Reintroducing the Cheetah in India
By: Vikram Nanjappa
Tags: Cheetah, India, Wildlife, Indian Wildlife, Wildlife Conservation

Indian Cheetah: Photograph- Wikimedia commons

The Govt. of India seems to have revived the much maligned Cheetah re — introduction program. Previously, when the project was first announced we had been subject to a long list of divergent views. This was to be expected for we, as a people, are extremely argumentative and opinionated. However one line of argument caught my attention then and still resonates now — that the cheetah was never a native of India but were feral African Cheetahs imported by the Princely (specifically Muslim or Mughal) families for sport. This was definitely a new one for me and so I decided to see if there was any merit in this argument. I feel that now is as good a time as ever to revisit the issue.

As recently as 2013, Romila Thapar (the noted historian) Valmik Thapar (the tiger expert) and Yusuf Ansari (a prominent naturalist) had in their book ‘Exotic Aliens: The Lion & the Cheetah in India’ made a strong case (but not an iron-clad one) that lions and cheetahs in India were originally imported from Africa for royal menageries and hunting parks and were never indigenous to the Indian subcontinent as has been generally assumed.

My own knowledge of cheetahs in India is very sketchy, gleaned mostly from whatever was written about them. I have always been fascinated by them and I still have a print of the famous painting of hunting cheetahs by Stubbs. Everything in the painting is wrong — the way the handlers are dressed, the terrain depicted in the painting and also the quarry or the prey. That painting illustrates the gaps in our knowledge about the cheetah.

It seems that confusion is more or less synonymous with the Cheetah, the same often being confused with the Leopard and even sharing the same names in certain areas. For example in Gujarati the words ‘chito’ (singular) and ‘dipdo’ (singular) are interchangeably used for panther (Panthera pardus) though shikaris with a keen eye would perhaps have used the words with discretion, using only the word ‘dipdo’ for a panther and ‘chito’ for a hunting leopard. Some regional languages had/have a distinct name for cheetahs e.g. Bengali “Kendua Bagh”, Telugu “Chita-puli”, Kannada “Chircha”,and “Sivulgll”. Abul-Fazal Aliami uses the words ‘yuz’ or ‘cita’ in his Ain-I-Akbari . There was even much confusion among British naturalists and sportsmen for a long time, in spite of the fact that they were far more accurate as a rule, about the animal denoted by the word panther, leopard and hunting leopard.

Even the classification and nomenclature of the cheetah has a confused history. As late as 1929 this animal was classified under the Latin name Cynailurus — dog-cat — and it is so referred to in technical literature e.g. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society Vol. XXXIV. It was referred to as Cynaefelis — also dog-cat — as well because of the opinion held by many that the animal in question was an intermediate species connecting the dog and cat families (Pocock, 1976. The number of sub-species of the cheetah have also been in doubt. At one time it was believed that there was the African Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus jubatus), the Transcaspian Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus raddei), the Asiatic Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus venatlcus) and the King Cheetah(Acinonyx jubatus ) Today, however, the position seems to have settled down as follows: for cheetahs from Africa south of the Sahara are considered to be of one sub-species: Acinonyx jubatus jubatus and cheetahs north of the Sahara and those in Asia being Acinonyx jubatus veneticus . The Asiatic sub-species is similar to the African but is slightly smaller according to Salvador & Florio (1978).

I seem to have digressed a bit. We were discussing whether the cheetah was a native of or was introduced into India. This argument seems to have its origin in two sources. The first being the absence of identifiable mention of the cheetah in Sanskrit literature i.e. before the Muslim invasions of the sub-continent and the second being the fact that import of cheetahs from Africa had become a regular feature among the Princes by 1927.

I find the argument that the import of cheetahs in this century from Africa is evidence of the animals being imported in earlier times whose progeny went wild subsequently to be quite weak. While I would hesitate to go head to head with Romila Thapar, Valmik Thapar or Yusuf Ansari on the subject, I think it’s worth our while to take a closer look at the historical records that we have at our disposal.

Akbar ( the Mughal Emperor) is recorded as having devised a new method of trapping cheetahs in the wild in India and also of training them at his court for hunting. This supposes that older methods existed and that the Cheetah was found wild in India. Akbar is also known to have had 1000 cheetahs at one time in his menagerie and Mutamad Khan records that in his lifetime Akbar had collected 9000 cheetahs. Now if these animals were collected in one reign alone it would have resulted in a flourishing and lucrative import trade which would not have gone unnoticed in the various chronicles. In fact, there is no mention of import trade of cheetahs in the Akbarnama, Ain-1-Akbari or Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri. This, in my opinion, confirms not just the presence of wild Cheetahs in India but also give us a fair idea of their numbers in the wild.

On the other hand it was found that the cheetah was very difficult to breed in captivity. When one pair did bred in captivity and produced three young it was precisely recorded by the Mughal Emperor Jahangir and by Mutamad Khan in his Iqbalnama. It was obviously a matter of joy to the Emperor since the event was so rare that is was considered it to be “among the curious events” that occurred during the reign of Jahangir. Under such circumstances it is difficult to contemplate that the cheetah was prolific enough to multiply rapidly and successfully to the extent that it was found all over the sub-continent in a feral state even if it was imported by the early Muslim invaders of India, say 300 years before the Mughals arrived on the sub-continent.

Sanskrit literature is notorious for its descriptive inaccuracy, ask any scientist working to identify roots, fruits, flowers, leaves, etc, for Ayurveda medicines. When one tries to identify animals and birds one is on equally slippery grounds. A recent study of flora and fauna in Sanskrit literature (Banerji, 1980) records 50 species of animals with more or less accurate identification including seven species of domestic animals. Prater (1980) on the other hand records 136 species of animals (not including domesticated ones and marine mammals) found on the sub-continent. If one is to accept the proposition that Cheetahs were not found in India before the Muslim period on the basis of their not being identifiably recorded in Sanskrit literature, one can also reach the conclusion that some 90 species of animals known to us to-day were imported by the Mughals or their successors. Further, according to the same study, the word ‘Dvipl’ could denote a Tiger, Leopard and Snow leopard. The word ‘Harina’ (also Mrga, Kuranagama, Rsya, Nyanku Ena) could denote any member of the deer and antelope family found in India .The Lion, on the other hand, is referred to as Simha, Mrigendra, Mrgadhipa, Mrigaraja, Hari and Kesrin. It is quite clear that accurate identification of any animal, leave alone the cheetah in Sanskrit literature would be very difficult if not impossible.

So we can conclude that the cheetah is or was indeed native to India. It would be quite interesting to find out more details of its range within the country. To all purposes it should have been the same as the range of its main prey - the Chinkara. It is supposed that the Chinkara was its main prey and not the Blackbuck and thus the Cheetahs distribution would have mirrored that of the Chinkara more than that of the Blackbuck. This range included areas of Sind, Gujarat, Punjab, Rajputana, Central India and Deccan as far south as Mysore.

A glance at the written records of various individuals, both British and Indian, give us a representative record of the cheetah’s range in India over the last hundred years or so. Forsyth, writing in 1889, states that he had come across and shot cheetahs ‘several times’ in Central India. Russell (1900) records having seen five cheetahs in August 1882 in Berrambadie forest of Mysore district, of which he shot one. He also records that the animal was not seen to be numerous anywhere though it was more common in Jaipur and Hyderabad. G.O. Allen (1919) states that he saw in 1916 the skin of a cheetah killed by villagers 30 miles south of Mirzapur. Only five animals were recorded in 25 years prior to that in the region. R.G. Burton (1920) states that he never saw a cheetah in the wild. In one instance he saw tracks in Buldana district of Berar. He records seeing three skins of animals shot in Melghat forest. One was shot at Damangao in 1894 and one in 1895. He quotes Buchanan Hamilton, who believed the cheetah to be found all over the hilly parts of India but numerous only around Hyderabad. Sir Montague Gerard told Burton that he had ridden and speared cheetahs in Central India. Raj Kumar (later Maharaja) Sardulsinghji of Bikaner shot three cheetahs out of a bunch of five seen by him in Rewa state around 1925. L.L. Fenton (1920) records that in Bombay Presidency, cheetahs occurred in limited numbers in the Kathiawar province. In 17 years of his stay in Kathiawar he had heard of only nine cheetahs. Two were shot by “natives” in Chotila two by S.A. Strip of Wadhawan Garassia School at Wadhwani and of the remaining five cheetahs, one each were speared by Mr. Waddington, Principal,Rajkumar College, Rajkot, and himself, and three were dispatched by other officers.

In the same vicinity the late Maharana Raj Saheb Sir Amarsinhji of Wankaner shot two cheetahs between 1900 and 1910 (Y. Digvijay Sinhji, 1984). J.M. Richardson (1929) shot a specimen in Chindwara district, and was informed by the Commissioner of the Division that for 50 years a cheetah had not been reported in those parts. R.C. Morris (1935) records his father as having seen one in Attikalpur in Mysore District. He also refers to F.W. Jackson’s “Mammals of the Coimbatore District” published in 1875, which records that the cheetah was sparsely distributed there (Morris, 1935). The last record of cheetahs in the wild in India is of 1948 when the ruler of Korwai state (wrongly referred to as Korea in the Journal of Bombay Natural History Society) senselessly destroyed three of them while these animals were transfixed in strong headlights at night. With such a wide range it is difficult to believe that the cheetah was introduced into India.

We now come to the question of reintroducing the cheetah in India. I personally feel that it would be a good idea in theory. However a lot of practical problems need to be sorted out for the project to be a success.

First we need to get breeding pairs of the animal. The cheetahs to be reintroduced must be of the Asiatic variety which are now restricted to parts of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan? and the U.S.S.R. These places are difficult to access and even then the low number of cheetahs surviving in these areas could be a hindrance in sparing any for relocation.

If the Asiatic variety are not available should we reintroduce (or introduce) the African species? This is a contentious issue with questions of racial purity etc creeping in. The words ‘racial purity’ can bring to the fore emotions not necessarily connected with wildlife conservation.

Divyabhanu Sinh, a knowledgeable naturalist and the nearest we have to an expert on Indian Cheetahs feels that there should not be any reservation in introducing the African sub-species on the purely , as he himself puts it , pedantic ground of racial purity for the simple reason that all known sources point to very minor differences between the two sub-species. He however makes certain valid points which are as follows and in his own words.

“Surely, the African sub-species would adapt to differences of habitat quickly and efficiently Cheetahs are known to adapt themselves to a wide range of climatic and Geographical conditions. Their eating habits can be vastly different as well. In Iran they are recorded as preying on Urial, Ovis orientalis (Schaller 1977). Prey animals of the Cheetah are predominantly the gazelle and antelope. Both these have practically disappeared along with our grass lands and the forests of the plains from the sub-continent. They survive in protected areas and they are none too plentiful. For the sake of their survival, new areas must be set aside first, preserved and stocked with prey animals before cheetahs can be introduced so as not to expose existing parks and reserves to experiments with possibly unexpected results. In other words, precisely those conditions have to be recreated in large tracts of land, the disappearance of which caused the demise of the cheetah in the first place, before we try to reintroduce the animal. Initially, artificial feeding may be necessary but it must be stopped at the earliest possible. One would hate to see the spectacle of a lion show resurrected in a new garb. All this requires an attack on two fronts. First a proper management study of the project would be required in consultation with the best experts in the field. This may not be an insurmountable problem, for expertise can always be bought from anywhere on earth. Second the successful execution of the project would require management skills and dedication of the highest order in our bureaucracy, both of which appear to have been sadly lacking in our experiment in transplanting Indian lions from the Gir in Gujarat to Chakia near Benares in U.P. some 20 years ago ”

The Govt. of India and the state of Madhya Pradesh had identified the Kuno — Palpur landscape as a possible location for the relocation of Asiatic Lions from the Gir Forest in Gujarat. They had, over the years, carried out a lot of work in the field to secure the area. Villages and people residing in the park have been relocated and the habitat has started recovering. With the relocation of the Asiatic Lion mired in politics and legal battles with no end in sight, Kuno — Palpur was chosen as the most suitable site for the reintroduction of the cheetah!

However nature has a strange way of throwing a spanner into the works — in 2010 a tiger from the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan moved into the area. This seemingly bolt from the blue helped establish the fact that there was an old ‘path’ or ‘corridor’ that tigers would use to disperse when population pressure demanded it. In 2020 the very same tiger was seen back in Ranthambore proving that the path or corridor was as viable as ever. Will the Ranthambore success story and the need for space by dispersing tigers be a thorn in the side for the cheetah reintroduction program?

As I mentioned before we are an argumentative and opinionated people and many more will be made for and against the reintroduction of the cheetah but my personal opinion (that word again!) is that as long as we can find the right area (and Kuno — Palpur is definitely not) we should give it our best shot, with one caveat, only with Asiatic Cheetahs!

Madhya Pradesh has now offered two more options, the Gandhi Sagar Wildlife Sanctuary on the northern boundary of Mandsaur and Nimach districts and the Madhav National Park in Shivpuri district. Rajasthan too has entered the fray and has proposed the Shahgarh Bulge near Jaisalmer on the India-Pakistan border. Bihar has offered the Kaimur district on its southwestern border as a potential site. The region is said to have a substantial black buck population that would serve as prey base for the cheetah. There is also talk of Gujarat throwing its hat in the ring as well, since the state has potential sites such as Velavadar, Narayan Sarovar and the Banni Grasslands Reserve.

The Govt. of India has signaled its intent by sanctioning a Rs 2.4 crore outlay for the project even as other ministries faced cuts during the pandemic. Interesting times indeed.