By Imkong Walling
Sometime in March 2025, there was a viral snake-eating incident involving a popular Naga video-vlogger. The infamous incident had a slumbering wildlife protection unit of the Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change invoking the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and prosecuting the video-vlogger for preparing and eating a protected snake species purportedly killed by someone else.
Some 9 months later, another viral video about an ‘exotic’ list of wild meat on offer at a food stall had the wildlife enforcement unit springing to action, again. The setting for the video, posted by a travel vlogger from abroad, happened to be Kisama, Naga Heritage Village— the site of the fabled Hornbill Festival.
As reported in the news, the food stall owner was prosecuted and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh. Three similar cases were reportedly detected in Kisama in total, while one other case involved a food stall outside of the festival venue, and all were dealt with as per the law.
The Wildlife Protection Unit is reportedly committed to protecting wildlife, ensuring all reported cases get dealt with. Well and good. It is in the interest of conservation, after all.
The issue however is a perception symptomatic of selective tendency. The inclination has been to act only when a case hits the limelight, or in social media lingo— goes viral, while turning a blind eye to the thousands of hunting expeditions that plays out in Nagaland over one hunting season.
Villages decide when to and not to hunt. The government has hardly any say in how the villages manage their forests. In such a grassroots scenario, in which traditional practices shored up by a Constitutional guarantee called Article 371A is regarded as a Naga cultural Magna Carta, where do the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 and its enforcement agency stand?
The argument that there are plenty of domesticated alternatives to choose from holds water. But making selective enforcement, only when the sale of wild meat goes viral is not a healthy tactic to maintain environmental balance.
Community-led conservation is a tried and tested prescription the world over. But how far has the Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change been able to win the confidence of the community, in this case, the land-owning villages to discourage hunting.
Instead of struggling to enforce a law incompatible with the prevailing local ethos, and limiting prosecution to viral incidents, it would not be unwise for the state government to start exploring implementable alternatives tailored to local conditions.
Though not without controversy, North America, Europe, Africa, and even Pakistan, have ‘ethical hunting’ in practice under government supervision. It practically implies controlled and informed hunting under licence, taking only what is needed, ensuring ecological balance is maintained.
The writer is a Principal Correspondent at The Morung Express. Comments can be sent to imkongwalls@gmail.com
