uttarakhand - kalpavrikshkalpavriksh.org/images/cca/directory/uttarakhand_state...uttarakhand is...

707

state

chap

ter - u

ttara

kh

an

d

Uttarakhand

Darab J. Nagarwalla and Rakesh Agrawal

1. Background 1.1. Geographic profile

Uttarakhand (28°44’ and 31°28’ N and 77°35’ and 81°01’ E) came into existence as the 27th state of the Republic of India on 9 November 2000. It was carved out from the state of Uttar Pradesh, separating out the hill regions with a geographical area of 53,483sq.km constituting 1.63 per cent of the land area of the country (FSI, 1999). The state has 13 districts and is sub-divided into 49 tehsils and 95 development blocks. These community development blocks are further divided into 673 nyay panchayats (legal councils) covering 15,669 villages. Uttarkashi, Chamoli and Pithoragarh Districts share an international boundary in the north with Tibet, while Pithoragarh, Champavat and Udham Singh Nagar share a boundary with Nepal.

The high-altitude mountain ranges of the state are perpetually snow-covered and are perennial sources of water not only for the state but also for much of the rest of northern India. Four major river systems of the country—the Ganga, Yamuna, Ramganga and Sharada—originate here.

The state is also home to a number of Hindu holy shrines including Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri, Yamunotri, Hemkunt Sahib, the Panch Kedars, Panch Badri and the Panch Prayags, earning for itself the name Dev Bhoomi (Abode of the Gods).

1.2. Demographic profileThe Census of India, 2001 (Provisional), estimates the total population of the state at 8.47

million people, of which 4.31 million are male and 4.13 million are females. The state ranks 20th in terms of population and 18th in terms of total geographic area. There has been a decline in the decadal growth rate of the population in the districts of the state from 24.23 per cent to 19.20 per cent, which is lower than the all-India decadal population growth rate of 21.23 per cent. At 964, the sex ratio in Uttarakhand is better than the all-India ratio of 933, and shows a considerable increase from the figure of 936 in 1991. Literacy in the state has risen significantly from 57.75 per cent in 1991 to 72.28 per cent in 2001, of which male literacy accounts for 84.01 per cent, while female literacy is slightly below the national average (65.38 per cent) at 60.26 per cent. Quite a sizeable number of villages have very low populations, located in remote and relatively inaccessible areas.

1.3. Ecological profile The state of Uttarakhand can be broadly divided into a number of topographical regions:

• The plains of Haridwar, Udham Singh Nagar and Dehra Dun districts

• The Bhabar and Terai areas of Dehradun, Garhwal and Nainital

Rich terai and middle Himalayan forest, best rep-resented in Corbett National Park Photo: Ashish Kothari

708 Directory of Community Conserved Areas in India

• The Middle Himalayan region

• The Higher Himalayas

• The Trans Himalayas

The plains of the state are endowed with rich and fertile soil, while the hills are characterised by undulating and rugged topography with varied climate, soil texture, limited land for cultivation, preponderance of scattered and marginal land holdings, terrace farming and higher unit cost of infrastructure development.

The major area of the state is under forests followed by agriculture (see Table 1). As the terrain and topography of the state is largely hilly with large areas under snow cover and steep slopes, a substantial portion of land cover is not accessible for agriculture. The farming system in the hills has a number of characteristic features such as inaccessibility, fragility and diversity, a great variety of crops including perennial fruit as well as fodder, and different species of livestock. On the whole, the approach for land use in the Uttarakhand should not be agriculture versus forestry but agriculture with forestry. At present, less than 5 per cent of the geographical area in Uttarakhand has forest-cover densities over 60 per cent.1

Table 1: Land use in Uttarakhand, 1996-972

No. Land use /Land cover Area ha. Per cent reporting area

1 Reported area for land use purposes 5,595,939 100

2 Area under forest 3,499,687 62.54

3 Barren and Uncultivable land 299,608 5.36

4 Land use for purposes other than agriculture 163,836 2.93

5 Cultivable waste 320,228 5.72

6 Permanent pasture and grazing land 227,398 4.06

7 Other land under tree /grooves/Misc. 218,817 3.91

8 Current fallow 11,423 0.20

9 Other fallow 67,659 1.21

10 Net area sown 787,283 14.07

1.4. Socio-economic profileForest produce has historically played a significant role in the economy of the region since ancient

times. Classical writers like Pliny mention spikenard, costus root and lycium collected from forests and bugyaals (alpine grasslands) of Uttarakhand being brought to Rome, where they were in high demand, and bartered for other articles of commerce. Several items are mentioned in Mughal chronicles as being traded with the princely states of the plains at that time.3

Uttarakhand’s tremendous natural wealth somehow continued to sustain the people over the first 60-70 years of British rule. Even after 50 years of depredation caused by the company Raj, the villagers continued to prosper on the residual bounty. In 1885 Hunter reported in the Imperial Gazetteer: ‘…people have grown rich in later years…they keep more cattle and get more manure…rice and mandua are in surplus.’

In 1869 when famine conditions prevailed in the adjacent Bijnore district, Garhwali peasants earned handsome profit by way of a vast export of grain to the scarcity-hit areas. The surplus was documented till 1881 and was being exported both to Bijnore and Tibet. Peasants paid their revenue in cash and indeed it was one of the few districts where revenue could be collected with such ease. Even in 1910 the Garhwal Gazetteer noted that ‘miscellaneous earnings of hill men were high through the sale of ghee, woollen goods, and carrying loads by ponies, mules and goats.’

Today the major occupation in Uttarakhand is agriculture, although the net cultivated area is only 14.07 per cent, of which 22.4 per cent falls in Udham Singh Nagar and Haridwar districts. 49 per

Uttarakhand 709 sta

te ch

ap

ter - u

ttara

kh

an

d

cent of holdings are less than 0.5 ha and 21.51 per cent holdings are between 0.5 and 1 ha. Thus over 70 per cent holdings are marginal in nature with an average size of about 0.37 ha. These small land holdings coupled with the rugged terrain makes agriculture an unviable option as a full-time occupation. According to tentative estimates, the per capita gross state domestic product was calculated at about Rs 15323 in 1996-97, which is higher than the national average of Rs 12805. Similarly, per capita net state domestic product in Uttarakhand (Rs 13710) was above the national average (Rs 11,434). However according to a survey conducted by the Rural Development Department, about 36.44 per cent of rural families were living below the poverty line.

Uttarakhand is today considered to be a backward area, dependent on a ‘money-order economy’, where only a few families out of every hundred can still feed themselves from the produce of their own fields, while the vast majority are wholly dependent on the ration shops of an inefficient and corrupt Public Distribution System. On an average, each energy unit of agronomic yield (including milk) entails an expenditure of 12 energy units from village support systems and their adjacent forests. This massive input of energy at present only satisfies 50 per cent of the food needs. The rest has to be imported from the plains. In a recent survey, unirrigated cropland soil fertility was measured to be between 12.5 and 25.0 per cent of that of undisturbed forest, in spite of massive input of manure.4 The energy value of the inputs was calculated to be 1.5 of the agronomic yield or about 70 per cent of total crop yield including residues.5 This just goes to show how difficult it is to maintain good cropland productivity in the region even with massive inputs, all of which come directly or indirectly through adjoining forests and the rearing of cattle. As forests degrade, it becomes harder and harder to provide these inputs. Productivity drops and agriculture becomes economically unviable on small and marginal holdings, facilitating widespread migration to urban areas in search of jobs, and hence the ‘money-order economy’.

2. A brief history of administrative control over land and resourcesThe Gorkhas of Nepal invaded Kumaon and Garhwal in 1804 and were driven out only after the Gorkha Wars of 1815. Before the Gorkha invasion different parts of Kumaon and Garhwal were administered by a few independent princely states. The British captured Dehradun and reinstated the Maharaja of Tehri. However, as payment for services rendered, they annexed more than half of his territories, naming this region British Garhwal, which became part of the British-administered Kumaon Division. The rest constituted the Tehri Riyasat,6 under the direct control of the maharaja. British Garhwal was administered along similar lines to the rest of the Kumaon division, while the riyasat functioned according to the traditional rule of the Parmar dynasty. From here on, the histories of the two regions diverge, including their forest management and conservation, and we consider them separately in the following sections.

2.1. The pre-colonial Tehri-Garhwal Riyasat7 Both the Garhwal rajas and the Gorkhali Government had derived considerable revenue from

various items of forest produce grown in the Dun and adjacent hills. This was usually collected as a transit duty and was levied on every article of commerce entering or leaving the Dun. The total collected in 1809-10 through these duties was Rs 16,000.8

The history of large-scale resource exploitation from Tehri Garhwal can be traced back to 1840, when the maharaja leased a large area of the Bhagirathi valley to Frederick ‘Pahari’ Wilson, a resourceful entrepreneur, to exploit for forest produce including musk, monal pheasant feathers, animal hides, fuelwood, timber, etc. This was the first monopoly lease of its kind in the region, and represents the first step towards the development of what should be called the rise of ‘anti-conservation’ attitudes amongst the people of Uttarakhand. In 1850, the maharaja renewed Wilson’s lease till 1864, giving him monopoly rights over commercial felling of deodar and chir in the Bhagirathi valley. Timber had never been exploited as a commercial raw material for profit before Wilson’s lease. The fact that the maharaja was quite unaware of the value of timber can be understood by the astonishing sum Wilson paid for the monopoly timber-harvesting lease: just Rs 400.9 Wilson pioneered the technique of rolling timber down slopes and floating logs down the river to a depot at Haridwar. The Railways, happy to have him supply sleepers for their expansion needs, even appointed him as the Official Contractor.


As the maharaja became alive to the commercial value of his forests, he began to follow a pattern of wholesale exploitation similar to the British in neighbouring British Garhwal and Kumaon. After the expiry of Wilson’s second lease in 1864, the government of the North West Frontier Provinces (NWFP) leased the same forests from the maharaja, and also opened up the extensive chir forests of the Tons river valley. In 1885, the riyasat established its own forest department (FD) with personnel on deputation from the state. The maharaja had become aware of the economic value of his forests after seeing Wilson’s profits. Fire protection was initiated in deodar and chir forests for the first time.

In 1897, the riyasat introduced systematic forestry techniques, marked by the demarcation of the vast tracts of the mixed deciduous forests at Shivpuri that was completed in 1907. All further cultivation was prohibited, and lopping and felling was restricted, leading to repeated rebellions (see later). In 1908, three categories of forests were created, Class III Reserved Forests that were commercially valuable, Class II Protected Forests, which were kept aside for regeneration, and Class I Village Forests, which were mainly barren clear-felled patches with hardly any or no trees at all.

Between 1928 and 1929, at the invitation of the Durbar, Dr. Franz Heske, a German forestry expert came to inspect the riyasat forests and left detailed reports about future management, suggesting laws to be passed for the protection of wildlife on land, in rivers and streams.10 In 1938, fire protection measures were enforced in all riyasat forests. By 1940, the present forest divisions were created, and manpower for forest management recruited.

2.2. The colonial era2.2.1. Management of forest resources by the state

We identify two distinct phases of British forest policy: (i) an exploitative phase between 1818 and 1859, when the forests of Uttarakhand were controlled by the East India Company, and (ii) a period of ‘conservancy and scientific management’ that began with the replacement of the Company by Crown Rule in 1858. In 1868 an Imperial forest department of the North West Frontier Provinces was established.

Commercial timber harvesting in the sub-Himalayan forests of this region began in 1840, with the development of the railways around Haridwar and Najibabad. Thereafter, sustained pressures decimated large tracts of forests in the region, fed by the demands of the construction needs of the Upper Ganga Canal, establishment of large timber markets in Haridwar, Saharanpur and Meerut, a major spurt in railway expansion after the revolt of 1857, and the two World Wars.

The exploitative phase

The submontate sal forests of the foothills were exploited in the early years of British dominion.11

Only after the thick jungles of the foothills had been denuded did the attention of the British authorities turn to the immensely rich deodar forests located in the higher Himalayan ranges.12 The first attempt at conservancy came in 1826, just three years after the famous ‘saal assi bandobast’, the first major land settlement where private lands were surveyed, mapped and demarcated on paper for the first time (see Section 2.3 for details). Traill, the British commissioner, excluded an area of thaplas (terrace land) in the sub-Himalayan tracts of Kumaon division from the lease system of forest produce to conserve timber and bamboo, and reserved this area. But this did not last long. No attempt was made to establish any system of conservancy and the old system of leasing out the forest dues to contractors was continued. Examination of old British administrative records, interaction with the residents of present-day village communities in Kumaon and Garhwal and direct observations on the state of the forests, all lead one to conclude that the political, social and economic crisis that we see today in the Uttarakhand region is clearly the legacy of British colonial rule. The origins of the crises are exploitative colonial policies based on the extreme conceit of the conqueror, and a Western urban-industrial model of development that views nature as a mere commodity to be exploited for financial gain.

Conceit is illustrated in the statement of Job Becket, Deputy Collector of Kumaon, speaking on the Kumaon Iron Works having leased 400sq.miles of virgin oak forest for fuelwood exploitation in 1868: ‘No doubt such iron foundries have been found to be very destructive in Britain in the past where they were legally banned by the 16th century. However such action is deemed neither possible nor desirable here. And even if such laws were to be passed, for whom would these forests be preserved?’13

Uttarakhand 711 sta

te ch

ap

ter - u

ttara

kh

an

d

This statement implies that vast stretches of forest in Uttarakhand were totally uninhabited and unused by local communities, which is far from reality. At this point in the state’s history, annual profits derived from forestry operations were about Rs 0.18 million. With the introduction of a regular forest establishment in 1855, revenues rose enormously,14 but unfortunately even then no system of conservancy was attempted. Between 1853 and 1858, one Captain Reid and a mysterious Mr. Finn were put in charge of the foothill forests of both Garhwal and Kumaon. The forests of the Ramganga valley, South Patli Dun and Sonali were, according to Major Pearson, the first conservator of the NWFP, ‘…felled to desolation by Capt. Reid as well as by Mr. Finn, and the native contractors before him, but perhaps even this does not give an idea of the waste that has occurred, and the mischief that has been committed. Thousands of trees were felled which were never removed, nor was their removal possible; and a large revenue has been realized during the last few years by allowing passes to the people of the lower country to cut up and remove the dead timber on the payment of a royalty.’15

Major Pearson’s views were implemented thoroughly in the region, and it is worth noting his example of the prescriptions and the results of scientific forestry. He states: ‘...I have now been in the habit of watching sal forests for about ten years and the inspection of these Doons very much confirms the opinion to which my mind has for some years been tending—viz., that both for the free generation of the seed, and the effectual reproduction of the forest, as well as for the welfare of the trees, and their progress afterwards, sal requires a considerable amount of sun and light and that a al forest will bear, and indeed repay (if it does not absolutely require) much more liberal felling than almost any other description of forest in India…[I have] no hesitation in saying that if half the trees were cut down in the untouched portion of the Palein forests as well as in the Mondhal and Nindhore valleys, the remainder would benefit beyond all calculations by operation.’

Nanda summarizes this phase of British Forestry thus: ‘Ignorance can excuse many a crime, but British foresters were well aware of the role played by broad-leaved forests in the Himalayan ecosystem—and yet they advocated the reckless destruction of broad-leaved species for short-term financial gain, leaving the Himalayas to their inevitable fate. Since villagers depended on these broad-leaved forests for their livelihoods and sustenance, with their rapid disappearance through systematic girdling, even the remnants of oak forests along mountain streams came to be eventually lopped to extinction. This ultimately led to the situation that prevails today marked by widespread water scarcity and drought—a scarcity that has, in turn, completely destroyed the agricultural system of the hills.…Through reckless destruction of broad-leaved forests undertaken by government fiat, the British government not only destroyed the ecosystem and local economy, it also failed in its avowed objective of advancing the monoculture of [commercial species].’16

The ‘scientific’ forestry phase

‘Scientific’ forest management introduced by the Crown aped European production forestry models and was based on conjecture and economic interests rather than any long-term study and scientific hypothesis. Couched in the language of ‘conservancy and protection’, these management systems were made palatable to the educated mind. The Superintendent of the Doon, one Mr. Williams, described the situation thus: ‘…everyone continued to hack and hew away as they pleased. Fine trees from 100-200 years old still abounded in the district. All these fell before the axe and probably the rest would have gone with them had the roads been better’.17 In 1860 forest revenues began to drop, and had by 1868 plunged to Rs 23,332. Between 1855 to about 1908, the sal forest tract of the sub-Himalayan belt of Uttar Pradesh had alone yielded well over Rs 1.5 crore (15 million) to the imperial exchequer.18

In 1858, one Colonel Ramsay took over as Commissioner of Kumaon. He prohibited the felling of trees and appointed forest officers to supervise management operations. He banned grazing and curtailed rights to use long-established chhaans (cattle stations) in the foothill forests in 1861-62, which had been totally worked out and hardly contained any valuable timber. These regulations lasted a decade, after which the new forest department took over. Attempts at conservancy continued ad hoc until the first Working Plan was prepared in 1881 for the North Patli Dun forests. These working plans systematized and institutionalised restrictions on traditional rights initiated almost fifty years earlier. On the other hand there appear to have been no restrictions on hunting and fishing as long as leases were obtained. Even dynamiting of rivers to stun fish appears to have been ignored if not condoned by the administration. This strongly indicates that the colonial government’s efforts at conservation were largely restricted to species of commercial value.

Targets for timber harvesting were two main species: chir and deodar. Both were initially felled from accessible and later from far-flung areas, and then sought to be spread across the region at the expense of the broad-leaved climax forests (dominated by oak species) that ‘…protect the myriads of mountain streams which go to maintain the village sera (fertile irrigated fields used for paddy) and the water system of the hills which in turn goes to feed the Gangetic canal.’19


2.2.2. Changes in land-use and cover

In 1882, Atkinson wrote of the region, ‘…Many parts have been permanently injured, the land where once fine sal forests stood is now too denuded by exposure to admit of reproduction.’20

In 1899, E.P Dansey, Conservator, Garhwal Forest Division wrote: ‘…over much of the Working Circle a soil which, from the dimensions of the standing trees we see, must have been very rich originally, has since then undergone deterioration through denudation which has been brought about by excessive felling and long exposure to the sun.’21 Dansey reported only 36sq.miles out of 79sq.miles that appeared to have soils suitable for good forest vegetation. He also noticed considerable frost damage to young sal poles on colder aspects. By the 1930s, large areas had been specially designated Frosted Sal Working Circles with special prescriptions for nursing and care in the Landsdowne Forest Division.22

Successive Working Plans in the 1920s and 1930s for the Landour Cantonment Forests of Mussoorie suggested that the best oak forests be converted to deodar plantations, in part because the forest officer in charge, one E.C. Mobbs, decided that the timber needs of the British community for building could be met locally this way. Other oak forests on steep slopes were prescribed to be managed with a ‘coppice and standards’ system. The author of the next working plan, one O.E. Osmaston, remarked that building timber was freely available from Dehradun, while fuelwood and charcoal were in short supply for local residents. He concluded that the oak forests of the cantonment should not have been tampered with, and instead have been managed on a lopping rotation for fuelwood generation. Deodar plantations at the scale taken up had been entirely unnecessary!

Despite having acknowledged the importance of broad-leaved forests in the region, another forest officer, A.E. Osmaston, proceeded to give detailed instructions for the systematic girdling and encouragement of excessive lopping of broad-leaved species. This was to hasten their extinction and allow plantations and regeneration of chir to take over the area. Only narrow strips of broad-leaved forest were to be left along each mountain khala (stream) or rauli (ravine)23. The results of this ‘error of judgement’ continue to contribute to the scarcity of good fuelwood in the region.

2.2.3. The legal context in colonial Uttarakhand

The Indian Forest Act was initially drafted in 1865, primarily to facilitate the declaration of forests as state property for the implementation of ‘scientific forestry’ operations. The Act notified all lands covered with trees, brushwood or jungle as Government Forest, but did not immediately curtail people’s rights. The legislation was modified in 1878, as the establishment found that people’s rights interfered with clear-felling operations in commercially valuable forests. A Forest Policy in 1894 established strategies for scientific forestry, giving economic interests primacy over all else, and justified the curtailment of people’s traditional rights in the name of conservation.

To quote Nanda: ‘From 1910-17, the colonial government attempted to tighten its control over forest resources by notifying over 7,500sq.km of the commons in British territory as Reserve Forests, severely restricting people’s use rights. Following rebellions and incendriaism (see later in section 2.3.1), 4,460sq.km of the commercially less valuable new reserves were transferred back to the civil administration. Thus, by the early 20th century, the uncultivated commons had been divided into 3 legal categories of forests: commercially valuable class II reserves under the forest department; and commercially less valuable class I reserves and civil/soyam (in the Tehri State, non-reserve forest lands under the civil administration were called soyam lands) forests, under the civil administration.’24 (With regard to rebellions, see section 2.3.1)

The Indian Forests Act, 1927, divided forests mainly into Reserved Forests (RF) and Protected Forests (PF) in which traditional rights were severely curtailed and henceforth called concessions. A third category of Village Forest (VF) was also provided for to meet the basic needs of village communities.

The Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Forest Rules, 1931, were drafted as a result of several protests over the curtailment of traditional rights of

access to forests and forest produce. The Rules required establishment of van panchayats (forest councils) as democratically elected village-level institutions, to be entrusted with official sanction to manage patches of forest to be handed over to them. The van panchayats were mainly established in Class I reserves and civil/soyam forests. These van panchayats were, however, given extremely limited financial and discretionary powers (these have been discussed in greater detail in Section 3).

Uttarakhand 713 sta

te ch

ap

ter - u

ttara

kh

an

d

2.3. Rights and privileges of local communitiesThe forests of Uttarakhand were considered to be of little commercial importance to the people

of the region and the tracts adjoining villages and toks (hamlets) were dense enough to meet the requirements of a thin and disperse populace. The state did not immediately impose too many restrictions over the rights of the people, as commercial interests were limited. Resource use was governed by traditional boundaries, where village control over common lands existed, and acted as a check to over-exploitation.

Ruling dynasties of the Tehri Riyasat allowed trees to be felled for legitimate household needs such as building timber, but not for commercial profit. Trees were not looked at in terms of commercial profit, and urban markets basically did not exist to absorb vast amounts of timber. Forest produce that regenerated every year, on the other hand, was harvested by village communities, and simply taxed on its way out of Garhwal. Local household consumption was exempt from taxation.

In the British-administered territories, prior to British conquest in 1815, the hill peasantry effectively exercised direct control over the use and management of cultivated lands and uncultivated commons, with little interference from earlier rulers. Resident communities regulated use within customary village boundaries by evolving their own rules rooted in cultural norms and traditions.25

Considering that the local livelihoods were so directly and deeply interlinked with the surrounding resources of the hill people and that the area was fairly inaccessible, systems of natural resource management were deeply entrenched in the local cultures. Local systems of resource management included forest panchayats (councils), lath panchayats (see later for details), seasonal transhumance to alpine pastures to avoid over-exploitation of local resources, etc.

In 1823, the colonial regime undertook the first land revenue settlement. This recorded customary village boundaries, categorizing the land within them as cultivated naap (measured) and uncultivated benaap (unmeasured) lands. Although villagers continued to enjoy unrestricted use and the right to clear benaap land for cultivation, the state appropriated local authority for granting recognition to village boundaries. The saal assi (the revenue settlement year of 1823 is the 80th year according to the Hindu calender) boundaries in the erstwhile Kumaon, and unrecorded traditional boundaries in Tehri Garhwal, continue to be the basis of community forest management and inter-village boundary disputes over rights in the commons, including in forest areas reserved 90 years ago.26

In 1893, all unmeasured ‘waste’ lands in Kumaon were declared District Protected Forests under the control of the district commissioners. This legally classified all village common lands as ‘forests’, irrespective of whether they had tree cover or not, and converted them into state property. A resource base managed holistically was artificially and permanently divided into forest and non-forest lands. The division, and its implied freezing of land use, has not been reviewed since, despite dramatic changes in socio-economic and political contexts.27

After the assi saal bandobast of 1823, while terraced lands immediately surrounding the lower hill ranges were reserved for the timber and bamboo requirements of the state, extensive forests below were still open to the villagers.28 With improved access, the adoption of Wilson’s technique of log transport and heavy increases in timber demand, however, the British Government drastically curtailed rights and privileges of local communities, overturning indigenous systems of exploitation in favour of systems that encouraged dealing with locals through zamindars or contractors. Indigenous rights were gradually extinguished and outsiders were introduced to deal with harvesting operations. Some of the more severe restrictions imposed on local people were:29

• No person shall cut or remove any reserved tree (except chir trees 0.9 m or more in girth at breast height, and not standing within 30 m of any road) without a license;

• No person shall cut or remove any tree other than a reserved tree except for use within 8.3 km of the place in which such a tree or timber is produced for bonafide agricultural or domestic purposes;

• The cutting or removal of trees and timber, and the collection and manufacturing and removal of forest produce for purpose of trade is prohibited, except under, and in accordance with, the condition of a license granted by the deputy commissioner;

• Lopping of trees above 45.72 cm in girth for fodder or manure is permitted;

• No extension of cultivation when it involves the cutting of trees shall be made except with the permission in writing of the deputy commissioner;


• Except with the permission in writing of the deputy commissioner, no person shall set snares or traps;

• No person shall shoot or hunt or enter any forest in time of snow for the purpose of driving or otherwise destroying game therein except under and in accordance of a license granted by the deputy commissioner.

Scientific forestry, with its agenda of sustained commercial timber harvesting favouring only certain coniferous species, gradually learnt to manipulate local use patterns to the ends of the state. Some major examples of this manipulation are:

• Grazing was only permitted in areas where undergrowth posed a fire hazard;

• Lopping of oaks and other broad-leaved species was allowed in mixed forests which helped gradually transform them into pure stands of commercially favoured conifers like chir pine, oaks and other broad-leaved species were deliberately felled and girdled by the department to favour conifers in some mixed forests;

• Controlled fires with a system of fire lines and counter fires were lit annually by the forest department before villagers could light their annual fires.30

After the public uprising and based on the grievances committee’s recommendations (see following section), people’s rights were restored in commercially less valuable Class I Reserves. However, rights were given to ‘all bonafide residents of Kumaon’, thereby converting common property resources defined by the saal assi village boundaries into open access areas. Provisions for van panchayats to exercise community control over legally constituted ‘village forests’ demarcated from within the Class I reserves and civil forests was made, though applicable only in those villages which applied for them. This enabled sections of the peasantry to retrieve some space for local forest management. On the other hand, the van panchayat rules were operationalised only in 1931, ten years after the creation of Class I Reserves. During this time and in areas where there were no van panchayats, even subsequently uncontrolled extraction from Class I reserves was done by both the state (through giving contracts for making charcoal from oak) and the peasantry, due to creation of an open access regime.31

2.3.1. People’s uprisings in the pre-independence era

The gradual destruction of livelihoods through the curtailment of traditional and customary rights, mass clear-felling, monoculture plantations and manipulated regeneration of only commercially valuable species led to several popular uprisings against the state, both in the Riyasat of Tehri-Garhwal and the British-administered Garhwal and Kumaon Divisions.

In Tehri-Garhwal, a major traditional protest or dhandaak was staged in 1906 over the demarcation and reservation of a sacred grove near the famous Chandrabadini temple in present-day Jakhnidhar block. The conservator was surrounded by villagers, attacked and branded with a red-hot coin. The incident has become folklore, and is even today remembered as the ‘Chandrabadini dhandaak’. In 1913, the very first article denouncing the policies of Maharaja Pratap Shah of the Tehri-Garhwal Riyasat was published in a local newspaper, The Garhwali.

Following the takeover of common lands by the government and restricted access to resources between 1910 and 1917, Garhwal and Kumaon faced formidable shortages of fodder, fuelwood and timber in 1921. People in the hills decided to put an end to all kinds of co-operation with the government in the management of forests, including fighting forest fires or stopping ‘illegal’ cutting of green trees. Large tracts of Reserved Forest were burnt by local people to register their protest against the anti-people policy of the government that denied people’s access to these forests. In order to avert an impending rebellion by the soldiers from Kumaon and Garhwal, the British government set up a Forest Grievances Committee under the chairmanship of P. Wyandham (the then commissioner of Kumaon).32 The committee’s terms of reference focused on three major areas: (i) difficulties experienced by those living in and near forests as a result of existing systems of state forest management; (ii) eliciting local interest in conserving and managing forests; and (iii) securing and encouraging co-operation with the forest department. The Committee toured Almora from 16-27 May 1921 and British Garhwal from 28 May-19 July 1921, examining a total of 5,040 witnesses either in person or through their representatives. The committee felt that the most important problem faced by villagers was the

Uttarakhand 715 sta

te ch

ap

ter - u

ttara

kh

an

d

ban imposed on lopping by the FD, and proposed to remove all restrictions on the lopping of oak and kokat trees (a term signifying ‘inferior timber’, encompassing all tree species except the few recognized commercial timber species), except from areas demarcated for regeneration. It also proposed to remove restrictions on grazing animals including goats from these areas. To deal with 11 points of grievances, the committee suggested four sets of remedies. The first listed five kinds of forests (mainly isolated patches) which were to be excluded from the management of the state and handed over to villagers. The second involved the removal of existing boundaries of reserve forests where they were either too close to settlements or where the population had pressing needs. The third was to carry out enquiries into land acquisition cases and the last involved the removal of rules and regulations in reserves maintained by the forest department where they could be dispensed with. To achieve this, the committee divided these reserve forests into two classes. Class I were the forests having little or no commercial value, in which the FD’s management was supposed to be nominal and there was no general restriction on the rights of people. Under Class II forests, the FD was supposed to continue its control, especially in matters related to fire control, resin tapping and the preservation from damage of all species having commercial importance, keeping aside one-sixth of the area for regeneration.33

In the Tehri Riyasat, resentment again simmered and then exploded in the infamous 1930 ‘Rawain kaand’ incident. A few villages in the Rawain area of the Jumna valley established an azad panchayat34 to protest the exploitative forest policies of the maharaja, particularly the ban on grazing in the local forests. The villagers maintained that they depended on these forests for their livelihoods, and grazing cattle was their right. They believed that the maharaja’s chief advisor, and not the maharaja himself, was responsible for the curtailment of their rights. They held regular meetings on a flat field by the river and planned to march to Tehri to protest to the maharaja. The chief advisor, Chakradhar Juyal, arrived with a contingent of armed police on horseback and, seeing a crowd of people assembled, began firing indiscriminately. There was a stampede, and at least 30 people died; some shot, others drowned trying to flee.

The movement was dissipated, but the widespread condemnation of this brutality grew, and in 1939 the praja mandal was established in Dehradun as a platform for the public to express their views. At the forefront of this movement was a fiery young leader Sridev Suman, who openly criticized the policies of both the British and the maharaja. He immediately developed a substantial following in the villages of Tehri-Garhwal. Suman was arrested, and after a prolonged hunger strike, died in custody at the Narendranagar jail. His death led to a series of protests that culminated in the people of Tehri rejecting the maharaja’s leadership and the successive declaration of several azad panchayats. Growing disenchantment with the maharaja resulted in the Tehri Riyasat being merged with the United Provinces (later Uttar Pradesh), in 1949. Other important uprisings that reflected the fight for regaining control over traditional rights are the Tehri Andolan of 1946, the Saklana Andolan of 1947, and the Kirtinagar Andolan of 1948.35

2.4. The post-colonial independence era2.4.1. Management of forest resources by the state

By the time the Uttarakhand region became part of independent India, the forest bureaucracy had become well and truly entrenched, and profit remained the sole motive of management. Contrary to popular belief, the plunder of the Himalyan forests continued after independence with even more aggression than before, as urban markets greatly expanded. The Forest Policy Resolution of 1952 was passed to accommodate the demands of industry for raw material, pledging forests to the ‘national interest’. Intensive road building was taken up after the Chinese invasion of 1962, for strategic reasons that helped facilitate transport of forest products to urban markets in the plains. The decade between 1966 and 1977 saw a dramatic increase of paper mills in the region.36 In addition to the demands of industry,37 expanding urban centres required large quantities of timber and fuelwood.38 The forest department responded to these increasing demands by reaching its contractors to the remotest corners of the states through a network of roads.

Though these measures ensured that revenue generated from forests increased manifold, the production of timber and firewood reached a plateau after 1966-67. S.S. Negi notes an example of the official view of the forest department: ‘The process of environmental degradation assumed significant proportions in this mountainous region after independence. This period saw a rapid increase in the cattle and human population; accelerated pace of road and canal construction and an unprecedented biotic pressure on the forest ecosystem.’39


The fallacious nature of this view is illustrated by M.D. Chaturvedi, Chief Conservator of Forests, Uttar Pradesh, by relating the number of cattle to the region’s population, total area under cultivation, and the requirements of milk and draught power. He states: ‘From these figures emerges the startling fact that far from being in excess, the bovine stock is hardly sufficient to cope with the agricultural requirements of these provinces…there is one work animal for every 6.2 acres of cultivation in the Himalayan tract, 3.25 acres in the Gangetic basin, and 4.8 acres in the Central Indian Plateau. The position of milch and breeding animals is even worse. There is only 1 cow or buffalo for 9 persons in the Himalayan tract, 6 persons in the Gangetic basin and for 3 in the Central Indian Plateau.’40

Increasing human populations being responsible for degradation is a hypothesis also not supported by facts. Decadal increases in population between 1940 and 1981 were well below the national average, and the increase between 1971 and 1981 was probably due to the increased activities related to the construction of the Tehri dam.

2.4.2. Rights, privileges and post-independent uprisings

The British discrimination towards local people and the curtailment of their traditional rights continued in post-Independence Uttarakhand. In 1980, rightholders’ share of the overall timber output declined from the already miniscule 6.4 per cent to 5.6 per cent, while the purchasers’ share increased from 88 per cent to an overwhelming 93 per cent. As a result of several State Forest Policies, the area under oak and other deciduous forests on which local people depended for their livelihoods had reduced by 23 per cent between 1939 and 1982 in the Tehri division alone. Tehri has been losing about 600 ha of oak forest every year for the last 40 years.41

Thus local livelihoods received even less attention than under colonial rule, as the state policy consistently favoured export of raw timber and resin for processing by large industry in the plains. By the 1970s, the Chipko movement had emerged to demand that priority be given to local employment in the extraction and processing of forest produce. Increasing incidents of landslides and floods and declining availability of biomass for subsistence needs propelled hill women into the movement, broadening the popular base of Chipko protests and giving them their ‘eco-feminist’ label.

Ironically, the Van Panchayat Rules were revised in 1976 at the height of the Chipko movement, substantially reducing the authority and entitlements of the van panchayats.42 The issue of local forest rights, however, was soon subsumed within the new national and global ideology of environmental conservation. Instead of priority to local forest-based livelihoods and employment, Chipko was used to justify a spate of centralizing environmental policies and laws. The Forest Conservation Act of 1980 empowered the central government to make decisions related to the alienation of even the smallest patch of forest land. The Uttar Pradesh Resin and Forest Produce Act, 1976, made tapping, sale and purchase of all resin a state monopoly.43 The forest department and allied departments used the Uttar Pradesh and Hill Areas Tree Conservation Act, 1976, to create a nightmare for innocent villagers. Under this Act, villagers are forced to obtain permission from the District Collector/DFO to harvest trees standing on their own lands.

In 1981 (after a fast by Sunderlal Bahuguna against indiscriminate felling), a 15-year ban was imposed on all commercial felling in the Uttar Pradesh Himalayas above 1000 metres. In 1986, the ban was made applicable above an altitude of 2500 meters. At lower altitudes, green felling of pine as per the FD Working Plans is permitted. Today the only permitted fellings are for the villagers’ timber rights (haq haquque). The quantities for these have not been revised since the forest settlements of 1910-17, and are completely inadequate. Major conflicts between people and protected area managers have erupted due to large-scale resource displacement caused by their non-participatory demarcation, affecting the livelihoods of an estimated half a million people.44

On the other hand, despite the ban, it is mystifying to note that ‘...the availability of timber (after 1981), now exclusively obtained from fallen and windblown trees, remains almost the same as it was when the forests were commercially exploited!’45 Some important clues as to how this could be come from these facts:

• 7930 ha of forest were affected by fire between 1981 and 1987 as compared to only 1605 between 1973 and 1980.

• There was no increase in funds for fire-fighting measures, resulting in non-existent maintenance of fire lines after the green felling ban in 1981.

• Green trees are reported to be felled and sawn along with fallen trees in every forest division.46

Uttarakhand 717 sta

te ch

ap

ter - u

ttara

kh

an

d

• A massive increase in outlay of funds for plantation on civil/soyam forest lands with dry, eroded soils and almost no tree cover.47

As the largest custodian of state property,48 the forest department has been unable to maintain the forests in good condition or meet people’s forest-based livelihood needs. Its responsibility for enforcing the Forest Conservation and Wild Life (Protection) Acts has reinforced its image as an anti-people agency. Thus, in 1988-89 some of the Chipko activists started yet another, relatively less known, Ped Kato Andolan (‘cut trees movement’). They argued that the Forest Conservation Act ‘was being used to hold up basic development schemes for the hill villages while the builders’ mafia continues to flout it brazenly under the guise of promoting tourism.’49 More recently, resource displacement and loss of livelihoods caused by expansion of the protected area network has produced the Jhapto Cheeno Andolan (snatch-and-grab movement) reflecting the intense feelings of alienation and disempowerment. Women who earned international fame for stopping contractors from felling their forests during Chipko have come to hate the word paryavaran (environment). As one of these women from Reni village complained ‘...they have put this entire (surrounding forest) area under the Nanda Devi National Park. I can’t even pick herbs to treat a stomach ache any more.’50 (See Box 1).

Centralized forest management based on a conservationist ideology was among a significant propellant for the movement for a separate state. A separate state, however, has not brought much joy to people in terms of control over local resources or preference being given to the local livelihoods. Soon after the new state was formed in 1999, the Van Panchayat Rules were amended in 2000 to bring van panchayat forests under greater FD control. Frustration among the local people is indicated by the statement of a van panchayat sarpanch during a van panchayat adhiveshan (gathering) being organised by the local groups at Bhowali in 2002 to oppose the amendments. ‘We fought against the colonial rule, we thought they were colonials and did not understand us, our culture, our needs. As a result of this agitation we regained some of the lost powers and control. After Independence, we thought we had our own government but they went a few steps beyond the British to take our powers away. We thought these are plains people—they don’t understand our circumstances. We fought for a separate state, many of our brothers and sisters lost their lives. After we got the status of a separate state we celebrated thinking we are now in control. But a separate state has meant even more restrictions and alienation for us.’ Thus now there is a movement in the state to retain the powers of van panchayats forests rather than these being appropriated by the FD under Village Forest Joint Management Programme (VFJM).51

In Uttarakhand, JFM activities actively target already existing village level institutions, the van panchayats that have far more control under existing rules over the forests they manage as compared to the rights conferred by the JFM resolution. The argument trotted out is that van panchayats do not function properly, and are defunct institutions that should therefore be replaced. This is patently insincere. No attempts have been made to understand why van panchayats are not functioning effectively, or to address the problems in the Van Panchayat Rules that have led to this situation. JFM in the State is currently commercialising and politicising these institutions while at the same time disrupting traditional methods of managing forests jointly between several villages.

Box 1

Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve and National Park and Local People52

The Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve and National Park came into existence in 1982 following the recommendations of a few conservationists and foresters. Villages included within the boundaries of the Biosphere Reserve are Reni, Lata, Peng, Tolma, Fagti, Markada, Kaga, Garpak, Dunagiri and Malari. There are no villages located within the National Park, but traditional resource use areas do fall inside the boundaries. The local community were traditionally traders with Tibet, manufacturing medicine and trading in medicinal plants collected from high alpine pastures and the high forest reaches. Some were migratory pastoralists, who made use of the alpine pastures in summers and the bhabbar grass areas in the foothills in winters. Some found additional employment acting as guides and porters to mountaineering and trekking groups to Nanda Devi and other peaks in the area.

Trade with Tibet has been closed since the 1962 Chinese incursions and traditional grazing routes in the foothills have either been developed or declared protected areas. Their last source of income disappeared with the decision to seal all entry points to the National Park, which destroyed the tourist trade and restricted people’s access to the alpine pastures of the Inner Sanctuary.


Faced with few livelihood options in their harsh environment, villagers launched the Jhapto Cheeno Andolan (Snatch-and-Grab Movement). After 20 years of agitation, the National Park has been reopened to tourism and a decision has been made to share a percentage of the benefits with local people. Dhan Singh Negi of Lata village (Joshimath district, just outside the biosphere reserve), however, states that people have been given either doles or jobs that they are not very interested in. ‘No one considers the fact that we are traditional traders and that is where our skills lie.’ Though the current plan envisages a share of the profit to be directed to local communities, villagers are not involved with tourism planning and implementation. They will merely be the porters and beneficiaries of the profit. Greater involvement of the people in management and planning can ensure long-term ecological security of a sensitive area that would face problems of over-exploitation of resources, hunting, garbage and other problems related to tourism.

3. Community conservation initiativesIn this section four types of initiatives in Uttarakhand are discussed: (i) people’s struggles for

natural resource conservation; (ii) people’s struggles for NR conservation community resource management institutions; (iii) traditional conservation management systems; and (iv) sacred elements in community conservation. It is estimated that 50 per cent of villages in Garhwal have some form of conservation system, 20 per cent have relatively inactive systems and 30 per cent follow open access regime.53

3.1. People’s struggles for natural resource conservation and local livelihoods

Struggles and movements for natural resource conservation and local livelihood needs have been a part of hill people’s lives for decades now. Some movements like Chipko and Cheeno Jhapto have been mentioned earlier.

In the late 1980s, areas in and around Nahikalan in Dehradun District were leased out for limestone mining by the government. Initially local people participated in the mining operations as wage labourers. Subsequently, the impacts of mining started directly affecting the people with increased incidents of landslides, soil loss, destruction of water sources and forest degradation. The villagers requested a Delhi-based NGO, Kalpavriksh, to conduct an investigation on the impacts of mining. Based on the findings of the investigation, a case was filed jointly by the villagers of Nahikalan and Kalpavriksh. This case was clubbed with another case by an NGO against mining in the surrounds of Dehradun. Mining in and around Dehradun, including at Nahikalan, was finally stopped after a court order in the late 1980s.54

Another noteworthy movement is the one started in Hemwalghati in Tehri Garhwal. Some Chipko activists from this region, belonging to villages like Jardhargaon (see case studies for details) in Tehri district, realised that their own villages were headed towards an unsustainable existence. Jobs were few and far between and youth were migrating out; forests stood degraded, incapable of sustaining local needs; and local seeds had been replaced by hybrid varieties often not able to tolerate harsh local conditions and diseases. Some of these people initiated forest protection activities in their respective villages: in Jardhargaon, for instance, several hundred hectares of forest were regenerated and are now under protection. They also started the Beej Bachao Andolan (Save the Seeds Movement). A group of villagers travelled from village to village to collect seeds of the indigenous crop varieties. These crops, including a few hundred varieties of rice and beans are now, among others, being grown by many villagers. Villagers also follow traditional systems of cropping like baranaja (growing twelve or more crops together in a single field to optimise growing conditions, sustain soil fertility and meet diverse needs). Thus this Andolan has done remarkable pioneering work related to in situ conservation of threatened indigenous Himalayan crop varieties through cultivation, awareness, and sharing of seeds and ideas.55

3.2. Community resource management institutions3.2.1. Lath panchayats

This traditional institution is little known outside the region and has not been studied much. In fact, unlike van panchayats, this system is pre-British in origin and is rooted in the village system of Uttarakhand. The system is based on the oral tradition of governance of surrounding forests

Uttarakhand 719 sta

te ch

ap

ter - u

ttara

kh

an

d

carried from generation to generation. How the name lath (stick) came to be associated with this institution makes for an interesting anecdote. The hill panches (village elders responsible for major village decisions) were famous for their community feeling and judicial acumen. Seeing this, a sage living in a village shrine showered his blessings on them and gave them a lathi (stick) with a condition that the stick should be used for the benefit of all the families in the village without actually dividing the stick. The stick was not to be used for private benefit, else its power would vanish and village society would disintegrate. The village elders fixed the boundary of the forest adjacent to the village and made each family responsible for the protection of the forests. As a symbol of the power and authority, the holy stick would rotate from one family to another for the whole year. The family at whose door the stick was kept on a particular day was responsible for protection of the forest on that day. With time this system came to be known as the lath panchayat. There are several other stories about the origin of lath panchayats.

Lath panchayats exist almost everywhere in Uttarakhand. However, it is estimated that they may be more numerous in Almora, Tehri and Chamoli Districts. Since many lath panchayats have been converted into van panchayats and no records have been maintained about the lath panchayats, it is difficult to estimate their exact number. One such lath panchayat exists in Bageshwar district where a large number of banj trees are still present and are well conserved by the people.56

Structure

A lath panchayat is composed of a general body and an executive body. In the general body, all the households of a revenue village are represented through their heads. This means that almost always only men are the members of this body, while women are excluded. In the executive, 3-7 selected elders run the day-to-day affairs of the panchayat. They resolve the disputes among the members and evolve a formula to share the forest produce. The executive implements the decisions taken by the general body and discusses new rules. There is no formal sarpanch or pradhan in lath panchayats.

Rules and regulations followed

All rules on control and utilisation of forest produce are formulated on the basis of unanimity, when all families agree to them. These rules vary from village to village. These rules have evolved on the basis of the availability of forest produce, the condition of trees and species, people’s awareness, carrying capacity of the forest, requirement of people and potent dangers. Lath panchayat rules are unwritten and are subject to changes. However, in some villages, a record of some sort has been maintained, like through opening of an account in a bank. Most villages have a rule to protect patches of forests on a rotational basis, often following a five-yearly rotation period.

Another common rule is that of not cutting large branches and green timber. During the closed period, no extraction is allowed from that part of the forest. In some forests, plantation works have been undertaken. In some villages grazing is totally prohibited, while in others hunting is prohibited.

Control and protection

In all lath panchayat villages, rules exist to control outsiders and livestock from entering the protected patches and also to control undesirable behaviour of their own people. Some villages appoint chowkidars (forest guards), with each family contributing towards his/her salary in cash and/or kind. In some villages, villagers carry out voluntary patrolling on a rotational basis. In other instances villagers have made a collective commitment towards protection of forests. In case of a forest fire, the entire village community helps by digging trenches, making fire lines and beating the fire with bushes.

Systems of punishment

Depending on the nature of offence committed, there are different punitive measures in lath panchayats. These punishments often discriminate between local villagers and outsiders. Usually outsiders are charged higher fines for the same offence than are local villagers. The most common types of punishment include fines and confiscation of livestock, weapons, etc.

Conflict resolution

At the village level, the panches of the lath panchayats preside over disputes between the parties. If the dispute is between two villages, the panches and pradhans of both the villages sit together to hear the case. Only in a few instances, where decisions have not been acceptable to all concerned, have the cases been taken to court.


Distribution of produce and income

Usually an equitable distribution of forest produce amongst all members is followed. In case of surplus the members are allowed to barter or sell their share to other members. The amount to be distributed is decided based upon the need of the people and the availability of the forest produce. In case of excess availability of grass and fodder, it is shared with neighbouring villages, usually in exchange for food grains. All income to the lath panchayat—usually by fines or selling produce—is deposited in the village post office. The legal status of lath panchayat forests is not very clear, as these forests have not been categorised under any existing class. The ownership in these forests rests with the community; individuals cannot sell forest produce. Only the MC of lath panchayats can sell, that too only when forest products are in surfeit and people of the neighbouring villages have a pressing need for them. This fund is used for community expenditure, such as purchase of utensils, loans to the members, salary of chowkidars, or plantations. It has been observed that the utilisation of produce from the forest under this traditional management system remains by and large sustainable. Broad-leaf species are most prominent in these forests. They yield fodder leaves that are an important biomass for the hill people. However, the harvesting of fodder leaves is done under controlled conditions once a year, and often areas are harvested on rotation. For agricultural implements and housing purposes, two or three trees are cut every year.

3.2.2. Van panchayats

Van panchayats are officially recognised village institutions legally constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Forest Rules of 1931 of the District Schedule Act. After independence in 1964, the Class I forests were included within the Reserved Forests. In 1976, a revised set of Van Panchayat Rules was implemented and van panchayats were brought under section 28 of Indian Forest Act. Thus van panchayats got the status of Village Forests, and the FD now had a greater role to play in the management of these forests. Also Reserved Forests were debarred from being brought under van panchayats. The van panchayat provision was not extended to the erstwhile princely state of Tehri till 1991. After the formation of the separate state of Uttarakhand, VP rules were revised once again in 2001. These rules strengthened the presence of the FD in van panchayat matters.

As per the1931 rules, any 2 or more right holding residents of a village could apply to the Deputy Commissioner (DC) to demarcate a specified forest area within the village’s saal assi boundary as a village forest provided that one-third or more of the rightholders in that area did not object. After dealing with any claims or objections, the DC called a meeting of the residents and other rightholders for electing 3 to 9 panches for managing the village forest. The panches selected a sarpanch from among themselves.

The elected representatives signed an agreement that the village forest land would not be sold or partitioned57 and that ‘the produce of the panchayat forest shall be utilized by the panchayat to the best advantage of the village community and of the right-holders.’ The panchayat had the status of a forest officer with the powers to fine or prosecute offenders and ‘to sell forest produce,58 including slates and stones without detriment to the forest, and to issue permits and charge fees for grazing or cutting grass or collecting fuel.’ Resin from chir pine trees was the only product that could not be extracted or sold without the permission of the forest department and resin income had to be shared with the department where extraction was done by the latter. The van panchayat had full control over use and income from forest resources and all dues payable to it were deemed as dues payable to the government, recoverable as arrears of land revenue. The only role assigned to forest officers was to inspect the panchayat forests or their records, and report on their functioning or the condition of their forests, if requested to do so by the Deputy Commissioner.

According to recent estimates, there are 6,069 van panchayats managing 405,426 hectares59of forests (13.63 per cent of total forest area) in the UP hills. These forests are demarcated as village forests under section 28 of the Indian Forest Act and are entered in the land records in the panchayat’s name.60 Most of these have been carved out of civil (protected) forests under the jurisdiction of the revenue department prior to 1976, also out of Class I Reserve Forests now under the forest department’s control.61 The area under each van panchayat ranges from a fraction of a hectare up to over 2,000 hectares.62

Functions of the van panchayats

• To check indiscriminate felling of trees and tampering of fencing by villagers;

• To ensure the equitable distribution of forest products amongst the members;

• To earmark silviculturally fit trees for felling;

Uttarakhand 721 sta

te ch

ap

ter - u

ttara

kh

an

d

• To prevent encroachment on van panchayat lands;

• To fix boundary pillars and to maintain them; and

• To carry out the directives of the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Magistrate regarding the administration of these forests.

In the discharge of its functions a van panchayat can levy fines upto Rs 500 with the prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner. A van panchayat can also seize cattle and the offending cattle can be impounded. In this respect van panchayats enjoy all the powers under the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871. Van panchayats can also confiscate weapons of offenders.

Financial powers of van panchayats

• Van panchayats can sell the grass, fallen twigs for firewood, and stones and slates to local people;

• Resin tapping and felling of trees can be taken up with the approval of the forest department;

• Auction of trees up to the estimated value of Rs 5000 can be undertaken with the approval of the Divisional Forest Officer;

• Auctions above Rs 5000 are conducted by the forest department with the approval of the Conservator of Forests

• The forest department charges all expenditure incurred in resin tapping from van panchayat forests. On revenues other than resin, the forest department charges 10 per cent as administrative expenditures. 20 per cent of revenue generated goes to the zilla parishad for creating and maintaining infrastructure, 40 per cent to the gram sabha for local development schemes sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner of the district, and 40 per cent to the forest department, meant for maintenance and development of panchayat forests.

• In fact ‘only 40 per cent of the proceeds from sales go into panchayat accounts and even these can be spent only with government’s (i.e., the deputy commissioner’s) permission.’63 Income realized from sale of forest produce is thus not readily available to the van panchayats for developing roads, schools and hospitals in the village.

Constraints faced by van panchayats

Less than one-third of the villages in Uttarakhand have opted for van panchayats. Formation of van panchayats has not been an easy process for villagers as it involved getting official sanction from the Divisional Commissioner, which was never easy for villages in faraway places. ‘Since its very inception, van panchayats have been facing a lot of problems and no serious attempts have been made to address them,’ says R.S. Tolia, Director, Centre for Development Studies, an institution established by the Uttar Pradesh Administrative Academy. They face many administrative, financial and management problems.

Van panchayats in general do not have women members. The representation of other weaker sections is also low. This has led to great amount of dissatisfaction among these sections. Considering that women are more dependent on forests, management rarely takes into account their perspective and needs. After the 1976 amendment the FD has been responsible for drafting and implementation of working plans in the VP forests; however, no examples are known of VP forests where working plans have been made. Encroachment on the van panchayats and pilferage of grass, fodder leaves, fuel, timber, etc., is common. The sarpanch imposes fines on the recalcitrant persons. These fines are supposed to be realised by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but the system seldom works.

The sarpanch and members of the van panchayat do not get any travelling or daily allowance for watch and ward and other work of the van panchayat. Therefore, by and large they either do not take much interest in panchayat forest work or try to take one advantage or other from them. Increasingly, the government is promoting hasty establishment of van panchayats. In Nainital district alone, about 450 new van panchayats have come up in the last two years. During 1997-98 itself, 229 new van panchayats were established all over Uttarakhand, most of them not more than a few acres large and hence completely incapable of supporting any local needs. This artificial and state-sponsored movement will lead towards degeneration of VPs, a fear being expressed by scholars and activists. It is also felt that this will further weaken the sense of community that has been already eroded by the UP Forest Conservation Act of 1980, ‘and will introduce more cavalier attitude towards the forest which now came to be seen as government property.’64


Quality of forests in VPs

In 1960, the Kumaun Forests Fact Finding Committee found the condition of panchayat forests to be ‘generally satisfactory’.65 A study of 11 VPs in five of the eight hill districts in 1983-84 by the evaluation unit of the state planning division found that all of them had prevented illegal felling and damage due to fire; ten had prevented undue damage to the trees; nine had prevented encroachments and eight had exploited forest produce scientifically. It also found that since the formation of the VPs, forest wealth had increased by 40-50 percent.66 From a random sample survey of 21 VPs in Nainital, Almora and Pithoragarh districts, Somanathan (1991) concluded that van panchayats have, by and large, maintained oak forests very well, especially in contrast to the dismal condition of the reserves (except the ones distant from the habitations). The situation with respect to chir forests was not found to be so clear. They seemed to have done as badly under VP control as in the reserves.67

Erosion of van panchayat authority

Even as the number of van panchayats increased after independence, from the late 1950s a number of policy and administrative changes started undermining their authority. In 1956 the revenue department abolished the post of the Divisional Van Panchayat Officer, centralising his responsibilities in

an already overburdened Deputy Commissioner. This slowed panchayat related paper work and diluted other forms of support substantially.68

The revision of the 1931 Rules in 1976 drastically curtailed panchayat autonomy, authority and entitlements. The new rules restricted the area eligible for new VP formation to that falling within the new village boundaries drawn under the revenue settlement of the early 1960s instead of the saal assi boundaries. As these excluded Class I Reserve Forests from village boundaries, this amounted to a steep reduction in the forest area available for van panchayat control.69 While the villagers continued to depend on these areas, they were no longer permitted to manage them. This is a major reason for the degraded state of reserve forests near villages.

The revised rules also allocated 20 per cent of the van panchayats’ income to the zilla parishad (district-level self-government) for development works and 40 per cent to the forest department for reinvesting in panchayat forests. The remaining 40 per cent share left for the panchayats could no longer be used without prior permission from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner. The sarpanch now required approval even to employ and pay watchers for forest protection. This effectively deprived the van panchayats in remote villages from access to their own drastically reduced share of income, as the costs of repeated trips to distant offices outweighed the benefits.70 The revised rules made the forest department responsible for preparing working plans for all panchayat forests, thereby expanding its technical authority substantially. However, neither has this money been ploughed back nor any working plans formulated. Harvested or fallen timber which could only be auctioned by forest officers, often rotted in panchayat forests due to no officers coming to conduct sales.

The revenue department similarly developed no effective mechanisms for administering the expanded authority it centralized in itself for supervising the van panchayats’ day-to-day functioning. Under overall supervision of the Deputy Commissioner in each district, assisted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Forest Panchayat Inspectors are responsible for administrative support to VPs. However only 14 inspectors were expected to support 4891 VPs spread over 29 tehsils71 with a monthly travel allowance of only Rs 80 (less than $2), which had not been revised for decades.72 Till the late 1950s the panchayat inspectors played a mediating and facilitative role. From the 1960s onwards, only the better-endowed VPs could bribe them to visit for essential procedural requirements.

The deputy commissioners and sub-divisional magistrates themselves abused their authority,

The state also has a very high agricultural diversity, as displayed by Beej Bachao Andolan, Tehri Photo: Ashish Kothari

Uttarakhand 723 sta

te ch

ap

ter - u

ttara

kh

an

d

resorting to a host of ad hoc interventions in VP affairs. In many of our case sites, van panchayat councils had been suspended arbitrarily with no fresh elections held for years at a time. VP members were never clear about the money credited to them. Requests for assistance in dealing with encroachments on van panchayat forests were met with a stony silence, with some patwaris actually abetting the encroachments. While denying the panchayats access to their own funds even for essential forest protection needs, the Deputy Commissioners falsely claimed high achievement of district small-savings targets by depositing them in post office accounts. The administration also encouraged some panchayats to lease their forest land to government cattle breeding farms, which subsequently encroached on huge additional areas creating scarcity of fodder and pasture for the villagers’ cattle. A number of van panchayats have ongoing court cases against government agencies for encroaching on village forest lands.73

The revised rules also concentrated most responsibilities for the van panchayat’s functioning in the sarpanch74, weakening the strong tradition of collective decision making by van panchayats while reducing transparency and accountability.

After the ban on commercial fellings in 1980, many VPs were deprived of an important source of occasional income from timber/charcoal, often used for village development activities. Simultaneously, the Forest Development Corporation was given monopoly rights over salvage timber even from van panchayat forests (which earlier could be used by the villagers for their own needs). Permits for bamboo and cane harvesting stopped being given to artisanal producers in the mid-1980s. The Tree Preservation Order of 1976 deprived villagers of the right to cut trees even on their private lands without cumbersome forest department permissions. The latest threat has come in the form of externally determined expansion of the protected area network. Many panchayats have come within protected areas, with villagers often losing all or most of their rights in both village and other surrounding forests. Thousands dependent on resin tapping and collecting lichen and medicinal herbs from protected areas have been deprived of employment and incomes.

A large number of van panchayats are embroiled in boundary disputes as forests have been allocated and reallocated among various villages. Reallocations have also created dramatic inequalities among villages in the kinds of forest resources they can access. Some villages have no forest land of their own, compelling them to encroach on their neighbours’ resources or on surrounding Reserve Forests.

3.3. Traditional community resource management systemsStrong local village-level land management and harvesting systems based on geographical and

social realities of the region evolved over thousands of years. These systems appear to have worked well and remained in place relatively undisturbed until the colonial era of ‘scientific’ forestry. Figures in Atkinson’s Himalayan Gazeteer, published in 1882, point strongly in this direction.75 For example, roughly 5 tons of kutki/karvi, a commercially valuable medicinal plant from the bugyaals (alpine pastures), was being collected every year from the region and traded with the plains since ancient times. This large amount was being sustainably harvested year after year. Kutki/karvi is presently on the endangered list. Also 25 tons of jhula, lichens that constitute 80 per cent of the NTFP traded presently, was being harvested annually. It is now reported to be getting scarce in many areas.76

Each of these management systems was built from the combined knowledge base of several generations of communities that closely interacted with their environments. We briefly discuss below community conservation systems in Uttarakhand in relation to (i) forest habitats, (ii) bugyaals and other grasslands, and (iii) agricultural techniques.

3.3.1. Forest management

The following are some of the common practices followed for conservation of forest patches. The basic principle that has been followed since time immemorial is rotation and rest. Village livestock is never kept in one place too long. Transhumance is an absolute must. This is what allowed the forests near villages to regenerate naturally year after year and provide a seemingly inexhaustible supply of forest produce, household needs and fulfilling livelihoods. Villages in the major river valleys seasonally take their livestock up to alpine grasslands (bugyaals); those that are self-sufficient in forest take their livestock to nearby pastures (kharak/marora); and before the destruction of the bhabbar sal forests, at least 40 per cent of the population of the region (those living in the outer ranges) used to migrate every winter down to the bhabbar with their livestock. Where transhumance has ceased, the greatest destruction is evident. Some common practices followed are:

• The bari/palta system where every family participates in forest protection taking turns.


• The chaukidari system where the village selects and hires an individual to patrol the forest and catch offenders. Payment is made either through the traditional nali system in kind—mainly food grains, and now the tankha or cash wage system.

• Rotational lopping of patches of forest with rules for fair distribution and use of speed breakers to over-lopping, e.g., opening certain patches every third day, lateral lopping, only tertiary and sometimes secondary branches

• The entire village forest is divided into patches for each family to use and manage.

• Exclusive women’s management systems through village groups, e.g., mahila mangal dal, mahila van panchayat, and in some cases even through Village Joint Forest Management Committees.

3.3.2. Bugyaals and grass patches

Alpine grasslands are characterised by bugi or phichi grass, and are hence known as bugyaals. The basic principle behind traditional conservation is just like for forests: never stay in one place too long, keep moving. This practice alone gives a chance to each patch to regenerate adequately for the next season. The timing of each move to a new patch, arrival in the alpine zone, leaving the bugyaals at the end of the season—all these have been carefully worked out from long years of experience to maximize the grazing season and take advantage of favourable climatic conditions during the summer and monsoon months. Often, when a particular village has managed to maintain its rights over a patch of bugyaal, grazing taxes are levied to help pay for patrolling and stone-walling. In the Pranmati Gaad catchment near Tharali, district Chamoli, elders decide areas to be harvested. The mamala grass harvesting each year is a special event. Puja (prayer) is performed before the harvest, and special new clothes are stitched for both men and women. In other bugyaals, there are strict rules for harvesting of medicinal and aromatic plants. The significant point is the existence even today of regulation, restraint and prevention of unsustainable harvesting by social sanction, religious festivals, and superstition,77 although these plants have been commercially traded with the outside world for centuries. For example, brahmkamal, a peculiar flower sacred to the goddess Nanda Devi and Shiva is harvested only with the teeth. Hands and tools are strictly not allowed, and considered a defilement of the sacred flower and the deity. Some mechanisms of grazing land protection in grasslands:

• Ghaas ki maang are family-wise plots demarcated by consensus.

• In grass-surplus areas, sub-plots are auctioned off to the highest bidder, who then has a chance to sub-contract smaller patches for harvesting.

• Where there is scarce grazing area, the grass patches are protected and allowed to sprout and be harvested before being opened to grazing.

• Fodder trees on private land are also auctioned off for lopping in scarcity areas, particularly during the dry season when no fresh grass is available.

3.4. Sacred elements in community conservationThe spiritual aspect of community conservation is often ignored. The greatest motivation other

than the desire to protect one’s livelihood or survival is to be conferred with the blessings of the local deities, and feel that one is connected with society, the earth and walking the right path as laid down by tradition. In the Uttarakhand region, this tradition directly means the supervision of the isht devta, who is specific to each family or clan, and is like ‘a reporting officer’ for the family. The isht devta must be kept appeased; otherwise he/she may turn against the family. In this context, conserving certain areas—sometimes restricted to one tree and a small shrine at the edge of a terraced field—becomes of vital importance in maintaining harmony between the members of the human family and the larger, extended membership of supernatural entities. Often, when rules and consensus have failed to regulate often-divisive village society, spiritual concerns have united the factions, and compelled them to agree on a joint course of action.

3.4.1. Tree worship

Tree worship has been an integral part of ancient Indian culture. It embodies reverence towards nature, and the spirit of conservation as practised in ancient times. Garhwali culture reflects reverence for trees even today through sacred groves on hilltops in practically every patti (cluster of villages), and small shrines dedicated to local deities scattered over villages, agricultural lands, forest paths and grazing lands. According to a prominent local historian, the Greek legend of

Uttarakhand 725 sta

te ch

ap

ter - u

ttara

kh

an

d

the oak tree being sacred to Zeus has been incorporated into local culture through contact and interaction during the reign of Indo– Greek/Bactrian rulers in Persia more than 2000 years ago, and the name Banj for the famous oak of the Western Himalayas is derived from the word Vajra (thunderbolt), associated with Zeus, Lord of the Skies. The sylvan deity and nocturnal herdsman Airi in whose name sacred groves exist even today is perhaps derived from the Greek deity Ares, god of war, son of Zeus.78

Ancient Hindu scriptures also refer to tree worship. The Skanda Purana relates: ‘Where the Kosi River breaks through the mountain barrier and flows down into the plains of upper India, and is joined by the Sita river, there has been from ancient times a beautiful grove of Asoka trees, where Ram and his faithful Sita are said to have sojourned. Sita was charmed with the beautiful forest, and said to Ram, “It is the month of Baisakh. Let us stay in this wood and bathe in the waters of this river.” So they abode there, and on their return to Ayodhya, the name of the place was changed to Sitabani, the grove of Sita.’79

Several other species including the deodar are also revered. Leaves of the yew tree are offered at shrines to the local deities Jangli Devta and Kshetrapal, and leaves and flowers of several other species including Paiyya, Buraans and Bael are offered at temples and shrines dedicated to the goddess Nanda Devi.

3.4.2. Sacred groves

The sacred grove is the oldest traditional form of community conservation. It applies to forests, grasslands, wetlands, and sometimes riverbanks and beaches. In the mountains, nature has traditionally been the source of religion. Many peaks such as Nanda Devi have been considered sacred and worshipped. Areas surrounding these peaks have also been considered sacred. For example, Devi Ka Angan, an intermediary area lying around Nandakhot—a sacred peak—is also considered sacred. So, the protection of sacred forests around temples and sacred sites elsewhere has strong historical/mythological roots in the hills.

These dev-van or sacred groves once dotted the forest landscape of Uttarakhand; they especially proliferated in remote areas. This was because the forests were considered as the dwellings of gods and deities. The tradition of planting and protecting trees around temples and waterbodies is very old. In almost all the major temples of the region, trees that are hundreds of years old can been seen even today. Jageshwar, a famous pilgrimage spot housing one of the 12 Jyotirlingas, has a thick deodar grove surrounding it. The temple complex belongs to the Katyuri dynasty (c. 1000 AD). The age of a huge deodar tree behind the temple was estimated by the scientists of Birbal Sahani Institute of Paleobotany, Lucknow, as older than the temple itself! People believed that numerous local deities protect forests, cattle and fields. In some areas forest areas have been offered to these local deities. In many places of Almora and Pithoragarh, this tradition is alive even today. Several large tracts are still protected, albeit to a lesser extent, in the name of gods and goddesses. From these forest areas, people can take dry twigs and leaves but cannot cut green leaves and trees. The hunting of wild animals is a strictly forbidden. There are hardly any formal or written rules for the management of these forest areas. But as people are afraid of divine repercussion, no one violates this unwritten code of conduct, even surreptitiously. It is believed that if anyone harmed the dev-ban, the entire community will have to face the wrath of the deity.

The most famous sacred grove in Garhwal is Hariyali ki Danda, above Gauchar in the Alakananda valley of Chamoli District. This area, comprising a steep cliff overlooking Gauchar to the north, and

gentler slopes adjoining the Dudhatoli bugyaal to the south, has a temple dedicated to Hariyali Devi on the hilltop and reportedly stretches over 100 ha. No harvesting

of any produce is permitted, and every year in September a special pooja and mela are held at the mandir. Local villages participate actively. Jasholi village

is the centre of reverence for Hariyali Devi. Entry to the Hariyali Devi temple is closed to women.

Another well-known grove is Shewri above Naugaon in the Jumna valley. This area in Uttarkashi district is called rawain. A danda ki jatir is

held every year where all local villages participate in a procession up to the hilltop, where pooja is performed, and a mela is held.

Hariyali, Bhumiyal Devta, Jangli Devta and Airadeo are all sylvan deities that have both protector and supervisor aspects. They are benevolent to those who respect the forest and use it wisely. But those who misuse the forest are first liable to be warned by a


frightening occurrence. If the warning is not heeded, then calamity can befall the offenders and their family. Depending on the severity of the crime, generations to come may suffer from the punishment of the devta. There are other devtas that are also associated with forests and worshipped at temples dedicated to them. The more prominent ones are Binsar, Latu and Bhairavnath. Some devtas that are worshipped at forest sites without temples are Heeth, Jaman Singh, Deo Singh and Bhau Singh.

Sacred groves are mainly constituted of oak forests, which hold great significance in the lives of the hill people by providing leaves for fodder and compost for agriculture. Many of these also contain perennial springs, indicating the significance of these groves in conserving watersheds.

Management of sacred groves

Sacred groves are not managed the way reserved or panchayat forests are managed, as there are no formal rules to govern them. The basis here is a firm belief and faith in a deity and not in some secular power. Once a forest becomes sacred, harming it in any way becomes taboo. Cutting of a tree or even a branch is prohibited and hunting is out of question. In some sacred groves, no one can take away any forest produce. However, in most places there are no restrictions to collect twigs and branches fallen on the forest floor. Fear of the deity prevents any violation of these rules.

Current scenario

In many places, sacred groves are under grave threat. As population pressure mounts and the fear of the unknown gets reduced, people cross the forbidden boundaries. Also, as the legal status of these forests is highly skewed—some of the sacred groves are van panchayats while a few others are Reserved Forests—unclear legal status and judicial control confuse the surrounding population, leading towards indifference. In many places the timber mafia is ruthlessly exploiting these vulnerabilities. For example, the sacred grove around Jageshwar shrine is under threat from a powerful local leader, a block pramukh (head) who runs a furniture factory at Artola, a village three kilometres from the shrine. In village Eradi of Pithoragarh District, some part of the forest that was offered to a local deity in 1997 has not only been encroached but also used to extract fuelwood for small commercial enterprises. Market forces coupled with overall deterioration in governance on the one hand and loss of faith on the other is largely responsible for a slow demise of sacred groves in Uttarakhand.

Revival of sacred groves

The past few decades have seen serious degradation of forests in Uttarakhand. People in Uttarakhand are well aware of the fragility of their ecosystem and the ecological and social disasters that can be brought about by this degradation. Despite having a tradition of strong system of management, awareness about the need of such a management and a strong interest in conserving the resources, most communities have found it extremely difficult to decelerate the process of degradation. Increased government interference, increased petty local politics, migration of able-bodied youth from the villages, among other reasons have led to the breakdown of the van panchayat, and lath panchayat systems in most villages resulting in unregulated and indiscriminate use of the resources in these forests. Increased human and cattle populations juxtaposed with the depletion in available resources have caused a situation of desperation strong enough to overcome the fear of the wrath of the deity and sacred groves are now gradually being

Sacred lake in Munsiari Photo: Pankaj Sekhsaria

Uttarakhand 727 sta

te ch

ap

ter - u

ttara

kh

an

d

violated. Consequently, resource depletion, drying-up springs, loss of lives and property due to frequent landslides and flash floods, migration of youth to the plains in search of employment, and increased hardships for women have become a way of life for the people of Uttarakhand.

It is under these circumstances of helplessness, when solutions were forthcoming neither from within the community nor from the government, that dozens of villages in Kumaon region of Uttarakhand decided to turn to the goddess of forests. Forests, which were being managed for local use, are now devoted to the goddess of the forest for protection. The phenomenon of sanctification of community managed forests started as a movement in the region sometime towards the end of 1980s. Most villages follow a similar process for sanctification. A decision is taken by some elders or respected individuals in the village to devote the forests to the goddess. A letter is written to the goddess specifying the rules and regulations and the time period for which the forests have been sanctified. A religious ceremony is performed in the forests to declare their sanctification. Usually the oak forests (and not the pine forests) falling under the village are sanctified for a specified period of 5 or more years. During the period of protection collection of live biomass or fallen leaves is strictly prohibited, while livestock grazing and collection of dry twigs for fuelwood is allowed. In special cases permission can be sought from the goddess to use some resource for community use. Those who do not adhere to the rules face ill health or misfortune. The goddesses to whom these forests are devoted are among the most feared goddesses in the region.80

3.5. Mahila mangal dals and youth groupsOther widespread community forest management systems outside any formal legal framework

are found in all categories of forest lands within or near villages include those managed by mahila mangal dals (village women’s associations), informal van samitis and youth groups. Such systems are particularly prevalent in villages away from major roads due to the commons still being central for sustaining the local subsistence economy. These systems are regenerating and regulating use of reserve and civil/soyam forest lands, often compelling unofficial cooperation by Forest and revenue department staff.

Holta, a village without a van panchayat, initiated protection of its soyam land around 1986 entirely on its own. Village water sources had dried up and firewood and fodder had become scarce as a result of unregulated forest use by surrounding villages and encroachment on common land by local families. Some village youth successfully persuaded the encroachers to vacate the commons, setting an example by giving up their own encroachments. Letters were sent to the pradhans of surrounding villages that anyone entering the forest would be fined. Major conflicts followed with one village going to court against Holta due to unclear boundaries of their respective soyam lands. However, with improvement in forest condition and availability of water, resistance declined. Today the village’s biomass needs, excepting those of timber, are being met from the regenerated forest. Vegetable cultivation has become feasible with regeneration of three natural water sources. Rules framed for grass, tree leaf fodder and firewood collection and are strictly enforced, with all households contributing to pay a watchman.

The committee had representation from all hamlets and castes, and women representatives of the village mahila mangal dal, empowered by the government’s mahila samakhya programme, have also been able to wedge their way in. Community relations with the forest department, however, are extremely sour. In the words of the village women, the department has made them into thieves. While they protect their own forest like their children, they look the other way when fire breaks out in the reserved forest.81 In Makku and Bareth, women’s groups had asserted informal control over patches of civil or communal land closer to their settlements for day-to-day management for firewood and fodder.82 In both cases, the women perceived local van panchayat councils to be male domains. Panchayat forests were also far from the villages, and therefore not convenient for daily fuelwood and fodder collection. The formal and informal CFM arrangements complemented each other with the women occupying informally carved out space. They could access such space with mediation of the gram sabha without having to deal with cumbersome official procedures. In Arakot village, the mahila mangal dal had been protecting the village soyam land for the past 20 years, paying a watchman with voluntary contributions. In Naurakh and Resal, civil land was being protected by individual families through private enclosures. Officially ‘encroachment’ on government lands, such informal systems are fairly widespread as these have low transaction costs.83


Box 2

Movement against mining in Kataldi village84

Hemwalghati was one of the centres of the pioneering Chipko movement in the 1970s. In the decades that followed, the people of this valley have been involved in several sustained environmental protection initiatives including community-based conservation, forest regeneration and the Harit Himalaya campaign.

Limestone mining was first undertaken around Kataldi village, lying in the heart of Hemwalghati, between 1974-79. Strong opposition from local communities forced the mining operations to close. Many subsequent attempts at mining have also been unsuccessful due to strong opposition of the local people. People of the area, especially the women, are clear that they will oppose any attempt at mining. They launched a determined non-violent dharna all through December of 2001 to make their views known. A 30-year lease has since been granted to M/s Parvatiya Mineral Industry Ltd. to extract limestone from 5.26 ha of common lands right above Kataldi village. This is a cause of great worry to local people and they are aware of the detrimental effects mining would have on their homes, drinking water supplies, agricultural yields, fodder and fuelwood availability and the biodiversity which they have struggled to conserve.

The people of Kataldi and other villages of Hemwalghati are determined not to allow the mining to take place. After having petitioned the concerned offices in the state with little success, they are currently preparing to take the matter to the Supreme Court.85

3.6. Other initiatives3.6.1. Private Forests

In the post-independence era, the emergence of private forests lovingly and reverentially tended by individuals is being increasingly seen. These stand out as oases in a sea of barren brown. Some noticeable examples are Jagat Singh ‘Jangli’ of Jasoli village, Sobhan Singh Bhandari of Nagchaund, Visheshwar Datt Saklani of Pujargaon, and Narayan Singh Negi of Sankot, Narayanbagar block. Jangli has received a national award for his contribution to spreading environmental awareness. An ex-army man, he was inspired by his father to create a forest on unproductive family land, resulting in 50,000 trees of 50 native species cutting across altitudinal ranges. V.D. Saklani has spent 40 years raising a banj oak forest on degraded scrubland from seed, each one sown personally with a prayer for its health and survival.

3.6.2. Maiti andolan

A new initiative, the maiti andolan, involves all unmarried girls in a village forming a maiti sangathan to raise saplings of useful trees. At every wedding in the village, the groom is presented with a sapling and the bride and groom plant it together. The groom gives a donation to the maiti sangathan to help with the maintenance of their tree, and to help with raising other trees. Funds created in this way have also been used to support the education of girls from economically deprived families, and even to help out elderly women in distress. Shri Kalyan Singh Rawat, a teacher at the Gwaldam Inter College, now based at Gauchar, Chamoli District, originated this idea. In an estimated 200 villages spread across Uttarakhand (including Dharchula in Pithoragarh district, Karnaprayag, Gwaldam and Gairsain in Chamoli district, Budhakedar in Tehri-Garhwal district and Naugaon and Rajgarhi in Uttarkashi District), approximately 5000 ha of civil/soyam forest lands have been handed over to maiti sangathans to protect, plant and manage as maiti vans.

4. Conclusions In today’s world, with the increasing spread of education, the population of Garhwal finds

itself becoming increasingly bewildered about the future. The region, unlike others with forest-based economies like Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, has a populace with decidedly middle-class aspirations and expectations. The educated youth are increasingly frustrated by the perceived lack of employment opportunities in the region. They see no future in the traditional way of life and traditional professions. Whereas 90 per cent of the population live off agriculture, animal husbandry and processing of forest produce, now the only future they seek is in secure government jobs with pensions to cover old age.

Uttarakhand 729 sta

te ch

ap

ter - u

ttara

kh

an

d

As traditional lifestyles have been gradually replaced by consumerist values, a preoccupation with jobs as the ultimate security has resulted. Faith in traditional spirituality has eroded tremendously with the growing influence of the cash economy. The steady ingress of roads into remote areas has certainly brought convenience and ease of access. At the same time, they have trucked in modern, globalisation-influenced values, eroded local culture and many positive traditions.

Nature has been made into a commodity. People’s systems of conservation and forest management over centuries of living close to the land have suffered immeasurably. The youth displays alienation from the land. The importance of agriculture, animal husbandry and consequently forests has been steadily decreasing in the village economy. A tendency is manifesting itself in the educated youth to agree with the official viewpoint that villagers are the destroyers of forests out of sheer ignorance and apathy, while the state is exclusively the protector.

Darab Nagarwala is a member of PRAKRITI (Society for Promotion of Sustainable Livelihoods from Nature), Mussoorie. He was assisted by Trepan Singh Chauhan and Pritam Appachhyan. Rakesh Agarwal is an independent researcher and writer. This chapter quotes research conducted by Madhu Sarin for CIFOR and published as ‘From Right Holders to Beneficiaries: Community Forest Management, Van Panchayats and Village Forest Joint Management in Uttarakhand’ (CIFOR, 2001).

Endnotes1 S.P. Singh and J.S. Singh, ‘Analytical Conceptual Plan to Restore Central Himalaya for Sustainable Development’, Environment Management, Vol. 15, No 3 (1991).

2 Source: Government of UP, 1998

3 M.P. Joshi, Uttarakhand Himalaya (Almora, Sri Almora Book Depot, 1990).

4 Consisting of animal dung, partly decomposed leaves used for bedding, and fodder residue.

5 J.S. Singh and S.P. Singh, Forests of Himalaya (Nainital, Gyanodaya Prakashan, 1992).

6 Princely state

7 E.T. Atkinson, The Himalayan Gazeteer (New Delhi, Cosmo Publications, 1882, reprinted 1989)

8 Ajay Rawat, History of Garhwal 1358–1947 (New Delhi, Indus Publishing Co., 1989)

9 (As above)

10 The Annual Administration Report of Tehri State, 1943-44, states: ‘Indiscriminate destruction of natural fauna is strictly forbidden and for the protection of wildlife, shooting permits are given in very special and rare cases. Besides there are several sanctuaries all over the state where shooting and fishing are prohibited.’ Quoted in Rawat, History of Garhwal. (As above)

11 G.B. Pant, The Forest Problems of Kumaon. Shree Almora Book Depot (Almora, reprinted edition)

12 For instance, the forests of Jaunsar Bawar, North of Dehradun, near Chakrata. See Atkinson, The Himalayan Gazeteer, pp. 833-4, 869-72. (As above)

13 Neeru Nanda, Forests for Whom? (New Delhi, Har Anand Publications, 1999).

14 According to Nanda (Forests for Whom?) revenues doubled to Rs 300,000 annually at a conservative estimate.

15 G.F. Pearson, ‘Sub-Himalayan Forests of Kumaon and Garhwal’, in Selection from Records of the Government of the North West Provinces. Quoted in Nanda, Forests for Whom?

16 Nanda, Forests for Whom? (As above)

17 Atkinson, The Himalayan Gazeteer. (As above)


19 A.E. Osmaston, Working Plan of North Garhwal Forest Division 1921-22 to 1930-31. (Allahabad, Government Press, 1921). Quoted in Nanda, Forests for Whom?


21 E.P. Dansey, Working Plan for the Garhwal Forest Division, 1879-80.

22 W. Coombs, Working Plan of Landsdowne Forest Division, 1930. Quoted in Nanda, Forests for Whom? p. 36. (As above)


24 (As above)

25 (As above); Ramchandra Guha, ‘Van Panchayats in Uttarakhand: A Case Study’, Economic and Political Weekly, 25 September 1999.


26 Nanda, Forests for Whom? (As above) Sarin, ‘From Rights Holders to Beneficiaries’. (As above)

27 Sarin, ‘From Right Holders to Beneficiaries’.(As above)


29 Ajay Singh Rawat, Forestry in Central Himalaya (Nainital, Centre for Development Studies, 1998).

30 Ramchandra Guha, The Unquiet Woods (New Delhi, OUP, 1989); and Ramchandra Guha, ‘Paryavaran Par Ek Prarambhik Bahas’, Pahar, Vol. 9, 1998.

31 Sarin, ‘From Right Holders to Beneficiaries’. (As above)

32 Thakur Jodh Singh, B. Negi (MLC, Garhwal), Mr R.G. Marriot of the Indian Forest Service and Pandit Lachmi Datt Pande representing Almora were other members of this committee.

33 See ‘Report of the Forest Grievance Committee for Kumaon’, in Ramesh Pande ‘Krishak’ (ed.), Van Panchayat (Tehri Garhwal, Bhuvaneshwari Mahila Ashram, 1994), pp. 162-79.

34 Independant village council.

35 Rawat, History of Garhwal. (As above)

36 The consumption of printing and writing paper increased from 100,000 tons in 1948 to 405,000 tons in 1970, and paper board from 46,000 tons to 158,000 tons.

37 The extraction of industrial wood jumped from 4.46 million cubic metres (MCM) in 1956-7 to 9.28 MCM in 1966-7.

38 Government of India, ‘Plywood Industry May Run Short of Timber’, Commerce, Vol. 126, No. 3231, 7 April (1973), quoted in Akhileshwar Pathak, Contested Domains (New Delhi, Sage Publications, 1994).

39 S.S. Negi, Garhwal, the Land and People (New Delhi, Indus Publications, 1994).

40 M.D. Chaturvedi, 1948. The Role of Leaf Fodder in the United Provinces (Allahabad, Govt. Press). Quoted in Nanda, Forests for Whom? (As above)



43 (As above)

44 Thakur et al. in Sarin, ‘From Right Holders to Beneficiaries’. (As above)


46 Personal communications with Trepan Singh Chauhan in Chimiyala, 2000; Ratan Mani Gaur in Airi, 1998; Dhoom Singh Negi in Khaddi-Jajal, 1996; Vijay S. Jardhari in Jardhargaon, 1996; and Devendra Bahuguna in Silyara, 1998.


48 Out of the 67 per cent of Uttarakhand’s area classified as forests, about 69 per cent is Reserve Forests exclusively under the FD’s jurisdiction. The rest, comprising of civil/soyam and van panchayat forests falls under the Revenue Department and the van panchayat jurisdiction respectively, with the FD responsible for technical supervision.

49 Rawat, History of Garhwal. (As above)

50 Based on field study by Neema Pathak, Kalpavriksh.

51 (As above)

52 Contributed by Neema Pathak, Kalpavriksh, Pune (November 2002).

53 Pritam Appachyan and Trepan Singh Chauhan, Chamiyala, Tehri Garhwal, personal communication, (2000).

54 Personal communication with Ashish Kothari, founder-member, Kalpavriksh, 2002

55 J. Suryanarayanan and P. Malhotra with R. Semwal and S. Nautiyal, ‘Regenerating Forests, Traditional Irrigation and Agro-biodiversity: Community Based Conservation in Jardhargaon, Uttar Pradesh, India’, Case study for South Asian Regional Review of Community Involvement in Conservation, sponsored by the International Institute of Environment and Development under its ‘Evaluating Eden’ project (Kalpavriksh and IIED, unpublished, 1999).

56 See R. Agrawal, ‘Lath Panchayats: Fading Away’, Economic and Political Weekly, 6 January (2001).

57 Although leasing was, and still is, permitted.

58 This included timber.

59 Based on a study of van panchayats, done by the Academy of UP Administration (Forest Department, Uttar Pradesh) Village Forest Joint Management Rules, August 30, 1997:3.1. Lucknow. Due to a rapid recent increase in the number of VPs through conversion of civil/soyam lands into village forests, the figures in different publications lack consistency. According to another source, there were 6016 VPs covering an area of 4,53,695 ha by March 2000. (Dubey et al, 2000: 41).

60 Thus both the institution of the van panchayat and the village forests under their management are legally constituted. This is in contrast to administrative orders governing village institutions and forest lands brought under JFM in other states. Sarin, ‘From Right Holders to Beneficiaries’. (As above)

Uttarakhand 731 sta

te ch

ap

ter - u

ttara

kh

an

d

61 See section on revision of VP Rules in 1976.

62 Some of the recently constituted ones in Nainital district have as little as .02 ha! In contrast, Makku VP, one of the case study villages in this volume, has a village forest of 2200 ha.

63 E. Somanathan, ‘Deforestation, Property Rights and Incentives in Central Himalaya’, Wasteland News, Vol. VII, No. 1, Aug-Oct (1991).

64 Nirja Gopal Jayal, ‘Democracy and Social Capital in the Central Himalayas: A Tale of Two Villages’, Unpublished manuscript (1999). Uppsala Conference.

65 Kumaon Forest Fact Finding Committee (GOUP 1960: 33)

66 State Planning Division (GOUP 1984: 28).


68 (As above)

69 N.C. Saxena, Towards Sustainable Forestry in the U.P. Hills (Mussoorie, Centre for Sustainable Development, 1996).

70 A common strategy used by the VP leadership to cope with this restriction is to maintain two sets of accounts: an official one subject to audit by the Van Panchayat Inspector, and an unofficial one, in which fines, voluntary contributions, and fees are deposited for running the VP’s day-to-day affairs. The all-women panchayat council of Dungri Chopra deposits such panchayat income in the mahila mangal dal account for the same reason.

71 Sarin, ‘From Right Holders to Beneficiaries’.(As above)

72 (As above)

73 (As above) Makku van panchayat, one of our case studies, also has an ongoing court case against the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam for encroaching on 150 nalis of the VP’s land when it was leased only 3 nalis for building a tourist guest-house. The VP is also trying to prevent a government cattle breeding farm from encroaching on land in excess of that leased to it.

74 These include calling and presiding over VP meetings, getting all VP works executed, maintaining the VP’s accounts, supervising VP employees, maintaining all the specified files, undertaking correspondence on behalf of the VP, filing or defending court cases on behalf of the VP, etc. For all these responsibilities, s/he is entitled to spend the grand sum of Rs 50, a sum not revised since 1976!


76 Uttam Singh Sayana, Munsiari, Pithoragarh, 1999 and Trepan Singh Chauhan, 2000, Chamiyala, Tehri Garhwal, personal communication.

77 For instance, aanchri or souls of dead girls are said to inhabit bugyaals.

78 Y.D. Vaishnav, Land and People: Himalayan Districts of Uttar Pradesh (Almora, Sri Almora Book Depot, 1983).

79 E.S. Oakley, Holy Himalaya (Nainital, Gyanodaya Prakashan, 1905, reprinted 1990).

80 Information based on field study

81 Interestingly, the youth had applied for forming a VP 6 years ago but had received no response from the administration. Asked why they wanted a VP when their informal system was working so well, the men felt that VPs had greater access to government funds for plantations. They had heard about generous budgets for VFJM. The women, in contrast did not want any funds or government scheme. They were proud of their regenerated forest from which they could meet their biomass needs.

82 According to the ex-sarpanch of Makku VP, firewood and fodder scarcities are increasing conflicts over forests with women even having to resort to physical fights. He had encouraged the village women to enclose patches of civil and communal gram sabha lands for meeting their needs, while saving them from encroachments by the elite. He and the women faced a lot of resistance from powerful vested interests. Husbands objected as they were forced to do house work while women patrolled. However, effective protection by the women has led to dramatic regeneration of the mahila bans (women’s forests).


84 Contributed by Kanchi Kohli, Kalpavriksh, Delhi, November 2002.

85 Editorial note: As of late 2006, the resistance was still going on, with the court having left the matter to the district administration to resolve. Vijay Jardhari, personal communication.

uttarakhand - kalpavrikshkalpavriksh.org/images/cca/directory/uttarakhand_state...uttarakhand is...

Documents