Forest Minister Shibu Baby John attributes the human-elephant conflict in Chinnakkanal to a “man-made” problem and cites retired Indian Forest Service officer Prakriti Srivastava’s recommendation as the basis for settling people in the 301 Colony.
A day after Keralam Forest Minister Shibu Baby John attributed the human-elephant conflict in Chinnakkanal to a “man-made” problem and cited retired Indian Forest Service officer Prakriti Srivastava’s recommendation as the basis for settling people in the 301 Colony, the issue triggered a rare on-stage exchange on Tuesday (October 6, 2026), when the former forest officer directly disputed the Minister’s interpretation of official records while both were sharing the dais at a programme in Thiruvananthapuram.
At the Wildlife Week conclave organised by the Coexistence Collective, Mr. John reiterated his contention that the Chinnakkanal settlement had its origins in a proposal made by Ms. Srivastava, the then Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Munnar, and referred to a letter she had written to the Conservator of Forests, High Range Circle, in 2002
Ms. Srivastava, who was on the same stage, objected to his remarks, and said that the letter was being cited without its context and urged the Minister to examine the entire sequence of events before commenting on the issue.
“I only speak based on the documents that have come before me,” Mr. John said as he proceeded to explain his position.
Ms. Srivastava responded that the Minister should “read the whole issue in detail” rather than reacting on the basis of incomplete information. She pointed out that the relevant records were available in the Forest Minister’s office and in the Secretariat.
The letter referred to by the Minister was written when the Mathikettan Shola encroachment issue was at its height. It apparently called for steps to allot the Chinnakkanal area to tribal families while retaining Mathikettan as forestland.
Encroachments on Mathikettan
The former forest officer asserted that the letter had to be viewed in the context in which it was written. She said the Forest department was then spearheading the eviction of encroachments from Mathikettan Shola and had to address the question of rehabilitating the evicted families.
“At that point of time, Mathikettan was more important than Chinnakkanal,” she reasoned.
Besides, the letter was an internal communication that went only to the Conservator of Forests and Chief Conservator of Forests, and never became a government decision. “There was no legality to it,” she said.
Decision in 2003
She pointed out that the actual decision to settle people in Chinnakkanal was taken subsequently by the Cabinet in 2003. According to her, the Cabinet decided to rehabilitate 559 families on 257 hectares in the area. She maintained that she had opposed the move and had warned the government that Chinnakkanal was an elephant corridor and that settling people there would eventually result in human-elephant conflict. She also cited the relocation of landless tribal families to the notified sandalwood reserve in Marayur as another decision that had been opposed by the Forest department.
According to Ms. Srivastava, the consequences of the Chinnakkanal settlement became apparent within a year, when elephants began moving through the populated area and human-elephant conflict escalated.
While those who had the financial means eventually left the area, the poorer families remained. The department subsequently prepared a proposal to protect the area and relocate its residents.
She added that she had raised the issue again when she was serving as Special Officer in the Forest department under the Rebuild Kerala initiative. However, the proposal was not pursued.
Published – October 06, 2026 07:20 pm IST
