{"title":"Khedas in South-Eastern Bengal: Colonialism and Wildlife 1765–1810","authors":"Baijayanti Chatterjee","doi":"10.3197/ge.2021.140201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the colonial impact on wildlife in the region of Bengal in the late eighteenth century. Taking the English East India Company's engagement with the Indian elephant as a point of entry into colonial environmental practices, the article focuses on the kheda or elephant-catching\n operations in the three districts of Sylhet, Chittagong and Tipperah. Unlike the tiger, which was classified as dangerous and decimated during the colonial era, the elephant was less liable to be killed on account of its military utility, but was caught and domesticated in large numbers. The\n article argues that the EIC, following pre-colonial traditions and Mughal practices, attempted to control the channels of supply of the animal in the three above-mentioned areas, but in doing so they were perennially dependent on local agency and native expertise. Depending on the native tracksmen,\n elephant-keepers and traders, the EIC officials acquired their knowledge on the elephant and the Indian environment largely through indigenous collaboration and initiated global transfers of knowledge between the coloniser and colonised environments.","PeriodicalId":42763,"journal":{"name":"Global Environment","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3197/ge.2021.140201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article examines the colonial impact on wildlife in the region of Bengal in the late eighteenth century. Taking the English East India Company's engagement with the Indian elephant as a point of entry into colonial environmental practices, the article focuses on the kheda or elephant-catching
operations in the three districts of Sylhet, Chittagong and Tipperah. Unlike the tiger, which was classified as dangerous and decimated during the colonial era, the elephant was less liable to be killed on account of its military utility, but was caught and domesticated in large numbers. The
article argues that the EIC, following pre-colonial traditions and Mughal practices, attempted to control the channels of supply of the animal in the three above-mentioned areas, but in doing so they were perennially dependent on local agency and native expertise. Depending on the native tracksmen,
elephant-keepers and traders, the EIC officials acquired their knowledge on the elephant and the Indian environment largely through indigenous collaboration and initiated global transfers of knowledge between the coloniser and colonised environments.
期刊介绍:
The half-yearly journal Global Environment: A Journal of History and Natural and Social Sciences acts as a forum and echo chamber for ongoing studies on the environment and world history, with special focus on modern and contemporary topics. Our intent is to gather and stimulate scholarship that, despite a diversity of approaches and themes, shares an environmental perspective on world history in its various facets, including economic development, social relations, production government, and international relations. One of the journal’s main commitments is to bring together different areas of expertise in both the natural and the social sciences to facilitate a common language and a common perspective in the study of history. This commitment is fulfilled by way of peer-reviewed research articles and also by interviews and other special features. Global Environment strives to transcend the western-centric and ‘developist’ bias that has dominated international environmental historiography so far and to favour the emergence of spatially and culturally diversified points of view. It seeks to replace the notion of ‘hierarchy’ with those of ‘relationship’ and ‘exchange’ – between continents, states, regions, cities, central zones and peripheral areas – in studying the construction or destruction of environments and ecosystems.