Coexistence Cannot Become Another Human Excuse

Coexistence sounds noble until human behaviour turns it into another permission slip, and India’s tiger success now forces that harder question, as reported by Down To Earth. Ravi Chellam argues that India must manage its conservation success differently, criticising the urge to expand tiger reserves and the obsession with fortress conservation. He points out that India holds 70 to 75% of the world’s wild tigers, with numbers rising from 1,411 in 2006 to 3,682 in 2022. He also notes that 35 to 40% of tigers live outside protected areas. Those facts matter. But they do not prove humans are harmless.

Coexistence Needs Proof, Not Romance

The article argues that big cats use human-dominated landscapes for dispersal, genetic connectivity and long-term survival. That is true. Tigers cannot survive in tiny isolated islands forever. The average protected area in India is too small to hold viable populations of large cats, so wider landscapes matter. Corridors matter. Territorial forests matter. Movement through mixed-use landscapes matters.

But coexistence is not the same as unrestricted human presence. Human history is full of egocentric behaviour: roads cut through habitat, mines enter corridors, tourism crowds animals, settlements harden into claims, and political convenience turns temporary use into permanent pressure. Wild animals adapt because they must. That should not be mistaken for permission to keep expanding human activity inside their last functional spaces.

Fortress Conservation Still Has A Role

Chellam is right that conservation costs have often fallen unfairly on forest dwellers and communities near protected areas. That pain should not be dismissed. Relocation, when forced or illegal, can violate dignity, history and rights. Conservation cannot be built on injustice and then call itself enlightened.

Still, fortress conservation exists for a reason. Tigers need places where human ambition is restricted, where breeding, hunting, resting and dispersal can happen without constant disturbance. Coexistence may work in some buffers, corridors and community landscapes, but core habitat must remain strongly defended. The problem is not protection itself. The problem is when protection is applied unjustly to local communities while destructive industries, roads, resorts and political projects receive softer treatment. That is not too much fortress conservation. It is selective enforcement.

Humans Must Earn Trust

The article celebrates the “magic” of communities that tolerate, accept and revere wildlife despite losses. That tolerance deserves respect. Many rural and tribal communities have carried conservation costs that urban wildlife lovers barely understand. Their knowledge should be heard, and their safety must matter.

But coexistence must be conditional. Human presence should be accepted only where it has proven harmless, disciplined and compatible with tiger survival. That is rare. Even well-meaning people bring livestock disease, dogs, firewood pressure, crop expansion, roads, waste, noise, light, conflict and political claims. Harm is not always dramatic. Sometimes it accumulates quietly until corridors break and tigers vanish. If people want to share space with tigers, the burden of proof should sit with people, not with tigers.

Protection Must Be Stronger And Fairer

Chellam warns against imported models such as fenced reserves, trophy hunting and culling. That warning is important. India should not copy systems that turn wildlife into markets or fenced assets. Its strength has been living landscapes, cultural tolerance and legal protection. But India must also resist a romantic version of coexistence that excuses every human footprint as tradition, livelihood or development.

The real threat remains landscape transformation: fragmentation, degradation, mining, infrastructure and habitat loss. That is where political courage is needed most. Strong cores, protected corridors, fair community partnerships, strict limits on destructive development and transparent governance can exist together. Coexistence should not mean opening tiger landscapes to more human entitlement. It should mean carefully managed compatibility where evidence shows wildlife is not paying the price.

This is where political will decides the outcome. Governments must protect people from unfair conservation costs, but they must also protect tigers from the old human habit of taking more space, more access and more excuses. Coexistence is valuable only when tigers remain safer because of it. If human presence cannot prove that, the fortress still matters.