Inside the garden

With the closure of the park in 1982 and the banning of human activity within it, most of the tribalswho had earned their livelihood by rearing goats and sheep and by collecting medicinal herbs from the forests, suddenly found themselves penniless. Many were forced to sell their livestock as it was uneconomical for them to take the herds to other pastures 100 km away and also pay taxes to local villagers so that their animals could graze.For many, the ban spelt the starkest destitution. Alternative sources of income also dried up, since the closure of the park also meant that mountaineering expeditions to destinations like Nanda Devi, Trishul, Changbang, Kalnka and Bronagriri peaks also stopped and with them the demand for high altitude porters from these villages also ended. Before the ban came into effect, the local communities were promised a safety net. The forest department agreed to provide them with employment and educational opportunities. But the experience of these last 16 years have proved that the authorities, besides being arrogant and insensitive, also suffer from notoriously shortmemories.

A recent report on the socio-economic and ecological consequences of the ban on adventure tourism in the region highlighted several very interesting aspects. What came through very eloquently in the report was the decline in the population of the local villages although there was a qualitative and quantitative improvement in the forests and wildlife present. The study, conducted between 1994 to 1997, revealed that while the population declined by 15 per cent between 1981-91, there was a further dip of 13 per cent between 1991 and 1996. What’s more, 55 per cent of the Bhotiya community had to adopt new ways to make a living and took to agriculture or trade in woollen garments to survive.

Interestingly, the study suggested the promotion of eco-tourism in the buffer zones of the reserve and the setting up of employment-generating schemes in the area to help ease the problems of the people. It also recommended that the forest department be better equipped to deal with the task of protecting thelocal ecology and maintaining the biodiversity in this biosphere.

But has the ban on human activity within this reserve really been effective? That is the big question that the report did not really answer. According to the local people, it has not. In fact they claim that when they entered the protected area, they were shocked to see the dismal state of the forests that forest officials claim to have been “maintaining” for the past 16 years. To their dismay, they found the feathers of rare birds, like the Himalayan pheasant and quail, and the cooked remains of some animals.

Says Vijay Dhasmana, a people’s rights activist working in the region, “These animal remains point to the scant respect that forest guards show to nature and the preservation of wildlife.” Incidentally, the tribals themselves always used to enter these regions on barefoot, since they have traditionally considered the Nanda Devi park area as sacred territory.

The villagers also found that the medicinal herb base, which they hadbeen harvesting in a sustainable manner over the centuries, had also been recklessly plundered. Moreover, since grazing had come to a halt in these parts, the weeds which were earlier kept under control by the animals had now overgrown the region and destroyed the herbs. The Valley of Flowers is an excellent example of the tragedy that has visited the region. Declared a protected area, it has now turned into the “valley of weeds”, since grazing has been banned there.

Says Anil Joshi, convenor of the Himalayan Environmental Studies and Conservation Organisation, who has been working with Bhotiya tribals for several years, “It is absurd to talk about forest and wildlife protection, without looking into the problems of the local communities who had depended fully on the forests for their survival. You cannot protect this environment without the active involvement of the people.”

It is a viewpoint that Avadesh Kaushal couldn’t agree with more. He is the chairman of the Rural Litigation and EntitlementKendra, an NGO that has been waging a relentless battle against the eviction of Van Gujjars from the Rajaji National Park. “Forest and wildlife laws are grossly unjust and in their present form violate the spirit of the forest policy resolution, besides curtailing the rights of the tribals and other forest communities,” says Kaushal. He charged the authorities of rendering the very concept of people’s participation into mere rhetoric, since an overzealous forest bureaucracy continues to oppress the forest dweller.

According to him, despite assurances given by the former Union environment minister and the present members of the parliamentary standing committee on environment to amend the forest act to facilitate the greater involvement of local communities in the protection and management of forest and wildlife, nothing has been done as yet.

So what do forest officials have to say in their defence? They find themselves in a piquant situation given the fact that they have no resources. According to them,the negligible funds allocated by the Centre for the rehabilitation of forest dwellers are certainly not sufficient to enable them to carry out the task properly. The ministry of environment and forests had demanded from the Planning Commission a sum of Rs 50 crore for the resettlement and Rs 180 crore for the relocation of villagers from various parks and sanctuaries in the country, but only a meagre amount of Rs 12 crore was sanctioned.

But environmentalists point out that more than funds, it is the attitude of the authorities that must change. They argue that instead of spending huge amounts on resettling forest dwellers, it would make more sense if they were to be trained properly and made to get involved in forest protection. After all, policing such extensive areas is impossible without the active support of the very people who have a personal stake in the survival of these fragile forests.