[thoughts/quotes on the parable of bonbibi in regards to exploitation — when is too much, is the issue arrogance, is it accumultion, is it greed, is it taking from the forest at all? contradictions within the story — both dhona and dukhe do get to go back with all of their wealth, so it is not necessarily a warning against excess even — yeah different “morals” of the story]
living and working in the sundarbans
Ari Shapiro, Babotaroon Paik, Amitav Ghosh, and Megnaa Mehtaa on All Things Considered
sdaf
sadf
charismatic tigers and the collateral
“Today, the tiger’s image is used to frame moral and ethical debates around wildlife by various transnational animal-centric charities and development agencies like the World Wildlife Fund… in bids to fund projects. This global ‘cosmopolitan’ tiger, as opposed to the local ‘Sundarbans tiger’, has become the rallying point for urbanites’ concerns for wildlife protection. By calling attention to two different representations of tigers in recent history, one colonial and the other national, the book highlights how representations, even of wild animals, are ultimately linked to power… The media’s glamorous portrayal of the Sundarbans forest is seen by the islanders as potentially jeopardising their very existence in the region. Indeed, throughout the recent history of the Sundarbans, the very presence of people in the region has been seen as a hindrance to its development as a ‘natural’ haven for wildlife. Present-day discourses such as those on the ‘environmentally degrading prawn seed collectors’ or the ‘thieving locals’ are in line with a history of discrimination against the poorest and most marginalised.”
(Jalais, Forest of Tigers, 9)
“Masks were given on the assumption that, as the tiger normally attacks from behind, they should be worn on the back of the head; this would puzzle the tiger who, seeing another pair of eyes peering out at him, would abandon the idea of preying on that person. Their foolproof status was guaranteed by scientists, who commended the government highly for its widespread distribution of masks to the islanders. I remember the guards enthusiastically showing us the masks while enumerating their merits. Intrigued by them and already convinced of their infallibility, a friend and I had asked if we could venture out of the tightly fenced sanctuary wearing masks to watch wildlife out in the open. The only places we had been allowed entry were the watchtowers of the sanctuary. The sanctuary itself was enclosed within grilled netting, like a big cage with an open roof (only we were inside the cage). Slightly surprised by our keenness to explore the forest with the masks on, the forest guards explained that the forest was forbidden to us and there was no question of our being allowed to step outside the wildlife sanctuary without a dozen guards armed to the teeth. We argued that we had been told by the experts that the official thirty or so tiger victims of the previous year had all been islanders who had been too superstitious to wear the masks and that we should be allowed out as we weren’t superstitious. Suddenly realising that the guards never moved without their rifles and thick plastic torso shields, even when straying barely 50 m away from the gates of the sanctuary, my friend cheekily suggested that they should start wearing masks and pointed out how that might convert the islanders to accepting them. The guards’ response was that the masks wouldn’t work for us, as we were ‘healthy’ kids, nor for them, because tigers were used to seeing them with rifles and wouldn’t fear them if they wore masks.
This bizarre, convoluted explanation triggered my first tentative steps towards questioning the validity of a ‘scientific mask’, which is supposed to work for the village folk or gramer lok but not for forest guards and plump Kolkata high school children.”
Annu Jalais, Forest of Tigers, pg 15
RETOLD 