K. V. KRISHNAMURTHY1 and S. JOHN ADAMS2
1Consultant, R&D, Sami Labs, Peenya Industrial Area,
Bangalore–560058, Karnataka, India
2Department of Pharmacognosy, R&D, The Himalaya Drug Company, Makali, Bangalore, India
CONTENTS
12.3Sacred Groves of Western Peninsular India
12.4Maintenance and Conservation of Sacred Groves by Traditional Communities
12.5Impact of Traditional Conservation of Sacred Groves
This chapter deals with sacred groves (SGs), patches of native vegetation associated with local deities/spirits/ancestors, established and maintained by the local ethnic communities of the western peninsular India. Established long back, the SGs are shown to have survived under the maintenance of the ethnic communities retaining their original structural composition when compared to adjacent vegetation. This chapter highlights how the traditional wisdom of local people in associating religious belief systems with vegetation on which they were dependent on for their sustainable resources can conserve them effectively.
India is one of the top 12 megabiodiversity countries of the world. It is equally remarkable for its rich cultural diversity, with modes of subsistence ranging from hunting and gathering, nomadic herding, sustainable cultivation to intensive agriculture. Given the heterogeneity of cultures, the present day pressures of large human populations and the enormous resources demands, conserving India’s biodiversity is a very daunting task today. Indian people belong to three major ecological categories of whom the ecosystem people form an important category; the majority of them live in villages, hamlets and forests and depend on living resources around them (Gadgil, 1991) for their survival. These people “rooted in a locality dependent on resources drawn from a limited area that they are personally familiar with” utilize these resources sustainably. They also practice prudence as they perceive that the resource base is finite and limited. Such prudent use of natural resources is of great survival value for traditional societies which are often in active territorial conflict with adjacent societies and which are in danger of cultural, if not, genetic, elimination if they exhaust their resource base (Gadgil and Berkes, 1991). Instead of following biodiversity conservation “molded by interests of those in power,” these people follow oft-tested traditional conservation strategies for not only conserving individual species but also for a whole ecosystem. One of the most common strategies followed by the traditional ethnic people is the maintenance of sacred groves (SGs). Although the institution of SGs has been well-studied in India from various perspectives (see Ramakrishnan et al., 1998; Malhotra et al., 2001), it has not been analyzed from traditional conservation perspective, particularly in the western peninsular India. This chapter deals with the SGs of this region from an ethnoconservation perspective.
SGs may be defined as “definite segments of landscape containing vegetation and other forms of life and geographical features that are delimited and protected by human societies under the belief that to keep them in a relatively undisturbed state is expressive of an important relationship of humans with the divine or with nature” (Hughes and Subash Chandran, 1998). While establishing SGs ethnic people have provided protection to patches of forested landscape that were dedicated by them to deities or ancestral spirits. Thus, traditional societies have inputted sacred qualities to these SGs and their various elements, such as plants (especially trees), animals, and even abiotic components and that these imputations go back to the dominant, pantheistic traditions before the evolution of major formal religions, such as Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, and Islam. SGs, depending on their location, may consist of a multi-species, often multi-tier, primary virgin forests or clumps of vegetation. This dedication of forested areas happened when the early ethnic settlers were clearing certain forested areas, for their living and cultivation activities and allotting certain other forested areas without disturbing them either for meeting their basic minimal requirements in a sustainable manner or for keeping as reservoirs of their requirements. Thus, initially SGs were common property institutions (see Berkes, 1989) that were serving for entire ethnic societies. Because of this, SGs, over the years, have served as refugia that were easily perceived and were most efficiently guarding against resource depletion (Gadgil and Vartak, 1976).
The different human cultures have perceived this relationship between humans and divine spirits/deities in diverse ways and have institutionalized the various rules of behavior with regard to these sacred spaces and their various biotic and abiotic elements. SGs are a very ancient and widespread institution in the Old World cultures, particularly in India. According to Kosambi (1962), SGs date back to the pre-agrarian hunting-gathering age and, thus, were conceptualized and established by the primitive hunter-gatherer societies themselves. SGs can belong to any vegetation type depending upon the type of forest that the place originally had before the SGs were established. There are as many SG types as there are forest types. Usually the SGs have retained the characteristics of their original vegetation type or may today look like climax vegetations with over mature trees, although their surrounding vegetations might have undergone drastic degradative changes. This has made, for example, Brandis and Grant (see Brandis, 1897) to wonder as follows: “Why should a certain locality be covered with evergreen, and another in its immediate vicinity with dry forest?” This also enables people to name SGs as “safety forests” (Malhotra, 1990). Many SGs, for various reasons, have even been totally eliminated. For example, the number of SGs got reduced from 755 to 346 between 1900 and 1992 in Coorg, with an area reduction of 60%.
It is very difficult to make a guess regarding the total number of SGs, as well as their total area of occupation in India or in any of its regions. This is partly due to the lack of correct census efforts as well as to difficulties in defining the minimum size for assigning the SG status to a patch of natural vegetation associated with a deity. According to a conservative estimate there may be around 100 to 150 thousand SGs in India and at least nearly half of that number in western peninsular India. Some figures have been provided for various states of India (Malhotra et al., 2001). The six states which occupy western peninsular India are from (north to south) Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. A review of the SGs of W. Ghats has been made by Subash Chandran et al. (1988). This review covers only Kerala, Karnataka and Maharashtra and deals with various aspects relating to SGs. A review of the SGs of Kerala has been made by Chandrashekara and Sankar (1998) and by Pushpangadan et al. (1998) and of the SGs of North Kerala by Unnikrishnan (1995). SGs of Maharashtra were reviewed by Deshmukh et al. (1998) and of the SGs of North Kerala by Unnikrishnan (1995). SGs of Maharashtra were reviewed by Deshmukh et al. (1998) and Gadgil and Vartak (1981). Different investigators have given different numbers of SGs in different regions as also to some of the same regions making it difficult to correctly count the number of SGs. The available information is given here to emphasize the above point. 12 SGs have been reported in Kanyakumari district, 31 in Nilgiris (the most important of which is Benagudi shola sacred grove with about 615 ha area), around 15 in Anamalais. 15,000 in former Travancore area according to census Report of 1891, 115 in Thiruvananthapuram district, around 2,000 with 500 hectares in the entire Kerala State (Rajendra Prasad, 1995), 17 Myristica swamp SGs in Northern Kannada, 1214 Kodagu in Karnataka State covering 6299.61 acres, and 873 in the same region covering 10,865 acres (Kalam, 1996), 1424 in Karnataka W. Ghats (Kalam, 1996; Gokhale, 2000), 54 in Siddapur taluk of North Kannada 953 (including 233 studied by Gadgil and Vartak 1981) in Maharashtra (233 to 1600 according others), nearly two-thirds of which occur in Western Maharashtra, and 1600 in Maharashtra (Deshmukh et al., 1998).
SGs have been variously called in different parts of western peninsular India: Kavu, Kans, Devara Kadu. Koil Kudu, Devarabana, Huli Devarakadu, Nadabana, Bhutappanbana, Jatakappanbana, Chowdibana, Devarai, Devarahati, Devaragudi, etc. The SGs vary very greatly in size from a few acres to several hectares. The smaller ones are often just around 0.02 ha or even smaller than this. 79% of the SGs of Kerala are reported to belong to the small category.
It was mentioned earlier that SGs present a case study of a resource conservation practice grounded in religious beliefs. This natural experiment suggests that pre-scientific traditional societies can and do adopt biodiversity conservation practices on the basis of their experience with nature and natural objects, both living and non-living. Thus, conservation practices were implemented through the medium of religious beliefs. This has also resulted in SGs and the deities/spirits resting in them worshiped for different religious functions and in playing an important role in social and cultural aspects of the ethnic societies that maintain and conserve them.
The divine entities associated with the SGs are invariably traditional Gods, Goddesses, Spirits and ancestors. They are either idolized or symbolized in natural objects like stones or specific tress. The gender of the presiding deity in SGs is quite variable. In Maharashtra SGs female deities are associated with 15 out of 21 SGs, male deities 5 out of 21 SGs and with Spirits in one SG. In Kerala/Karnataka some SGs have both male and female deities. These deities or Spirits/ancestors are known by different names for different SGs. The vanadevada or ancestral Spirits of some SGs of Kerala are known as Madan or Yekshi. During the course of history some of these traditional Gods/Goddesses are either replaced by some so-called ‘modern’ Gods/Goddesses or the latter are also introduced to co-exist with traditional Gods/Goddesses. For example, some SGs of Kerala are now dedicated to Lord Ayyappa or Bhagavati Amman. Temples are often erected to house these organized Hindu deities and the SGs has suffered in this process (Unnikrishnan, 1995). Most SGs as already stated, are associated with primitive religion/spirits. As characteristic of primitive religions/ ancestral Spirit worship, SGs serve as places of religious rituals and sacrifices. The latter are usually animals, such as country goats, chicken, buffaloes or oxen depending on the tribal communities associated with the SGs. There are totem (trees, rocks or other natural objects) worships, often associated with specific ceremonies like Vasantha Vizha (spring festival) in Tamil Nadu and Theyyam ritual/ceremony in Kerala (Unnikrishnan, 1990). Many ethnic societies conduct their festivals and marriages in their own SGs. In addition, community gatherings are often held in SGs. The SGs also serve for political functions. Tribal-controlled SGs assert group identity and solidarity. According Kosambi (1962) SGs are usually found along preagrarian trade routes and cross-roads where long-distance traders rested/bartered.
Smaller SGs are either fully or better protected than larger ones mainly due to the fact that most of former are under the control of local communities. For instance, the Mahadev Koli tribe of the W. Ghats of Maharashtra and the Kuntis of Kolhapur own a number of SGs (Roy Burman, 1992). The Benagudi Shola SG of Nilgiris is maintained by the Irula tribe. There are regional variations in terms of ethnic association of SGs and they are associated with different castes. SGS are often considered as symbols of ethnic identify. There is also a division of SGs into fully protected ones and restricted ones in which certain activities alone were allowed. Invariably the larger SGs are put under the control of the temple priests, who are also the village doctors associated with them, who use these SGs for collecting flowers, leaves, fruit or seeds used for worshipping the presiding deity/Spirit of the concerned SG. Sometimes the larger SGs are used for collecting dried and fallen twigs/wood pieces for fuel, non-destructive collection of useful non-timber produce and for tapping toddy from the palm, Caryota urens (Subash Chandran and Gadgil, 1993). Thus, these SGs serve as safety forests, as mentioned previously. The larger SGs are also reported to serve for ecological security by providing services much needed for a better life of the ethnic societies living near them.
The impact of the traditional way of conservation through SGs by the local ethnic communities of western peninsular India is seen not only in the maintenance of structural integrity of SGs in the way they were originally established and developed towards climax vegetation but also in its biodiversity composition, especially when compared to those that were taken away from traditional ethnic control either by the government or governmental agencies. In the traditionally maintained/conserved SGs there is often a rich diversity at the gene and species (especially in taxic diversity and species richness) levels and presence of IUCN-recognized threat category taxa surviving only there, medicinal plants (Ayurvedic, Siddha, Tribal and folk medicines), new taxa, unreported taxa, endemic taxa, keystone species, land races, wild relatives of some cultivated taxa, etc. Pushpangadan et al. (1998) demonstrated that the biological spectrum of SGs in Kerala resembles the typical biological spectrum of a rain forest. They cite a SG of just 1.4 km2 having 722 species of flowering plants compared to 960 angiosperms of a 90 km2 area of silent valley forest. This diversity is largely due to the efforts of the local ethnic communities in protecting and conserving the SGs.
In the SGs of Thiruvananthapuram district (Kerala state) maintained by local communities there are 531 species, 5 subspecies and 20 varieties of plants of which five taxa are new to science, three were earlier unreported in India, seven were new to Kerala State and 117 were additions to the Flora of Thiruvananthapuram. A new plant genus and species (Kunstleria keralensis a climbing legume) was discovered in a SG of Kerala (Mohanan and Nair, 1981). Indeed the only surviving stand of Dipterocarpus indicus in the Uttar Kanda (North Karnataka) district is part of a SG of Karikanamma. The Village forest (SG) of Kallable managed by the local ethnic community supports a larger standing biomass and a greater variety of trees when compared to reserve forests in the vicinity (Gadgil, 1993). A SG of Kerala (Alappuzha district) contains Cinnamomum quilonensis, a rare plant taxon (Unnikrishnan, 1995) and an endemic taxon Syzygium travancoricum. The other rare species found in SGs of Kerala are Blepharistemma membranifolia and Buchanania lanceolata (Nair and Mohanan, 1981).
SGs not only have protected and conserved RET plants but also abiotic components. They hold water resource in the form of springs, ponds, lakes, streams or even as small rivers (Pushpangadam et al., 1998). Many of these have retained their perennial water-holding capacity. SGs are also crucial for soil conservation.
Sacred Groves of western peninsular India like those in any other region of India, have been established by the various traditional ethnic communities with the dual purpose of getting sustainable resources in a non-destructive manner and as a conservation institution, of course incidentally serving for the first purpose also. The conservation value of SGs is evident not only from its biotic and abiotic composition but also when we compare them with adjacent vegetation, if any, or with those forcibly taken over control from the traditional ethnic communities. Although may not have the minimum viability population size for its biological taxa, SGs still serve as one of the best traditional methods of ecosystem conservation.
•Ethnic Communities
•Sacred Groves
•Safety Forests
•Traditional Conservation
•Western Ghats
Berkes, F. (Ed.). (1989). Common Property Resources. Belhaven, London.
Brandis, D. (1897). Indigenous Indian Forestry: Sacred Groves. pp. 12–13. In: Indian Forestry: Oriental institute, Working.
Chandrashekara, U.M. & Sankar, S. (1998). Structure and function of sacred groves: case studies in Kerala. pp. 323–336. In: Ramakrishnan, P.S., Saxena, K.G., Chandrashekara, U.M. (Eds.). Conserving the Sacred for Biodiversity Management. Oxford & IBH Publ. Co., New Delhi.
Deshmukh, S. Gogati, S.G. & Gupta, A.K. (1998). Sacred grove and biological diversity: Providing new dimensions to conservation Issues. pp. 397–414. In: Ramakrishnan, P.S., Saxena, K.G., Chandrashekara, U.M. (Eds.). Conserving the Sacred for Biodiversity Management. Oxford & IBH Publ. Co., New Delhi.
Gadgil, M. (1991). Environment update. Conserving India’s biodiversity: the social context. Evol. Trends Plants 5, 3–8.
Gadgil, M. (1993). Biodiversity and India’s degraded lands. Ambio. 22, 167–172.
Gadgil, M. & Berkes. (1991). Traditional Resource Management Systems. Resource Management and Organization 8, 127–141.
Gadgil, M. & Vartak, V.D. (1976). The Sacred groves of Western Ghats in India. Econ. Bot. 30, 152–160.
Gadgil, M. & Vartak, V.D. (1981). Sacred groves in Maharashtra—An inventory. pp. 279–294. In: Jain, S.K. (Ed.). Glimpses of Indian Ethnobotany. Oxford & IBH Pub. Ltd., New Delhi.
Gokhale, Y. (2000). Sacred conservation in India: An overview. Abstract Nat. Workshop on community Strategies on the Management of natural Resources. Bhopal, India.
Hughes, J.D. & Subash Chandran, M.D. (1998). Sacred groves around the earth: An overview. pp. 69–86. In: Ramakrishnan, P.S., Saxena, K.G. and Chandrashekara, U.M. (Eds.). Conserving the Sacred for Biodiversity Management. Oxford & IBH Publ. Co., New Delhi.
Kalam, M.A. (1996). Sacred groves in Kodagu district of Karnataka (South India): A socio-historical study. French Institute, Pondicherry.
Kosambi, D.D. (1962). Myth and Reality: Studies in the Formation of Indian Culture. Popular Press, Bombay.
Malhotra, K.C. (1990). Village supply and safety forest in Mizoram: a traditional practice of protecting ecosystem. pp. 439. In: abstracts of V international congress of Ecology.
Malhotra, K.C., Gokhale, Y. Chatterjee, S. & Srivastava, S. (2001). Cultural and Ecological Dimensions of Sacred Groves in India. Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi and Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal. India.
Mohanan, C.N. & Nair, N.C. (1981). Kunstleria Prain-a new genus record of India and a new species in the genus. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. B90, 207–210.
Nair, N.C. & Mohaman, C.N. (1981). On the rediscovery of form threatened species from the sacred groves of Kerala. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 2, 233–235.
Pushpangadan, P., Rajendraprasad, M. & Krishnan, P.N. (1998). Sacred groves of Kerala: A synthesis on the state of art of knowledge. pp. 193–210. In: Ramakrishnan, P.S., Saxena, K.G. & Chandrashekara, U.M. (Eds.). Conserving the Sacred for Biodiversity Management. Oxford & IBH Publ. Co., New Delhi.
Rajendraprasad, M. (1995). The Floristic, Structural and Functional Analysis of sacred groves of Kerala. PhD Thesis, Univ. Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.
Ramakrishnan, P.S., Saxena, K.G. & Chandrashekara, U.M. (Eds.). (1998). Conserving the Sacred for Biodiversity Management. Oxford & IBH Publ. Co., New Delhi.
Roy Burman, J.J. (1992). The institution of Sacred groves. J. Indian Anthropol. Soc. 27, 219–238.
Subash Chandran, M.D. & Gadgil, M. (1993). Sacred groves and sacred trees of Uttar Kannada (a pilot study) Mimeograph. Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
Subash Chandran, M.D., Gadgil, M. & Hughes, J.D. (1998). Sacred groves of the Western Ghats. pp. 211–232. In: Ramakrishnan, P.S., Saxena, K.G. and Chandrashekara, U.M. (Eds.). Conserving the sacred for Biodiversity Management. Oxford and IBH Publ. Co., New Delhi.
Unnikrishnan, E. (1990). Part played by the sacred Groves local environment. Centre for Science and Environment.
Unnikrishnan, V. (1995). Sacred Groves of North Kerala: An Eco-Folklore Study (in Malayalam). Jeevarekha, Thrissur.