaration, there is little clarity on how this will translate into immediate, humane support for victims. On the ground, forest officials continue to restrict their role to procedural compliance, rarely extending meaningful assistance beyond hospital referral.
At a regional conference organised by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in Thiruvananthapuram in August 2025, Justice Surya Kant, then the second senior-most judge of the Supreme Court and now the Chief Justice of India, observed that “victims of this conflict often belong to marginalised communities such as tribals and the poor, who are frequently unaware of their legal rights, entitlements, or how to claim compensation. Leaving them unassisted reduces them to mere collateral damage of human ambition.”
Justice Kant further emphasised that ecological justice requires balancing conservation with human dignity. “In securing the conditions necessary for wildlife to thrive, we need to simultaneously ensure the safety, stability and well-being of human communities,” he said, underscoring that human–wildlife conflict is not merely an environmental concern but a matter of justice and governance.
Recently, Ms. Supriya Sahu, Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu in charge of the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department, was awarded the UNEP’s 2025 Champions of the Earth Award, the highest environmental honour of the United Nations. While her recognition is well deserved, Justice Kant’s words serve as a reminder that conservation success cannot come at the cost of human suffering. Tamil Nadu’s compensation framework for human–wildlife conflict needs a thorough revamp if the State is to uphold both ecological responsibility and social justice.
Solagar Dhoddi has an elementary school and a water supply, and nothing else. There are no house pattas, no new houses, and almost no toilets. In such conditions, expecting injured tribal farmers to navigate bureaucratic reimbursement systems is unrealistic. Most victims of human–wildlife conflict in Tamil Nadu live in or near forests and are among the most marginalised sections of society.
Tamil Nadu’s compensation regime also compares poorly with neighbouring Karnataka, which provides higher compensation and free treatment. The NTCA’s Standard Operating Procedure clearly states that compensation should be harmonised with the higher prevailing rates in the region. Yet Tamil Nadu continues to lag behind, despite its economic growth and progressive image.
Almathan’s ordeal is a stark reminder that tribals, the original custodians of our forests, cannot be left helpless when human–wildlife conflict occurs. The Chief Minister, M.K. Stalin, should immediately convene consultations with farmers and tribal leaders, release ₹5 lakh to the victim’s family from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, and provide hope and tangible support to victims. The State must also simplify procedures and increase compensation rates so that all victims of human–wildlife conflict can access meaningful government support. Until such reforms are implemented, each incident stands as an indictment of a system that asks the most vulnerable to bear the highest cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment