Discuss how the rights of forest-dwelling communities and tiger conservation can be reconciled, citing the BRT Tiger Reserve.

In September 2026, a tiger suspected of killing a 65-year-old man at Sanegala village in Karnataka's Biligiri Ranganathaswamy Temple (BRT) Tiger Reserve was captured [1]. The case revives an old question: must tigers and forest dwellers be kept apart? BRT shows they need not be, if legal rights, community stewardship and science work together.

Points of friction

• Inviolate cores vs. rights: Under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 38V requires core habitats to be kept inviolate. In practice this leads to village relocation [3].
• Rising conflict: Karnataka has 563 tigers (AITE 2022) [2]. Young tigers moving out of crowded forests reach farm fringes, and the victims are often poor rural residents [1].
• Livelihood curbs: Limits on grazing and on collecting minor forest produce cause resentment and weaken local support for conservation.

Pathways to reconciliation

• Legal harmony: Section 38V(4)(i) says core areas must be notified "without affecting the rights" of Scheduled Tribes. Under FRA Section 4(2), rights can be changed only after they are recognised, only if coexistence is shown to be impossible, and only with the free informed consent of the Gram Sabha [3].
• Community Forest Resource rights: The FRA recognises the right to protect and conserve community forests, including inside tiger reserves [7]. This makes dwellers co-managers rather than encroachers.
• The BRT model: The Soligas revere the tiger, and the Prime Minister credited them for BRT's rising tiger numbers [5]. The Tiger Task Force (2005) noted that "the Soliga know sustainable harvesting" and pushed a coexistence agenda [4].
• Scientific zoning: Buffer limits must be fixed in consultation with the Gram Sabha [3]. Where a reserve is at carrying capacity, habitat work is kept limited so that fewer tigers spill into villages [6].
• A conflict safety net: The NTCA's three-pronged strategy is funded through Project Tiger [6]. It should be backed by quick compensation and careful, evidence-based capture. The BRT tiger was sent to a rehabilitation centre instead of being killed [1].

Rights and tigers are therefore not a zero-sum trade-off. When consent, community stewardship and landscape-level planning come together, local people become the reserve's first line of protection. Expanding BRT-style co-management, as the Tiger Task Force recommended, would serve both Article 21 and SDG 15 (Life on Land).