Horshita Bharadwaj
(horshita2795@gmail.com)
Whenever we talk about protecting Kaziranga, it is very easy to make the
conversation sound like people are standing on one side and wildlife on the other. But the reality is much more complicated. There are families living around Kaziranga who need roads, schools, hospitals, jobs and better infrastructure. At the same time, there are animals that have been using this landscape long before these roads and settlements existed. So the question is not simply whether development is good or conservation is good. Assam needs development, and Kaziranga needs protection. The real question is whether we can do both without slowly damaging the ecosystem that supports people as well as wildlife. This is why the discussion around reducing the Eco Sensitive Zone around Kaziranga to 1 km deserves a closer look. On paper, it may sound like a change in a boundary. In reality, that boundary can influence where roads, buildings, tourism facilities and other development can happen. And the most important thing to remember is this: Kaziranga does not really end at the park boundary.
First, what exactly is an Eco Sensitive Zone? An Eco Sensitive Zone is not another national park. It is more like a protective cushion around a protected area. The idea is to regulate activities around wildlife habitats so that intensive construction, mining, industries, large infrastructure and other potentially damaging activities do not gradually harm the ecological conditions outside the protected area. Think of Kaziranga as the centre of a circle. The national park is the centre, but the surrounding landscape includes forests, wetlands, agricultural areas, hills, animal corridors and villages. For wildlife, these areas are not empty spaces. There is also an important legal point. The often quoted 10 km figure should not be treated as though every part around Kaziranga is automatically covered by one identical 10 km notified ESZ. Specific notifications and court directions matter. The present debate is about reducing the broader protective framework being referred to by the government to 1 km.
1. Animals do not understand boundaries: This is probably my biggest concern. A rhino does not know where Kaziranga National Park ends. Neither does an elephant. Neither does a tiger. During the monsoon, this becomes even more important. Kaziranga is a floodplain ecosystem shaped by the Brahmaputra and its tributaries. Flooding is a natural part of the ecosystem, but when water levels rise, animals have to move towards safer and higher areas. Many animals move towards the Karbi Anglong hills and other surrounding landscapes. So the area outside the park is not necessarily empty land. For wildlife, it can be a movement route, seasonal refuge, feeding area or a connection between different habitats.
2. A smaller protection zone can mean more fragmentation. The biggest danger may not be one huge project coming up overnight. It is the slow addition of roads, hotels, buildings, walls, traffic, lighting and other human activity. One hotel may not destroy a corridor. One road may not destroy it either. But several projects over many years can change the entire way animals use a landscape. This is called habitat fragmentation. A forest can still appear on a map and yet become practically useless as a wildlife corridor.
3. Elephants show why connectivity matters. If rhinos are the face of Kaziranga, elephants show us why connectivity is so important. Elephants need large landscapes. They move between forests and follow routes that existed long before our roads and buildings. When these routes become blocked, elephants are more likely to enter farms and villages. That can mean crop damage, property damage, injuries and sometimes deaths of both people and elephants. So, weaker protection around the park could actually increase human-wildlife conflict, instead of reducing it.
4. What about local and tribal communities? This part of the debate should not be ignored. People live around Kaziranga. Farmers depend on their land. Tribal and local communities have their own relationship with forests and natural resources. Conservation policies can sometimes create genuine difficulties for people who have lived in these landscapes for generations. The government has also raised concerns about livelihoods and socio- economic hardship when discussing earlier proposals for a much larger protected zone. So yes, local people have to be part of this conversation. But reducing environmental protection does not automatically mean that local communities will benefit. If development is poorly planned, people can also face rising land pressure, loss of agricultural land, pollution, traffic, tourism pressure and more human wildlife conflict.
5. There is a genuine development argument too I do understand why the government wants more flexibility. People need schools, hospitals, roads, drainage, electricity, housing and businesses. A protected area should not mean that ordinary people cannot access basic infrastructure simply because they live nearby. Assam also needs economic growth. The question is not whether Assam should develop. Of course, it should. The real question is how that development is planned around wildlife movement and ecologically important areas.
6. Why a uniform 1 km boundary may not be the best answer. This is where I think we need a more practical approach. Why should every kilometre around Kaziranga be treated exactly the same? A better approach would be to identify the areas that are genuinely critical. Important wildlife corridors should remain protected even if they extend beyond 1 km. Flood refuge areas should receive protection because animals actually use them during floods. Important elephant and rhino movement routes should have stricter rules. Existing villages should be allowed reasonable development with sensible safeguards. Already urbanised areas can have different rules. Essential public infrastructure should be possible after proper ecological assessment. That is much more sensible than simply drawing one circle and treating everything inside or outside it in the same way.
7. The real danger is cumulative development. Environmental damage around protected areas rarely happens overnight. It usually happens little by little. First it is one road. Then one resort. Then a few shops. Then more buildings. Eventually, the landscape that animals once moved through becomes a continuous stretch of human activity. That is how ecological fragmentation happens. And once an important wildlife corridor disappears, bringing it back is extremely difficult.
8. Kaziranga cannot survive as an island. Kaziranga’s conservation story is extraordinary. It has helped protect the world’s most important population of one horned rhinoceroses and supports elephants, tigers, wild buffalo, swamp deer, birds and many other species. But the future challenge is not only protecting animals inside the park.
It is protecting the landscape that allows the park to function. Floods, animal movement and habitat connectivity do not stop at an administrative boundary. That is why the areas outside Kaziranga matter so much.
What could be the overall impact? Animals could face greater disturbance and more difficult movement during floods. Elephants could face more fragmented corridors and greater conflict with villages and farms. Wetlands and other habitats could come under pressure from construction and changing land use. Farmers and local communities could gain easier access to development in some places, but they could also face more wildlife conflict and environmental pressure if development is poorly planned. Tourism could grow in the short term, but the long term success of tourism depends on Kaziranga remaining a healthy ecosystem. For Assam as a whole, development could bring real benefits, but those benefits should not come at the cost of the ecological systems that make Kaziranga valuable in the first place.
My take I do not think the answer should simply be that nothing should be built around Kaziranga. That is not realistic. And conservation that completely ignores people will eventually lose public support. But reducing a broad protective framework to 1 km without separately identifying and protecting important wildlife corridors, flood refuge areas, wetlands and other critical habitats could create serious long term risks. For me, the question is not really 10 km versus 1 km. It is whether we protect ecological functions. If a particular stretch is an important elephant corridor, protect it. If a village has existed for decades and needs a school or hospital, allow sensible development. If an area is already urbanised, regulate it differently. If a proposed project sits directly on a wildlife movement route, it should face much stronger scrutiny. That is what a balanced approach would look like. The question Assam should really be asking: Do we want Kaziranga to become an isolated island of protected land surrounded by increasingly fragmented development? Or do we want a landscape where people can live, businesses can grow, infrastructure can improve, tourism can flourish and wildlife can still move?
The rhino does not need our sympathy. It needs a functioning landscape. The elephant does not need us to draw a boundary. It needs a corridor. And the people living around Kaziranga should not be treated as the enemy of conservation.
They should be part of it. To me, that is the real environmental lesson here. Development should not mean choosing humans over wildlife. Conservation should not mean choosing wildlife over people. The real test of good governance is whether we can make the two coexist without destroying the ecosystem that supports both. Kaziranga cannot survive as an island.