COMMENTARY

e nvironmental movement in the historical context of forest agitations in Kumaon and Garhwal, documents the widespread discontent in the first part of the 20th century against the forest department. Peasants in the region, especially in Kumaon, often protested against the forest policies of the British by setting reserved forests on fire (Guha 2000).

Once we become aware of the ecological and historical context, it becomes possible to detect cracks in the otherwise seamless surfaces of Corbett’s texts. Describing the tiger as “a large hearted gentleman” in Man-eaters of Kumaon, Corbett says that it, on occasion, turns to killing human beings only because its natural prey has been wiped out by man (Corbett 2008). He comments later on that the tiger named the “Bachelor of Powalgarh” changed its quarters because of the extensive fellings conducted by the forest department in 1930 in the area surrounding its previous home (ibid). It is at such m oments that we become aware of the d eforestation and widespread change caused by colonial forestry.

In My India Corbett recounts how he assisted the policeman Freddie Young in the hunt to bring the dacoit Sultana to justice. Corbett depicts Sultana as a romantic and gallant figure – “India’s Robin Hood” (Corbett 2000). When the dacoit is finally caught and condemned to death he sends for Young and bequeaths him his wife and son. This episode underlines Corbett’s point that Indians were trusting of the British who took their role as protectors of the poor and underprivileged seriously and honourably. However, it is revealing that he describes Sultana as belonging to one of the criminal tribes. The “fencing of the forest” meant that many tribes that had earlier relied on shifting cultivation, food gathering, and hunting for survival could no longer do so. These nomadic communities, some of whom took to a life of petty crime, were branded as inherently criminal by the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871.

Corbett also relates an incident concerning two untouchable basket makers, Narwa and Haria, who, one December morning in 1939, set off on foot from Kaladhungi (near Nainital) to obtain a licence to cut bamboo from the forest guard at a nearby village.

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

On the way through the jungle Narwa stepped on a sleeping tiger and was severely mauled by it. With great courage and strength, Haria carried Narwa to Kaladhungi. Corbett describes Haria’s rescue of Narwa as the bravest deed he knows of. However, he finds that Haria is oblivious of his remarkable display of courage: “I have not done anything, Sahib, have I, that is likely to bring trouble on me or on my brother Narwa?” (ibid). Narwa too pleads with Corbett to see that Haria does not get into trouble. Corbett evokes the colonial stereotype of the simple and lawabiding hillman to explain the incident. However, a different interpretation suggests itself when we consider that Haria and Narwa’s anxiety probably arises from their knowledge that the forest is no longer free.

Discrepancies

Because of the enormous respect that Corbett has so far enjoyed, few have wanted to question his accounts. But discrepancies emerge when even an otherwise deferential biographer like Martin Booth does a little probing. Corbett’s first man-eater was the Champavat tigress, which he killed in 1907. In Carpet Sahib, Booth notes that Corbett claimed to have killed the Mukteswar man-eater some weeks later, and the Panar leopard soon after. “The truth is”, writes Booth, “that Jim got his dates wrong” (Booth 1986). While Corbett did kill the Champavat man-eater in

1907, official records show that the Panar leopard was killed in September 1910, and the Mukteswar tigress in the spring of that year.

Booth also mentions an incident that occurred in April 1910 when Corbett began his hunt for the Panar man-eating leopard. On the evening of the first day he found a young farmer and his 18-year-old wife who had been dragged off by the man-eater only to be snatched back by the husband. The young woman was unconscious from loss of blood and was dying. Corbett decided to stay with the couple to see if the leopard would return. The following morning he left the area but not before spending some time hunting (for sport) a tiger reputed to be protected by the gods. Booth comments:

One has to ask here several questions which throw some doubts upon Jim’s character, suggesting that it was not as unblemished as his future legendary reputation would make it appear. He had possibly waited three years to go after the Mukteswar and Panar man-eaters, when he could have made attempts for them over that time. He was in the area of the man-eater on the night the girl was snatched back by her husband and yet, the next day, he seemingly did not seek to …go after it although he knew it must still be in the vicinity. Finally, he obviously had enough time on leaving the area to indulge in a bit of wouldbe sport hunting after the temple-guarded tiger of Dabidhura…(ibid).

But Booth does not really look at Corbett’s life closely which is why there are

V Sujatha

COMMENTARY

two Corbetts in Carpet Sahib. There is the Corbett who was an overworked and underpaid railway employee at Mokameh Ghat in Bihar from about 1894 till 1917. And there is the shrewd and successful businessman who in December 1906 took over F E G Matthews and Co. Where he got the money to acquire this Nainital hardware and house agent business is not known. Booth speculates that Corbett paid from an investment he had made previously. But this does not explain why Corbett stayed on in his poorly paid r ailway job at Mokameh Ghat till the first world war, when he offered his services to the army.

There is some irony in Corbett’s imperialism. The hierarchal nature of British colonial society meant that Corbett, who belonged to a family that had been domiciled for two generations, was an inferior English man. Corbett however was clearly on the side of Empire, and rushed to its defence whenever he thought it was threatened. Thus when the Boer war broke out he unsuccessfully sought permission to enlist. Corbett volunteered again when first world war started. He was given a wartime commission as c aptain and o rdered to raise a labour corps to take to France. During second world war, Corbett, now in his late 1960s, trained soldiers g oing to Burma in jungle warfare.

Continuation of the Myth

A consideration of the ecological and environmental context helps us to place Corbett in perspective. However, even environmental historians continue to a ccept Corbett’s estimation of himself. Thus, Guha’s introduction to him in Lives in the Wilderness (which includes My India along with the autobiographies of Verrier Elwin and Salim Ali) is an appreciative one, unaffected by his knowledge of the environmental history of Kumaon. Similarly, Ranga rajan gives us a friendly account of Corbett in his essay on nature writers in An Illustrated History of Indian Literature in English. Corbett’s ability to seduce us is of course a tribute to his t alent as a writer. More generally, the persistence of the Corbett myth seems to be symptomatic of our failure to be sufficiently on guard against ideological constructions of nature and wildlife. There is little doubt the myth will e ndure as long as we continue to read C orbett uncritically.

References

Booth, Martin (1986): Carpet Sahib: A Life of Jim Corbett (New Delhi: OUP).

Corbett, Jim (2000): “Sultana: India’s Robin Hood”, My India (New Delhi: OUP).

– (2008): The Jim Corbett Omnibus (New Delhi: OUP).

Guha,Ramachandra (2000): The Unquiet Wood: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya (Berkeley: University of California Press).

Kala, D C (1999): Jim Corbett of Kumaon (New Delhi: Ravi Dayal).

Rangarajan, Mahesh (1996): Fencing the Forest: Conservation and Ecological Change in India’s Central Provinces 1860-1914 (New Delhi: OUP).