Hanur shootout: Retired Karnataka forest officials back self-defence claim, dispute 'farmer' angle

The August 15 shooting incident in the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary in Hanur, Chamarajanagar district, in which three suspected hunters were killed, has triggered a debate, with some arguing that forest personnel were wrong to open fire and that those killed were farmers. Forest officials maintained it was self-defence.

Now, retired forest department officials who recently met in Bangalore too joined the debate. Speaking to The Federal Karnataka, the retired officials questioned why the deceased, whom some have described as farmers, were in the reserve forest at night carrying weapons and meat.

According to the retired officials, forest personnel went on the operation based on prior information and opened fire in self-defence after the hunters allegedly fired first. There is no rule or order in a gunfight in the dark requiring personnel to shoot suspects in the leg or hand, they said. The officials first issue a warning to surrender. If they come under fire, forest personnel have the legal authority to return fire in self-defence, they argued.

Retired officials defend forest staff

Retired Deputy Conservator of Forests KMB Prasad said those killed in the Hanur shootout were not farmers but hunters. He said entering the forest illegally was itself an offence, and taking weapons into the forest raised several questions.

Also read | Karnataka minister B Nagendra resigns amid Valmiki Corporation row

Prasad questioned whether any law states that forest personnel cannot return fire when hunters shoot at them first. He said forests have been protected in several instances by resorting to gunfire when necessary while carrying out forest and wildlife protection duties.

He said even if farmers entered the forest illegally, the purpose of carrying a gun must be questioned. When forest personnel come under fire from hunters in the darkness of night, there is no order requiring them to aim at the legs or hands. They first ask the suspects to surrender, and if they refuse and open fire, forest personnel have the authority to return fire in self-defence, Prasad said.

Questions over why men entered forest

Those criticising the forest personnel should understand the circumstances at the spot before making statements, Prasad said. He also asked who would have taken responsibility if forest personnel had been killed in the exchange of fire.

Personnel conducting operations inside forests also face risks to their lives. In such circumstances, the compensation announced for the suspected hunters was a political decision, he said.

Retired Assistant Conservator of Forests Vasudeva Murthy questioned why anyone needed to enter a reserve forest at night. Referring to claims that the deceased had gone into the forest looking for cattle, he said that if cattle had genuinely entered the forest, the forest staff should have been informed.

He questioned why they entered the forest without informing authorities and said there also needed to be an explanation for the weapons and meat allegedly found with the deceased. He noted that the interior areas of reserve forests set aside for wildlife are often referred to as the ‘core’ or ‘sanctum’ areas, and said it needed to be examined how the men reached such a location.

‘Hunters fired first’, retired officer says

Based on the information available to him, Murthy said forest personnel and the hunters had confronted each other. The hunters fired first, after which the forest personnel returned fire, he said.

He said the forest staff went to the spot only after receiving credible information that hunters were present in the forest. Personnel are permitted to fire when necessary in self-defence. In darkness, it is practically impossible to aim precisely and shoot someone in the leg or hand, he said. When a person is spotted, personnel first warn them to stop. The objective of forest personnel is not to take anyone’s life, he added.

Given the hunting activity around the forest, personnel are working in dangerous conditions. The public should also understand the circumstances of staff who serve in forests while away from their families, Murthy said.

Eight kilometres inside the forest

Retired Deputy Conservator of Forests Krishnakumar said the area where the firing took place was about 8 km inside the forest. Given this, he said, it is clear that the deceased were hunters.

He said the men were carrying a gun, meat and a torch. These circumstances clearly indicate that they had entered the forest with the intention of hunting, Krishnakumar said.

Officials challenge ‘farmer’ description

Farmers generally do not venture deep into forests at night. Krishnakumar said hunters enter forests at such times. Therefore, he argued, it was not appropriate to treat the deceased as farmers and compensate their families.

He also alleged that there was political interference in the matter. He said the Tamil Nadu chief minister had spoken about the case for political reasons and that such incidents should not be politicised.

Assistant Conservator of Forests Ankaraj, who had worked and retired from the same area of the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary, also defended the forest personnel. He said hunters opened fire at forest staff who had gone to the area to protect forests and wildlife, following which the personnel returned fire. Therefore, he said, the incident should not simply be described as a ‘shootout’.

Also read | Karnataka to declare 102 taluks drought-hit after Cabinet review, says Parameshwara

The forest personnel fired in self-defence, Ankaraj said. Nobody deliberately fires at another person, he added. He said the staff had gone on the operation after receiving credible information that hunters had entered the forest.

Based on the information available to him, Ankaraj said the forest personnel encountered the hunters as they were returning after hunting. During training, personnel are told that the government will stand by them if they need to fire in self-defence, he said.

(This article was originally published in The Federal Karnataka.)