Frontline forest staff need support

India has registered highest fatalities of frontline forest staff in the world. After learning this, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice, recently urged the government to provide them arms, bulletproof vests and vehicles so that they can fight a powerful force involved in illegal wildlife trade worth millions of dollars.

The court sought the support of CBI and Enforcement Directorate to investigate the crimes and proceeds involved and hailed the efforts of the properly armed Assam forest staff in controlling poaching.

Single-horned rhinoceros is the pride of Assam and to control its rampant poaching, the state has taken measures like legislative changes, bringing Wildlife (Protection) (Assam Amendment) Act, 2009, and constituting anti-rhino poaching task force comprising personnel from district police, forest and Assam Forest Protection Force equipped with sophisticated arms.

The services of CBI was also sought to unearth linkages. The Central government may consider common legislation on similar lines for the country.

Earlier in 2009, the National Tiger Conservation Authority sanctioned company strength of Special Tiger Protection Force (STPF) for some tiger reserves. Karnataka recruited, trained and deployed them for the protection of Bandipur, Nagarhole and BRT tiger reserves.

The personnel recruited were of the rank of Deputy Range Forest Officers, Forest Guards and Forest Watchers. After serving for few years, they were transferred to regular posts in forest department, but their places in STPF were not filled.

Regular recruitment and training are a necessity so that there is no vacancy in STPF at any point in time.

The forest staff in Karnataka are provided with reasonably good weapons like .315 rifles, revolvers, slide action guns but are not engaged in regular training for its use and maintenance.

Also, there is no protocol for the security of the weapons. Amidst the anti-Veerappan’s operation in Kollegal in 1990-91, we lost several double barrel guns.

The gang once snatched a gun, when a Ponnachi forester was patrolling with his staff and other was taken from the residence of a Saggayam forester. Subsequently, the staff members were instructed to deposit weapons in the nearest police station.

This arrangement also did not work well as few years later, Veerappan and his gang attacked Ramapuram police station, killed some policemen and took away several weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunitions.

Maintenance of weapons has been neglected in the Forest Department. In 1986-87, while I was working as Deputy Conservator of Forest in Shivamogga, a forest guard fired a shot from double barrel gun to defend teammates from the attack of teak smugglers.

The barrel was not clean and it backfired injuring him severely. Instances of misfire from the weapon have not been uncommon in the forest department. In one incident at a forest rest house in M M Hills in 1990-91, I was preparing to go for Veerappan operation, when an Assistant Conservator of Forests meddling with .315 rifle. He ended up firing a bullet that narrowly missed me. It pierced the wall of the room.

Misfire of weapons

I have experienced misfire of weapons by policemen in the operation. While I was seated on the front seat of an old Mahindra jeep with the then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Mysuru range, V V Bhaskar, a policeman sitting in the back seat misfired a light machine gun.

In yet another case of misfire during the operation, a policeman accidently fired a bullet through thighs of his colleague, incapacitating him permanently.

While assessing the management of human-tiger conflict in Brahmpuri and Central Chanda forest divisions in Maharashtra in 2018-19, I learnt that forest staff were not provided weapons in areas affected by left wing extremism. Security of weapon is a concern. Additional weapons in enemy’s hands pose bigger challenge for security forces in jungle warfare.

After opening fire on smugglers and poachers, forest personnel faced arrest and prosecution and were hesitant to open fire even if the situation demanded. The Karnataka government issued an order in 1991 under Section 197(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, authorising them on patrol duty to open fire to defend themselves as well as forest properties.

Only if they are held guilty by Executive Magistrate in the enquiry that follows, police would arrest and prosecute. Although the order was issued with the concurrence of the Home Department, it did not go well with the police officers on the ground.

The Supreme Court suggestion to provide bulletproof vests to forest staff is a welcome step. However, bulletproof vehicles may not be of much use in interior areas where they move on two wheelers and on foot. If the staff take a stand that they will visit places where bulletproof vehicles go, vast stretches of forest would remain unguarded.

Providing modern arms and ammunitions is also a welcome step, but proper training for maintenance, its use and security must be addressed.

(The writer is former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka)