Across the world, the history of marine regulation is traced to approaches and worldviews emerging from terrestrial domains. In India, the protection of marine wildlife’ and spaces which are protected is mainly through the creation of marine protected areas under the various categories of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (WLPA), or by categorising various species on the protected species lists or schedules’ of the WLPA. Nearly half a century of WLPA-style protection has passed, but few can claim that marine habitats and species have been well-served by this legislation and its approaches to conservation. Marine conservation perspectives have always been on the margins of the conservation narrative. Thenew National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP), in an attempt to change that, suggests some bold steps towards new and inclusive approaches. But how these suggestions are implemented will depend on changing many of the historical attitudes of wildlife conservationists, the forest department, development planners, and the legal edifice of the WLPA. Marine perspectives The terrestrial approach of the WLPA is based on a foundation that firstly fails to recognise the fluidity of marine species and ecosystems. Nearly all marine species, either in their early life stages or as adults disperse several miles across the oceans and are inherently in a state of flux. Managing such a dynamic system necessitates an ability to think beyond conservative fortress approaches and adopt protection measures that are spatially and temporally dynamic. Nearly all marine species, either in their early life stages or as adults disperse several miles across the oceans and are inherently in a state of flux. Managing such a dynamic system necessitates an ability to think beyond conservative fortress approaches and adopt protection measures that are spatially and temporally dynamic. The second major shortcoming is the inability to perceive marine wildlife as a resource that can be sustainably harvested. This approach is in stark contrast to the perspectives of coastal communities and fisheries departments, thereby bringing the four million fisherfolk who depend on these resources in direct conflict with the WLPA. Bans on the trade of species like seahorses and sea cucumbers persist, despite evidence that shows that the trade has merely gone underground in regions like the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Bay, and that prices have shot up and trade in these items continues in neighbouring Sri Lanka which has not introduced such bans. Further, the WLPA has few mechanisms to address impacts to habitats from practices like bottom trawling, shipping or marine dredging. The NWAP’s call for greater coordination with the ministry of agriculture indicates that there is recognition of the problem. But the proposed action (that calls for immediate amendments to the fisheries laws rather than broadening the scope of the WLPA itself) indicates a hesitancy to reflect upon the limitations of the WLPA. More important, India’s coastal and marine habitats today are first and foremost threatened by industrial developments that are already changing entire inter-tidal habitats, mangrove forests and estuarine flows across coastal India. The political decision that will fuel the desired institutional coordination hinges on the Indian government embracing a philosophical turning point on the question of growth and development.