Genetic diversity and evolution have long been considered to be inextricably linked and rightly so. Even Charles Darwin and his long-term research attested to the necessity for having a diverse gene pool in a species, which forms the basis for the mechanism of natural selection. A heterogeneous gene pool introduces novel genetic traits that were previously unseen in the bloodline and ancestry of the species. If the new trait is an advantageous one, then it is more likely that it would be transferred to further generations of the species. Some such traits assist the species in adapting to different environments and ecologies, including changing climate. Climate change brings with it unforeseen alterations to the environment that necessitates an advanced degree of adaptability in organisms, to enable them to survive through the changes. Without a diverse gene pool, the traits that assure higher adaptability are lost and the species becomes more susceptible to weaknesses. The mutations that arise from variations in genetic traits also eventually lead to the evolution of new species, which further enhances biological diversity.
Loss of genetic diversity occurs commonly through two routes, either through a decrease in the population of a species or the population being isolated geographically. When the population is isolated, it restricts the exposure of the animals to varied external stimuli that, in turn, closes the door on possible advantageous mutations and adaptations. The current situation of the Asiatic Lions in Gir is very similar to what would classically be considered an isolated population. There is even an argument to be made that such isolation could restrict the species from evolving into a whole different species; however, the timeframe required to attain such a vastly distinct genome to indicate the coming of a new species is considerably long. The presence of a single isolated population could also lead to increased risk from fatal epidemic outbreaks.
Moreover, the isolation would lead to interbreeding, which would lead to further loss of genetic diversity that would result in a weaker and less hardy progeny of lions. Translocation and reintroduction of species has traditionally been used as an effective tool to deal with complications that arise from isolation of a species. For instance, in India, the one horned rhino was reintroduced from Assam to Dudhwa National Park many decades ago, in 1984. The aim of the reintroduction was to reduce interbreeding while simultaneously expanding the habitat of the Indian rhino. The project was initiated on a very conservative scale with only five rhinos being transported to Dudhwa in Uttar Pradesh. However, the reintroduction was so successful that the original population multiplied more than seven-fold and today the state boasts close to 40 rhinos.
On the flip side, it is too soon to tell whether the relocation of the African cheetah to India is headed for success or failure. However, it is important to note that in the case of the cheetahs, it banks on the introduction of a sub-species of cheetah that the Indian Subcontinent has never seen before. Earlier, it was contested that African and Asian cheetah were genetically identical, but more recent genetic studies indicate that the genetic differences in the two are more significant and profound than originally thought, which means they are two distinct sub-species. Thus, the successes or failures of this particular project should be viewed in the light that it is intrinsically a more challenging project compared to the translocation of rhinos or the potential translocation of the Asiatic Lion.
It is pertinent to note that Kuno National Park, in northern Madhya Pradesh, was originally founded as a wildlife sanctuary to buttress the Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project initiated in 2004. The State Government of Gujarat strangely refused to cooperate with the project citing that the lions were part of their heritage. The arguments made by the state government were largely without substance and mostly emotional, which led to the Supreme Court of India ordering the translocation of the proposed number of lions to Kuno. However, the state government has till date failed to implement the order of the Apex court.
It is even more perplexing as to why the state government would be hesitant in following through with the mandates of the court since both national parks, Gir as well as Kuno, are strikingly similar when it comes to the ecological structure that persists in both. The two areas belong to the Khathiar-Gir dry deciduous forest ecoregion and are inhabited by generally identical flora and fauna. Lions are generally considered to be flexible predators when it comes to eating habits. Their preferred prey is extraordinarily diverse and lions have even been known to feed on carrion and even scavenge for meat. However, they mainly hunt hoofed herbivores such as antelope, deer and wild boar. The two national parks even possess identical species of ungulates that the lions of Gir prefer to prey on. Interestingly, the Asiatic lion is considered to be quite the adaptable species as is indicated by its vast original range which included even Arabia, Levant and Baluchistan. Even in India, specifically, the lions originally reigned as apex predators from Bangladesh in the east to the Narmada in the south. They were found abundantly through Sindh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar, Palamau in Jharkhand and Rewa in Madhya Pradesh; as recently as the 19th century.
Furthermore, overcrowding in Gir is an additional concern as Lions are extremely territorial. While a pride of lions can have an inordinate variance in the number of members, on average a pride is consisted of fifteen lions. Each pride can control a territory as small as 20 square kilometres or as large as 400 square kilometres, if prey is hard to come by. Lions are also known to passionately and violently defend their territory against any intruding lions. While the Gir Wildlife Sanctuary is considerably large, spread over 1400 square kilometres, the protected area classified as a National Park is only 258 square kilometres. The census of 2015 revealed that there were 523 lions in Gir with this number inflating rapidly to 650 by 2017. According to the WWF, at least 200 lions reside outside the confines of the protected area, which also increases the risk of man-animal conflict. Also, there are three large temples within the protected area, which attract several pilgrims routinely, further increasing the risk of conflict and also resulting in fragmentation of the habitat of the lions. Restricting the lions to a strictly circumscribed area would result in the unfortunate transition of the national park into a glorified zoo, in substance at least if not form.
While mankind rests rightfully and conveniently atop the food chain, an attempt to control any facet of nature and natural instinct would amount to hubris. As evidenced by the Great Migration of wildebeest and other herbivores across the plains of the Masai Mara in Kenya and the Serengeti in Tanzania, wild animals absolutely do not concern themselves with the arrogantly drawn artificial boundaries of sovereign states. The animals of the Great Migration even undertake great risk in braving the crocodile infested waters of the Mara river to complete their journey. Free movement of fauna and assuring their access to their natural destinations must be considered issues of great significance. Thus, it is imperative that conservation of nature and its resources be an international undertaking involving unprecedented cooperation. Such cooperative efforts are already becoming increasingly common. India and Nepal regularly assist each other in maintenance and upkeep of the protected area of the UNESCO world heritage site, Kanchenjunga, which spills across the boundary shared by the two nations. Similarly, cooperation between India and Bhutan is noteworthy in terms of the way the countries deal with the Manas National Park protected forest which is contiguous to The Royal Manas National Park in Bhutan. Rangers from the two countries are free to traverse the entire protected area across borders for the purposes of carrying out their duties and responsibilities. Even transboundary Ramsar wetlands are maintained by all concerned countries that the particular wetland is shared by. Similarly, all snow leopard range countries have historically cooperated in conservation of snow leopards. All wild life must remain unimpeded by circumstances created exclusively by humankind.
The writer is a Lawyer by profession. Views expressed are personal.
