Hunting Article

[skeetshot]

. . . . .

There are many witnessed accounts of many royalty regularly shooting driven birds with rifles. . . .

H H Sardul Singh Ji of whom Rangarajan mentions, had a brother, Bijay Singh Ji who was one such shot.

Considered by many as the greatest rifle shot ever at a time when there were many a great shot in this country, Bijay Singh ji was motoring with with H H Jodhpur, the late Umaid Singh Ji in an open car when a flight of demosille cranes flew overhead. Knowing of his prowess with the rifle, Umaid Singh asked Bijay Singh if he could drop one.

Bijay Singh stopped the vehicle and turned to Umaid Singh and asked "Which one ?" -- such was his confidence.

Of course he dropped the one pointed out using his favorite rifle: A Mauser based bolt action rifle in 303 built for him by Holland and Holland, open sights of course.

[Vikram]

Mahesh Rangarajan is an erudite scholar in a field where not much in depth research is done.It would be unfair to expect to deal with all dimensions of the issues in that article.IMO, he was addressing the notion that the princes of colonial India were essentially conservationists first and hunters next. I would agree with Shooter and Katana that the erstwhile monarchical rulers did contribute to conservation efforts and modern conservation notions/ethics and methods were still incipient. However, they cannot be absolved of their responsibility for decimating the wildlife and the colonial politics that contributed to it. One of the Scindias of Gwalior shot over a thousand tigers and that included pregnant tigresses and cubs. That Col.Kesri Singh ordered for unnamed graves for the poorer foragers/poachers was the epitome of the dichotomy of values for the different social classes. I read his book and it is there.

Shooter, I find it difficult to agree with your statement that most people were vegetarians hundred years ago. Most castes ate meat that they did not eat much meat depended on the availability of animal protein.

I would agree if someone said that the modern idea of conservation was largely unfamiliar.I will have to agree with Navi.

If many animal and bird species disappeared or came close to extinction within the last 150 years or so, that must be examined very keenly. Market poaching,big damns/advance of civilisation, population pressures did cause great deal of damage.But that does not again excuse the excesses of the princely rulers and their feudatories and employees.There were estimated to be more than a hundred thousand tigers in the 19th century and a great deal of them disappeared by the time of Independence and the last Indian Cheetah was shot by a princely ruler and not by a poacher.

Best-
Vikram

[shooter]

I thought no one would understand what I was trying to prove.

Well someone did.

Talking of shooting in odd manners of shooting, I know of a couple of 'royals' who would shoot at fish standing in a boat with their .22lr pistols. Each shot would be clean kill through the water. This is where the laws of refraction come in play.

Shooting fish with a rifle is an art esp if you wish to hit the fish. Missing the fish and causing concussion is easy (ier) but preserves the flesh.
Another style is to shoot fish by looking at the movement of grass above water when the fish feeds at the roots of the grass at stream bed.

[prashantsingh]

One of the Scindias of Gwalior shot over a thousand tigers and that included pregnant tigresses and cubs.

Vikram

Infact the Scindias had a railway line running through their pvt. hunting grounds which is today Shivpuri......and they would be hunting down game from the comfort of their train wagons. How "ethical and sporting" that would have been is anyones guess.
That's probably one side of the coin , while the other side would be the likes of the Nawab (Junagarh)

[Vikram]

One of the Scindias of Gwalior shot over a thousand tigers and that included pregnant tigresses and cubs.

Vikram

Infact the Scindias had a railway line running through their pvt. hunting grounds which is today Shivpuri......and they would be hunting down game from the comfort of their train wagons. How "ethical and sporting" that would have been is anyones guess.
That's probably one side of the coin , while the other side would be the likes of the Nawab (Junagarh)

Probably inspired by similar stuff that happened in US in the 19th century.I read that those who were extremely rich and into that sort of things would go on shooting from the special trains for days together.

Best-
Vikram

[shooter]

Dont blame just Scindias for it. Most centuries, double centuries and half thousands included foetuses, tigresses and cubs.

Vikram my use and your use of 'veg' and 'non-veg' is different.
Typically in india 'non-veg' means 'can eat meat'. Most people in india who are non vegerarians also dont eat meat daily.
So even a meat eating tribe/group in india doesnt depend on meat for the bulk of diet. I therefore again state that indian population on the whole isnt a meat eating population. You dont have to look far, see your friends or our members here. compare this to an american forum and see number of members who eat meat >10 times a week.
Secondly, again ask around, you will see many people from the current generation who say "i eat meat but my familt , grandparents dont". How many times do you find "my grandparents and greatgrandparents ate meat but my generation dont"'. The biggest proof of this comes on the fasting or 'holy' days when most of hindu people dont eat meat. Thats is their understanding of how a hindu should eat traditionally.