BiasesIt is a common fact that words can cause problems. Some are intentional, others unintentional. Although editors and writers can be sensitive to differences in race, gender, culture and sexual orientation, there is often a bias against environmental and wildlife issues due to the casual use words. Negative terminology and word biases can lead to distortions or misrepresentations of facts and an increase in anti-environmental biases.
This is the premise of an article by Dr Asad Ramani, former director for Bombay Natural History Society. The December-February issue SaevusRahmani wrote an article entitled Accurate Appellations for, a magazine devoted to nature and wildlife.
He starts by saying, “Recently I read a news article in…” Indian ExpressThe Chhattisgarh jail, a safe shelter for terrified villagers, is used to stop wild elephants from escaping. Although the terminology is acceptable to most people, is it correct to use this strong term for normal animal behaviour? Do the elephants realize that they are not allowed to eat the paddy crop grown along their traditional migratory route, but also that they are not allowed to eat it? We read many newspaper stories during monsoons about the flood fury caused by the holy Ganga or the noble Brahmaputra. We often forget that we have built houses on floodplains, sometimes illegally. We have also cultivated floodplains at the edge of the rivers or on temporary island; we have built barrages and long bunds along normal river courses. We call natural floods that occur in these rivers and remove obstacles in their course flood fury, or other imaginative terms such as Brahmaputra raviages. Natural processes are referred to using a more human-friendly terminology. Marauder, as defined in the dictionary, is someone who wanders around looking for things or marauds, in other words, a raider and plunderer, pillager, and looter. These negative dockets could be used to describe gentle giants whose family and social lives will be shameful. Do elephants know that humans cannot give them human-grown crops to avoid being called raiders? Do elephants understand that they shouldn’t react to people throwing rocks or crackers at their traditional routes, where humans built their homes? A slight kick by an angry elephant to the tormentor might kill him, giving people and the newspaper another chance to label this animal as a murderous beast.
Conflict between human and animal
Human-animal conflict is another term that is often misused. Conflict is a term that implies that humans and animals cannot coexist. Rahmani writes: Human-Wildlife Conflict is an important term in conservation lexicon. Conflict is a fight or an argument or a difference among two or more ideas, desires, etc. I tried many dictionaries to find conflict in the contexts of humans and animals. Animals can have conflict within their species for space (territory), food or sex. A cheetah following a gazelle is not considered conflict. Conflict between two parties is when they fight for the same resource. Does a wild boar or a sambhar know that eating a crop can lead to conflict with the farmer in a so-called human/wildlife conflict? It is better to refer to human-wildlife interactions than human-animal conflict.
Public perception is crucial for gaining conservation support. For example, people will choose development over wildlife conservation or employment over mining ban. To them, wildlife and nature conservation are hindrances. This perception can be changed if we change the phrase to conservation and development. There is very little between development and conservation of nature. Clean air, clean drinking water, and greenery are all essential for our health. Water that is so polluted that fish cannot live in it is also not suitable for human consumption. Cleanliness of cities and rivers, as well as protecting forests, grasslands and wetlands, is development and contributes to human welfare. Advertising is a great way to reach new people and create new audiences.
Wily real estate developers exploit this desire for nature with their glossy advertisements showing new buildings surrounded in lush greenery, beautiful gardens, and birds flying everywhere. The prices of apartments rise if you add a golf course. I have never seen an advertisement for apartments that are surrounded by polluted streams and fume-laden factory chimneys. Who would buy such flats? Development is only possible when there is healthy nature. I recall a Cabinet Minister ridiculing conservationists for forcing them to build long elevated roads that would pass through a tiger sanctuary in Maharashtra. But, scientists from the Wildlife Institute of India proved through photographic records, that elevated roads are essential for normal movements of wild and domestic animal. It is now claimed by the same Minister. The DPR (detailed report on the project) now includes building elevated roads and animal pathways. This is a good development.
A contradiction
Rahmanis article is, for the most, a compassionate appeal. But, at one point, it seems that he seems against the very principle that he is appealing for. Rahmanis paragraph on feral dogs argues that the term should be changed to free-ranging and stray dogs. They are the new exterminators for wildlife, he says. There are ways to correct this imbalance, even though stray canines can be predators. Rahmani writes in his article that he will separate his article on the danger posed by stray dogs. Although his choice of words is a demeaning one, it might be worth waiting for the promised article in order to see what he has to say.
There are inherent biases against the environment. This badge is worn proudly by some people. An encounter with a local politician occurred years ago while he was travelling in Maharashtra’s districts. He spoke out about the discovery of leopard cubs in a sugarcane fields. The politician mocked efforts by the Forest Department to rescue them, saying that they should have been killed. He was shocked to learn that even local villagers supported the rescue and he swore at the correspondent: Tum sab junglewaale, insaan ka socho, jaanwar ko chhodo [You wildlife types think of humans, forget about animals].
The negligent attitude that has led to the current environmental degradation is rooted in the belief that humans are first and the environment second. This unjust imbalance must be corrected. One way to change a mindset would be to change the terminology we use.
Rahmanis passionate conclusion sums it all. Wildlife needs public support. Let’s start using the correct terminology for our articles, research papers and lectures. An elephant cannot be expected to not enjoy a juicy sugarcane, or the Brahmaputra to prevent annual flooding. Let us use the right terminology to highlight all our follies. People who talk about conquering mountain peaks are not able to connect with nature. People who talk about controlling rivers don’t appreciate the value of the natural flow. People who talk about civilizing the tribes don’t understand the value of sustainable living. We must conquer our wrong thinking. What needs to be tamed and civilized is our greed for natural resources.
