'Tiger state' MP lost 290 big cats in 19 years: Official
Karnataka lost tag of "Tiger State" in 2018 census
Bhopal, Nov 30: Madhya Pradesh has lost 290 tigers over the last 19 years but the central Indian state still has more than 675 tigers, including 125 cubs, in the designated reserves and in the wild, a top Forest department official said on Monday.
Claiming that the population of tigers has actually "gone up", he said Madhya Pradesh will continue to remain the "tiger state of India".
The official said only five per cent of the deaths of big cats had occurred due to poaching or in man-animal conflicts. Most of the deaths of the tigers occurred either in territorial fights or due to natural causes, he added.
"Madhya Pradesh has lost 290 tigers so far since 2002," Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) Alok Kumar told PTI.
However, there are 550 big cats in tiger reserves in Kanha, Bandhavgarh, Pench, Satpura, Panna and Sanjay Gandhi reserve and in the wild, he said, adding that there are 125 cubs in the parks.
Kumar said about 10 to 20 more tiger cubs might be roaming in the wild.
"They can't be captured as they might be deep inside the jungles. When they turn young and venture out, we would be able to see them," he added.
Kumar said movements of tigers were recorded through camera traps, patrolling and other means.
Asked about the deaths of 290 tigers since 2002, Kumar said, "As the number of tigers has risen, they are fighting for territorial control. We are losing 25 to 30 striped animals every year. Of them (the deceased tiger), 95 per cent were weak and old. While the remaining five per cent of (290) tigers were killed by poachers or in man-animal conflicts".
Queried on whether territories of the majestic beasts have shrunk due to encroachments, he said, "We do have an adequate area for tigers".
Kumar said there was no talk on increasing the area for the striped animals.
"The habitat of tigers needed to be protected, and for this people need to be made aware as well," he added.
Kumar said the typical lifespan of a tiger living in a reserve is 12 to 13 years.
Responding to a query, he said Madhya Pradesh will continue to remain the tiger state of India.
"The tiger state tag pulls tourists to Madhya Pradesh.
Our tourism is largely big cat-centric," said MP Wildlife Board (MPWB) member Abhilash Khandekar.
He said the state government should take utmost care to conserve its "tiger state" status so that it does not lose out on tourists and thus revenue.
"We don't have many big industries in MP. So each tiger counts for us," he said.
He said that economy of Panna region had been adversely affected in 2005 when the population of big cats dwindled in the Panna Tiger Reserve in 2005.
Earlier, MP had lost the 'tiger state' tag to Karnataka in the all India tiger estimation exercise for 2010, primarily due to alleged poaching in the Panna Tiger Reserve.
That time, MP had 257 tigers compared to 300 in Karnataka.
In the 2014 tiger census, MP slipped to no.3 position in the country with a population of 308 striped animals, after Uttarakhand (340) and Karnataka (408).
The central Indian state regained the top slot in the 2018 Census with a population of 526 tigers, two more than Karnataka.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
