Reframing India’s Wildlife Conflicts, Why the Focus Must Shift from the Conflicted Animal to the Conflicting Human
Wildlife safaris in Bandipur and Nagarahole national parks, suspended on November 7, 2025, following the death of three persons in wildlife conflicts in the Bandipur landscape, were reopened on February 22. Have we resolved the issue that led to the suspension? What needs to change to avoid a recurrence?
The reopening of safaris suggests that the immediate crisis has passed. But the underlying problem remains. Unless we reframe how we understand human-wildlife conflict, these suspensions will become a recurring feature, not an exception.
Five Fundamental Premises
Fundamental to the context of human-wildlife conflict are five premises. First, wild animals sustain under the forces of nature, guided by their instincts. Second, wild animals are an inseparable part of biodiversity, which is essential for human progress and well-being. Third, humans are a dominant force on the planet and have expanded across most of it, adversely affecting all other species and biodiversity. Fourth, humans take a short-term view, often ignoring long-term implications. Fifth, they act beyond the means naturally available to them, through technology.
What does this suggest? While wild animals act predictably and on natural instinct, humans act beyond instinct and often against nature. Nonetheless, humans incriminate the wild animals as intruders, raiders, attackers—the real perpetrators of human-wildlife conflict. Such framing and focus on the “conflicted animals,” rather than the “conflicting humans,” is misplaced. This misdiagnosis of the conflict’s cause hinders its resolution.
The Misdiagnosis
We define human-wildlife conflict as the loss of human life, injury to humans, and property damage caused by wild animals. Animals killed in conflicts are an underemphasised part of the conflict. Are the fragmentation of wild animal habitats by diverting them for development, hunting wild animals for bush meat, and the deliberate disposal of plastic, poultry, and other waste in forest areas not the ways humans conflict with wildlife?
The very language we use reveals our bias. “Conflict” implies two parties equally responsible. But when humans encroach on animal habitats, when we build roads through migration corridors, when we leave garbage that attracts wildlife, we are not equal participants. We are the aggressors.
The Geography of Conflict
Human-wildlife conflict is primarily concentrated in landscapes surrounding forest areas that have been converted to agricultural fields and settlements, and utilised for other infrastructure. Such landscapes are predominantly inhabited by marginal farmers and landless households at the bottom of the economic pyramid. These households rely heavily on natural resources—land, animal meat, wood, fruits, and water—to sustain themselves. With uncertain means of survival, they risk engaging with the wild animals.
The poor bear the heaviest burden of wildlife conflict. They live closest to forests, they depend most on forest resources, and they have the least capacity to absorb losses. When a tiger kills livestock, it is not a rich farmer who suffers; it is a marginal farmer for whom that animal represents a significant portion of annual income.
Avoidable Conflicts
The majority of the sources of conflict in peri-urban areas are avoidable, and their mitigation rests with development planners. Conflict becomes inevitable when land utilisation is not planned, and development approaches the forest boundary. Unearved-for dogs attract leopards, and unmanaged waste dumps attract wild pigs and other animals, putting them under threat from intersecting the human-designed landscapes.
These are not acts of nature; they are failures of planning. We build homes where elephants migrate. We plant crops that attract wild boar. We leave garbage that draws leopards. Then we blame the animals for coming.
The Governance Failure
Conflict is a by-product of the pressure on developmental planning and governance, which has fallen short in delivering decent standards of living to people inhabiting forested landscapes. Despite planning and regulatory bodies’ explicit mandate, development proceeds opportunistically and intersects with animal habitats and movement corridors, causing conflict.
The Karnataka Forest Rules 1969, under Rule 41(2), provide for maintaining a buffer of 100 metres from the forest boundary and restrict developmental activities within the buffer. However, this provision has been followed more in exception, resulting in their loss in most forest areas. The law exists; enforcement does not.
The Need for Site-Specific Solutions
Human-wildlife conflict arises under specific circumstances at a site. It is animal-specific and site-specific. An animal is instinctively attracted to sources of food and water, and seeks safety cover. For example, an elephant may raid a sugarcane field or a coffee estate where these resources are available, or a tiger may prey on livestock grazing in a forest, exposing humans in the vicinity to potential attacks.
Using their expertise and technology, planners can map animal-luring resources and human activity patterns and assess the risk of conflict. This can inform them about the vulnerabilities and required actions. The demarcation of development zones and separate spaces for wild animals and humans is desirable. However, when not feasible, adopting precautionary measures and developing long-term human-wildlife cohabitation plans becomes necessary.
The Path Forward
Locating new infrastructure, such as settlements, mining pits, and industrial units, in proximity to forests invariably increases conflict. Panchayat Raj and urban area bodies should approve development plans that are inherently wildlife-compatible. Developmental provisioning under the Forest Rights Act must anticipate potential conflicts.
The focus on “conflicted animal” is a misdiagnosis of the crisis. The current fixes of animal-proof fences and compensation funds are a bandage, not a cure. Conflict-sensitive developmental planning that focuses on the “conflicting human” can help ease the friction. Continued conflict will erode the support for biodiversity conservation and the opportunity for sustainable economic development.
Q&A: Unpacking Wildlife Conflict
Q1: What is the fundamental misdiagnosis in how we frame human-wildlife conflict?
We focus on the “conflicted animal” as the perpetrator—intruder, raider, attacker—while ignoring that humans are the “conflicting humans.” Humans fragment habitats, hunt for bush meat, dispose waste in forests, and encroach on animal territories. The framing determines the solution. Misdiagnosis hinders resolution.
Q2: Who bears the heaviest burden of wildlife conflict?
Marginal farmers and landless households at the bottom of the economic pyramid. They live closest to forests, depend most on forest resources, and have least capacity to absorb losses. When a tiger kills livestock, it is not a rich farmer who suffers but a marginal farmer for whom that animal represents significant annual income.
Q3: Are most conflicts avoidable?
Yes. The majority of sources in peri-urban areas are avoidable through proper planning. Unmanaged waste attracts wild pigs; unearved-for dogs attract leopards. Development approaching forest boundaries without buffers makes conflict inevitable. The Karnataka Forest Rules 1969 mandate 100-metre buffers, but this provision is rarely enforced.
Q4: What is the role of development planning in wildlife conflict?
Development planning has fallen short in delivering decent living standards to forest-dwelling populations while separating human and animal spaces. Planners can map animal-luring resources and human activity patterns to assess risk. New infrastructure near forests increases conflict. Development must be inherently wildlife-compatible.
Q5: What is needed beyond current fixes like fences and compensation?
Current fixes are bandages, not cures. Conflict-sensitive developmental planning focusing on the “conflicting human” is needed. This means enforcing buffer zones, planning development away from animal corridors, managing waste, and anticipating conflicts under the Forest Rights Act. Continued conflict erodes support for biodiversity conservation.
