Local ecological perspectives and their role in conservation have long been a talking point for scholars across different disciplines (e.g., Gadgil, 1993; Colchester, 1997; Berkes: 1999; Chaudhuri, 2007; Macy, 2013). Ambika Aiyadurai’s Tigers Are Our Brothers: Anthropology of Wildlife Conservation in Northeast India published by the Oxford University Press in 2021 is one of the latest additions to the literature body addressing the relationship between local indigenous communities and wildlife conservation. Keeping tiger conservation as the core of the matter, the book attempts to uncover how multiple visions of nature, particularly local and “positivist” views, are “contested, claimed, and counter-claimed” (23) in Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. In doing so, ranging from social to spiritual, it explores different yet complex facets of human-animal relations among the Idu-Mishmi community of the given region.

The book has been divided into 7 chapters viz 1) Introduction, 2) My Journey in The Land of the Rising Sun,3) Mishmi Social Worlds: Animals, Humans and Spirits, 4) The Thin Red Line: Living on the Sino-Indian Border, 5) Mithun out and taking in: Shifting Ecological Identities, 6) Tiger Conservation and Its Predicaments and 7) Conclusion. In the course of the book, one will learn how different aspects of the Idu-Mishmi way of life shape their ideas of nature and contribute to the politics of conservation in Dibang Valley.

Before delving deeper into the core matters of the book, Ambika starts by decoding certain conceptual cum theoretical issues that her book deals with. The concept of nature is one such. In decoding the term as well as the concept of nature, the author seemingly challenges the ‘dictionarial’ and Western-dominated explanation of nature as devoid of humans. She rather argues that such narratives of nature restrict engagements with what she calls “alternative ways of understanding nature (p.no 11)”. The author also distinguishes between the ‘state conservationists’ and local indigenous groups in terms of how they conceive the idea of nature conservation. She portrays these actors as adhering to diametrically opposite positions when it comes to conservation. A conservationist, according to the author, sympathizes with the idea of Humans as exclusive of nature and wilderness as a threatened space due to people’s needs for resources (p.no 12). In contrast, Indigenous communities’ understanding of nature is presented as inclusive of humans. With her seemingly ‘subjective biases’ described, Ambika now set the stage for the core discussions.

One of the major attractions of this book is how Ambika presents her ethnographic encounters in Dibang Valley. Such ethnographic narrations both effectively complement her arguments and communicate her journey as a researcher in Dibang Valley. In chapter two, for instance, Ambika set out to narrate a great deal about her day-to-day ethnographic encounters with the Idu-Mishmi community, NGOs, and researchers. From not being taken seriously by the community members to becoming well acquainted with them to the challenges she had to confront, Ambika covers various insightful occurrences from her fieldwork in Arunachal Pradesh.

The author’s ‘self-portrayal’ as morally grappled by her positionality in the field as a ‘social outsider’ to the ‘native Mishmis’ and as a biologist who is new to anthropological methods is interesting and insightful alike. This internal dilemma during the initial phase of her research is addressed appropriately when she notes, “armed with a structured questionnaire, without any training in social skills or methods, I felt like an interloper, trying to know their personal affairs, especially when it came to hunting; a question I included was how often people eat wild meat. A paper, a pen, and a series of questions not only made people uncomfortable but also made me feel awkward”.  

The third chapter talks about the Idu-Mishmi social world which combines humans, animals, and spirits. In doing so, hunting and allied activities of the community have been brought into the centre. The author observes that, for the Idu-Mishmi, hunting is not merely a utilitarian activity but something that constructs, maintains, and nourishes the community’s association with their natural environment and the non-human beings, i.e., animals and spirits. Hunting is observed in accordance with what the author calls a “social contract with animals and spirits.” This contract is maintained by adhering to certain rules and regulations to be followed before, while, and after the hunting, ranging from rituals before crossing the gate to the offerings meant to appease the spirits that own the animals.

A chapter that stands apart from the rest in terms of narrative, thematic and theoretical structures is chapter four. Titled “The Thin Red Line, Living on the Sino-Indian Border”, it analyses the Idu-Mishmi community’s association with the state from a border studies perspective. Ambika holds that the Idu-Mishmi shares an ambiguous relationship with the state. To illustrate this ambiguity, she relates the stories of two Mishmi individuals, namely Yaaku Tacho and Apiya.

The story of Yaaku, the woman who lived in China for 9 years during the 1950s, is particularly interesting as it demonstrates how the Chinese government’s ‘appeasing policies’ influenced the community members. Yaaku’s personal diary collected from her daughter, written in Mandarin, reveals that Yako and her companions who migrated to China were educated and employed by China and given weapon training by the Chinese army. They were also influenced by the Chinese propaganda of portraying India as their enemy and China as their motherland. Besides, it has also been stressed that while the Idu Mishmi are “fiercely patriotic towards India” (96), in response to the discrimination by ‘outsiders’ and the state, they sometimes evoke the “potential loyalty” (104) they have towards China as an “intimidating tactic (96)”.

Chapter five centres primarily around the argument there has been an increased interest in wildlife protection in the region, aligning with the views of the state conservationists. This emerging “ecological identity” biased towards wild animals, Ambika observes, is constituted of two factors, i.e., i) the influence of the global discourses on biodiversity conservation and ii) the conflict and competition over wildlife resources with the neighbouring Adi community. She also argues that the community’s interaction with the NGOs has a hand in shaping the way they present themselves. Mishmis in Dibange Valley, she maintains, symbolizes animals, birds and other natural elements, especially endangered species,  to define their identity and to challenge the derogatory portrayal of them as “primitive” and “barbaric”, and “wild” by the mainlanders. This identity assertion is strong amongst the urban Mishmis compared to the rural ones.

Chapter six, titled ‘tiger conservation and its predicaments,’ highlights the symbolic kinship that the idu Mishmi community shares with their tiger brethren. The author maintains that according to the Idu-Mishmi, they and tigers are bound by blood, thereby brothers to one another. Tigers can only be killed or trapped when it is a matter of personal safety or property loss. The community uses this kinship narrative to convey their stewardship of the forests and to present themselves as custodians of local wildlife. Nevertheless, such views on wildlife in Dibang Valley are contested with that of the state as they have a whole different perspective on the tiger. Ambika here seemingly takes the side of the community as she notes that the Mishmi’s place-based views on their environment, as well as their multi-species realities, must be acknowledged by the state and wildlife biologists to pave the way for alternative forms of conservation and research practices.

As Ambika concludes her work, she emphasizes that wildlife conservation in places like Dibang Valley continues to be a hegemony of the state and science, with voices from the ground being subordinated. To her thoughts, “Science-based conservation” fails to address issues like inequality, local needs and power relations as it lacks what she describes as a “social understanding of wildlife conservation” (168). In terms of wildlife conservation, Ambika considers this gap between biological and social sciences to be a serious issue. Addressing how this gap can be bridged, she remarks that ethnographic documentation of local viewpoints on conservation accompanied by cultural contexts where locally sensitive and accepted conservation practices can be implemented will be helpful in this regard. In spite of her criticisms of the technocratic methods of conservation, Ambika warns the readers that she does not glorify locally rooted methods of conservation since they are subject to change and can only be successful in controlled conditions.

Overall, Ambika’s book wonderfully captures the politics and poetics of conservation, especially tiger conservation in the Dibang Valley. The presentation of the local ecological perspectives of the Idu-Mishmi and how they are contested with the views of the state conservationists aptly exemplifies the long-running state versus community debates over conservation. Though seemingly biased towards the community, Ambika’s arguments are nonetheless crucial, especially in light of how several conservation initiatives overlooked the local point of view, thereby violating their rights. The book is strong in its ethnographic narrations. One of the things that set this work apart from others discussing similar themes is its ethnographic narrations. From methods to ethics, the book contains valuable insights for both students and practitioners of ethnography. Another appreciable feature of this work is its readability. Despite containing complex academic themes and perspectives, the articulation remains ‘strongly simple’ and with no extraneous jargon. Thus, it is likely to be comprehended well by the non-academic class of readers as well.

References:  

Berkes, Fikret. Sacred Ecology. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2018.

Chaudhuri, Sarit K. “Folk Belief and Resource Conservation: Reflections from Arunachal Pradesh.” Indian Folklife 28 (2008): 4-6.

Colchester, M. (1997). Salvaging Nature: Indigenous peoples and protected areas. Social change and conservation: environmental politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas, 97-130.

Gadgil, Madhav, Fikret Berkes, and Carl Folke. “Indigenous Knowledge for Biodiversity Conservation.” Ambio 22, no. 2/3 (1993): 151–56. 

Hanh, Thich Nhat, John Stanley, David Loy, Mary Evelyn Tucker, John Grim, Wendell Berry, Winona LaDuke et al. Spiritual ecology: The cry of the earth. The Golden Sufi Center, 2013.

***

Rashid Khadher is a Research Associate at IIT Gandhinagar. He holds a master’s degree in Society and Culture from IIT Gandhinagar and a Bachelors in Indigenous Culture Studies from the Central University of Jharkhand.