Roar bites into the man-wildlife relationship

I have just seen the trailer of the upcoming Bollywood flick Roar - Tigers of the Sundarbans and I am yet to recover. The film, directed by Kamal Sadanah and due for release on September 1 (though we hope that it never sees the light of the day, not in its current form at least), carries the tagline: "Tigers of the Sundarbans". The hunters become the hunted."

The film gets the tiger wrong. Let me count the ways.

First, there are the white tigers (while not the core issue, their mere presence shows the colossal ignorance of those associated with the film). White tigers are never, ever seen in Sundarbans or in the wild for that matter. Most - if not all white tigers - are currently confined to zoos and are said to be the progeny of one lineage -- of "Mohan" captured from the wild by the then Maharajah of Rewa near Bandhavgarh, bred in captivity, and its descendants expanded to zoos and amusement parks the world over, given that white tigers are a great curiosity.

What is unforgivable is the inane, and absolutely false propaganda of the Sundarbans tiger as compulsive man-eaters: "anyone who enters its territory will not come back alive", warns the voiceover in menacing tones. Oh yeah? In that case yours truly would have been dead at least four times over.

The guy who did the research -- in case there was any at all -- has done the producers in. Even a cursory Google search will tell you there is no substance to the myth that the Sundarbans tiger hunts out, kills and devours man as a matter of daily routine. If that were the case, we would see upwards of 2,000 to 3,000 people killed each year, given the population of tigers in the Sundarbans on both sides of the border (believed to be upwards of 300).

Here are facts: In the 23 years between 1984 and 2006, tigers killed 490 people in Bangladesh, and the casualty is much lower in India. Writes Jay Mazoomdaar in The Myth of Sunderbans Maneaters, "At an annual average of 21 casualties, it is far below the number of deaths caused by snake or dog bites. Even road accidents claim lives more frequently."

Yes, those of us who have trawled the Sundarbans go with a healthy fear and more precisely caution-like one would while driving on a busy highway. Here, the idea is to respect and give space to the animals, who belong to the jungle, and to whom the jungle belongs. We know there may be tigers around, tigers that might be in the water, perhaps very close to the boat (like the tigress during my last visit, but guess what, I am alive and kicking). Rare, very rare is the case when tigers attack, or will seek out, and hunt, man. Yes, of course, there is fatal conflict, there is tragic loss of life--there is no denying the difficulties the local villagers who live by the forest face. But propagating and dramatising false myths serve no one's purpose. Remember too, these are the cases that are reported, when did 'no-conflict' -- tigers merely passing by or slinking away at the sight of man ever make news? For instance, few will recall that the "man-eater of Moradabad", that killed a few people made headlines, but how many of us know that at the same time a tigress not too far way had given birth in a sugarcane field. And the cubs grew -- through three cycles of harvesting, without any harm or injury. Or of the tiger that lived for no less than eight months in the densely populated outskirts of Bhubaneswar not even killed livestock. Yet it was trapped and is still imprisoned in the city's zoo, one year on.

Back to Roar, perhaps the worst part is that the film shows armed platoons and 'special action forces' with AK-47s and automatic guns to kill the tiger. Is that how you tackle a case of man-killing, if any? No.

There are rules and laws that govern conflict and wildlife. We need to realise how sensitive and fraught a conflict situation is and how it must be handled with extreme sensitivity, causing least harm to both people and tiger. Understand how hard those protecting the tiger work to resolve such conflict situations.

Insensitive films like Roar fire the myth of tigers as marauding man-eaters, worsening an already difficult situation.

Most often such injuries and fatalites occur when wild animals like tigers and leopards spotted in human habitat are crowded, cornered, harassed, chased which only creates panic among the animal, making it aggressive as it lashes back in self-defence.

The key to resolving conflict is for people to be more aware and understand the issues and situation to take precautionary measures -- and to create a sense of preparedness on the part of the public and the concerned authorities. It is important for all sections of society to work together to ensure that both man and tiger are safe. In the long term, it is crucial to conserve tiger forests and prey.

It is hysteria that worsens conflict, even resulting in fatality.

I noticed a woman in the film (a forest officer? naturalist?) who talks sense and says all tigers are not man-eaters and that she is there to protect not facilitate their killing. But from what I could make out in the trailer, she seems to be in a "negative" role, though I fervently hope I am wrong!

I guess such horror stories provide the masala and are made with an eye on the box-office. But do people really want to see such tripe? They portray the tiger in such a wrong way that they do our national animal such a great disservice, indeed an injustice. Tigers, even the much-maligned Sundarbans tigers, are not compulsive man-eaters. Given our grand reputation (Men kill-trap, snare, beat, bludgeon, shoot, burn -- far more tigers than tigers kill men), tigers fear us and shy away from our presence. They will only attack when cornered, or when defending their young, or themselves; or pushed by stress of circumstances-driven by injury (more often than not, caused by us), old age and extreme hunger.

The tiger, as Jim Corbett said, is a gentleman.

Do not believe me or the legendary Mr Corbett? Think of the forest guards who stay and move around in tiger forests on foot day and night, more often than not, alone and unarmed. Think of the thousands of villagers who go in forests to cut fodder, collect forest produce and graze cattle. Think of the many tourists who drive around in open jeeps in tiger country.

They are alive, and very rare (and extremely tragic) is the case, when they are attacked or mauled by tigers. Usually it is a case of mistaken identity-for example a woman who is crouching to cut grass, may be mistaken as an ungulate-or a prey species by a tiger that might attack and even kill. But in many cases, it leaves the body untouched. That is because we are not part of the menu, tigers fear us.

Yet, we persist in portraying the tiger as a bloodthirsty beast.

I despair, that such a powerful medium like Bollywood has been persistently irresponsible in portraying wildlife. From the days of Naagin-and others of its ilk that glorified the ludicrous myth of the 'naagin', female cobras extracting-hold your breath--revenge for their mates' death over a ridiculous song and dance to boot. Then there was Dharampaaji being 'macho' by having fist fights with emaciated, drugged toothless tigers and lions.

I would also like to draw attention to Kaal, which espoused to be a film with a 'conservation' message, yet its opening shot had a python wrapped around actor John Abraham's bare, and admittedly, sexy torso. It's all downhill from there, flouting rules, and the film portraying the tigers-predictably--as ferocious monsters.

And now we have a Roar.

Bollywood cannot hide under the cloak of ignorance. There is enough information in the public domain, experts who they can tap. A worthy example is the recent Marathi film 'Ajoba' based on a remarkable leopard that walked 120 km in 25 days across all kinds of terrain. The director "used" Ajoba as a "hero" to convey the complexities of human-leopard interactions.

Bollywood is such a powerful medium and can be a strong voice for wildlife. I so hope that they will make a beautiful, sensitive film that shows the wonders of nature, how gravely threatened it is, and tells the story in a manner that it moves and inspires people.

As for this film, the Roar must be stifled. Do a service to the tiger, spread the word, and do not see the film.