A storm of controversy has erupted at the globally renowned Corbett Tiger Reserve after a Cambridge University study revealed allegations of privacy violations caused by surveillance cameras installed to monitor wildlife. The study claims that these cameras, meant to protect tigers and deter poaching, have inadvertently violated the privacy of women living near the reserve, prompting an official investigation by forest authorities.
The research, titled “Gendered Forests: Digital Surveillance Technologies for Conservation and Gender-environment Relationships,” was conducted by Cambridge researchers Trishant Simlai and Chris Sandbrook between 2019 and 2021. It documents disturbing incidents, including one where a camera trap captured an image of a semi-nude woman relieving herself in the forest. The woman, identified as autistic and from a marginalized caste group, was reportedly unaware of the incident and unable to communicate it to others.
Adding to the outrage, the image was allegedly accessed by temporary forest personnel and circulated on local social media, triggering a wave of anger among villagers. “In retaliation, residents from the woman’s village destroyed nearby camera traps and threatened to set a forest station ablaze,” the report stated.
“Safe Spaces” Turn into Zones of Fear
The study highlights the profound impact of digital surveillance on the daily lives of women in forested areas. Traditionally, women from villages surrounding Corbett rely on the forest for their livelihood, collecting firewood, grass, and non-timber forest products like herbs and honey.
“The forest was once a safe and private space for these women—a respite from their household chores. Now, they feel constantly watched,” Simlai told reporters. The study found that the presence of camera traps has led to behavioral changes, with women censoring conversations, singing less, and avoiding certain areas out of fear of being monitored.
“Nobody could have predicted that technologies intended to monitor wildlife would have such a profound impact on the mental health and routines of local women,” Simlai added, emphasizing the need for consent in deploying such technologies.
Forest Department Denies Allegations, Launches Probe
In response to the allegations, Corbett Tiger Reserve Director Dr. Saket Badola has been tasked with leading a comprehensive investigation. Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) R.K. Mishra expressed skepticism about the study, accusing Simlai of breaching the terms of his research agreement by failing to share sensitive findings with the department.
“We granted permission for the research on the condition that any sensitive data would be shared with us. This condition was violated, and we are now reaching out to the researcher for his report,” Mishra said.
Forest officials also questioned how women entered areas marked as restricted due to the placement of camera traps. “The movement of people in these areas is prohibited. We are investigating how and why these incidents occurred,” Mishra added.
Ethical Concerns and Community Rights
Women’s rights groups have condemned the surveillance measures, describing them as invasive and unethical. “The absence of consent in using these cameras is a glaring issue. Women should not have to choose between their privacy and their livelihood,” said Ritu Sharma, a spokesperson for Mahila Suraksha Manch, a women’s advocacy group in Uttarakhand.
Activists argue that while conservation efforts are crucial, they must not come at the cost of individual dignity. “This case highlights the need for stricter ethical guidelines in the use of technology in protected areas,” said Meera Rawat of Van Adhikar Sangathan.
Balancing Conservation and Human Rights
The controversy underscores the complex relationship between wildlife conservation and the rights of local communities. While surveillance tools like camera traps and drones have been instrumental in curbing poaching, this incident highlights the unintended consequences of such measures.
The investigation led by Dr. Badola will aim to address these concerns, evaluating whether current practices need adjustments to ensure a balance between conservation goals and the rights and privacy of local residents.
As the debate continues, this incident has sparked a broader discussion on the ethical implications of digital surveillance in conservation areas, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and consent in the deployment of such technologies.
