Page 1 of 1
Shikar in the army
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:10 am
by Safarigent
http://ss-28.com/2012/07/26/the-generals-shikar/
When my dad was a Y.O, there was this tubby little general from the land of sand dunes
who used to love shooting but was an average shot.
So, the C.O ordered the chaps to tie the patridges to trees and to paint pigs black with shoe polish or some such concoction!
Needless to say general sahab had a blast!
And then i go and read this story!
Also read this
http://memoirsofbitmesra1963-68.blogspo ... er-11.html
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/200304 ... /main3.htm
Re: Shikar in the army
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:39 am
by ckkalyan
Thanks for posting this link
abmethta....I discovered it to be a good blog, full of interesting anecdotes. Thank you.
Re: Shikar in the army
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:16 am
by xl_target
Good reading there
. Thanks AB.
The sad thing is that the state of India's flora and fauna was significantly better, in quality and quantity when the British left India after 200 years of rule. Today after sixty six years of independence that is not the case.
Re: Shikar in the army
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:42 am
by Safarigent
Lets not forget the asiatic lion population which once ranged till haryana and bihar was decimated and reduced to one isolated population by indiscrimate hunting during the british time.
Re: Shikar in the army
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:49 pm
by prashantsingh
xl_target wrote:
The sad thing is that the state of India's flora and fauna was significantly better, in quality and quantity when the British left India after 200 years of rule. Today after sixty six years of independence that is not the case.
True. But the basic reason is India's ever growing population. From 35 crore in 1947 we are 121 crore now.......and it is only getting worse.Another 15 years we will beat China.
Re: Shikar in the army
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:57 pm
by xl_target
prashantsingh wrote:xl_target wrote:
The sad thing is that the state of India's flora and fauna was significantly better, in quality and quantity when the British left India after 200 years of rule. Today after sixty six years of independence that is not the case.
True. But the basic reason is India's ever growing population. From 35 crore in 1947 we are 121 crore now.......and it is only getting worse.Another 15 years we will beat China.
That and a total lack of enforcement of environmental laws due to corruption, incompetence and a lack of resources (resources that should have been made available to the Forest Service)
India is not the only country that has allowed its Tiger population to be decimated. In the rush to industrialization, much of Asia's Tiger habitat has become fragmented and/or has been deforested. Due to the size of its landmass, India still has more Tiger numbers than most other places but they are a tiny fraction of the number that they were when India gained independence.
However, its time to put aside any jingoism and it's time to call a spade a spade as any country that neglects its flora and fauna, including its "National Animal", to the extent that India needs to be called out for it. While we can say we are proud of what India has achieved today economically, we certainly can't say that about any environmental achievements. It's time to stop blaming the British for the low numbers of animals and the widespread deforestation in India
today (as the Tribune article does). As long as we allow journalists and politicians to continue to blame someone else, we will never hold the Government accountable for what is their abject failure to protect India's natural resources adequately since Independence..