Derek, Data, And Distortion: How To Mislead On Wildlife Conservation With A Straight Face

Reading Derek O’Brien’s recent article in The Indian Express, I expected a well-rounded perspective on India’s human-animal conflict and wildlife conservation. But when I cross-checked his claims, the lies were hard to miss.

He cherry-picks statistics, ignores crucial context, and it seems that he writes less for the truth & more to please his political masters or push an agenda. The full picture tells a different story, one of conservation efforts driven by scientific research, policy consistency, and long-term planning.

Take, for instance, his attack on the cheetah reintroduction project. O’Brien claims that the government proceeded despite warnings that the project had only a 50% success rate. But this assertion crumbles when placed next to real data.

A 2022 study by Cambridge University found that cheetah relocations worldwide have succeeded 75% to 96% of the time. India’s project was not a reckless gamble but a carefully planned initiative, shaped by collaborations with experts from South Africa and Namibia nations with extensive experience in cheetah conservation.

The deaths of some relocated cheetahs, while unfortunate, were never unexpected; such losses are a natural part of any translocation effort. Yet, O’Brien presents them as evidence of failure rather than an expected challenge in a scientifically driven project.

The argument then shifts to endangered species, where he claims that the number of critically endangered species in India has surged from 47 in 2011 to 73 in 2024. On the surface, this sounds alarming. But the fact conveniently omitted is that India’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (published in March 2014, before Modi took office) had already recorded 73 critically endangered species.

This is not a sudden deterioration under the current government but an ongoing issue the nation has grappled with for years. And if conservation efforts were truly faltering, how does one explain the remarkable rise in tiger and lion populations over the past decade?

The Great Indian Bustard finds mention next, with O’Brien accusing the government of disregarding Supreme Court orders. But he fails to mention a key development, the Supreme Court itself, in March 2024, revised its earlier ruling, recognizing that a full ban on energy infrastructure in the bird’s habitat was impractical.

The revised order of the Supreme Court balances conservation with the need for renewable energy expansion. Rather than acknowledging this nuanced shift, O’Brien presents the issue as if the government were turning a blind eye.

Then comes the claim of declining funds for wildlife conservation, particularly after the merger of Project Tiger and Project Elephant. O’Brien asserts that this led to a 23% drop in funding between 2019 and 2023, yet he ignores two crucial details.

Second, government data from March 2025 directly contradicts the claim of funding cuts given that ₹450 crore has been allocated for integrated wildlife habitat development in 2025-26, with ₹290 crore (64%) specifically for Project Tiger and Project Elephant. Far from a reduction, this marks an 18% increase from the previous year.

The distortions continue with the portrayal of India’s exotic pet trade, where O’Brien fails to highlight that the highest number of reported cases come from Tamil Nadu, a state governed by his own party’s ally, the DMK.

Similarly, his claim that the government has issued ‘shoot-at-sight’ orders as policy is a blatant misrepresentation. In reality, such directives have only been given in rare cases where human life was under direct threat, and even then, they were issued by state administrations, not as a centralized government policy.

O’Brien’s argument then shifts to legislative matters, alleging that the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, was passed with barely any discussion, as only four members debated it in the Lok Sabha. What he fails to mention is that opposition MPs, rather than participating in the discussion, chose to disrupt proceedings over an unrelated issue.

In contrast, the Rajya Sabha saw a more detailed debate, with 11 members engaging in nearly two hours of discussion. The claim that the government sought to suppress debate, therefore, falls apart when examined against actual parliamentary proceedings.

Perhaps the most politically charged attack comes when O’Brien turns his focus to Gujarat, suggesting that its conservation model has failed in protecting Asiatic lions and leopards. Yet the numbers tell a completely different story.

The Asiatic lion population has grown steadily, from 411 in 2010 to 523 in 2015, reaching 674 in the latest count. This growth has been made possible through dedicated conservation measures, including habitat expansion, improved veterinary care, and stronger anti-poaching enforcement. Rather than being a failure, Gujarat’s wildlife policies have been a success story, but acknowledging that wouldn’t fit the narrative O’Brien is pushing.

In the end, the real problem with O’Brien’s article isn’t just its selective use of facts but its broader intent to discredit conservation efforts that don’t align with his political stance. The current Government’s approach to wildlife conservation has been shaped by scientific research, international cooperation, and long-term strategic planning. Whether it is the reintroduction of cheetahs, the expansion of protected areas, or increased funding for conservation, the commitment remains clear.

But instead of an honest discussion on both successes and challenges, The Indian Express has chosen to amplify a one-sided, politically motivated critique. A serious debate on conservation should be rooted in facts, not distorted to serve an agenda.

If O’Brien truly cared about India’s wildlife, he would have presented a fair assessment, one that acknowledges progress alongside concerns, rather than cherry-picking data to fit a preordained narrative. Constructive dialogue, not selective outrage, is the way forward in ensuring that India’s wildlife thrives for generations to come.