By Imkong Walling
The past week saw quite some interesting events in Nagaland. Barring others of social importance, which the author may have inadvertently overlooked, the list of events included an avoidable ‘snake-eating’ incident involving a popular outdoor enthusiast on the video-sharing YouTube platform. In the political front, civil society organisations led by state appointed gaonburas/village heads/elders and hereditary chieftains tossed up a new demand– merging of the Agreed Position and Framework Agreement into one common charter, to the chagrin of the NSCN (IM). On the otherside of the political divide, an alleged coup jolted the splintered GPRN/NSCN, an affiliate of the Working Committee, Naga National Political Groups (WC, NNPGs).
The focus today is however not on the socio-political tug-o-war. It is rather on the sudden rearing of a slumbering wildlife protection unit of the Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change that resulted in the aforementioned video-vlogger unwittingly facing the wrath of the Wildlife Protection Act.
As the story went, he uploaded a video on his channel– The Roving Naga, featuring him preparing and eating a protected snake species purportedly killed by someone else.
It allegedly reminded wildlife guards of a wildlife protection law, in effect nationwide since 1972, rarely put to use in a state where hunting is treated as a traditional hobby.
The defaulting individual was summoned, the regulations read out, and handed a receipt of Rs one lakh as penalty for killing a protected reptilian creature.
The available video evidence pointed to a clear transgression. The defaulter admitted to it, as well.
It was in the interest of wildlife conservation and law taking its course.
The intent was clear as well. It was a publicity stunt used to serve as a deterrent for others, and also to show that stature and popularity is no impediment to the course of law.
Well justified, except the belief that the hefty monetary penalty would deter hunting was a faulty reasoning. The only purpose it would have achieved is making hunters all the more cautious of displaying their kills on social media than actually stop hunting.
As stated earlier, it is a place where hunting is a normalised behaviour. Barring a few, the people in general see no wrong in it.
It is a place where village councils dictate when to and not to hunt, which begs the question, ‘Has the Wildlife protection unit the gumption and the tenacity to take up the matter directly with the village councils?’
Sometimes it helps to go beyond legal statutes, and take a placatory approach. It could involve convincing the government to set aside some funds, and hit the awareness trail, starting with the village councils, and more importantly, the land-owning clans.
The writer is a Principal Correspondent at The Morung Express. Comments can be sent to imkongwalls@gmail.com
