Traditional Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation: a Preliminary Study of the Sacred Natural Sites in Uttarakhand, Central Himalaya

Home , Saussurea obvallata

Traditional Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation: A Preliminary Study of the Sacred Natural Sites in Uttarakhand, Central Himalaya

Chandra Singh Negi

Department of Zoology, Government Post Graduate College, Pithoragarh 262 502, Uttarakhand, India E-mail: [email protected]

KEYWORDS Conservation. Culture. Sacred Natural Sites. Social Taboos

ABSTRACT Cultural diversity is closely linked to bio-diversity. The study of these interrelationships need to be studied mainly for the simple reason that culture is not only the ethical imperative for development, it is a condition of its sustainability; for there exists a symbiotic relationship between habitats and cultures, between ecosystems and cultural identity, and that this relationship constitutes a determining factor in ensuring sustainable human development. The association of religion with eco-system management is interwoven in the symbolic network of the Himalayan traditional communities. Infact, we cannot think of ecology in the Himalaya without religion. The present study deals with the study of sacred natural sites (forests/groves, pastures, water bodies), within the State of Uttarakhand, and the inherent traditional knowledge- based systems, the taboos, as regards the resource exploitation and other traditional beliefs and customs, in practice surrounding these sacred natural sites. Even though, dilution in norms and taboos restricting the resource use, has undoubtedly got diluted in many of the sacred forests, a significant number of very-well preserved sacred forests, with religiously guarded taboos, do exists, which warrants a detail study, for their floral and faunal diversity.

INTRODUCTION driven by the beliefs and behaviours of the human communities, and local cultures are strength- Beginning several decades ago, the idea that ened by their intimate connections to the natural indigenous people and other small-scale societ- environment, which sustains them. Our modern ies were exemplary conservationists gained wide- world is often poorer for the scientific rational- spread currency in popular media as well as in ism, which treats objective and sacred knowl- academic circles (Smith and Wishnie 2000). edge as separate entities. In contrast, the tradi- This indigenous conservationism has often been tional cultures do not make such distinctions, attributed to a spiritual respect for, and a practical where very often, ritual and religion are intrinsi- understanding of the natural world (Vecsey 1980; cally bound with the daily chores of living Martinez 1996; Berkes 1999). Evidence offered (Vidyarthi 1963; Rappaport 1984; Malhotra and in support of this characterization, includes the Mark 1989; Sinha 1995; Kumbhojkar and culturally expressed conservation ethics, animis- Kulkarni 1998; Negi 2003, 2005). In fact, in the tic religious beliefs that conceptualizes other Himalayan context, the association of religion species as social beings, and relatively higher with eco-system management is interwoven in biodiversity richness found within the sacred the symbolic network of the Himalayan commu- forests in the homelands of these peoples (Nelson nities (Joshi 1992; Negi et al. 2001). 1982; Duming 1992; Posey 1992; Gadgil et al. Ecology in the Himalayas is synonymous with 1993; Callicott 1994; Alcorn 1996; Bodley 1996; the religion practiced. Sanctioning mechanisms Nabham 1997). are also religious in tradition-bound societies and Even though, much progress has been made in deviation from established practices might be exchanges; however awareness of the inter-rela- locally interpreted as the arousal of supernatural tionship between culture and environment is still anger, and thus it becomes pertinent to take note in its infancy. Yet cultures shape the environ- of the fact that attempts to disregard religious ment. They determine the individuals and com- factors in programs of change may be thwarted munity use (and abuse) we make of the natural by the people, since religion gives meaning to resources. They determine, who will manage various actions they carry out (Joshi 1992). How- those resources and how. Concomitantly, cul- ever, these traditional knowledge-based systems tures are in turn shaped by the environment. (TKBS) in practice could qualify as being of Sustainable natural resource management is conservation value, if these practices satisfy two 44 CHANDRA SINGH NEGI basic criteria: It should (a) prevent or mitigate particular animals or plant species (as totem or resource depletion, species extirpation, or habi- tabooed species); and (iii) regulation of the ex- tat degradation, and (b) be designed to do so ploitation of particular natural resource (such as (Smith 1995; Alvard 1998; Ruttan 1999; Smith a closed season for resource harvesting). Thus, and Wishnie 2000). With these two facts in view, keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, a the present paper attempts to bring forth the total of 168 sacred natural sites (henceforth SNS), salient features of the traditional knowledge- including 75 sacred forests, 74 sacred groves, 10 based systems, surrounding the sacred natural water bodies and 9 pastures, and extending across sites in the State of Uttarakhand, Central Hima- the nine districts within the State of Uttarakhand, layas. were covered for the study of existent taboo system (Figs. 1, 2; Table 1). The intactness of the METHODOLOGY belief systems surrounding the SNS, showed a proportional relationship with the relative dis- The knowledge based-systems methodology tance with the townships. This was more con- for acquisition of local ecological knowledge spicuous in district Pithoragarh, as compared suggested by Walker et al. (1997) and Sinclair with the rest of the state. One of the causal factors and Walker (1999) was adapted. This involves remains the close ties of the populace of district knowledge collection from a small sample of Pithoragarh, with the neighbouring Nepal across deliberately chosen individuals, who are thought the River Kali, where the institution of sacred is to be knowledgeable by other villagers about the much stronger. This whole aspect of the tradi- domain of interest, and who are willing to co- tional ties of the two people across the borders, operate. The knowledge was collected through along with the resident Gods, has manifested repeated, focused interviews with the key infor- itself in the form of sacred groves and forests, mants. Since the domain of study, i.e. taboo conspicuously duplicated across the two banks system surrounding the sacred sites was gov- of the River Kali. erned by dominant castes, principally Brahmins 60 and the Thakurs/Rajputs, with lower castes rel- Grove egated to carrying out profunctionary functions/ 50 Forest Alpine pastures tasks, it was inevitable that interviews be con- 40 Water bodies ducted across the different class of people, so that 30 an overall picture of the taboo system could emerge, and hence, efforts were made to inter- 20

(SNS) view a minimum of 6-8 persons across the class/ 10 caste divide per site/village, and thus, altogether 0 168 sacred natural sites (henceforth SNS), in- Almora cluding 75 sacred forests, 74 sacred groves, 10 ChamoliDehradun Number of the sacred Natural of the Sites sacred Number Pithoragarh Uttarkashi ChampawatRudraprayag water bodies and 9 pastures, and extending across Tehri GarhwalPauri Garhwal the nine hilly districts of the state were covered District for the study of existent taboo system (Figs. 1 and Fig. 1. Distribution of the sacred natural sites (SNS) 2), and a total of 1262 informants interviewed. In across the State of Uttarakhand (N= 168) brief, the information was sought on the location 6% of SNS, features related, local perception about 5% the sacredness of the SNS, biodiversity, manage- 44% ment (inclusive of caste dynamics), and lastly the taboo system in practice.

RESULTS 45% Grove Traditional natural resources management Forest system in practice in Uttarakhand, can be classi- Alpine pastures fied into the following broad categories: (i) pro- Water bodies tection of particular ecosystems or habitats (such Fig. 2. Percentage distribution of the sacred natural as sacred groves and forests); (ii) protection of sites (N= 168) TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 45 Well protected Well - protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well , , , sp. sp.

Rosa Juni- , Rosa Cicerbita sp., , Saussu- . Potentilla , , , Juniperus , Danthonia Rubus Rhododendron , sp. Betula utilis, Abies Betula utilis, sp., sp., Betula utilis lycium

sp., sp. sp., Dominant species # Status Bupleurum sp. , Betula utilis. campanulatum Betula utilis sp. Rhododendron campanulatum Rhododendron Juniperus communis Berberis kurrooa Picrorhiza communis Abies Juniperus anthopogon Rhododendron Danthonia campanulatum Rhododendron Betula utilis Juniperus communis Betula utilis obvallata Saussurea gossypiphora rea Juniperus sp., Carum hatagirea, Dactylorhiza carvi campanulatum, Rhododendron Euphrasia himalaica violoides, Polygonum viviparum Pinus Abies perus communis cunifolia, P. atrosanguinea, cunifolia, P. (42) Rich - Rich Rich - Rich (78) Average - Rich Rich Average Rich (73) - Rich Rich Rich aboo* diversity 12 9 12 9, 10 9 9 Yes 9 6, 10 6 6 12 9 6, 12 6, 10, 13 6, 10, 13 # Maapa, Martoli village Poting, Napalchhu (74) Pancchhu Ghanghar & Pancchhu village village village village PITHORAGARH festival, Singalkhola festival week of rd No specific homes, as well before returning back to their winter homes around 3 Nanda Astami No specific September. caste T or -do--do- -do- -do- Milam Milam -do- -do- The represen-tatives of thesociety The comm-whole is not divi- evenunity, on ded localthe however, though ladiescompletelyare casteexcluded being a transhumant village society worship the resident deities, imme- diately after their arri- -do- -do- val in these summer -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Ralam village -do- -do- -do- Ralam village -do- -do- -do-village Tola -do- -do- -do- -do-Astami Nanda -do- Ganghar and Astami Nanda -do-Astami Nanda Lwa & Martoli -do-Lwa & Martoli -do-village Laspa -do- -do- -do- Gunji village Rong-Kong natural site Singalkhola Ralam Ralam Top, Mandir,Tola Kund Milam Ganghar Maapa Martoli Martoli Lwa mandir, Sem, Laspa Poting Napalchu Gunji Rong-Kong Table 1: Brief outline of the sacred natural sites across the state of Uttarakhand 1: Brief outline of the sacred natural sites across Table S. No.S. Sacred Management Dominant Festival Influence2. Restrictions Floral Waterfall, 9. Bhujani, 3. Brijgang- 5.6. Syangchu Suraj Kund, 10. Bhadelgwar, 14. Hya Roshey, 16. Trang, Tu 1. Hurpudhar, 7. Supkasen, 4. Raghunath 8. fall, Water 11. Bhagwati 12. Dharmbn 13. Rakas tall, 15. Kee Pang, 46 CHANDRA SINGH NEGI Degraded protected Well protected Well Well protected Well Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well , , , sp., Abies , Poly- Poly- , , Potentilla Potentilla , , Potentilla Geranium Euphrasia , , Juniperus Rhododendron , , Polygonum amp- sp., Betula utilis Potentilla cunifolia, Agrostis Agrostis pilosula , , Potentilla cunifolia , pindrow, Betula utilis pindrow, sp. sp., sp. Dominant species # Status Juniperus communis, Quercus floribunda Quercus Cedrus deodara Quercus leucotrichophora, Q. Quercus dilatata, tata, Alnus nepalensis, Aesculus tata, Alnus nepalensis, indica, Pinus wallichiana, Q. leucotrichophora, dila- argyrophylla Carex setigera Carex argyrophylla himalaica gonum viviparum himalaica lexicaule argyrophylla Abies Aster stracheyi, Euphrasia Euphrasia himalaica Euphrasia himalaica gonum viviparum - Betula utilis Betula utilis Aster stracheyi Aster stracheyi, Euphrasia - Abies Pinus Juniperus anthopogon Pinus sp., anthopogon Rhododendron himalaica argyrophylla P. granilianum verage Rich Rich (48) Rich Rich Rich Rich (34) - Rich Rich Average - Rich Rich Rich (37) aboo* diversity 6, 9, 10 10 9, 13 12, 13 11, 9, 13 6, 10 6, 10 9 9 6, 10, 11 6, 10,11 6, 10, 11 vmillages thoragarh 1, 2, 3. and the adjoining villages Gangolihatsub-division 1, 3 A village Dhakar Baling village village and Pithoragarh 1, 2 ratri. ing ShivratriKartik purnmasi, Pi division rich Kartik purnmasi and Munsiari sub-2 1, Very Thakur -do- caste T or Brahmins Thakur reve- The represen- nue villagenue tativesof the Baisakhi and Shiv-adjoin- the and whole community -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Rong-Kong -do- -do- Kuti village -do- -do- -do- -do- Kuti village -do- -do- -do--do- Kuti village -do- -do- Kuti village -do--do- -do- Sipu village -do- -do- Sipu village -do- -do- -do- Sipu village -do- Sipu village Tedang, Baun and Naagling natural site Badabe Badabe Baisakh Hokara tativesof the Rong-Kong Khar Kot, Kuti Jeolingkong Jeolingkong Jeolingkong Sipu Sipu Sipu Tedang Baun Naagling S. No.S. Sacred Management Dominant Festival Influence Restrictions Floral 32. Chamunda 31. Lateshwar, -do- -do- Kartik purnmasi 30. Thal Ke dhar, Badabe 17. Neung Tangti, 18. Khar Gumba/ 29. Hokra Devi,represen- The 19. Parvati Sarovar, 20. Dhan ki kheti, 22. Rangchim, 23. Nigalfu, Sipu 26. Bombasing, 25. Aanchari taal, 21. Gauri Kund, 27. Sangfa Fu, 28. Beecham, 24. Muldi Bai, Table 1: Contd...... Table TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 47 Degraded protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well Degraded Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well Well protected Well protected Well Protected protected Well protected Well Dominant species # Status Q. leucotrichophora, semecarpifolia, Pieris ovalifolia Q. leucotrichophora, floribunda Q. leucotrichophora, arboreum, Rhododendron Q. semecarpifolia, Thamno- calamus sp. Syzygium Abies Q. semecarpifolia, Quercus floribunda Quercus pindrow floribunda Quercus Q. leucotrichophora, Pieris ovalifolia floribunda Quercus floribunda Quercus floribunda Quercus floribunda Quercus floribunda Quercus floribunda Quercus floribunda Quercus floribunda Quercus floribunda Quercus floribunda Quercus Q. leucotrichophora, dilatata, Myrica esculenta, arboreum Rhododendron Quercus floribunda Quercus Ficus glomerata Diploknema butyracea Diploknema butyracea Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus verage verage verage Rich Rich rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Poor Poor Rich aboo* diversity 2 Average ery wideery 1, 2, 3 division. villages (8-10) villages (15) villages Peripheralvillages (10) 1 A reverence throughout the region villages Shimpaanivillage - throughout the region the throughout region purnmasi. Peripheral purnima Throughout 9, 10 existent. - - A Baisakh villages Shivratri Peripheral - A Baisakh Kartik purnmasi Peripheral-do-2 1, -do- 1, 2 Kartik purnmasi& Shivratri. PeripheralMakar Sankranti2 (8) 1, villages influence, Wide 1, 2, 3 -do- Shiv-ratri. Peripheral 1, 2, 3 Very -do- Brahmins -do- -do--do- -do-Thakur -do- Non 1, 2 -do- 1, 2 -do- -do- -do- 1, 2 Thakur HarijansThakur -do- -do- -do- influence, Wide 1, 2, 3 caste T or unity whole community The village -do- -do- -do- -do- 1, 2 community and natural site Madmahesh Gabla, Sosa Chaudas valley 47. Ankot48. Ghandhura -do- -do-49. Syangse51. -do- -do- Navling -do- -do- No caste Kartik -do- Peripheral Kartik 1, 2 46. Deochula -do- -do- Kartik Purnmasi. Didihat sub-2 1, 50. Chopakya -do- Brahmins 33. Panchmod34. -do- 36.37. Khandelnath38. Goril39. -do- Kashin40. Churmal 41. Betal42. Asur43. -do- -do- Kamarnath44. Latura Dhawaj -do- -do- -do-45. -do- -do- -do- -do- Budh Kedarcomm- Village -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Shiv-ratri -do- -do- V -do- -do- 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 35. Boorkasin -do- S. No.S. Sacred Management Dominant Festival Influence Restrictions Floral 52. Nakuleshwar53. -do- Ratashila Devi54. -do- Taaleshwar55. -do- Ratashila -do- Table 1: Contd...... Table 48 CHANDRA SINGH NEGI Well protected Well Protected Protected Protected Protected Degraded Degraded protected Well protected Well protected Well Degraded Protected Protected Protected protected Well Well protected Well , Dominant species # Status Aegle marmelos, Grewia optiva, Bombax ceiba, Albizia Ougeinia oojeinensis, lebbeck Ficus religiosa Acacia catechu, Diploknema optiva butyracea, Grewia Grewia Ficus semicordata, optiva Ficus semicordata leucotri- Ficus sp., Quercus chophora Ficus sp. semecarpiflora, Quercus R. arboreum, Rhododendron baccata campanulatum, Taxus syn. wallichiana leucotrichophora, Quercus Myrica esculenta, Prunus ceresoides leucotrichophora, Quercus arboreum, Rhododendron Myrica esculenta leucotrichophora, Q. Quercus leucotricophora Quercus Ficus sp. Pinus roxburghii, leucotricophora, Quercus Myrica esculenta Diploknema sp., Ficus sp, arboreum, Rhododendron glauca, Myrica esculenta leucotricophora Quercus Quercus leucotricophora, Quercus Ficus sp., Pyrus pashia Grewia optiva Grewia tree Rich Poor Poor rich Rich Rich Poor Poor aboo* diversity region village throughout the Munsiari sub- division. Didihat sub- division. throughout the Didihat sub- division. Bastari andvillages (8) 2 1, throughout the district Majirkanda Gram Sabha villages (7-8) Biskholi village 1, 2, 4 Poor ## Basant Panchami throughout the Kartik poornimaBaisakh village Kaanadi 1Baisakh, Shiv ratri village single A Kartik Purnmasi,influence Wide 2 1, Navratriof Chaitra month influence throughout the Shivratri, Janmastami influence, Wide 1, 2, 3, 5 Very Brahmins Navratri Thakur -do- Kartik purnmasi &-do-village Kaanadi 3 2, 1, -do- Baltir village. 1, 2 caste T or village -do- -do- Kartik Purnmasi,-do-talla Gaurihaat 2 1, Thakur -do- -do- Navratri Peripheral 1, 2 -do- Brahmins community adjoining natural site richNang sara and Swami Baisakh, Shivratrithe throughout Masaani Devi Table 1: Contd...... Table S. No.S. Sacred Management Dominant57. Bhetiya Devta Festival58. -do- Nagarjuna/59. Bhaunaali -do- 60. Influence Mani Mahesh Restrictions61. -do- Floral Churmal62.63. Choragolu Thamri Kund -do- -do- - -do-64. Malainath -do-65. -do- - Jal Devi66. -do- -do- Dhanlekh -67.talla Gaurihaat The 2 1, Devi Kotgyari -do- -do-68. Poor Devta Asur Baltir village -do- -do- 1, -do-269. Jyastha influence Wide 1, 2, 3, 6 poor Aswin Chaitra and 71. Very -do- -do- Malainath wide Very Wide influence 1, 2 Chaitol at the start 1, 2, 3, 4 Thakur Poor influence Wide 1, 2 Nounagi Poor 56. Jagatnath 70. Bhagwati Devi -do- -do- -do- Biskholi village 1, 2 Poor TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 49 Protected Well protected Well Protected Partially degraded protected Well Partially degraded Partially degraded Partially degraded protected Well Partially degraded Partially protected Well protected Well Partially degraded Partially Partially degraded Rhodo- Rhodo- , , , Quercus Dominant species # Status Quercus leucotricophora Quercus dendron arboreum dendron dendron arboreum dendron leucotricophora, Quercus Myrica esculenta Quercus leucotricophora, Quercus Myrica esculenta Sapium insigne Osmanthus fragrans Quercus Pinus roxburghii leucotrichophora leucotrichophora, Quercus leucotrichophora, Quercus Celtis australis leucotrichophora, Quercus Aegle marmelos, Prunus glauca Quercus ceresoides, Aesculus indica leucotrichophora, Quercus Cedrus deodara, Myrica torulosa, esculenta, Cupressus Pyrus pashia leucotrichophora, Quercus Cupressus Juglans regia, torulosa leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora, Quercus Osmanthus fragrans , Celtis australis leucotrichophora, Quercus Quercus leucotrichophora, Quercus leucotrichophora, Bombax ceiba leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora, Quercus Prunus sp., Osmanthus fragrans Poor Poor rich Rich Poor Poor Poor Poor aboo* diversity the 1, 2, 3 village 1, 2, 3 Poor Jourasi landscape throughout the peripheral villages (20) ages (20) ages Manale vill-ages ages degraded peripheral villages (20) ages (20) Aswin Askote and the 1, 2, 3 Poor -do- Lima village 1, 2 Very Shivratri, jaatvill- peripheral Navratri, dolafestival Aswin Navratri(6) villages Manale vill- ment of the villagers Manale vill- Chaitra & AswinChaitra & NavratriNavratri, Sakranti peripheral vill-vill- peripheral ages (20) degraded -do- Nounagi Kusori -do--do- Sawan, Chaitra & Baishakh & Mad purnima& Mad 1, 2, 3 Poor 1, 2, 3 caste T or -do- Nounagi Askote and The villageThe -do-Aswin& Chaitra Askote and the 1, 2, 3 -do- -do- -do- Lima village 1, 2 -do- -do- -do- reverence Wide 1, 2 -do- -do-Aswin& Chaitra -do- Peripheral -do- 1, 2, 3 As per the require- Mad & 1, 2, 3 community natural site temple community Navratri 75. Mahakali 74. Malainath 73. Latenath -do- -do- 72. Malainath S. No.S. Sacred Management Dominant Festival Influence Restrictions Floral 79. Mallika arjun -do-80. Naula Devta81.village The Kumeshwar82. -do- -do- Shivalya83. -do- Kartik chaturdasi, Mahakali -do-84. Askote and the 1, 2, 3 Jaggannath -do- -do-85. Poor -do- Gorakhnath -do-86. -do- Brahmchari 87. Gorilvillage Kusori 1, 2, 3village Kusori -do- Poor 1, 2, 3 Poor -do- -do-& Mad 1, 2, 3 Poor 76.dev Suskar 77. -do- Huskar78. Churmul -do- -do- -do- Shivratri, Holi and -do-theand Askote 32, 1, Chaitra & Poor Table 1: Contd...... Table 50 CHANDRA SINGH NEGI Partially degraded Partially degraded Partially degraded Partially degraded Partially degraded Partially degraded protected Well protected Well Partially degraded protected Well protected Well protected Well protected Well Partially Well protected Well Well protected Well protected Well Partially degraded Dominant species # Status Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora, Quercus Q. glauca, Celtis australis torulosa Cupressus leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus Pinus roxburghii Pinus roxburghii leucotrichophora Quercus Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus Myrica esculenta, Rhodo- arboreum dendron leucotrichophora Quercus Sapium insigne, Ougeinia oojeinensis, Osmanthus frag- ciliata, Syzygium rans, Toona jambolana Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus Poor Poor Poor Poor Rich Rich Poor 2, 3 Poor 2, 3 Poor aboo* diversity (14) degraded (7) sabha sabha sabha sabha sabha villageFalenti 1, 2, 3 Peripheral 1, 2, 3 Poor villages (4) villages (4) Manale villages villages (9) Gara Paanivillage 2, 3 (Panchami Peripheral 1, & Aswin& The peripheral 1, 2, 3 Poor Saptami) villages ment of the villagers for rain ment of the villagers for animal health Chaitolment of the villagers Chaitol sabha sabha Makar Sankranti, Peripheral3 2, Aanthu, Gaura Satgarh gram 1, 2, 3 Navratri Panchami Peripheral 1, Navratri, villages Purnima, Navratri(Panchami & Saptami) (12) villages Thakur Navratri -do- -do--do- Kartic Purnima, Satgarh gram 1, 2, 3 Brahmin Brahmins Thakur Navratri caste T or village -do- -do- -do--do- Satgarh gram 1, 2, 3 -do- Holi Peripheral 1, 2, 3 The village community sabha sentativesof principal villages -do- -do- Navratri (shrdiya)(14) villages Navratri community ninag -do- natural site Pingalinag The repre- temple community Dhoulinag -do- -do- mata & Haru Devtavillage The 91.Devta Asur 92. -do- Betal Devta93. -do- Bud kasin94. -do- Latua95. -do- -do- Kasin96. As per the require- Manmahesh -do-97. -do- Satgarh Khandenathgram As per the require- -do-98. 1, 2, 3 -do- Bhagwati99. Satgarh gram -do-100. Navratri, Aswin Nouling Poor 1, 2, 3 The -do- Poor -do- Satgarh gram As per the require- 1, 2, 3Navratri, Aswin Satgarh gram103. 1, 2, Poor 3 bubu Ajenti -do- Satgarh gram104. Fe Poor 1, 2, 3 -do- Poor village Udiyari 1, 2, 3 Poor 101. Chandika 90. Churmul 102. 88. Jujarimal89. Alimal -do- -do- -do- -do- Chaitra -do- The peripheral 1, 2, 3, 7 Poor S. No.S. Sacred Management Dominant Festival Influence Restrictions Floral 105. Table 1: Contd...... Table TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 51 Well protected Well protected Well Degraded protected Well protected Well Partially degraded Partially degraded protected Well protected Well Partially degraded Partially degraded Dominant species # Status Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus Cedrus deodara Cedrus deodara, Quercus semecarpifolia, Q. leucotrichophora, Aesculus indica, Ficus semicordata, Myrica esculenta, Rhodo- arboreum dendron leucotrichophora, Quercus Myrica esculenta, Pinus roxburghii Myrica esculenta, Rhodo- Pinus arboreum, dendron roxburghii Aesculus indica, Ficus spp., semecarpifolia, Q. Quercus arboreum Rhododendron leucotrichophora Quercus indica, Ficus semicordata Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora, Quercus leucotrichophora, Aesculus indica, Myrica esculenta, ciliata, Mangifera Toona verage verage Rich Alnus nepalensis Prunus ceresoides, Rich Poor Poor aboo* diversity region, division villages (8) villages (8) peripheral villages (6) throughout extending to 30 odd villages Bhaisora 9the lower Almora and Ranikhet A region village Mahalchora Mugru and3 2, ALMORA & influence - Wide 3 Average Navratri, (Monday) Shiv-ratri Chaitra & Jageshwar Aswin), Dus-sehra and Shivratri villages (6) Aswin Navratri peripheral dasi), Chaitra ShivratriShivratri, Holi and Chaitra &Aswin Navratri the village Chaitra &Aswin Navratri Baisakhi and Dwarson - -do- Chaitra & Dol and the 3 Poor Brahmins caste T or Thakur Shivratri, Akhoriya and - A Thakur Navratri -do- -do--do- Navratri (both Dol and the -do- 3 Holi (Chatur The repre-of principal -do-villages Navratri, Astamicommunity influ- Wide 2, 3 Poor out the Gan- golihat sub- peripheral The repre- natural site Haru Sem -do-Jageshwar -do- -do- -do- -do- Sawan month Restricted to Ladholi and 8 2, 3 Poor poor Devi sentativesDevta ence through- Baanri DeviShyamaDevi peripheral community tribeDevata Aswin kaleswar community sentatives of influence, throughout Haru Devtavillage The S. No.S. Sacred Management Dominant Festival108. Influence109. Restrictions Floral 110. Vishnu 111. Gangnath112. -do- Brinda/ 113. Shivalaya114. -do- Shihyayi/ The village -do- Schedule115. Golu -do- The village Wide 2 106. Chamunda 116. Maha- 107. Table 1: Contd...... Table 52 CHANDRA SINGH NEGI Well protected Well protected Well protected Well Partially Partially degraded Partially degraded protected Well Protected Protected Protected Protected Quercus , Dominant species # Status Quercus leucotrichophora, Quercus Myrica esculenta, Rhodo- arboreum dendron semecarpifolia, Q. Quercus Alnus ovalifolia, Lyonia nepalensis arboreum, Rhododendron Myrica esculenta, Lyonia leucotri- ovalifolia, Quercus chophora, Q. semecarpifolia, Aesculus indica Cedrus deodara leucotrichophora, Aesculus indica, Myrica esculenta, arboreum, Rhododendron Cedrus deodara semecarpifolia, Q. Quercus leucotrichophora, Aesculus indica, Myrica esculenta, arboreum, Rhododendron Alnus ovalifolia, Lyonia nepalensis leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora, Quercus Q. glauca leucotrichophora, Quercus Q. glauca, Ficus glomerata, Prunus cerasoides robusta Shorea leucotrichophora Cedrus deodara, Pinus rox- Myrica esculenta, burghii, arboreum Rhododendron verage verage Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich 2 Poor aboo* diversity 1, 2 Poor villages Bhumka villages region Sabha Saharphatak 2 Rich influence- throughout village Kandavillage 1, CHAMPAWAT nd Makar 22 throughout the degraded year every 2 Chaitra and AswinNavratri Kandra Navratri, Shiv-influence Wide 2 Poor Chaitra &Aswin Navratri Thali and Khupeti, Nai, year Navratri and 2post harvesting Shivratri, Holi Gram Dunar Aswin Navratri 2 Chaitra andAswin Navratri (Astami); Sakranti, Maghapurnmasi Widedistrict the Aswin Navratri 1, 2, 8 (Astami)Aswin Navratri(Astami), MakarSankranti Bhimyala Bhimyala village 1, 2 village 1, 2 A A Brahmins Thakur Brahmins caste T or village -do- - Kanda the principalvillages Holi villages community wali and Maitoli, the principalvillages days Jagar is held Almora lower The village The village communitycommunity times a and community natural site Jwarnairi The repre- -do- Dhura Bunga Aeri Aeri sentatives of ratri, and Byandhura -BhagwatiAeri The Thakur Gangnath -do-Brahm Dev -do- -do- -do- -do- - 117. Aeri118. Anyar -do- The village119. Sidh Baba -do- -do- -do-120. Harela, Deepa- Chaitra & -do- Restricted to - -do-and Dol - village Nartoli 3 2, S. No.S. Sacred Management Dominant Festival Influence Restrictions Floral 121. San 122. Sidhnath 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. Table 1: Contd...... Table TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 53 Protected Protected Protected protected Well Partially degraded Degraded Degraded Protected Protected Well protected Well Well protected Well Well protected Well , Pyrus pashia ., Dominant species # Status Q. semecarpifolia, q. glauca, Symplocus chinensis, Lyonia ovalifolia, Cedrus deodara, Myrica esculenta, Pyrus pashia, Rhododendron arboreum Celtis australis, Osmanthus Sapium insigne Cedrus deodara Pinus roxburghii leucotrichophora, Quercus Quercus Pinus roxburghii, Cedrus deodara, Quercus Punica sp leucotrichophora, Quercus fragrans, Cedrus deodara, Ficus spp., Pinus roxburghii leucotrichophora, Ficus spp. leucotrichophora Celtis australis., Mangifera indica, Ficus semicordata Cedrus deodara Cedrus deodara Cedrus deodara, Quercus leucotrichophora Cedrus deodara verage verage verage Rich Poor Poor Poor Poor Rich Rich Poor aboo* diversity township throughout the district influence throughout the region- Gumdesh and the peripheral villages (6-7) villages (5) throughout the district Champawat 10 village township influence throughout the district Dhakana 8 6, 3, 2, in throughout of influence August the district of the villagers village tra & Aswintra & Restricted to 1 famous Bagwal Wide A sha bandhan the occasion ijya Dasmi and Wide 2, 3 Navratri Devidhura, Chaitra Navratri Shivratri Wide 1, 2 Thakur Chai -do-Brahmins -do- V Thakur The Kamlet Talla 2 -do- - Champawat 2 A caste T or village -do-Aswin Chaitra & Widevillage 1, 2 -do-village -do- Bola village 1, 2 community Navratri influence community Asoj Navratri influence villages the month of community ment principal Rak tatives of the on natural site Gorakhnath The Chomu Devta -do-Kadhai Devi -do- -do- Bhumiya Chaitra NavratriBhumiya The Wide -do- Fatakshila The -Devi Dhurarepresen- The Poor DevataDevata community and peripheral Bhagwati - -do- Ghatochkacha -do- Mosta -do- -do- - Phular 2 A Mallareshwar -do- -do- Kalsinvillage The -do- As per the require- 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 131. 130. 129. 128. 139. S. No.S. Sacred Management Dominant Festival Influence Restrictions Floral Table 1: Contd...... Table 54 CHANDRA SINGH NEGI Well protected Well Degraded Partially degraded Well protected Well protected Well protected Well Partially degraded Partially Partially degraded Partially degraded Partially Partially degraded Partially degraded Partially degraded Partially degraded Partially protected Well Dominant species # Status Cedrus deodara, Quercus leucotrichophora leucotrichophora Quercus leucotrichophora Quercus Quercus semecarpifolia, Q. Quercus leucotrichophora, Aesculus indica, Myrica esculenta, arboreum, Rhododendron ovalifolia Lyonia leucotrichophora Quercus torulosa Cupressus torulosa Cupressus torulosa Cupressus Ficus religiosa Ficus religiosa Ficus religiosa Ficus religiosa Ficus religiosa torulosa Cupressus leucotrichophora Quercus Cupres- Pinus roxburghii, Cupressus torulosa Cupressus verage Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor 2 Poor aboo* diversity l 1, 2 Poor village 1, 2 outi Ki 1, 2, 3 Dhakanavillage 8 6, 3, 2, peripheral villages (4) Dhakanavillage 3 2, throughout prayag district Mundolivillage 1, 2 village Singorivillage township 1, degraded village Anusuiavillage village 1, 2 village Beli vill-age Routi Ki 1, 2, 3 A degraded CHAMOLI DEHRADUN RUDRAPRAYAG the influence rich Raj Jaat Dewal 1, 2 Poor 1st Monday Bandhan Wide 1, 2, 3 Very of August akhi) in Jaat Nandkesari degraded cropping Nanda astamiAswin Navratri, and Desali -do- Navratri, Daat Jayanti -do- Bali just prior to Thakur Raksha Thakur Nounagi Wan caste T or Thakur Shivratri R of the Jas-holi GramSabha month the Rudra- sentativescommunity (Bais -do--do- Brahmins Thakur Nounagi-do- -do- Sutol Shivratri 1, 2 community asistesh- -do- -do- Shivratri, Srawan Lagansu2 1, Poor iundhar -do- natural site Devidhar -do-Bhagwati -do- -do- -do- Aswin Navratri, Kaligaon/ 2, 3 Poor templeHariyali Devi The repre- Krishna Janmasthami LatuDevta,Golu The village -do-Shiv parwati -do- -do- -do- Raj jat paraw Navratri, Nanda Deviand Dewal Iccholi 1, 2 1, 2 Poor Poor Bhumiyal -do-Iccholimandir -do- Raj village Renuka Devi -do- -do-Navratri Hariyali, Udalka 1, 2 Poor Shrangey -do- -do- Shivratri, Sankranti Rishi maha- dev Purna Devi -do- -do- Nanda Devi Anusuia Dhuyo Singh Bhagwati -do-Rishikesh -do- Navratri Kuno war maharajDevi Routi Ki Belivillage The month’s 141. 142. 143. 140. T 144. 146. 147. 145. 148. 149. 151. V 150. S. No.S. Sacred Management Dominant Festival Influence Restrictions Floral 152. 153. 154. 156. 155. Table 1: Contd...... Table TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 55 Well protected Well protected Well protected Well Partially degraded protected Well protected Well protected Well Dominant species # Status sus torulosa, Quercus leucotrichophora, Cedrus deodara, Myrica esculenta, Rhododendron leucotri- Quercus arboreum, chophora, Q. floribunda, semecarpifolia Cedrus deodara Cedrus deodara Cedrus deodara Quercus Pinus roxburghii, Pinus excelsa, Rhododendron Myrica esculenta, arboreum, Celtis australis Cedrus deodara Cedrus deodara, Pinus rox- leucotrichophora, Q. floribunda, Cedrus deodara, burghii, Ficus sp. burghii, verage Rich Poor Rich Rich Rich aboo* diversity influ- 2 Beli village influence throughout the Mussouri sub-division Bhatar anding villages 1, 2, 3, 11 within Lakha- mandal ghout the region, extending to the peripheral 65 odd villages region Purola sub- divsion Barkot sub- division village UTTARKASHI Asad Purnima influ- Wide 1, 2, 3 A Shivratri Wide Deolang festivalSrawan and Bhadon ghout the Moulda 1, 2, 3, 8 Navratri Thakur Brahmins -do- Brahmins caste T or represen- The village -do- -do--do- Navratri (Bhadon)village Pora -do- 2 Srawan and during Poor influ- Wide 1, 2, 3, 11 community the adjoin- tatives of each caste of the principal villages natural site Thatyur -do- -do- Navratri (Bhadon)Danda Ka Wide -do- 1, 2, 3 Mahasu Kamlesh- -do-Madhkesh- -do- Bhadrakali The Deoranawar Maha-devwar ence throu- the celebration of ence throu- ence throughout the Table 1: Contd...... Table 157. 158. Maanthaat 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. S. No.S. Sacred Management Dominant Festival Influence Restrictions Floral 56 CHANDRA SINGH NEGI atus Well protected Well Well protected Well protected Well protected Well Partially degraded ) is strictly protected, and etely banned to enter the sacred ban on the exploitation of resources or sex) to enter into the forest, except unting of the wild fauna is completely months prohibitory period extended to a Celtis australis rsity. arvested lot to the resident deity, principally arvested lot to the resident deity, Dominant species # St or , is completely prohibited, (13) hunting of the Quercus leucotrichophora, Q. Quercus floribunda, Q. semecarpifolia, arboreum Rhododendron leucotrichophora, Q. Quercus Myrica esculenta arboreum, Cedrus deodara, Quercus leucotrichophora, Q. floribunda, Q. semecarpifolia, Myrica esculenta Mangifera indica, Ficus Ficus benghalensis, F. Mangifera indica religiosa, floribunda, Rhododendron religiosa Jomos Betula utilis and Rich Rich Rich Jhuppu aboo* diversity ide influ- 1, 2, 3 region ding to the township of Pauri and Srinagar ence throughout the Lansdowne sub-division villages Bajasi GramSabha 2 Poor PAURI GARHWAL PAURI TEHRI GARHWAL year ence throu- rd November, influ- Wide 1, 2, 3 th Chaitra and AsojChaitra and influ- Wide 1, 2 caste T or Thakur Shivratri W Brahmins village (Himalayan marmot) is completely banned. community Navratri ence, exten- -do- Thakur 26 Fiya the land god, or protector of crops. Lower castes are strictly not allowed to enter the sacrosanct zone, (2) Menstruating ladies as well those pregnant compl arkeshwar -do-

natural site Mukhim 3 every Naag ghout the Dhontiyal -do-Ladhu -do- -do- Makar Sankranti -do- Andargaon -do- 2 Poor DevtaKedar and Shivratri and Sidpur Ulkhagarhi The forest, (3) 7 days prohibitory period to enter the sacred forest after one has inadvertently taken tabooed eatables, (4) 3 (5) Construction work around the sacred forest is completely banned, (6) H family or a clan, when death occurs in the family, (8) Complete Friday and Saturday, prohibited, (7) No sacrifice to the resident deity is allowed on following days-Tuesday, from the forest, (9) Defilement of sacred water source is strictly prohibited, (10) Sacred tree species (viz., Complete ban is extended to each member of the village (irrespective caste complete ban is extended to its fodder use, (11) and its hybrids- Yak once during the celebration of festival, (12) Grazing, apart from sacred Bhumiyal- totem species- (1) Figures within parenthesis represents the results of phytosociology carried out at these sites to ascertain floral dive * ## the first culms of h The villagers offer Nounagi is celebrated at the start of each harvesting season (both Kharif and Rabi). # 166. T 167. 168. 165. 164. Sem S. No.S. Sacred Management Dominant Festival Influence Restrictions Floral Table 1: Contd...... Table TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 57

Sacred groves and forests, together repre- 9% 2% 12% Preservation of culture sented 89 per cent of the total sacred natural sites 20% (N= 168) covered (Fig. 2). Since the study was Vegetation cover is important confined with the preliminary survey of the SNS, Source of water a simple questionnaire was prepared to elicit the presence of the SNS, as well as of the taboos, Fear of the wrath of 34% the resident deity surrounding the same. Surprisingly, the aware- 23% Abode of the local ness regarding the presence of sacred natural gods/goddesses sites in the vicinity or at a distance of the village, Other significantly was lower (Fig. 3). However, the 50 Fig. 5. Response to the question-What exactly is the per cent of the lot, who knew the existence of the role played by the sacred natural site? (N=1262) SNS, were also acquainted with the taboo system surrounding the sacred sites (70 per cent, Fig. 4)! One of the major causes of concern- the deg- However, what is more significant, as regards the radation the SNS, remains the dilution of the sustainability or the viability of the institution, is traditional norms, or the taboo systems surround- the fact that a significant percentage of the stake- ing the resource utilization from the sacred for- holders were aware of the environmental or eco- ests. Fortunately, the adherence to the age-old logical role played by the sacred forests-viz., the systems of taboos and norms surrounding the vegetation cover is important (expressed by 34 SNS remains vital in the view of an overwhelm- per cent of those interviewed), or that the forest ing percentage of stakeholders (77 per cent, Fig. cover represents the source of water (23 per 6). Also, a significant percentage of the stake- cent). The above findings have important conse- holders (29 per cent) strongly hold forth the quences for any developmental programmes, belief that respect for the sacred sites is strong surrounding villages located in the precincts of and is does practiced. It is only insignificant lot (3 these forests (Fig. 5), for the singular reason that per cent, principally represented by the youths), this practical aspect of the existence and thus the who do not adhere to the belief systems, sur- benefits accrued from the sacred forests, and as rounding the sacred sites (Fig. 7). This strong perceived by the stakeholders, needs to be taken belief in the taboo systems needs to be translated cognizance of by the policy makers, too. into practical conservation efforts, and thus pre- sents a challenge to the policy makers or conser- 30% vationists. The traditional knowledge-based systems in practice in the landscape have been dealt with as per Smith and Wishnie (2000), and thus 51% have been discussed as under;

Yes 19% 17% No 6% Don’t Know Yes Fig. 3. Response to the question- Whether there are No any sacred natural sites within or in close vicinity of thee village? (N= 1262) 77% Does not matter Fig. 6. Response to the question-Whether it is 22% reasonable to adhere to or respect the sacred natural site? (N= 1262)

Yes 3% 29% Some do, some No don’t Everyone respects 8% Don’t Know Nobody respects 70% 68% Fig. 4. Response to the question-Whether there are any norms or taboos in practice surrounding the Fig. 7. Response to the question-Whether people sacred natural sites? (N= 1262) respect the sacred natural site? (N= 1262) 58 CHANDRA SINGH NEGI

(i) Harvesting Restraint (iii) Regulating Onset or Duration of Harvests The type of resource utilization that most clearly meets the conservation design criterion is Controls governing the timings of resource harvesting restraint that raises short-term pro- harvest, as well as, who has the right to partici- duction cost, in contrast to the harvesting of the pate is widespread in small-scale societies. One wild in an unsustainable manner (which undoubt- prime example of the practice includes the Nanda edly minimizes the time and space constraints) Astami (celebrated in the praise of the local and thus minimizes the effort put in, but eventu- goddess-Nanda Devi, the highest peak in West- ally raises the long term costs, i.e., the future ern Himalaya) and associated with the harvesting availability of the resource. Examples from the of the sacred flower of Brahmkamal (Saussurea landscape include the following-one comes across obvallata), invariably carried out towards the fag a number of sacred pastures and landscapes, end of August or early half of September. The principally in the Vyas valley, wherein grazing celebration of the festival brings forth the salient pressure is regulated through means of taboos, aspect of ethics of conservation inherent in the viz., in Hya-Roshe bugyal (bugyal-alpine mead- cultural ethos. On the festival day, only two souls ows/pastures) near the village Napalchhu, and (out of the hundreds of the Johaaris gathered Putuk-tu bugyal near the village Kuti, wherein together in the village Martoli, Johaar valley), are only sacred Yak (Bos mutus grunniens) and its delegated to collect the Brahmkamal, from Salang local hybrid Jhuppu and Jomos, are allowed to Gwar (sacred alpine pasture, where the species graze. Such is the fear factor that no shepherd abounds). These two souls, after taking the ritu- dares to make use of these pastures! Similarly, alistic bath, walking bare feet and dressed in all- the inhabitants of the Vyas valley religiously white, and carrying with them the seasonally guard against killing of Fiya (Himalayan mar- available cucumber (to propitiate the goddess), mot- Marmot bobak Muller), which is regarded upon reaching the meadow, offer due prayers to as a totem. the resident deity, after which the collection begins. Only fully opened and mature brahmkamal (ii) Protection or Propagation of Resource are selected for the offering. Nanda Astami brings Species out the inherent message of conservation by the traditional people- (i) It is celebrated only after Another form of conservation involves prac- the flowering and the shedding of the seeds by the tices designed to protect or propagate the re- species has taken place, and hence, collection of source species. Examples include the institution the same do the least damage, as concerns the of Kathburiya Devi and Nabu samo- (a) regeneration; (ii) the restriction imposed on the Kathburiya Devi-after traversing a tough climb, number of harvesters, is an effective means to atop the ridges are sacred heaps or piles referred restricts the size of the pool harvested. to as Kathburiya or wayside goddess. The locals pay homage to Kathburiya Devi usually by plac- (iv) Avoidance of the Harmful Habitat ing a small piece of branch- preferably of deodar Modification or the cones of the same, and very often a fruiting branch of the native vegetation, referred to as Some types of habitats are more sensitive to Chiyunli, as a thanks giving for the successful the effects of modification than others, and hence climb to that point; (b) Nabu samo-‘Nabu’ stands avoidance or mitigation of such habitat change for insects and ‘Samo’ means to destroy, i.e., the can be a form of conservation. For example, the festival symbolizes the victory over the harmful taboo exercised on the collection of Aalam Sammo (crop destroying) insects. Each and every mem- (described subsequently) from the sacred for- ber of the village collectively gathers insects (in ests; the restricted grazing, allowing only the a cloth) from their fields; the collections then are milch cows, or the sacred yaks to graze in some tied to the horns of a goat, which is then sacri- of the sacred pastures (Hya-roshe and Putuk-tu ficed. Kathburiya and Nabu samo thus, repre- bugyals) in the Vyas valley; the regulated means sents an effective means of (i) regeneration of of cyclical grazing practice, as prevalent in Chipla flora at the hilltop, and (ii) an effective way of Kedar and Ralam valley, suffice to bring forth the getting rid of harmful insects, respectively. conservation practices, inherent in the customary TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 59 lifestyle of the inhabitants. However, for the 4. The most conspicuous taboo relates to present, the taboo system surrounding the sacred segment taboo, which restricts the pregnant natural sites (sacred forests/groves, pastures and and menstruating ladies, as well as the lower water bodies) will be described here. castes from entering into these sacred forests. Sacred Natural Sites and the Taboo System 5. Where the sacred forest remains the only source of water, more stringent is the taboo The sacred natural sites (SNS), are distributed system in practice. through out the State of Uttarakhand (Table 1), the prime examples of sacred forests are offered (v) Patch-switching to Maximize Overall within the Askote Conservation Landscape Return Rates (ACL), being Bombasing (above the village Tedang) and Bhujani (above the village Martoli), The pastoralists often move their herds to where the same are referred to as Se-Rong (Se- better grazing areas before the current area is god, Rong-forest). The villagers would not dare completely depleted, since the likelihood of ob- to enter these forests for the fear of angering the taining higher foraging returns elsewhere, seem resident deity, or defy the norms to procure dead more economical (Polunin 1984; Winterhalder wood, fodder grasses or any produce from the 1981). This foraging strategy (Smith 1983), prac- forest, except on the singular occasion of annual ticed throughout the Askote Conservation Land- festivals! One could easily envision the impor- scape (ACL, an enlarged version of Askote Wild- tant role played by these sacred forests in the life Sanctuary, incorporating parts of adjoining protection of the village, situated down below, Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, too), involves from the impending avalanches during the winter the regulation of the livestock grazing pressure, months, or sliding mountain debris throughout wherein the precise movement of the anwals (the the year, or as the only source of water. It is only shepherds), accompanied by their livestock popu- during the festival of Aalam Sammo that the lation is strictly monitored, and duly excised by villagers venture into these restricted forests, to one of the villagers, who is delegated not just to procure Aalam-an upright/straight stem of the ascertain the precise size of the livestock, but also Bhojpatra (Betula utilis), used as sacred pole to ascertain that the duration of grazing in one staff. locality (the alpine pasture) is not extended be- Characteristic Features of the Sacred Forests yond the permissible duration of stay.

Some of the characteristic features associated (vi) Dedication of Forests to a Deity with the sacred forests in the landscape, with minor variants, are the following; The practice of dedicating forests to a deity is 1. Are mostly the Panchayat or civil soyam a very recent phenomenon (Gokhale et al. 1998), forests. invariably born out of the need to impede the fast 2. Usually dominated either by Banj (Quercus dilution of the traditional taboo system govern- leucotrichophora, or Q. semecarpifolia), ing the resource utilization, and thus, to reinforce Raga (Cupressus torulosa), Deodar (Cedrus or strengthen the same. The deity in invariably all deodara), Bhoj patra (Betula utilis), or by the villages remain the much feared goddess- Ratpa (Rhododendron campanulatum) or at Kotgyari, and the period for which the forests are greater altitudes, by bil (Juniperus dedicated varies from a minimum of 5 to 20 communis, J. indica), which in turn are years. It is an effective example of an indigenous treated as sacred species. conservation practice, utilized by local commu- 3. Lopping, felling of trees is strictly prohibited; nities to stop excessive exploitation of commu- however regulated resource use, viz., nity forests and thus to regenerate the same to the collection of the dead wood or twigs, or extent, wherein a sustainable means of exploita- fodder grasses, may at times be allowed. In tion of fodder could be put into effect. Strict rare cases, no resource use is permitted, adherence to the norms surrounding the dedi- except for the purposes of the resident deity cated forests is adhered to, principally out of the of the forest, during specific occasions of inborn fear of the wrath of the presiding deity. festivals surrounding the deity. Invariably, the communities do not tend to dedi- 60 CHANDRA SINGH NEGI cate the complete forest, but rather retain a small Jaat, or Nanda Devi, all bring forth, not just the patch. There are specified norms governing the significance of ethno-sociological concepts vis- use or the extent of the use, to be permitted in the a-vis environmental management, but impor- sanctified area, which are priorly ‘defined to the tantly, the scope of their practical application. deity’ at the time of the dedication, and enumer- The institution of sacred groves/forests, pastures ated in the paper (a sort of socio-religious legal or even sacred water bodies, along with the strict document). At times of dire need, the comm- norms and taboos that relates to resource utiliza- unity decides to open up the forest, allowing tion, invariably relates to the sustainable re- restricted collection of the litter mass and even of source management concepts practiced by the fodder. traditional people; where very often the resource utilization never exceeds the regeneration poten- DISCUSSION tial of the sacred natural sites. Ecological life support systems were pre- Social taboos surrounding sacred natural sites served because sustainable forms of land use represent good examples of informal institutions were very often governed by religious beliefs and (Charnov 1976). Such institutions are based on customary rules that made it sustainable. cultural norms that do not depend on government Biodiversity was maintained as a result of the low for either promulgation or enforcement (North pressure exercised over natural system, viz., pas- 1994). Informal institutions, such as taboos, have tures and by the imposition of religious taboos or largely been neglected in conservation designs in through the existence of sacred groves and for- biodiversity rich, developing countries (Posner ests (Basu 2000; Chandran and Hughes 2000; and Rasmusen 1999; Alcorn 1995), where park Sinha 1995). This aspect of conservation is protection has been the major approach for pro- brought forth in table 1, where the sacred pas- tecting biodiversity (Robbins 1998; McNeely tures encompass within, relatively greater spe- 1993). Since most of the world’s biodiversity cies richness, than the surrounding landscape. exist outside of protected areas (Gadgil 1998), Typical examples of change, coupled with main- informal institutions may play an active role in tenance of sustainability in traditional manage- nature conservation. On a general level, anthro- pologists have ascribed various social functions ment practices, have been demonstrated in sa- to taboos- taboos function to distinguish between cred groves (Fargey 1991; Dorm et al. 1991; sacred and profane entities in a culture (Murphree Ntiamoa-Baidu 1995; Ntiamoa-Baidu et al. 1992; 1994); taboos relate to animist and magical belief Gyasi 1996; Hagan 1997). The breakdown of systems (Durkheim 1915); taboos serve psycho- beliefs that protect these areas has been attrib- logical ends (Frazer 1922); and finally, taboos uted to western type education and religion, to serve ecological adaptations (Harris 1971, 1979; the immigration of people, who may have no Rappaport 1968). Infact, it may be difficult to respect for local traditions, and to a lack of distinguish among ecological, social, or religious modern legislation to reinforce traditional rules origins and functions of taboos. (Fargey 1991; Ntiamoa-Baidu 1995; Falconer In fact, a great deal of social mechanisms, 1992). Falconer (1992) has observed that, as a such as social taboos, may be highly adaptive result of the uneven impact of these factors, from an ecological perspective and which con- ‘sacredness’, the prominence and protection of tributes to biodiversity conservation (Colding sacred groves varies considerably between and and Folke 1997). Taboo often applies to certain within communities. Many groves have been sets of natural resources, which are particularly encroached upon because the fear which used to vulnerable to overexploitation; and among local be associated with them, no longer operates. resource users, the imposition of temporal taboos (defining restriction of resource use in time and CONCLUSION space), regulates access to resource/s on either a sporadic, daily, weekly, or monthly basis (Colding Cultural and biological diversity are intimately and Folke 2001), as is conspicuous, principally and inextricably linked (McNeely 2003). Tradi- in sacred forests. The institution of Nabu samo, tional knowledge systems are important for mod- the strong sense of faith and reverence for the ern societies, not only because traditional knowl- local deities, whether its Syang Se during Chipla edge itself is a valuable aspect of cultural heri- TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 61 tage and should be protected in its own right, but Colding J, Folke C 2001. Social taboos: ‘Invisible’ systems of local resource management and biological also because it is of great value in modern devel- conservation. Ecological Applications, 11(2): 584- opment, especially regarding sustainable use of 600. forests, ecosystem management and poverty re- Colding J, Folke C 1997. The relations among threatened species, their protection, and taboos. Conservation duction. Certain guidelines should be put in place Ecology, 1: 1- 6. to safeguard the sacred areas and promote the Decher J 1997. Conservation, small mammals, and the traditional knowledge of conservation, namely: future of sacred groves in West Africa. Biodiversity the revitalization and enforcement of traditional and Conservation, 6: 1007-1026. Dorm Adzorbu C, Ampadu-Agyei O, Veit PG 1991. education; the delineation of boundaries; the Religious Beliefs and Environmental Protection: The improvement of relevant knowledge and their Malshegu Sacred Grove in Northern Ghana. official recognition through a legal status (Decher Washington, DC, USA: WRI and Kenya: Acts Press, Africa Centre for Technology Studies. 1997; Dorm-Adzobu and Ampadu-Agyei 1995; Dorm-Adzobu C, Ampadu-Agyei O 1995. The Malshegu Lebbie and Guries 1995; McWilliam 2001; sacred grove, Ghana. In: A Sigot, LA Thrupp, J Green Swamy 2003). (Eds.), Towards Common Ground: Gender and Natural Resource Management in Africa. Nairobi: ACTS Press, pp. 49-64. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Duming AT 1992. Guardians of the Earth: Indigenous Peoples and the Health of the Earth. Worldwatch Paper No. 112. Washington, DC.: Worldwatch Inst. The author gratefully acknowledges the fi- Durkheim E 1915. The Elementary Forms of the Religious nancial help received from the Director, Life, London, UK: Allen and Unwin, 1915 (Translated Uttarakhand State Council for Science and Tech- from E. Durkheim. 1912. Les formes elementaires de la vie religeuse: le systemes totemi-que en nology, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, Australia. New York, USA: Free Press. and the Director, G B Pant Institute of Himalayan Falconer J 1992. Non-timber Forest Products in Ghana, Environment and Development, Kosi-Katarmal, Main Report, ODA. Fargey PJ 1991. Assessment of the Conservation Status of Almora. The study however, would not have the Buabeng Fiema Monkey Sanctuary. Report been possible without the help of the village submitted to the Flora and Fuana Preservation Society. residents-the ultimate custodians of the Frazer JG 1922. The Golden Bough. Bungay: Chaucer Press. biodiversity. Gadgil M 1998. Conservation: Where are the people? Hindu Survey of the Environment, pp. 107-137. REFERENCES Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio, 22: 151-156. Gokhale Y, Velankar R, Chandran MDS, Gadgil M 1998. Abayie Boateng A 1998. Traditional conservation practices: Sacred Woods, Grasslands and Waterbodies as Self- Ghana’s example. Institute of African Studies organized Systems of Conservation. In: PS Research Review, 14(1): 42-51. Ramakrishnan, KG Saxena, UM Chandrashekhara Alcorn JB 1995. Economic botany, conservation, and (Eds.): Conserving the Sacred for Biodiversity development: what’s the connection? Annals of the Management. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Missouri Botanical Garden, 82: 34-46. Co. Pvt. Ltd., pp. 365-395. Alcorn JB 1996. Is biodiversity conserved by indigenous Gyasi EA 1996. Gyamfiase, Ghana: A study in threat and peoples? In: SK Jain (Ed.): Ethnobiology in Human counteracting threat to indigenous forest groves and Welfare. New Delhi: Deep Publications, pp. 234-238. sustainable forest management systems. Paper Alvard MS 1998. Evolutionary ecology and resource presented at Workshop on Contested Terrain: West conservation. Evol Anthropol, 7: 62-74. African Forestry Relations, Landscapes and Basu R 2000. Studies on sacred groves and taboos in Processes, 12-13 April, 1996, Centre of West African Purulia District of West Bengal. Indian Forester, 126: Studies, University of Birmingham, Egbaston. 1309-1318. Hagan GP 1998. Traditional laws and methods of Berkes F 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. In: Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia: DS Amlalo, LD Atsiatorme, C Fiati (Eds): Francis & Taylor. Proceedings of the Third UNESCO MAB Regional Bodley JH 1996. Anthropology and Contemporary Human Seminar on Biodiversity Conservation and Problems, Mountain View. CA: Mayfield Publi- Sustainable Development in Anglophone Africa cations. (BRAAF), Cape Coast, 9-12th March 1997. Accra, Callicott JB 1994. Earth’s Insights: A Multicultural Survey Egypt. of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin Harris M 1979. Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a to the Australian Out-back. Berkeley: University of Science of Culture. New York, USA: Random House. California Press. Harris M 1971. Culture, Man and Nature: An Introduction Chandran MDS, Hughes JD 2000. Sacred groves and to General Anthropology. New York, USA: Thomas conservation: The comparative history of traditional Y Crowell. reserves in the Mediterranean and in South India. Joshi PC 1992. Afforestation, development and religion: A Environment and History, 6: 169-186. case from the Himalayas. In: Himalaya: Environment, Charnov EL 1976. Optimal foraging, the marginal value Economy and People, New Delhi, R.K. Publications, theorem. Theoret Popul Biol, 9: 129-136. pp. 453-465. 62 CHANDRA SINGH NEGI

Kumbhojkar MS, Kulkarni DK 1998. Environmental impacts Report prepared for the World Bank and the of sacred groves in Western Ghats of Maharastra. Science Environmental Protection Council, New York. and Culture, 64: 205-207. Polunin NVC 1984. Do traditional marine “reserves” Lebbie AR, Guries RP 1995. Ethno botanical value and conserve? A view of Indonesian and New Guinean conservation of sacred groves of the Kpaa Mende in evidence. Senri Ethnol Stud, 17: 267-283. Sierra Leone. Economic Botany, 49: 297-308. Posey DA 1992. Interpreting and applying the “reality” of Malhotra KC, Mark P 1989. Forest Regeneration through indigenous concepts: What is necessary to learn from Community Protection. Forest Department, West the natives? In: KH Redford, C Padoch (Eds:): Bengal. Conservation in Neotropical Forests: Working from Malinowski B 1922. Agronauts of the Western Pacific: Traditional Resource Use. New York: Columbia An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in University Press, pp. 21-34. the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. Posner RA, Rasmusen EB 1999. Creating and enforcing London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul. norms, with special reference to sanctions. Inter Rev Martinez D 1996. First people, firsthand knowledge. Sierra, Law and Economics, 19: 369-382. 81(6): 50-51. Rappaport RA 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the McNeely JA 2003. Biological and cultural diversity: The Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven, double helix of sustainable development. In: Connecticut, USA: Yale University Press. Biodiversity & Health: Focusing Research to Policy. Robbins P 1998. Nomadization in Rajasthan, India: Proceedings of the International Symposium, Ottawa, Migration, institutions, and economy. Human Canada, pp. 3–9. Ecology, 26: 87-112. McNeely JA 1993. Economic incentives for conserving Ruttan LM, Borgerhoff MM 1999. Are East African biodiversity: Lessons for Africa. Ambio, 22 (2-3): 144- pastoralists truly conservationists? Current Anthropol, 150. 40: 621-652. McWilliam A 2001. Prospects for the sacred grove: Valuing Sinclair FL, Walker DH 1999. A utilitarian approach to lulic forests on Timor. The Asia Pacific Journal of the incorporation of local knowledge in agroforestry Anthropology, 2: 89-113. research and extension. In: LE Buck, JP Lassoie, ECM Murphree MW 1994. The role of institutions in community- Fernandes (Eds.): Agroforestry in Sustainable based conservation. In: D Western, RM Wright, SC Agricultural Systems. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Strum (Eds:): Natural Connections: Perspectives in Press LLC, pp. 245–275. Community-based Conservation, Island Press, Sinha RK 1995. Ecosystem preservation through faith and Washington D.C. and Covelo, California, pp. 403- tradition in India. J Human Ecology, 2(1): 21-24. 427. Smith EA, Wishnie M 2000. Conservation and subsistence Nabhan GP 1997. Cultures of Habitat, Counterpoint, in small-scale societies. Annual Review of Washington, DC. Anthropology, 29: 493-524. Negi CS 2003. Role of traditional knowledge and beliefs Smith EA 1983. Anthropological applications of optimal in conservation- Case studies from Central Himalaya, foraging theory: A critical review. Curr Anthropol, India. Man in India, 83 (3-4): 371-391. 24: 625-651. Smith EA 1995. Comment on Alvard. Curr Anthropol, Negi CS 2005. Religion and biodiversity conservation: Not 36: 810-811. a mere analogy. Inter Jr of Biodiversity Science and Swamy PS, Kumar M, Sundarapandian SM 2003. Management, 1(2): 85-96. Spirituality and Ecology of Sacred Groves in Tamil Negi CS, Maikhuri RK, Rao KS, Nautiyal S 2001. Nanda Nadu, India. Unasylva, 54: 53-58. Raj Jaat- Mahakumbha of Uttaranchal: A Socio- Vecsey C 1980. American Indian environmental religions. ecological and religious perspectives. Man in India, In: CT Vecsey, RW Venables (Eds:): American Indian 82 (3-4): 341-357. Environments: Ecological Issues in Native American Nelson RK 1982. A conservation ethic and environment: History. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, pp. 1- The Koyukon of Alaska. In: NM Williams, ES Hunn 37. (Eds.): Resource Managers: North American and Vidyarthi LP 1963. The Maler: A Study in Nature-Man-Spirit Australian Hunter-Gatherers. Boulder, CO: Complex. Calcutta: Book Land. Westview, pp. 211-228. Walker DH, Sinclair FL, Joshi L, Ambrose B 1997. Pros- North DC 1994. Economic performance through time. pects for the use of corporate knowledge bases in the American Economic Review, 84(3): 359-368. generation, management and communication of Ntiamoa-Baidu Y 1995. Indigenous vs. Introduced knowledge at a front-line agricultural research centre. Biodiversity Conservation Strategies: The Case of Agricultural Systems, 54(3): 291-312. Protected Area Systems in Ghana, African Biodiver- Winterhalder BP 1981. Foraging strategies in the boreal sity Series Number 1, May 1995, Washington, DC: environment: An analysis of Cree hunting and Biodiversity Support Program. gathering. In: BP Winterhalder, E Smith (Eds.): Ntiamoa-Baidu Y, Gyamfi-Fenteng LJ, Abbiw D 1992. Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies, Chicago: Management strategy for Sacred Groves in Ghana. University of Chicago Press, pp. 66-98.