Hunting Article

[shooter]

http://hindu.com/2001/01/21/stories/1321067g.htm

Princely hunts and royal preserves

Nothing can be farther from the truth than recent attempts at portraying erstwhile princes as pioneers in conservation efforts. Unable to wage war under the British, hunting game became another means of channelling their aggression and the parks, another resource in their political machinations. Exclusive extracts from MAHESH RANGARAJAN'S new book which looks at the history of conservation and wildlife in India.

THE Big Game Diary of Sadul Singh, Maharajkumar of Bikaner, privately printed in 1936, catalogued his bags over a quarter of a century. In this time, he had ranged far beyond the confines of his desert kingdom in western Rajasthan to shoot tigers in the forested hills of central India, lions in the dry teak jungle of Saurashtra, leopards in Bharatpur and wild buffalo in the Nepal tarai. The rarer a creature, the greater the sense of exultation of the big game hunter.

Thus it was that on a March morning in 1920, Sadul Singh's father grew taut with excitement when trackers brought news of a male wild buffalo that they had seen mingling with a tame herd. The party of hunters had travelled all the way to Babia-Bankuwala in Nepal to get a fine head of the great arna, a creature already so rare across north India that the British had restricted its killing for sport. As they waited in a macchan, a platform on a tree at the edge of a plain, Sadul Singh recalled how, "Father got very excited as it was his first experience of this kind, even though he is an experienced sportsman. He said his heart was thumping as in his early sporting days." Five years later, the same hunters gave the coup de grace to a group of three cheetahs in Rewa, a princely kingdom in central India. The cheetahs, shot from a motor vehicle, were so rare that their shooting was described as "a great piece of luck".

The Diary is a priceless document because it totals all that Sadul Singh shot over a quarter century. Nearly 50,000 head of animals and a further 46,000 game birds fell to his gun. Among these were 33 tigers, 30 Great Indian Bustards, over 21,000 sand grouse and a lone Asiatic lion. To cap it all, over a thousand of the game animals had been bagged outside India. The Cape buffalo and the black rhino were among the 33 varieties of herbivores of the savannah and jungle of Africa that ended up as trophies in the Bikaner palace.

In the annals of the hunt, the Indian princes stand out in a league of their own. Despite recent attempts to rewrite their role as precursors of modern day conservation, their record was not always an edifying one. Having submitted to the British as the paramount power in the land, they were treaty-bound to eschew war. Disallowed from taking up arms on the battlefield except in service of the Raj, they used their time and the labour of their subjects against the wild animals and birds of forest, marsh and savannah. From around a century ago, the hunting grounds of the princes acquired new importance. As certain large game animals became more scarce in British-ruled territories, officials from the Viceroy down to the district officer vied with each other for an invitation to the sportsman's paradise that lay in princely India. A brief trip could bring the visitor a rich haul of trophies, to be prepared by a professional taxidermist. If it was a large specimen it could be reported in the record books of big game, preferably by Rowland Ward of London.

After the Rebellion of 1857-58, when direct rule by the Crown replaced that of the East India Company, the princes were seen as pillars of the imperial power. The hunt reinforced and symbolised their loyalties even as it enabled them to mingle with the high officials of the Raj. In a racially polarised empire, they were seen as "honorary whites", whose loyalty, personal bravery and marksmanship was contrasted with the effete urban middle class which was already asking too many uncomfortable questions about the legacy of British rule. It was in what was labelled as "Indian India" that the hunt was refined and developed into elaborate ceremony. A Viceroy would be pleased to "get" a tiger or two in a morning's hunt. A bag of five in a central Indian hunting preserve in the 1920s was enough to earn the ruler a number of favours. The famous cricketer Douglas Jardine (of Bodyline fame) went out in the hunting estates of the Raja of Singahi for his big game shoot. The Raja could get his guests 40 head of swamp deer stags on a single day. The marsh the deer inhabited was strictly protected to serve up such large bags when required. It was this that made the rulers classify some key species as game, a resource so critical to their political machinations that it simply had to be used judiciously.

If only a few were allowed to shoot and kill, it did not mean that theirs was an ethic of nature protection. In the third of India that was under the princes, killing was a rite of passage into adulthood, especially manhood, for a number of dynasties. Such rituals still persist among landed elites in parts of central India, though they are often carried out stealthily.

Each state or region had its own distinctive styles of hunting and coursing game. Gayatri Devi was a princess of Cooch Behar, a state in north Bengal with perhaps an unrivalled record of big game shoots in all of eastern India. She went out on a shoot at the age of five and "got" a panther all her own when only 12 years old. When she bagged her first panther, she got a congratulatory telegram from Jai, her future husband. She would later describe it as "almost as thrilling as the kill." After she married the ruler of Jaipur, Gayatri Devi would go out on tiger shoots in Sawai Madhopur (in what is now the Ranthambhore tiger reserve) and on buck hunts with captive cheetahs. The underlings and vassals of the princes also aped their habits and to the extent possible, their lifestyles. Ruling clans and castes were zealous about the exercise of their hunting privileges. But their ethic was one of conquest and use, with nature as a surrogate for the political power they had lost.


In fact, in their zeal for large bags, many princes outstripped their British masters, and it would be anachronistic to see them as modern day conservationists. Some did not even spare tigresses, despite pledging to abide by hunting ethics. Before 1900, George Yule with 400 tigers and Montagu Gerrard with 227 had among the largest British bags. They were to be outstripped by men like the ruler of Udaipur and the Raja of Gauripur with 500 each. The Nawab of Tonk shot a total of 600 tigers. He stopped killing tigresses after he got to the score of 150, but did not prevent his subordinates from shooting them. Even in the 1940s, his chief hunter would gladly report how he had "included a tiger shoot" in the itinerary of a marriage programme. Ramanuj Saran Singh Deo of Sarguja was to hold the all-time record of over 1100 tigers in his lifetime. By the time he stopped shooting in the 1950s, he had another less known record against his name: of over 2000 panthers or leopards. He had even killed 13 of them in one night, luring them to specially built platforms where goat kids and mongrels were tethered. Eager for a meal, the big cats came to their deaths. Small game too mattered: grouse in Bikaner, ducks and geese in Manipur, partridge in Patiala. But it was the big game animals, the tiger and the gaur, the panther and the sambhar that were the dream of sport hunters.

It is easy to forget that the princes were at the top of a pyramid of power, with tribute being raised from the rural poor who lived in the forest or on the jungle's edge. Where much wildlife survived, it often bred deep resentment among subjects who did not consider the jungle their own. The jungle was not being protected for its own sake. It was being taken by a few for their pleasure from the many that could find a source of livelihood in its confines. There were, of course, enormous variations across the 500 odd states. Tribute paid to the prince or the landed classes could be in kind: a fawn, a rare falcon, a leopard skin, poles for ceremonies. Tribute was often ritually important; venison from the forest was placed on the royal table, even as honey and herbs were essential for many courtly ritual. Certain areas were now declared cut of bounds for commoners, being set aside for the rulers or a privileged few. A former prince would write of the past in vivid if chilling terms:

"Halt on your heels," thundered my grandfather, the ruler of Wankaner, to trespassing shepherds grazing in his jungles. As a boy of seven I recall them bolting from a distance with their domestic animals at their heels and when caught they would be shaking with fear. A year later when on an evening drive with my parents, I remember my father suddenly stopping the car and rushing up to a man lopping off branches of a tree for firewood. The frightened man jumped off the tree and disappeared within seconds.

At times, the shikar or hunting department could use brute force to give teeth to the law. Colonel Kesri Singh of Jaipur boasted that he had participated in a thousand tiger shoots. Sometimes, the Colonel turned to other game. When he found tribals caught poaching in an antelope preserve, he placed iron hooks on select trails to injure the soles of their feet. His forest guards were asked to find "a nameless grave among the dense jungle" for those who disobeyed. The rulers could race their cheetahs or shoot buck in the reserves, but these very areas were closed to their subjects for hunting if not for grazing.

Worst off were tribals and caste Hindus who had to take part in the great drives or hakkas for large game. A tiger or a panther when chased can turn deadly. And in most princely hunts the big game hunter sat safe on a raised platform or on elephant back. It was the beaters who were most at risk. A 16-year-old boy mauled by a panther in the Gir Forest or a man succumbing to injuries inflicted by a cornered tiger in a central Indian forest: these are the kinds of notations in an old hunting diary. No wonder forcible labour dues or begar and curbs on access to forests became an explosive political issue in many princely states by the time of Independence in 1947.

[Safarigent]

it makes for interesting reading.
i got a list of his books from wikipedia.
which one is this extract from?

[mundaire]

Different eras, different mores...

[Sakobav]

Indian tragedy is that generations back then and now havent learned to sustain the resources inherited by them..this will come back to haunt no excuses for decimating faun and flora..Indian elite followed British rule to some extend for denying common man the most basic right to hunt on any reserve..

Nice perspective though

[ckkalyan]

Makes for a great read - eye opener; shooter thank you for sharing.

[prashantsingh]

Interesting perspective.
But one can not deny the contribution towards wildlife conservation from some of the rulers as well.
The article makes one believe that all rulers were trigger happy Tiger killers. Many were,but many were not. I met a gentleman from an earstwhile Royal family who once shot a tiger (when it was legal) and decided to never shoot one again. "A majestic animal reduced to a lump of dead mass".
An ideal example of wildlife conservation in India is the Asiatic Lion saved by the Nawab of Junagarh when their numbers had gone down to 13 .
The basic reason why wildlife flourished in those days was 1. few people had hunting rights,2. forest cover was more.,3.Human population was less.
4. Few had access to modern day firearms.
Hence conservation worked.

I am reminded of some words written by a gentleman called Thomas b@$*@*d (an Englishman...and Yes thats his real name).
He was a keen Angler and wrote about the plight of Fish way back in 1598.
"Fishing, if I a fisher may protest,
Of pleasures is the sweetest, of sports the best,
Of exercises the most excellent,
Of recreations the most innocent,
But now the sport is marred , and wott ye why
FISHES DECREASE,and FISHERS MULTIPLY.

written way back in 1598 . More than 300 years ago.

[shooter]

Rangarajan, if im not mistake, had also compiled the famous oxford anthology of indian wildlife. Like all free men, of course he has an opinion.
At first i was surprised to see the hindu had written a biased article showing only one side of the coin. But then i realied it was an introduction of one of his books (possibly part one of the anthology)

All said and done, the fact remains that most of the wildlife parks that survive today were actually private hunting preserves of royalty. Now people even say that today the hunters arent conservationists as their main goal to save forests and increase animal numbers is so that they can shoot them. In fact an anti had also made a similar post on ifg not too long ago. Yeah right so we do that but ultimately the numbers do increase.

During that era, in all kingdoms including britain, europe etc, there were human traps for poachers and poaching was a crime punishable by death. Now that doesnt make it right but i am saying this wasnt limited to indian royalty.

Yes it is ILLEGAL to cut firewood from state forests even today. The difference is that today some official actually running after a culprit is so unheard of that it causes someone to write about it. Ive written it before and am again writing about how in ranthanbore it was a common sight of woodcutters cutting branches of trees and the forest officials refused to take action as they said nothing would happen . They told me "aap bade log ho. Aap kahoge to shayad ruk jayega".

Similarly it is Illegal to take sheep goats into the state forest again the fact that someone stops them is unimaginable in todays time. Grazing land was always available outside forests for sheep/cows/goats and any old state records may be examined to verify this record.
Socialist cookie cutting products will have a hard time understanding this.

Most people in india , more so 80 years ago were vegeterians. The poaching wasnt for food but for commercial reasons. Mr. Rangrajan himself has written about the poaching practices in British Raj. One only has to read his book to confirm. In india (ive mentioned in another post 2 yrs ago) there are some castes who have been poachers due to their knowledge of the forest as they could get easy money for pelts. Again note that the instances of banning people from hunting was rare as hunting wasnt a common practice rather than the other way around. For example, brahmins, vaishnavas were veg. Many kshatriya kastes like yadav, and many jats were vegeterians. Many shoodra castes were vegeterians. So the population didnt hunt for food.
Again maybe some rare case of a poor person wanting to hunt was banned but not so rife as the article suggests. Dutring the 1800's the most tigers were killed by these bounty poachers and the tripwire trap with the cowsaver "gaurakshak" device and stripped bark greased tree trap for tiger killing were also invented by the royalty; isnt it. After this heavy action on tribals, in the first half of the 20 century, these devices became unheard of.

One hunting diary has caused him so much grievance but what about the decision of tehri dam which decimated swamp deer overnight. What about the 'socialist' move of opening up the terai forest to farmers. Yup im sure all that deforestation in the first decade after indipendence really increased the tiger numbers.

I can go on but i am only pointing the other side of the coin. And no amount of shepherds or woodcutters or honey collectors would have been able to protect the forests and wildlife.

I for one can do without the toosh-wearing-scotch-sipping-farmhouse-owning-teak-furniture-ordering-clicking-"like"-on-facebook-page-save our tiger (with pic of lion)-cookie-cutting-modern conservationists. (Rangrajan is not one and has done a wonderful job in his books despite this article and again this article is researched but doesnt present the complete picture).

And speaking of generalisations, did you know rangrajans were responsible for the condition today where india has one of the highest number of prostitutes in the world. Nice headline right? Furthur elaborate the article that Rangrajans, who are tamil Brahmins actively encouraged the Devdasi system which is a precursor to prostitution. It made society accept prostitution amongst higher classes more readily.

Well even i dont believe what i wrote but just stating how generalisation isnt always right.

[Katana]

shooter,

Somehow I beg to differ with Mr. Rangarajans views. I can name several Rulers in pre Indepence India who gave much of their time and energy in conserving our fauna. One of them even went to the extent of virtually booting the then Viceroy out of his territory if he came shooting and virtually shouting off at some really big Princes if they decided to take a shot at 'his' animals. The same applies to Rulers in the post Independence India. this is too long a topic to go into.

More over, why do we forget Maharaja Dr. Karni Singh? The first Indian to win a Gold in Olympic shooting? And he was the same Maharaja Sadul Singh's son, so vilified by Mr. Rangarajan.

In our contemporary times, how many people know that the current Environment and Wildlife Protection Act was drafted by a 'royal' and passed in Parliament and converted into an Act by another 'royal', both of them being brothers!

How many know that the World Wide Fund for Nature-India is headed by a 'royal', which it traditionally is. This is a prominent body that advises the Wildlife Board and is to be taken very seriously.

[shooter]

shooter,

Somehow I beg to differ with Mr. Rangarajans views. I can name several Rulers in pre Indepence India who gave much of their time and energy in conserving our fauna. One of them even went to the extent of virtually booting the then Viceroy out of his territory if he came shooting and virtually shouting off at some really big Princes if they decided to take a shot at 'his' animals. The same applies to Rulers in the post Independence India. this is too long a topic to go into.

More over, why do we forget Maharaja Dr. Karni Singh? The first Indian to win a Gold in Olympic shooting? And he was the same Maharaja Sadul Singh's son, so vilified by Mr. Rangarajan.

In our contemporary times, how many people know that the current Environment and Wildlife Protection Act was drafted by a 'royal' and passed in Parliament and converted into an Act by another 'royal', both of them being brothers!

How many know that the World Wide Fund for Nature-India is headed by a 'royal', which it traditionally is. This is a prominent body that advises the Wildlife Board and is to be taken very seriously.

Katana ji, please read my post just above yours. i am saying something similar.

[airgun_novice]

shooter,
[snip]
More over, why do we forget Maharaja Dr. Karni Singh? The first Indian to win a Gold in Olympic shooting? And he was the same Maharaja Sadul Singh's son, so vilified by Mr. Rangarajan. [snip]

Dr. Karni Singh => The first Indian to win a Gold in Olympic shooting? <= Is this factually correct ? I thought Abhinav Bindra was.

[prashantsingh]

Dr. Karni Singh => The first Indian to win a Gold in Olympic shooting? <= Is this factually correct ? I thought Abhinav Bindra was.

Dr Karni Singh did represent India in the Olympics (a few times) .
But Bindra was the guy who won the Gold. Infact the first individual Gold in any Olympic event(of what I know).

[Katana]

Ever wondered why the Tughlakabad ranges are named after him? His forte was trap.

Abhinav Bindra is someone who came on the scene lately. Now I don't mean to demean him, but he wasn't even conceived while the 'royals' have been shooting for generations! I have seen some of the older generation, and a few of ours in action and most could put a wild west exhibitionist to shame.

Yet none wanted to compete. They were happy in the fact and security of their achievement.

[shooter]

shooter,
[snip]
More over, why do we forget Maharaja Dr. Karni Singh? The first Indian to win a Gold in Olympic shooting? And he was the same Maharaja Sadul Singh's son, so vilified by Mr. Rangarajan. [snip]

Dr. Karni Singh => The first Indian to win a Gold in Olympic shooting? <= Is this factually correct ? I thought Abhinav Bindra was.

Katana ji is right as usual.

Please note there are many types of shooting events throughout the world.

The ones recognised by the ISSF are called ISSF shooting events.
The ones in the olympisa are called olympic shooting events.

For example Fitasc, ESP an NASSA though popular arent olympic events not even issf events.

The type of trap and skeet in olympics are called Olympic trap and olympic skeet. (as there are many non-olympic skeet and trap events Like ESK, Nassa, ABT etc).

For example the other day i was at an invitational shoot, and they asked me what sort of clay event like to shoot, i said i shoot olympic events. Now i am not even one tenth fir to shoot olympics but not just me but everyone else also understood what i mant.

So Dr. Karni singh was indeed the first indian to win a gold at an olympic discipline shooting which was in asian games.
Katanaji never mentioned olympic games in his post.

And yes many royalty didnt compete. I wonder how Lord De Gray, Lord wasingham, lord huntingdon, duke of bedford, our own Maharaja Duleep singh, Nawab of tonk , The austrian count whose name i forget, the king of portugal would have fared at the olympics.

There are many witnessed accounts of many royalty regularly shooting driven birds with rifles. There are accounts of shooting driven ducks at night with rifles.
(I am only stating the witnessed accounts because even phoolan devi claimed that she shot flying ducks in chambal with standard servise issue police .303 rifles with ammo from black market. This rifle was a random rifle obtained from a policeman.)

[Katana]

I thought no one would understand what I was trying to prove. I purposely used the the phrase 'Olympic shooting' not 'at the Olympics' because I did not want to parry someone with the nuances. Here's a quick reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karni_Singh

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.

Another taught me to shoot a rifle about 100 ft. or more, looking below in an angle less than 45 degrees. This is shooting in a cosine path.

Try doing this without studying the laws of physics and you'll see what I'm talking about.

These guys are geniuses in their own right and could put a trained sniper to shame.

Why do we also forget one of the founding fathers of our very own NRAI.........M.K. Chandrabhanusinhji of Wankaner? Both husband and wife were also champions in their own right. The same man was a staunch anti poacher advocate. It was he who virtually guarded the Gir immediately after Independence when Junagadh was rudderless.

[airgun_novice]

What skills! No wonder the Brits were so fond of Indian Royals.
Royal Salute