Ethnobotany of India

THE SACRED NATURAL SITES, THE SOCIAL TABOO SYSTEM AND THE SCOPE OF DEVELOPING SOME OF THE SITES AS BIODIVERSITY HERITAGE SITES, UTTARAKHAND, CENTRAL HIMALAYA

Department of Zoology, Government Postgraduate College, Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand – 262502, India, E-mail: csnsacred1@gmail.com

Abstract

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Methodology

11.3 Results and Discussion

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. Social taboos exist in invariably in all cultures throughout the world, and represent a class of informal institutions, where traditional, religiously governed norms or taboo system define the human behavior. These taboos remain the prime factor guiding their conduct towards the exploitation of the natural resources. Even though, dilution in norms and taboos restricting the resource use, has undoubtedly has 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 detailed study, for their floral and faunal diversity.

The provision of declaring Biodiversity Heritage Sites (BHS) in the National Biodiversity Act 2002 provides an opportunity to give recognition to the community initiatives vis-a-vis the institution of the sacred natural sites (SNS). As per the guidelines framed by the National Biodiversity Authority of India (NBAI), Chennai, India, for the selection of the sacred natural sites as BHS, and for the constitution of Biodiversity Management Committee (BMC) to manage the BHS, 13 sacred forests across eight hill districts of Uttarakhand were selected. The present paper in brief, attempts to bring forth the salient features of the sacred sites as relates to the precise status of the taboo system or the traditional norms governing the resource utilization, surrounding the sacred natural sites, principally the sacred forests, in the state of Uttarakhand, Central Himalaya.

11.1 INTRODUCTION

Even though, much progress has been made in exchanges; however, awareness of the inter-relationship between culture and environment is still in its infancy. Yet cultures shape the environment. They determine the individuals and community use (and abuse) we make of the natural resources. They determine, who will manage those resources and how. Concomitantly, cultures are in turn shaped by the environment. Sustainable natural resource management is driven by the beliefs and behavior of the human communities, and local cultures are strengthened by their intimate connections to the natural environment, which sustains them. Our modern world is often poorer for the scientific rationalism, which treats objective and sacred knowledge as separate entities. In contrast, the traditional cultures do not make such distinctions, where very often, ritual and religion are intrinsically bound with the daily chores of living (Vidyarthi, 1963; Malhotra and Mark, 1989; Sinha, 1995; Kumbhojkar and Kulkarni, 1998; Negi, 2003, 2005). In fact, in the Himalayan context, the association of religion with eco-system management is interwoven in the symbolic network of the Himalayan communities (Joshi, 1992; Negi et al., 2001).

In simple terms, ecology in the Himalayas is synonymous with the religion practiced. Sanctioning mechanisms are also religious in tradition- bound societies and deviation from established practices might be locally interpreted as the arousal of supernatural anger, and thus it becomes pertinent to take note of the fact that attempts to disregard religious factors in programs of change may be thwarted by the people, since religion gives meaning to various actions they carry out (Joshi, 1992). However, these traditional knowledge-based systems (TKBS) in practice could qualify as being of conservation value, if these practices satisfy two basic criteSria: It should (a) prevent or mitigate resource depletion, species extirpation, or habitat degradation, and (b) be designed to do so (Smith, 1995; Alvard, 1998; Ruttan, 1998; Ruttan and Borgerhoff, 1999; Smith and Wishnie, 2000). With these two facts in view, the present paper attempts to bring forth the salient features of the traditional knowledge-based systems, surrounding the sacred natural sites (henceforth SNS), inclusive of the sacred groves/forests within the State of Uttarakhand, Central Himalaya.

11.1.1 THE SOCIAL TABOO SYSTEM THAT DEFINES THE SACRED NATURAL SITES

The term ‘Taboo’ is derived from the Polynesian word ‘tapu,’ and is defined as a ‘prohibition or a ban’. Social taboos represent good examples of informal institutions (North, 1990), which are based on cultural norms that do not depend on government for either promulgation or enforcement (Posner and Rasmussen, 1999). Institutions are here defined as the rules and norms that structure human interaction, including their enforcement characteristics and sanctioning mechanisms (North, 1990), and include any form of shared constraint that human beings devise to shape their daily interactions and transactions. Such institutions are decentralized and self-enforced by a community, where no external authority is available to guarantee that social actors will abide to rules and procedures (Knight, 1992). Formal institutions, in contrast, are rules that human beings devise, such as written rules, laws, and constitutions and are highly associated with the structural complexity of industrialized nations and their division of labor (North, 1990). The traditional natural resources management are in fact shaped around the local rules and regulations (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1995; Abayie Boateng, 1998), most often enshrined in religious or cultural beliefs and superstitions, and enforced by taboos, which dare not be infringed upon, and thus making the whole exercise, an effective one.

Informal institutions, such as taboos, have largely been neglected in conservation designs, where park protection has been the major approach for protecting biodiversity (McNeely, 1993), and thus it is strongly believed that the same could play an active role in nature conservation (Murphree, 1994). In fact, very often, it has been observed that social taboos may be highly adaptive from an ecological perspective and which contributes to biodiversity conservation (Colding and Folke, 2001); that it often applies to certain sets of natural resources that are particularly vulnerable to overexploitation (Colding and Folke, 2001). Anthropologists have ascribed various social functions to taboos: (i) they function to distinguish between sacred and profane entities in a culture (Durkheim, 1915); (ii) relate to animist and magical belief systems (Frazer, 1922); (iii) serve psychological ends (Malinowski, 1922); and even (iv) serve ecological adaptations (Rappaport, 1968). In fact, it may be difficult to distinguish among ecological, social, or religious origins and functions of taboos (Colding and Folke, 2001).

The efficacy of the social taboos becomes all the more conspicuous, when one encounters yet another traditional institution-the institution of sacred natural sites. For example, when a sacred forest cover located above the precincts of the village, is zealously guarded, with taboo not to infringe upon or make resource use from it, and thus the perennial water flow (with its source being the conspicuous sacred forest lying above) and its associated benefits for the very sustenance of the village folks, need not be exemplified further! In fact, amongst most ethnic groups, there exist beliefs that regard the majority of water bodies as abode of deities, and thus taboo against making recurrent visits to the source of the same (read the sacred forests) were effective in protecting these sources, especially those that served as potable water sources for a community or group of communities, with major examples being offered by the sacred forests of Hariyali Devi, Madhkeshwar, Maanthaat, Shyama Devi, Jal Devi, etc. In fact, defilement of the water remains one of the greatest sins, as per the religious scripts, brought forth by the natives. And hence, the present study delves into the social taboo system in practice surrounding the sacred natural sites.

The ‘sacred natural site’ here is defined as ‘A reserved space, established by a community, a group of people or an individual, following the conventions based on specific phenomena and requiring the respect of engagements taken at this place; in order to satisfy the spiritual, cultural and sociopolitical needs while focusing on the harmony and wellbeing of the native community, as well as of the whole humanity (Kamga-Kamdem, 2008). The above definition most appropriately brings forth the salient aspect of the ‘institution of sacred sites,’ i.e., the mode of its establishment, the people entitled to this purpose, the beneficiaries, the very objectives of establishment of the sacred site, and the management rules that govern, principally the resource use from the sacred forests.

11.1.2 SACRED GROVES/FORESTS AS BIODIVERSITY HERITAGE SITES (BHS)

The provision of declaring Biodiversity Heritage Sites (BHS) in the National Biodiversity Act 2002 provides an opportunity to give recognition to the community initiatives vis-a-vis the institution of the sacred natural sites (SNS). In brief, the salient feature of the Biodiversity Act 2002, as relates to the BHS, is that the state government in consultation with the local bodies may notify in official gazette, biodiversity rich areas, including the SNS as BHS. Subsequently, under sub-section (2) of section 37, the state government in consultation with the Central government may frame rules for the management and conservation of BHS. Biodiversity Heritage Sites (BHS) have been defined as per Section 2 of the Biodiversity Act 2002, as ‘Well defined areas that are unique, ecologically fragile ecosystems-terrestrial, coastal and inland waters and marine, having rich biodiversity comprising any one or more of the following components: richness of wild as well as domesticated species or intra-specific categories, high endemism, presence of rare and threatened species, keystone species, species of evolutionary significance, wild ancestors of domesticated/cultivated species, past pre-eminence of biological components represented by fossil beds and having significant cultural, ethical or esthetic values and are important for the maintenance of cultural diversity, with or without a long history of human association with them’.

To end with, sacred natural sites across the state were defined in terms of the prevalent social taboo system in practice. The most conspicuous taboo- menses that bares the womenfolk from entering the sacred groves during the interim period of menstrual cycle was discarded, for being the common denominator, while other taboo systems were duly taken cognizance of, for declaring any site (grove or forest) as sacred. Additionally, as per the guidelines framed by the National Biodiversity Authority of India (NBAI), Chennai, for the selection of the sacred natural sites as BHS, and for the constitution of Biodiversity Management Committee (BMC) to manage the BHS, 13 sacred forests were selected across the eight hilly districts of the state. The present article ends thus with the experiences gained during the study being conducted in the selected sacred sites, primarily as relates to the constitution of BMC, a prime pre-requisite towards the over-all objective of developing the sacred forests as BHS.

11.2 METHODOLOGY

The knowledge based-systems methodology for acquisition of local ecological knowledge suggested by Sinclair and Walker (1999) was adapted, which involves knowledge collection from a small sample of deliberately chosen individuals, thought to be knowledgeable by other villagers about the domain of interest. The knowledge was collected through repeated, structured (questionnaire-based) interviews, with information being sought as regards the location of sacred forest, features related, local perception about the sacredness of the grove, and management (inclusive of caste dynamics). Prior to this, the informants were given a brief background of the subject area of interest (viz. the concept of the sacred forest), in their native lan- guage/tongues, as and when required, so that the requisite information could be gathered. Since the taboo system surrounding the sacred sites is very often governed by dominant castes, principally Brahmins and the Rajputs, with lower castes relegated to carrying out profunctionary functions/tasks, it was inevitable that the interviews were conducted across the different class of people, so that an overall picture of the taboo system could emerge. The taboo system surrounding the sacred natural sites has been dealt as per classification of social taboos (Colding and Folke, 2001), principally into (i) segment taboos, (ii) temporal taboos, (iii) method taboos, (iv) life history taboos, (v) specific-species taboos, and finally (vi) habitat taboos.

As relates to the criteria for selection of the sacred forests for BHS, the following basic criteria were looked into: Whether the sacred forest (i) harbors relatively greater biodiversity, (ii) but faces intense human pressure in terms of resource exploitation, (iii) one which harbors relatively lesser biodiversity, but where the taboo system governing the resource exploitation is very closely adhered to, (iv) wherein one sacred forest additionally plays a very significant role, for example provides refuge to some of the endangered species (flora/ fauna) or more ecosystem services (prominent among being that the sacred forest remains the only source of water), (v) To what extent the socio-religious norms governing the resource exploitation, the taboo system are practiced by the local populace (i.e., the fear factor towards the resident deity), and finally (vi) if selected as BHS, to what extent the local populace will render their allout support to develop the same? The very objective and benefits of institutionalizing the sacred forest as Biodiversity Heritage Site, and the subsequent formation of the Biodiversity Management Committee (BMC) was discussed with the stakeholders by organizing a number of meetings. Efforts were made to solicit the support and participation of every member of the village/s in the meeting, and to raise their apprehensions and queries.

11.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

11.3.1 TRADITIONAL NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

11.3.1.1 Harvesting Restraint

The type of resource utilization that most clearly meets the conservation design criterion is harvesting restraint that raises short-term production cost.

Examples from the landscape include the following one comes across a number of sacred pastures and landscapes, principally in the Vyas valley, wherein grazing pressure is regulated through means of taboos, viz., in Hya-Roshe bugyal (bugyal-alpine meadows/pastures) near the village Napalchhu, and Putuk-tu bugyal near the village Kuti, wherein only sacred Yak (Bos mutus grunniens) and its local hybrid Jhuppu and Jomos, are allowed to graze. Such is the fear factor that no shepherd dares to make use of these pastures! Similarly, the inhabitants of the Vyas valley religiously guard against killing of Fiya (Himalayan marmot- Marmot bobak Muller), which is regarded as a totem.

11.3.1.2 Protection or Propagation of Resource Species

Another form of conservation involves practices designed to protect or propagate the resource species. Examples include the institution of Kathburiya Devi and Nabu samo: (a) Kathburiya Devi-after traversing a tough climb, atop the ridges are sacred heaps or piles referred to as Kathburiya or wayside goddess. The locals pay homage to Kathburiya Devi usually by placing a small piece of branch- preferably of deodar (Cedrus deodora) or the cones of the same, and very often a fruiting branch of the native vegetation, referred to as Chiyunli, as a thanks giving for the successful climb to that point; (b) Nabu samo-’Nabu’ stands for insects and ‘Samo’ means to destroy, i.e., the festival symbolizes the victory over the harmful (crop destroying) insects. Each and every member of the village collectively gathers insects (in a cloth) from their fields; the collections then are tied to the horns of a goat, which is then sacrificed. Kathburiya and Nabu samo thus, represents an effective means of (i) regeneration of flora at the hilltop, and (ii) an effective way of getting rid of harmful insects, respectively.

11.3.1.3 Regulating Onset or Duration of Harvests

Controls governing the timings of resource harvest, as well as, who has the right to participate is widespread in small-scale societies. One prime example of the practice includes the Nanda Astami (celebrated in the praise of the local goddess-Nanda Devi, the highest peak in Western Himalaya) and associated with the harvesting of the sacred flower of Brahmakamal (Saussurea obvallata) (Figure 11.2), invariably carried out towards the fag end of August or early half of September. The celebration of the festival brings forth the salient aspect of the ethics of conservation inherent in the cultural ethos. On the D-day, only two souls (out of the hundreds of the Joharis gathered together in the village Martoli, Johaar valley), are delegated to collect the Brahmakamal, from Salang Gwar (sacred alpine pasture, where the species abounds). These two souls, after taking the ritualistic bath, walking bare feet and dressed in all-white, and carrying with them the seasonally available cucumber (to propitiate the goddess), upon reaching the meadow, offer due prayers to the resident deity, after which the collection begins. Only fully opened and mature Brahmakamal are selected for the offering. Nanda Astami brings out the inherent message of conservation by the traditional people: (i) it is celebrated only after the flowering and the shedding of the seeds by the species has taken place, and hence, collection of the same do the least damage, as concerns the regeneration; (ii) the restriction imposed on the number of harvesters, is an effective means to restricts the size of the pool harvested.

11.3.1.4 Avoidance of the Harmful Habitat Modification

Some types of habitats are more sensitive to the effects of modification than others, and hence avoidance or mitigation of such habitat change can be a form of conservation. For examples, the taboo exercised on the collection of Aalam Sammo (the sacred pole, usually erected adjacent to a village temple, or in front of the homes) from the sacred forests; the restricted grazing, allowing only the milch cows, or the sacred yaks to graze in some of the sacred pastures (Hya-roshe and Putuk-tu bugyal) in the Vyas valley; the regulated means of cyclical grazing practice, as prevalent in Chipla Kedar and Ralam valley, suffice to bring forth the conservation practices, inherent in the customary lifestyle of the inhabitants. However, for the present, the taboo system surrounding the sacred natural sites (sacred forests/groves, pastures and water bodies) will be described here.

11.3.2 SACRED NATURAL SITES

During the present study, the author encountered a total of 280 sacred natural sites (Table 11.1). This figure improves upon to 328, when one adds up the literature available (Table 11.1, Figure 11.1). However, this figure could extend to 400 or more, since a major part of the sub-alpine and alpine realms still remains to be explored. Only a handful of researchers have actually reported on the existence of SNS within the state (Table 11.1). This apart, what is of more significance remains the fact that only a fraction of the total number of sacred forests have been actually studied for their floristic diversity, even less for their faunal diversity, or the socio-cultural, anthropological role of the SNS! To add to this poor state of knowledge-base as regards SNS, most of the sites reported as sacred, are so degraded, both vegetation-wise, as well as culturally (read denigration of the once-prevailing taboo system) that they can no longer be treated as sacred!

TABLE 11.1 Distribution of sacred natural sites within the state of Uttarakhand

* Even though the common usage for sacred sites is sacred grove, the author has taken the liberty of sub-dividing the term into sacred groves (less than 2 hectares in size), while sacred forests are more extensive (> 2 hectares).

* Efforts have been made not to repeat the sacred groves, to bring out the exact figure of the number of sacred natural sites within the State.

FIGURE 11.1 Distribution of the sacred natural sites, including the sacred forests being proposed as BHS within the state of Uttarakhand.

FIGURE 11.2 The sacred Brahmkamal (Saussurea obvallata) is harvested only during the festival of Nanda Astami.

11.3.2.1 Features Common to the Sacred Forests of Uttarakhand

Some of the characteristic features associated with the sacred groves/forests, with minor variants, are the following (Negi, 2010a);

Sacred forests are most commonly the panchayat or Civil Soyam forests with no legal status; are usually located on the ridges of hills or on their peaks, and in close proximity to the village.
As per the habitat or climatic conditions, these sacred forests are usually dominated either by the Banj (Quercus leucotrichophora), Deodar (Cedrus deodara), Surai or Kaimbasing (Cupressus torulosa), Bhojpatra syn. Sya sing (Betula utilis), or by Ratpa (Rhododendron campanulatum) or at greater altitudes, by Dhoop syn. Shir sing (Juniperus communis, J. indica). All these species, in turn are treated as sacred species.
Resource use in terms of lopping, felling of trees is strictly prohibited; dead wood or twigs may however be removed from the forest floor, to be utilized only for the purposes of the resident deity of the forest, during specific occasions, viz., annual festival.
Usually, the ladies in their periods (menstrual cycle) are restricted from entering the sacred zone, and are completely prohibited from entering the sanctum-sanctorum, which may extend from the precincts of the temple proper to the sacred zone, from where strict adherence to the norms and taboos are practiced, by each folk, irrespective of the gender. What this connotes is the fact that in case of extensive sacred forests, it’s the limited area extending from around 50-100 meters below the summit (the temple), from wherein the forest is treated as sacred, and not the complete forest as more commonly perceived.
Religious sanction to the use of the resources from the forest may be granted in times or needs through a shaman, locally referred to as Jagariya or Ojha or Pucher, acting as an intermediary for the resident deity of the forest.
Some of the sacred groves constitute a community court (e.g., where the presiding deity is very often the law enforcing god or goddess, for example, in Kumaun, the Golu Devata and Kotgyari Devi (Box 1). One can go there to plead not guilty, complain about a known or unknown criminal and beseech the justice of supreme spirits, notably for the re-establishment of innocent’s rights and sanctions of criminals. Similarly, some of the sacred sites (broadly extending to
landscape, i.e., sacred landscape) constitutes ‘centers of traditional initiations’ to the community life, or places of public meetings, e.g., Sacred Chipla Kedar landscape, Bedini Kund, etc.
- Interestingly the sacred groves, through the festival or the religious rites carried within, provides an excellent opportunity to study the social dynamics, where a number of villages are tied together in one common thread, through traditional norms, which are assigned to each one of the surrounding villages, even if the over-all management of the festival is vested with the village within whose jurisdiction or boundary, the sacred grove is situated. This fact alone remains of utmost importance, whereby a sacred grove (and its residing deity) maintains cordial relationship between the more often-than-not factional entities.
- Some of the sacred forests harbor astounding biodiversity, both floral and faunal. One of the best examples is the Tarkeshwar Sacred forest, represented by 343 species and inclusive of at least 50 medicinal species (Bisht and Ghildiyal, 2007).

Box 1: Dedication of forests to a deity

The practice of dedicating forests to a deity is a very recent phenomenon, invariably born out of the need to impede the fast dilution of the traditional taboo system governing the resource utilization, and thus to reinforce or strengthen the same. The deity in invariably all the villages remain the much feared goddess-Kotgyari, and the period for which the forests are dedicated varies from a minimum of 5 to 20 years. It is an effective example of an indigenous conservation practice, utilized by local communities to stop excessive exploitation of community forests and thus to regenerate the same to the extent, wherein a sustainable means of exploitation of fodder could be put into effect. Strict adherence to the norms surrounding the dedicated forests is adhered to, principally out of the inborn fear of the wrath of the presiding deity. Invariably, the communities do not tend to dedicate the complete forest, but rather retain a small patch. There are specified norms governing the use or the extent of the use, to be permitted in the sanctified area, which are priorly ‘defined to the deity’ at the time of the dedication, and enumerated in the paper (a sort of socio-religious legal document). At times of dire need, the community decides to open up the forest, allowing restricted collection of the litter mass and even of fodder.

11.3.3 TABOO SYSTEM IN PRACTICE

Traditional natural resources management system in practice in Uttarakhand, can be classified into the following broad categories: (i) protection of particular ecosystems or habitats (such as sacred groves and forests); (ii) protection of particular animals or plant species (as totem or tabooed species); and (iii) regulation of the exploitation of particular natural resource (such as a closed season for resource harvesting. As already explained above, the taboo system surrounding the sacred natural sites has been dealt as per classification of social taboos (Colding and Folke, 2001), principally into (i) segment taboos, (ii) temporal taboos, (iii) method taboos, (iv) life history taboos, (v) specific-species taboos, and finally (vi) habitat taboos (Table 11.2).

11.3.3.1 Segment Taboos

The following group of taboo applies when a cultural group bans the utilization of particular species for specific time periods for human individuals of a particular age, sex, or social status (Colding and Folke, 2001). Thus, certain segments of a human population may be temporarily proscribed from the gathering and/or consumption of species. Anthropologists often refer to such taboos as specific food taboos (Rea, 1981). Segment taboos frequently pertain to pregnant women, children, menstruating females, and parents of newborns. Cultural perceptions, customs, and superstitious beliefs of human health risks are frequently related to such taboos (Osemeobo, 1994). Thus, segment taboos are often related to totemic beliefs, which reflect cognitive and linguistic categories, useful to the natives of these cultures (Posey, 1992). Additionally, few anthropologists have hypothesized that segment taboos may also serve as strategic responses to avoid game depletion (Ross, 1978; Hames and Vickers, 1982).

In the present case study, this taboo relates to the complete banning of the lower castes, the harijans from not just the resource exploitation, but also from entering into the sacrosanct zones or the sacred natural sites, i.e., mostly the sacred forests, and the water bodies. This apart, the other most conspicuous extension of the taboo, and the most commonly ascribed, is the ban extended to the parturiting and the menstruating females, who, irrespective of the caste, are banned from entering into the restricted zones. The issue of menstrual blood in traditional beliefs has been treated extensively in anthropology as a source of potent force (Douglas, 1966). It may be conjectured that women, who were considered to be the most frequent users of water, were prohibited from entering the vicinity of rivers, when they were menstruating ‘to prevent degradation or defilement of the sacred water’.

TABLE 11.2 Broad classification of taboos restricting the resource use in Uttarakhand (adapted from Colding and Folke 2001)

In most communities rivulets provide the main source of drinking water (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1995). The exclusion of women from certain religious festivals and ritualistic observances like their periodical segregation during their menstrual period appears to be due not to any assumed inferiority on their status but due to the tribals’ horror of menses, which is supposed to attract evil spirits. From conservation aspect, it seems appropriate that the womenfolk, representing the dominant workforce involved in the resource exploitation (including the banks of the rivulets and rivers, for example, Latu ka gadera, explained later under the sub-heading habitat taboos) throughout the hills, this ban extending for the duration of the menstrual cycle, significantly restricts the resource withdrawal; more so, when this taboo forms the predominant class of taboo, finding expression in nearly all the SNS, solely, as well as admixed with other taboos.

11.3.3.2 Temporal Taboos

The temporal taboos apply when a cultural group bans access to resources during certain time periods, and are thus imposed sporadically, daily, or on a weekly to seasonal basis (Colding and Folke, 2001). Taboos imposed on a weekly to monthly basis are often referred to as a ‘closed season,’ which very often coincides with spawning or mating seasons of species. In Uttarakhand, as in rest of the country, many castes abstain totally from consumption of fish, poultry, and meat, and suspend all hunting as well, during the Hindu month of Sravana (roughly August). And thus, temporal taboos function to reduce harvesting pressure on particular subsistence resources (Ntiamoa- Baidu, 1991). In the present case, temporal taboo extends to periodicity and regulative nature of resource exploitation, primarily from the sacred forests, which again principally concerns with the collection of the litter mass (for biocomposite purpose), as well as coppicing of the fodder species, which remains the predominant use of the sacred forests by the stakeholders, in the region. However, temporal taboo is less marked overall, except in case of the sacred forests, since no exploitation of resources takes place from the sacred groves, borne out their restricted size and resource availability, thereby rendering them non-economical, both in terms of time and space.

11.3.3.3 Method Taboos

The method taboo applies when a cultural group bans the use of certain methods and techniques for the withdrawal or exploitation of the species (Colding and Folke, 2001). Invariably in all the cases of sacred forests, this relates to the precise regulation of coppicing of the major fodder species, i.e., Banj (Quercus leucotrichophora), and the collection of the litter mass from the forests. In case of the alpine habitats, principally in case of the sacred bugyal (alpine meadows), this relates to the methodology applied towards managing the grazing pressure, viz., allowing only the Yaks and their hybrids (Jhuppu and Jomos) in case of Hya Roshe, and only the milching livestock to graze, in case of the Putuk-Tu, both within Askote Conservation Landscape. Additionally, the Van Panchayat (village Forest Council) regularly monitors the grazing pressure and the state of the pasture to make decisions about rotating or relocating herds or even downsizing the size of the grazing herd. Yet, other very effective means of lessening the intensity of resource use from the SNS are strict adherence to certain norms, viz., partaking measures not to eat meat, drink liquor, even certain completely prohibited eatables, such as onion, garlic (the two most commonly referred abhorred items), for a minimum of one week, before one makes a pilgrimage to SNS; the three months prohibitory period extended to each of clan members, when a death occurs in a family; and lastly the phenomenon of restricted days of hunting (Table 11.2).

Additionally, the method taboo could be extended to the strict norm of walking bare feet, promulgated during the annual Jaats (pilgrimage) traversing through the sensitive alpine meadows, viz., during the Nanda Astami festival, when sacred Brahmakamal (Saussurea obvallata) collection is carried out; during Chipla Kedar Jaat or during the more famous Nanda Devi Raj Jaat, the devotes traverse the difficult high altitude landscape bare feet. Wearing shoes is a taboo. Obvious connotation to the significance of the practice towards conservation of the flora could be made, since bare feet are less damaging than the shoes!

11.3.3.4 Life History Taboos

The following category of taboos applies when a cultural group bans the use of certain vulnerable stages of a species’ life history based on its age, size, sex, or reproductive status (Colding and Folke, 2001). Example offered from the landscape, includes the institution of Mrigoli, wherein the hunters do not hunt the pregnant doe, or when they are in a flock. This is more so, when one of the deer has a white mark on its forehead (which is more often the case), and the same is treated as reincarnated departed soul, in all probability, of one of the village elders! In fact, the hunting is restricted to male and older animals. In this way the communities are able to ensure continued population growth of their wildlife resources.

11.3.3.5 Specific-Species Taboos

The following category of taboos applies when a cultural group totally bans the killing and detrimental use of specific species in both time and space (Colding and Folke, 2001). Anthropologists often refer to such taboos as general or permanent food taboos, because they apply to all members in a community and often concern foods (Rea, 1981). Example offered from the landscape includes the complete ban on killing of Fiya (Himalayan marmot, Marmot bobak) in Vyas valley, district Pithoragarh. Reasons specified for the behavior in literature, range from species serving as religious symbols (Fargey, 1992), or representing reincarnated humans (Osemeobo, 1994). Such reasons constitute strong sentiments behind self-enforcement of the taboos. However, in the present case, the taboo is enforced out of the fear that ‘the spirits will sanction violators by invoking illness upon people, or will cause the crop failure’.

Of particular interest are the taboos imposed on some keystone related plant species, such as Deodar (Cedrus deodara), Paiyan (Prunus cerasoi- des), Shiling (Osmanthus fragrans), Ratpa (Rhododendron campanula- tum), Bil (Juniperus communis) and Raga (Cupressus torulosa), along with the most commonly noted species—Peepal (Ficus religiosa) and Bargad (F. benghalensis). It is important to take note of the fact that in invariably all the cases, these species play pivotal role in the conservation or sustenance of the ecosystem, at large. For example, Ratpa (Rhododendron campanula- tum) as well as Bil (Juniperus communis) provide refuge as well as breeding space for two of the most endangered species, Musk deer (Moschus chryso- gaster) (Figure 11.3) and the Monal pheasant (Lophophorus impejanus).

FIGURE 11.3 Bhujani, the sacred forest located above the village Martoli in Johaar valley, remains the only refuge for the endangered species of Musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster).

FIGURE 11.4 Sacred forest of Madhkeshwar; the doors are opened once in 60-70 years! Probably the most feared sacred forest in the State of Uttarakhand, and most extensive too. Even the local deities dare not infringe upon the sacrosanct boundary.

FIGURE 11.5 The sacred Thamri Kund remains the only water hole for the wild animals, and thus one wishing to sight the animals, such as Sambhar (Cervus unicolor Kerr) or Serow (Capricornis sumatraensis), could easily view these animals drinking water, as hunting is a taboo.

FIGURE 11.6 The sacred forest of Hokara Devi.

11.3.3.6 Habitat Taboos

The following category of taboos applies, when a cultural group regulates both access to and use of resources from particular habitats in space and time (Colding and Folke, 2001). This taboo, in the present case, obviously extends to each of the SNS covered. A forest, part of a forest, a rivulet, or pond may never be subjugated to harvesting, hunting, fishing, or any other kind of resource use, often being protected by religious taboos and considered sacred to community members. Example from the landscape includes the stretch of land on both the banks of the Latu ka gadera, the small rivulet which runs along the sacred grove of Latu, near Van village, remains a taboo, and hence no agriculture is practiced within the zone. Similarly, a small patch of land measuring around 50 meters by 5 meters, located within the prime agricultural field in the village Pujeli, Uttarkashi is not cultivated. These smaller or larger sacred areas, inclusive of all the SNS, encompass a number of ecological services, including the maintenance of biological diversity, provision of habitat for threatened species, regulation of local hydrological cycles, prevention of soil erosion, pollination of crops, and preservation of locally adapted crop varieties, and serving as wind and fire brakes (Gadgil, 1987). One of the prime examples is offered by the sacred forest site, the Thamri kund, where one can easily sight the herd of serow (Cervus unicolor), as well as other wild animals, who come to drink the water at the site. This little lake located at a height of around 3000 m amsl, is held very sacred, not just by the locals of the surrounding villages, but by the populace of the adjoining

township of Munsiari. As per one of the locals, ‘No one is allowed to defile the waters, not even drink directly from it! (Figures 11.4-6).

In summary, as and when the above-mentioned class of taboos is transgressed, an expiation ceremony has got to be undergone. A breach of the law would bring on the entire society divine wrath. Invariably, however, the social taboos need enforcement mechanisms to be effective (North, 1990). The informal institutions like social taboos are self-enforced by the community (North, 1990; Posner and Rasmussen, 1999), the self-enforcement being principally borne out of the fear of religious sanctions and social conventions (Osemeobo, 1994). The precise monitoring of compliance of norms surrounding the resource use from the sacred natural sites, and else, is furthermore facilitated due to the closeness of family members and strong kinship ties (North, 1990). Furthermore, sanctions against violations of taboos

may be determined and meted out by chiefs and leaders. Such sanctions include monetary fines, payment in cattle (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1991), or even

‘sacrificing a goat or a sheep,’ as is the usual case in most of the sacred sites encountered. This charge is sufficiently deterrent to scare people from infringing or breaking the taboos.

11.3.4 DEVELOPING SACRED FORESTS INTO BIODIVERSITY HERITAGE SITES

A number of initial sacred forests listed in Table 11.3 as probable sites for developing into BHS had to be replaced by others, simply for the reason that the stakeholders were not willing to be part of the exercise. It was probably on account of the inherent feeling amongst the stakeholders that the program as laid out, would impinge upon their own rights, or that it would construe as an outside interference. The success of the initiative, it is perceived, would be more, if the sacred forests are selected, which are either remotely located, and with intact taboo system in practice. While convenience in terms of the easier accessibility to the selected sites was one major factor, as related to the selection of the SNS for BHS, it was unfortunate that the intactness of the traditional norms governing the very viability and success of the institution of sacred was inversely related to easier accessibility, i.e., means of transport, and thus development. The same fact, in fact poses the challenge- how to offshoot the decline in taboos system vis-a-vis development. Secondarily, the stakeholders were all-out for the establishment of the BHS in those sites, where their dependence on the sacred forests was inevitably very conspicuous, as in case of the Hariyali Devi. In short, greater the ecosystem services provided by the forest (viz., as the only source of water), greater would be the chance that the stakeholders would extend their active support for the constitution of BMC.

11.3.4.1 Classification of Taboo System

Segment taboo: Regulation of the resource use principally on the basis of caste and sex; viz., schedule caste and the womenfolk in menses (irrespective of caste) are prohibited from entering into the sacred forests.
Temporal taboo: Regulation of access to resources in time.
Method taboo: Regulation of the methodology applied for the resource use.
Life history taboo: Regulation of the use/hunting of the vulnerable life history stages of a species.
Species-specific taboo: Total protection of one of the species (totem?) in time and space.

TABLE 11.3 Biodiversity aspects of the sacred forests selected for developing into Biodiversity Heritage Sites (BHS) and the taboo system in practice (as per the guidelines under biological diversity act 2002)

11.4 CONCLUSION

Ecological life support systems were preserved because sustainable forms of land use were very often governed by religious beliefs and customary rules that made it sustainable. Biodiversity was maintained as a result of the low pressure exercised over natural system, viz., pastures and by the imposition of religious taboos or through the existence of sacred groves and forests (Sinha, 1995; Basu, 2000; Chandran and Hughes, 2000). Typical examples of change, coupled with maintenance of sustainability in traditional management practices, have been demonstrated in sacred groves (Fargey, 1991; Dorm-Adzobu et al., 1991; Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1995; Ntiamoa-Baidu et al., 1992; Gyasi 1996). The breakdown of beliefs that protect these areas has been attributed to western type education and religion, to the immigration of people, who may have no respect for local traditions, and to a lack of modern legislation to reinforce traditional rules (Fargey, 1991; Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1995; Falconer, 1992). Falconer (1992) has observed that, as a result of the uneven impact of these factors, ‘sacredness’, the prominence and protection of sacred groves varies considerably between and within communities (Falconer, 1992). Many groves have been encroached upon because the fear which used to be associated with them, no longer operates (Abayie Boateng, 1998).

A vast body of recent literature indicates that the surest way to conserve the commons such as sacred forests is by ensuring customary community custodianship, where profligate use of the resource is prohibited through various socio-cultural restraints (Burke, 2001). However, the community can hardly maintain its custodian role, if the resource is owned, and its benefits are usurped, by an external authority, whose interests are divergent from that of the users. There is a need to appreciate that the local communities often value forests in a rather different way than professional foresters or the state organizations do, for the simple reason that a forest for the locals remain an invariable part of their livelihood strategy. Depending on the strategies of resource use of local farmers (Padoch and Vayda, 1983), sacred forests may be integrated in the local resource utilization system because they have one or more of the following functions (Messerschmitt, 1993):

production of valuable products for household consumption (construction material, foods, medicines).
production of materials for generating income and employment through possible local manufacturing and sale (selected foods, resins/gums, construction material).
provision of inputs (farm implements, litter, mulching material, erosion control, fodder, bedding material) for agricultural and livestock production.
protection of water resources and provision of shelter.
cultural functions, such as conservation of tribal lands or role in religious beliefs.

Since most of the world’s biodiversity exist outside of protected areas (Gadgil, 1998), informal institutions, such as social taboos may play an active role in nature conservation. In fact, a great deal of social mechanisms, such as social taboos, may be highly adaptive from an ecological perspective and which contributes to biodiversity conservation (Colding and Folke, 1997). Taboo often applies to certain sets of natural resources, which are particularly vulnerable to overexploitation; and among local resource users, the imposition of temporal taboos (defining restriction of resource use in time and space), regulates access to resource/s on either a sporadic, daily, weekly, or monthly basis (Colding and Folke, 2001), as is conspicuous, principally in sacred forests. In fact, taboos function to distinguish between sacred and profane entities in a culture (Murphree, 1994); they relate to animist and magical belief systems (Durkheim, 1915); serve psychological ends (Frazer, 1922); and finally taboos serve ecological adaptations (Harris, 1971, 1979; Rappaport, 1968). In fact, it may be difficult to distinguish among ecological, social, or religious origins and functions of taboos.

As relates to the development of sacred groves as BHS, the following points needs to be taken care of:

Conceptualizing a mechanism whereby a sustainable exploitation of the forest resources could be harnessed.
Educating the stakeholders of the vital need to preserve their age-old traditional knowledge-base, pass on the same to the younger generation; emphasize that culture can only be conserved, if practiced.
It is important that information related to policies governing conservation, which would directly affect the stakeholders be informed to them on a regular basis. In this effort BMC could (and should) play a vital role. The government agencies should therefore endeavor to facilitate such reciprocal interactions.
It would be vital that safeguards are placed to ensure that the financial support given to the BMC, is utilized judiciously and scientifically, keeping the long-term conservation goals in sight; that eco-friendly technologies are extended to the BMC; that sound, equitable models of eco-tourism are pursued, and lastly,
The BMC be encouraged to safeguard their traditional ecological knowledge-base for the posterity, by making local education more sensitive to their own culture, and ecosystem surrounding them. In brief education should be pro-nature in approach and action.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledges the financial help received from the Director, Uttarakhand State Council for Science and Technology, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun and Director, GB Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Kosi-Katarmal, Almora. The study, however, would not have been possible without the help of the village residents—the ultimate custodians of the biodiversity.

KEYWORDS

biodiversity heritage sites
conservation
culture
sacred natural sites
social taboos
traditional knowledge-based systems

REFERENCES

1. Abayie Boateng, A. (1998). Traditional conservation practices: Ghana’s example. Institute of African Studies Research Review , 14 (1), 42–51.

2. Adhikari, S. D. & Adhikari, B. S. (2007). Veneration of a deity by restoration of sacred grove in a village Minar, Kumaun region of Uttarakhand: a case study. J. Amer. Sci. , 3 (2), 45–47.

3. Agnihotri, P., Singh, H., & Husain, T. (2012). Patalbhuvneshwar: A new sacred grove from Kumaun Himalaya. Curr. Sci. , 102 (6), 830–831.

4. Alvard, M. S. (1998). Evolutionary ecology and resource conservation. Evol. Anthropol. , 7 , 62–74.

5. Anthwal, A., Gupta, N., Sharma, A., Anthwal, S., & Kim, K. (2010). Conserving biodiversity through traditional beliefs in sacred groves in Uttarakhand Himalaya. India: Resources, Conservation and Recycling. doi:10.1016/J.resconrec.2010.02.003.

6. Basu, R. (2000). Studies on sacred groves and taboos in Purulia District of West Bengal. Indian Forester , 126 , 1309–1318.

7. Bisht, S. & Ghildiyal, J. C. (2007). Sacred groves for biodiversity conservation in Uttarakhand Himalaya. Curr. Sci. , 92 (6), 711–712.

8. Bisht, T. S. & Bhatt, A. B. (2011). Sacred groves: A traditional way of conserving biodiversity in Garhwal Himalayas, Uttarakhand. In Y.Gokhale & A. K.Negi (Eds.), Community-based biodiversity conservation in the Himalayas (pp. 61–73). New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).

9. Burke, B. E. (2001). Hardin revisited: A critical look at perception and logic of the commons’. Human Ecology , 29 , 149–176.

10. Chandran, M. D. S. & Hughes, J. D. (2000). Sacred groves and conservation: The comparative history of traditional reserves in the Mediterranean and in South India. Environment and History , 6 , 169–186.

11. Colding, J. & Folke, C. (1997). The relations among threatened species, their protection, and taboos. Conserv Ecol. , 1 (1), 6.

12. Colding, J. & Folke, C. (2001). Social taboos: ‘Invisible’ systems of local resource management and biological conservation. Ecological Applications , 11 (2), 584–600.

13. Dorm-Adzobu, C., Ampadu-Agyei, O., & Veit, P. G. (1991). Religious Beliefs and Environmental Protection: The Malshegu sacred grove in Northern Ghana. WRI Washington: DC, USA and Acts Press, Africa Centre for Technology Studies, Kenya.

14. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concept of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

15. Durkheim, E. (1915). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Allen and Unwin, London, UK. (Translated from E. Durkheim. 1912. Les formes elementaires de la vie religeuse: le systemes totemique en Australia. Free Press, New York, USA.)

16. Falconer, J. (1992). Non-timber Forest Products in Ghana. ODA: Main Report.

17. Fargey, P. J. (1991). Assessment of the conservation status of the Buabeng Fiema Monkey Sanctuary. Ghana: Report submitted to the Flora and Fuana Preservation Society.

18. Fargey, P. J. (1992). Monkeys and traditional conservation in Ghana. Oryx , 26 , 151–156.

19. Frazer, J. G. (1922). The Golden Bough. Bungay, U.K.: Chaucer Press.

20. Gadgil, M. (1987). Diversity: cultural and biological. Trends Ecol. Evol. , 12 , 369–373.

21. Gadgil, M. (1998). Conservation: Where are the people?Hindu Survey of the Environment ,107–137.

22. Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio , 22 , 151–156.

23. Ghildiyal, J. C., Bisht, S., & Jadli, R. (2008). A contribution to the biological diversity of Tarkeshwar sacred grove in Garhwal Himalayas. Indian Forester , 134 (6), 279–800.

24. Gyasi, E. A. (1996). Gyamfiase, Ghana: A study in threat and counteracting threat to indigenous forest groves and sustainable forest management systems. Paper presented at Workshop on Contested Terrain: West African Forestry Relations, Landscapes and Processes, 12-13 April, 1996, Centre of West African Studies, University of Birmingham, Egbaston.

25. Hames, R. & Vickers, W. (1982). Optimal diet breadth theory as a model to explain variability in Amazonian hunting. Amer. Ethnol. , 9 (2), 358–378.

26. Harris, M. (1971). Culture, Man and Nature: An Introduction to General Anthropology. Crowell, New York, USA: Thomas Y.

27. Harris, M. (1979). Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York: Random House.

28. Joshi, P. C. (1992). Afforestation, development and religion: A case from the Himalayas. In: Himalaya: Environment, Economy and People, pp. 453-465.

29. Kamga-Kamdem, I. S. L. (2008). Ancestral beliefs and conservation: The case of sacred areas in Bandjoun (p. 23). West Cameroon, African Centre of Applied Forestry Research & Development (CARFAD): West Cameroon.

30. Knight, J. (1992). Institutions and Social Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.

31. Kumbhojkar, M. S. & Kulkarni, D. K. (1998). Environmental impacts of sacred groves in Western Ghats of Maharashtra. Science and Culture , 64 , 205–207.

32. Malhotra, K. C. & Mark, P. (1989). Forest regeneration through community protection. West Bengal, India: Forest Department.

33. Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London, U.K.: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

34. McNeely, J. A. (1993). Economic incentives for conserving biodiversity: Lessons for Africa. Ambio , 22 (2–3), 144–150.

35. Messerschmitt, D. A. (1993). Common forest resource management, annotated bibliography of Asia, Africa and Latin America, (Community Forestry Note No. 11) FAO, Rome, Italy.

36. Murphree, M. W. (1994). The role of institutions in community-based conservation. In: D.Western, R. M.Wright, S. C.Strum (Eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, Island Press, Washington D.C., & Covelo, California, pp. 403-427.

37. National Biodiversity Act (2002). Guidelines for selection and management of the biodiversity Heritage Sites. Chennai, India: National Biodiversity Authority.

38. Negi, C. S. (2003). Role of traditional knowledge and beliefs in conservation- Case studies from Central Himalaya. India. Man in India , 83 (3–4), 371–391.

39. Negi, C. S. (2005). Religion and biodiversity conservation: Not a mere analogy. Inter. J. Biodiversity Science and Management , 1 (2), 85–96.

40. Negi, C. S. (2010a). Askote Conservation Landscape-Culture. Dehra- dun, India: Biodiversity and Economy. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh Publishers & Distributors.

41. Negi, C. S. (2010b). Culture and Biodiversity Conservation: Examples from Uttarakhand. Central Himalaya. Mountain Research & Development , 30 (3), 259–265.

42. Negi, C. S. (2010c). The Institution of Taboo and the Local Resource Management and Conservation Surrounding Sacred Natural Sites in Uttarakhand, Central Himalayas. Intern. J. Biodiversity and Conservation , 2 (8), 186–195.

43. Negi, C. S. (2010d). Traditional knowledge and biodiversity conservation: A preliminary study of the Sacred Natural Sites in Uttarakhand. Central Himalaya. J. Biodiversity , 1 (1), 43–62.

44. Negi, C. S. (2012). Culture and Biodiversity Conservation: Case Studies from Uttarakhand. Central Himalaya. Indian J. Trad. Knowl. , 11 (2), 273–278.

45. Negi, C. S. (2013). Ethno-biological study and conservation of sacred forests towards evolving sound policy initiatives for their eco-restoration. Project Report GBPI/IERP/ CP/03-04/05/96 (unpublished), G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment & Development, Almora, Uttarakhand, India.

46. Negi, C. S., Maikhuri, R. K., Rao, K. S., & Nautiyal, S. (2001). Nanda Raj Jaat-Maha-kumbha of Uttaranchal: A Socio-ecological and religious perspectives. Man in India. , 82 (3–4), 341–357.

47. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions. Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

48. Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. (1991). Conservation of coastal lagoons in Ghana: The traditional approach. Lands. Urban Plann. , 20 , 41–46.

49. Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. (1995). Indigenous vs. Introduced Biodiversity Conservation Strategies: The Case of Protected Area Systems in Ghana. African Biodiversity Series Number 1, May 1995, Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC.

50. Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y., Gyamfi-Fenteng, L. J., & Abbiw, D. (1992). Management strategy for Sacred Groves in Ghana. New York, NY: Report prepared for the World Bank and the Environmental Protection Council.

51. Osemeobo, G. J. (1994). The role of folklore in environmental conservation: Evidence from Edo State, Nigeria. Intern. J. Sust. Dev. World Ecol. , 1 , 48–55.

52. Padoch, C., & Vayda, A. P. (1983). Patterns of resource use and human settlement in tropical forest. In: Golley, F. B., & Lieth, H. (Eds). Tropical Rain Forest Ecosystems, Structure and Function, Ecosystems of the World No. 14A. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 301-313.

53. Posey, D. A. (1992). Interpreting and applying the “reality” of indigenous concepts: What is necessary to learn from the natives? In: Redford, K. H., & Padoch, C. (Eds.). Conservation in Neotropical Forests: Working from Traditional Resource Use. Columbia University Press, Irvington, New York, pp. 21-34.

54. Posner, R. A. & Rasmussen, E. B. (1999). Creating and enforcing norms, with special reference to sanctions. Inter. Rev. Law and Economics , 19 , 369–382.

55. Rappaport, R. A. (1968). Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

56. Rawat, M., Vasistha, H. B., Manhas, R. K., & Negi, M. (2011). Sacred forest of Kunja- puri Siddhapeeth, Uttarakhand. India. Tropical Ecology , 52 (2), 219–221.

57. Rea, A. M. (1981). Resource utilization and food taboos of Sonoran desert peoples. J. Ethnobiol. 1, 69-83.

58. Ross, E. B. (1978). Food taboos, diet, and hunting strategy: The adaptation to animals in Amazon cultural ecology. Curr. Anthro. , 19 , 1–36.

59. Ruttan, L. M. (1998). Closing the commons: Co-operation for gain or restraint?Hum. Ecol. , 26 (1), 43–66.

60. Ruttan, L. M. & Borgerhoff, M. M. (1999). Are East African pastoralists truly conservationists?Curr. Anthropol. , 40 , 621–652.

61. Sharma, S., Rikhari, H. C., & Palni, L. M. S. (1999). Conservation of natural resources through religion: a case study from Central Himalaya. Society & Natural resources , 12 , 599–622.

62. Sinclair, F. L. & Walker, D. H. (1999). A utilitarian approach to the incorporation of local knowledge in agroforestry research and extension. In L. E.Buck, J. P.Lassoie, & E. C. M.Fernandes (Eds.), Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems (pp. 245–275). Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press LLC.

63. Singh, H., Agnihotri, P., Pande, P. C., & Husain, T. (2011). Biodiversity conservation through traditional beliefs system in Indian Himalaya: a case study from Nakuleshwar sacred grove. Environmentalist , 31 , 246–253.

64. Singh, H., Husain, T., & Agnihotri, P. (2010). Haat Kali sacred grove, Central Himalaya. Uttarakhand. Curr. Sci. , 98 (3), 290.

65. Singh, H., Husain, T., Agnihotri, P., Pande, P. C., & Iqbal, M. (2012). Biodiversity conservation through traditional belief systems: a case study from Kumaun Himalaya. India. Int. J. Conserv. Sci. , 3 (1), 33–40.

66. Sinha, R. K. (1995). Ecosystem preservation through faith and tradition in India. J. Human Ecol. , 2 (1), 21–24.

67. Sinha, B., Ramakrishnan, P. S., Saxena, K. G., & Maikhuri, R. K. (2003). The concept of sacred linked to biological resource management in the Himalayan culture. In E.Ehlers (Ed.), Environment across cultures (pp. 197–204). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

68. Smith, E. A. (1995). Comment on Alvard. Curr. Anthropol. , 36 , 810–811.

69. Smith, E. A. & Wishnie, M. (2000). Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies. Ann. Rev, of Anthropol. , 29 , 493–524.

70. Vidyarthi, L. P. (1963). The Maler: A Study in Nature-Man-Spirit Complex. Calcutta, India: Book land.

CHAPTER 11