Jhe 33-3-147-11-2176-bhasin-v-tt

Pastoralists of Himalayas

Veena Bhasin

Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi, Delhi 110 007, India

INTRODUCTION

Pastoral societies have revived strong andrenewed interest among anthropologists.Pastoralism is a subsistence pattern in whichpeople make their living by domesticating largeherds of animals. Pastoralism is an effective meansof exploiting marginal environments. The survivalof pastoralism is interlinked with many aspectsof sustainable land use. The pastoral subsistenceeconomy provides an adaptation to such

conditions since it promotes the conversion ofthe low quality plant resources into portable, highquality animal foods. However, the overall lowlevel of energy availability necessitates lowpopulation density and high mobility amongpastoral population. They inhabit different areasacross the world associated with specific ‘core’animals and different methods of subsistence.Within a pastoral society the ecosystem diversitydoes not only means the variety of ecologicalzones or habitats, but, it encompass cultural

KEYWORDS Ecology. Adaptation. Settlement. Animal Husbandry. Transhumant. Tribal Groups. Gaddis. Changpas.Bhutias. Sikkim. Ladakh. Chamba. Socio-economic Organisation. Property Rights

ABSTRACT Pastoral societies have revived strong and renewed interest among the anthropologist. Pastoralism is asubsistence pattern in which people make their living by domesticating large herds of animals. The pastoral subsistenceeconomy provides an adaptation to such conditions since it promotes the conversion of the low quality plantresources into portable, high quality animal foods. However, the overall low level of energy availability necessitateslow population density and high mobility among pastoral population. Within a pastoral society the ecosystemdiversity does not only means the variety of ecological zones or habitats, but, it encompass cultural diversity andecological processes related to different pastoral production systems as well. Therefore, biodiversity provides afundamental base to pastoralism and to the overall economic systems. Sheep and goat pastoralism is a constantfeature of traditional mountain societies. It is rare that any pastoral group lives exclusively with the products of theirherds. All pastoralists have to look for supplementary forms of economic activity. The pastoral communities ofHimalayas make use of resources like high mountain pastures by three different ways by characteristic mobilitypatterns, socio-economic organisation and property rights. The study deals with three pastoral groups of Himalayaswho inhabit Ladakh, Sikkim and Himachal Pradesh. Changpas nomads of Changthang raise herds of sheep andpashmina goats, yaks and horses. Gaddis of Bharmour are agro-pastoralists and raise large flocks of sheep and goats.Bhutias of North Sikkim are agro-pastoralists and raise local cows and ox, yaks, sheep, goats and ponies. Thesesocieties use animals as providers of food, fuel, fiber, draught power and transportation. However, nomadic, semi-nomadic and transhumant pastoralist societies have lifestyles that revolve mainly around their livestock. Thetranshumant pastoral societies inhabiting the high Himalayan areas exploit the seasonal abundance of grazing areas.As social and ecological conditions change, pastoralists adjust accordingly. Pastoralists play an important role in theecology of India. Their production of organic manure contributes to the maintenance of soil fertility. Their grazingcontrols invasive exotic species. Contrary to their reputation, pastoralists have traditional practices for conservingvegetation by rotational grazing. Pastoralists make a significant contribution to India’s economy in terms of foodsecurity (milk), provision of draft animal power, as well as foreign exchange earnings (meat, fibre e.g. pashminawool). Since pastoralists do not own land, their produce is generated by dependence on communally and state-ownedgrazing land. Currently, the trend towards globalization of the market, with pastoral lands increasingly beingcommercialised and/or turned in to national parks has created problems for the pastoralists. Due to neglect byofficials and policy makers, pastoralists face deprivation from their traditional and customary rights to these grazingareas. The political marginalisation of pastoral communities paved the way for forcible eviction from their land and/or restriction of their movements. In Ladakh, protection of wildlife has proceeded at the expense of the availabilityof grass biomass for the herds of the pastoralists. Since Independence of India, the pastoralists of Himalayas havefaced a series of significant changes from external political and economic changes. These structural alterations havebrought adjustments in many aspects of the traditional pastoral system, including migratory cycle, local economy andsocial organisation. Many of them left their traditional transhumant way of life and settled along valleys. Some havesettled in urban areas others stick to the pastoral activities by changing the composition of livestock by increasingnumber of goats and decreasing number of yaks. State policies regarding forests, agriculture, irrigation, fodder, famine,pastoral rights and migration are some of the mechanisms that contribute to the alteration of pastoral life-style.Development of animal husbandry is a major government goal. All pastoral groups in Himalaya face the similarconstraints and stimuli. Natural exigencies- extreme weather conditions, drought, epidemics and predators result inreduction of animals. Likewise, social crisis, such as phases in domestic developmental cycle and work force shortagein herding groups cause concern in the community

© Kamla-Raj 2011 J Hum Ecol, 33(3): 147-177 (2011)

VEENA BHASIN

diversity and ecological processes related todifferent pastoral production systems as well.Therefore, biodiversity provides a fundamentalbase to pastoralism and to the overall economicsystems. In the mountainous regions of South-west Asia, it is mainly sheep, goats and yaks.

Pastoralism is a successful strategy tosupport a population with the limited resourcesof land. All forms of pastoralism can be consideredas different methods of economic adaptations,the parameters of which are determined byecology and level of technological development.Pastoral nomadism is specialised, both fromeconomic and cultural point of view. It is asuccessful way of food production in marginalenvironment. It is only through pastoralnomadism that man is able to exploit all potentialresources of vast ecological zones. Lowpopulation density, mobility and multifariousinformation systems are important mechanismsof pastoral adaptation. The pastoral system isdynamic as pre-planned actions of pastoralistsare constantly attuned to changing conditions.There is misconception that all pastoralists existat basic subsistence level. There are pastoralgroups who have accumulated wealth throughtheir economic activities having exchangerelationships with other groups. It is rare that anypastoral group lives exclusively with the productsof their herds. Pastoralism is most often anadaptation to semi-arid open country or highaltitude dry land where farming is not feasible.Pastoralism is more productive than hunting andgathering. Hunters do not try to increase thenumber of animals or use the products of animalswhile they are still living. Pastoralists invest inbreeding and caring for their animals and soincrease their reproduction and survival rates.Pastoralists are concerned with the productionof milk, hair, hide, blood or wool or with traction,using animals as vehicles or source of workenergy. By investing human labour in the pro-duction of milk and wool than meat, pastoralistsmake more profit. The animals need not be killedto be valuable. This makes pastoralism the mostefficient way of using resources in dry land andmarginal areas. A pastoral production systemrarely focuses on a single product, but makesuse rather of both “continuing” (calves, lambs,and kids; milk, butter and cheese; transport andtraction; manure; hair and wool; and occasionallyblood) and “final” (meat; hides and skins)products (Horowitz and Jowkar 1992).

However, there are limited possibilities forinnovations in the pastoral economic system. Thesurvival of pastoralists in ecologically fragile areasdepend on the diversity of the ecosystems.Therefore, biodiversity provides a fundamentalbase to pastoralism and to overall economicsystems. In pastoral nomadism once its formationis complete, the simple reproduction of highlyspecialised forms of same type prevail. This doesnot make nomadism as a highly specialised blindalley. It is just that in the wider sense nomadismcannot be fully acknowledged with pastoraleconomy, although the later forms the basis ofnomadism. On the other hand, specialisationrestricts prospects for economic growth. How-ever, a specialised pastoral economy in it selfcannot take care of instantaneous necessities ofnomads. All pastoralists have to look forsupplementary forms of economic activity.

The earlier studies focused on environmentalcontext of the livestock husbandry. Krader (1959)described nomadism as an, “extreme case of ahuman society’s adaptation to an unfriendlynatural environment”. The further studies wererelated to the problems of balance betweenavailability of natural resources (water andfodder), livestock number and population size(Barth 1961; Sweet 1965; Swidler 1973); commonland use and its regulation (McCay and Acheson1987; Brombley 1992); changing environmentalconditions, particularly due to environmentaldegradation resulting from development andpastoralists response to droughts and otherenvironmental hazards. The impact of changingmarket conditions on herding practices was animportant topic of research. Later studiesobserved that pastoralists are not dependent onlivestock rearing only, but they practice “multi-resource nomadism” (Salzman 1971). It has beenshown that pastoral nomads diversify theirresources in order to survive in harsh andunpredictable weather conditions. Pastoralsocieties, once thought to be independent entitiesare now seen as maintaining stable and permanentrelationship with sedentary peasant and urbanpopulation (Gellner 1973). The latest studies areconsidering the political relationships of thepastoralists and the sedentary population (Irons1971) and with state policies and state politics(Dahl and Hjort 1980). In the study of nomadicpastoralists, it was thought that the pastoralsocieties are essentially egalitarian. Studies arebeing carried out on the subject of gender

148

PASTORALISTS OF HIMALAYAS

inequality and impact of changing division oflabour assignments in pastoral societies,particularly related to gender (Human Ecology,Special Issue 1996). Human ecologists areconcerned with the problems of common landpastures. The ‘tragedy of commons’ apparentlyarises when a group of resource users havecommon access to single resource. Recentstudies have examined the systems that regulateaccess to and use of common property such aspastures to show how some pastoral groups havedone well traditionally while others failed, andthe circumstances that led to success or failureof the pastoral groups (Hardin and Baden 1977;McCay and Acheson 1987; Brombley 1992). Barth(1961) studied the role of chiefs in nomadicpastoral society who synchronised the migrationsof pastoral groups as well as liaisons withsedentary populations. Studies have been carriedamong pastoral groups of high altitude areas,where nomads’ movements are in frontier areas.Central governments have sought to control themovements of nomadic pastoralists throughouttheir existence, in part because they are oftenregarded as threat along a frontier (Lattimore1940). However, in modern times, governmentinterventions are intended as well for deliveringservices such as health and education (Gardus,1985) and for overall development of the livestockas well as pastoral population. Some pastoralgroups have settled in response to political turmoiland civil war. Several studies report negativesocial and health consequences of pastoralsedentarisation, including poorer nutrition,inadequate housing, lack of clean drinking water,and the higher rates of infectious diseases. Forthe past ten years a cultural anthropologist, ananthropological demographer and a physician-have engaged in a longitudinal research examiningthe biosocial concomitants of sedentrism forAriaal and Rendille pastoralists of northern Kenya(Fratkin 1991, 1998; Fratkin and Roth 1990; Fratkinand Smith 1995).

Classification of Pastoralism

The important pastoral strategies can beclassified: by species; by management system;by geography; and by ecology. Apart from these,there is broad distinction between the developedand developing countries. In Australia and NorthAmerica, extensive livestock production is accom-plished with scientific methods and improved

technology. The association between pastoralismand presence of grasslands is always there, butthere are many types of grassland withoutpastoralists.

PASTORALISM IN INDIA

There are more than 200 tribes comprising sixper cent of the country’s population engaged inpastoralism. (Source: Pastoralism in India: ascoping study by Vijay Paul Sharma, Ilse Kohler-Rollefson and John Morton 2003). Indianpastoralists can be divided into groups thatpractice horizontal movement and verticalmovement like in the mountainous regions.Nomadic pastoralism is prevalent in the dry landsof western India, the Deccan Plateau and in themountainous regions of Himalayas. India has oneof the largest livestock populations in the world.Livestock contributes about 25 per cent of India’sagricultural GDP. Livestock provides local peoplein isolated areas with milk, meat and wool.Pastoralists use marginal, otherwise uncultivableland, increasing the amount of land available toan already expanding population. They also rearindigenous animal breeds, retaining rich geneticvariety.

India is home to a large number of pastoralgroups – which include Golla and Kuruma ofAndhra Pradesh, who move with their cattle andsheep respectively; Rabari and Bharwad fromGujarat, who raise flocks of sheep and goat andcattle and small stock respectively; Kuruba andDhangar from Karnataka both raise sheep flocks;Raika/ Rabari and Gujjars from Rajasthan andGaddi, Gujjar and Bakarwals of Himalayas movingwith their camel, sheep and goats and buffaloand sheep respectively; Raika / Rabari are themost numerous pastoral groups in the westernpart of India. Inspite of being in such a largenumber, these pastoral communities have verylow public and political profile. Scientists pointfingers at them for adhering to an obsolete formof production, despite their large contribution tothe national economy in terms of production ofmilk, meat, wool, leather etc.

PASTORALISTS OF THE HIMALAYAS

Sheep and goat pastoralism is a constantfeature of traditional mountain societies. Gaddis,Gujjars, Bakarwals, Kinnauras, Kaulis andKanets of the north Indian Himalayas, Bhotias of

149

VEENA BHASIN

Garhwal Himalayas, Bhotias and Sherpas ofKhumbu valley of Nepal, Kirats of eastern Nepal,Monpa yak breeders of Arunachal Pradesh,Bhutias of Lachen and Lachung, Sikkim andChangpas of Changthang, Ladakh are some ofthe known pastoral communities of Himalayas.The pastoral communities of Himalayas make useof resources like high mountain pastures in threedifferent ways by characteristic mobility patterns,socio-economic organisation and property rights.There are nomads like Changpa of Changthangin Ladakh, whose economy is predominantlybased on animal husbandry; there are agro-pastoralist groups like Gaddis of Bharmour,Himachal Pradesh and Bhutias of Lachen andLachung in Sikkim, who practice marginalagriculture and raise herds of sheep and goatsand yaks (Bhasin 1988, 1989, 1996). Theinteraction of altitude, climate and soil fertilityset upper limits on agriculture and pastoralismand within the range of agriculture, upper limitson types of crops (Troll 1968, 1972; Uhlig 1976;Dollfus 1981). Transhumance with or withoutagriculture becomes profitable where highpastures are available. Transhumant that migratefrom summer pastures to winter pastures with theirflocks have some sort of living arrangement atboth the places and use tents as shelters duringascending or descending. Each household grazestheir own animals but with the increase in size offlock, the professional shepherding comes up asan economic necessity. Where people have regul-ar summer and winter pastures, to supplementtheir resources they start growing grains or vege-tables at or near the winter or summer pastures.Among the agro-pastoral Gaddis of Bharmour,Himachal Pradesh, India, although agricultureprovides the bulk of staple food, Gaddis them-selves give major importance to the care and valueof the sheep and, goat. From animals they obtainadditional food in the form of meat and milk, woolfor clothing and cash for buying othernecessities. Transhumance of this type ispracticed in mountainous regions of many partsof the world. These studies point to the lack oftransparency in defining and classifyingnomadism and pastoralism. Several authors havecarried out studies on these pastoralist groups(Newell 1967; Khatana 1976a, 1976b; Nitzberg1987; Goldstein and Masserschmidt 1980; Kangoand Dhar 1981; Rao and Casimir 1982, Bhasin1988, 1989, 1996). All forms of pastoralism may beregarded as different forms of adaptation, the

parameters of which are determined by ecologyand level of technological development. Thismakes pastoralism a special adaptation, both fromeconomic and cultural point of view. It is specialbecause it manages the conditions dictated byenvironment.

Natural resource use is influenced by thehistory and cultural system of a human populationas well as by the availability of resources. Thedistinctive physical environment of the moun-tains restricts economic processes. The ‘multi-resource economy’ that Salzman (1972) describesin relation to nomads in Baluchistan and Africaalso characterises most pastoralists in India.Human populations settled in mountainousenvironments have developed diverse strategiesof natural resource use associated with water andland limitations, although its practice dependson the technological and socio-culturalcharacterstics of the population. Pastoralism isan age-old livelihood option for number ofcommunities and ethnic groups in the mountains.Pastoralism is a system of production devoted togaining a livelihood from the care of large herdsof animals. This is a form of adaptation of naturalresource management, which requires maintainingan ecological balance between pastures, livestockand people. The technology of the pastoralistrequires that the life-practices of the people beadjusted to the requisites of the animals whichare movement to pasture, water, salt as requiredand protection from predators. Some immediateconfluences of pastoralism are that the peoplemust remain mobile, they cannot invest heavilyin personal goods, in houses or in land. Theyprotect and share the permanent and essentialsources for animals. The social structure, socialorganisation and community life of pastoraliststhat traverse the difficult terrains year-long isbound to have specific needs, which social andfunctional groups fulfill. The pattern of social,functional and administrative groups in thetranshumant way of life has emerged out of theneeds that meet the demands of a migratory modeof production. Some studies have treated thepastoralists as a people who resisted changebecause of tradition or because they reactedpassively to the vagaries of nature. Other scho-lars feel that pastoralists as an occupational groupare open to continuous change. No culture isstatic and pastoralists are no exception. Culturalborrowing and adaptation in time and space hasbeen a continuous process, yet pastoralists havepreserved their culture in form and structure.

150


Alpwirtschaft

In the Alpine region, a peculiar strategy isbased on agro-pastoral transhumance, eachsegment of which is intricately intermeshed withproductive areas only during the growing seasonfrom spring to early fall, has been described asAlpwirtschaft (Rhoades and Thompson 1975, p.537). It is associated with the movement of peopleand animals in vertical and horizontal space,communal control of pastures combined withindividual control of plots and haying fields anda social institution that schedule the complexmovement in space and time (Rhoades andThompson 1975; Vincze 1980).

The concept of Alpwirtschaft shows how acultural adaptation, response to a particular setof environmental constraints leads to patternedsocial and political relationships. This Eurocentricview of pastoral practices in mountain regionbecame a role model for text books publishedafterwards. However, the limitations of theconcept are broad range of agropastoralism andsecondly, many of its correlates, including verticaland horizontal movement and com-munalinstitutions to facilitate scheduling and inte-gration are found in other agricultural commu-nities. As a result, the conflicting demands onhousehold time and labour and the necessity forcontinuous vertical movement among zonescreate complex scheduling problems solvedthrough communal institutions.

In the Himalayan mountain milieu, we find afull range of mobile practices, in livestock keepingfrom mountain nomadism through transhumanceto combined mountain agriculture (Alpwirts-chaft). Several studies have been carried out onpastoral groups in different parts of the WesternHimalayas (Singh 1964; Newell 1967; Khatana1976b; Nitzberg 1970, 1978; Goldstein andMassers-chmidt 1980; Kango and Dhar 1981; Raoand Casimir 1982; Bhasin 1988, 1989, 1996) mainlyfocusing on nomadic routes, regular seasonalmovements in a typical landscape, agriculture andhuman settlements. Some of these studies showthe changing importance of animal husbandry incombined mountain agriculture. All societies useanimals as providers of food, fuel, fiber, draughtpower and transportation. However, nomadic,semi-nomadic and transhumant pastoralistsocieties have lifestyles that revolve mainlyaround their livestock. The transhumant pastoralsocieties inhabiting the high Himalayan areas

exploit the seasonal abundance of grazing areas.The demarcation between the nomads andtranshumant is not a permanent divide. As socialand ecological conditions change, pastoralistsadjust accordingly. A traditionally nomadicsociety or few families can become more or lesstranshumant in their migratory patterns ifopportunity arises.

Transhumance

Transhumance is the regular movement ofherds between fixed points to exploit seasonalavailability of pastures. In hills, the transhumantpastoralists follow a cyclical migratory patternfrom cool highland valleys in summer to warmerlowland valleys in winter. In the terms of eco-logical adaptations, the two most significantfactors for transhumance are seasonal severityof winters, associated with presence of territorialuse of highland and lowland pastures. Transhu-mant agro-pastoralist have regular encampmentsor stable villages with permanent houses. Theyoften practice subsistence level agriculture at oneor the other destinations in summer. They tradetheir animals and animal products in town marketsfor grains and other necessities of life, which theydo not produce themselves.

Ethnic groups in transhumant category arefew and are of low population density in relationto the total land mass. There is low margin ofsurplus because of low level of technology, littleoccupational specialisation, high participation ofwomen in the economy and highly flexibleresidence. The emergent pattern of social struc-ture has kinship and functional groups that helpsin meeting the demands of a migratory mode ofproduction. As all follow the same mode ofproduction, there is little variation in economiclevel and behaviour from one household toanother. The relations of economic control, whichare legally manifested as property ownership areabsent in transhumant societies. Amongtranshumants, the community governs access tothe common resources, therefore, it demands astrong village organisation. The base of local-level leadership or prestige is not economic poweror capacity to coerce but the charismatic perso-nality, mediation ability and social work attitude.

In transhumant societies, the ecologicalconditions constitute a significant factor in thesocio-cultural systems. Social relations, techno-logy and environment are variables, which are

151

VEENA BHASIN

part of a system. The three variables are interre-lated and interdependent and the functioning ofthe system may change in response to a changein any one of above variables e.g. an economicchange could have an effect on environment aswell as social relations.

The Himalayan region is a social and culturalinterface, (Fisher 1987) a contact zone. In theHimalayas, the northern-most, high-altituderegions are heavily Tibetan throughout theirlength and the southern-most, low altituderegions are Hindu dominated.

PASTORAL NOMADS

There are over 200 hundred million nomadicpeople in the world today. They follow aproductive way of life in the marginal regions theylive in. This associates the availability of forage anecessity for pastoral way of life. The timing anddestinations of migrations are determinedprimarily by the needs of the animals of the herdfor fodder and water. They inhabit economically,socially and politically marginal lands on theperiphery of settled societies. The mobility ofnomads enables them to exploit meager resourcesof these marginal lands in a way not possible tosettled societies. They do not feed any speciallysown fodder plants or grains to their livestock,and their animals survive exclusively by grazingon forage. Pastoral nomads are livestockproducers who grow no crops and simply dependon the sale or exchange of animals and theirproducts to obtain foodstuffs and othernecessities. They are dependent on their livestockfor food, status and cultural practices.

Nomadism is viable in the extreme hot andcold. In the hot dry deserts of Arabia, Sahara,East Africa, South Iran and Baluchistan, cameldomestication is prevalent. In the lush savannahgrasslands of Central Africa and Sudan belt, cattleis the main animal. The temperate mountains andthe valleys of Southwest Asia and the Mediterra-nean Borderlands, support large populations ofsheep, goat, yak and horse. In the extreme climateof Central Asia steppes and mountains horses,Bactrian camel, sheep and goats are preferentialand in Sub-Arctic tundra of northwest Eurasia,the inhabitants herd only reindeer. According toSpooner (1973) there are no features of culturalor social organisation common to all nomads oreven that occur exclusively among nomads.Pastoral nomads present not only different

lifestyles and means of subsistence but alsovarious types of social organisation. Patterns ofsocial organisation they develop depend on theirspecific ecological, cultural, political or historicalcircumstances. Pastoral populations areorganised into so-called descent groups (tribes,clans and lineages). It is acknowledged that socialorganisation of pastoral nomads is based onkinship. However, it is not only nomadic societies,where kinship and pseudo-kinship form thestructural basis of social organisation, many othersocieties with different economic systems alsohave kinship base. The mobility of nomads andthe permanent instability of pastoral economygive rise to a fluid social organisation, which iscapable of change and which has the requisitesegmentary means with which to accomplish this.Flexible social organisation means that nomadshave not only one secure support network ofpeople but have a more fluid and changingsupport network within a community. People oftengo to people for help who are readily available, orwho have the resources at that particular time.According to Spooner (1973), units of lower levelsof segmentation, which, primarily, are connectedwith social, economic and more narrowlyproductive needs, rely on kin and contractualrelations (pp. 25-26). Kinship regulates relationswithin a relatively small group of people; itmediates the individual’s position in a system ofhorizontal ties by superseding the discretecharacter of different descent groups. Thenomads inhabiting different ecological zones makedifferent movements depending on the physio-graphic conditions of the area and availability ofpastures in time and space. Pasture is oftensporadic and connected by routes of access;villages are mobile and maintain themselves asdistinctive entities whether they are in temporarycamps, besides pastures or permanent villages.The scheduling and destinations are pre-determined according to the availability and needsof the animals for water and fodder. Mobility ofpastoral nomads requires an annual pattern ofdecision-making about directions of movements,places of encampments and duration of stay. Thenomadic pastoralists do not invest heavily inmaterial goods. They do not have permanentsettlements or build houses but live in portabledwellings in encampments near the resources. Itis necessary for them to have knowledge of theirpasture, water resources, rainfall, snowfall,disease, political insecurity and national bound-

152


aries with access to markets and infrastructure.They follow established migration routes andoften develop long-standing exchange arrange-ments with families to make use of crop residueor to trade goods.

Pastoral nomads are usually self-sufficient interms of food and most other necessities. Thepastoral nomads rarely kill their animals for familyuse only. Whenever they kill an animal, theydistribute the flesh among relatives and neigh-bours. The distribution not only insures that nospoilage takes place but it also creates number ofreciprocal obligations within the community. Itsponsors mutual aid and commonality. Culturallynomads are among the vulnerable communitiesthat the international community has givenpriority to protecting. Nomadism has been seenas a survival strategy for the pastoralists. Never-theless, it is not only the pastoral nomads andtheir flocks who survive by migrating; transhu-mance is a way of making nature survive. Therehas been a body of evidence to show that in mostnomadic cultures and societies, nomads havesuccessfully managed their rangelands with a highdegree of diversity (Scholz 1995; Wu 1997).

Barefield (1993) used anthropologicalmethods to examine the realities of life amongdifferent groups of pastoral nomads. Accordingto him, while nomads live apart from sedentarysociety, there are bonds of association to the latterthat affect the nomads. He has discussed genera-lities about certain themes like ecological base ofnomads, how do they organise themselveseconomically and how do they form and maintaintheir political and social structure. He mentionedsome criterion that defines the key animals fornomads. The animal must be adapted to theregional ecological conditions and it must be anecessary component of everyone’s herd.According to Salzman (2004), nomadic move-ments are “highly purposeful, oriented towardsachieving specific production rules.” Nomadsdeploy nomadic strategy to meet main challenges:which is maintaining their main animal. Yakbreeders in Tibet transport salt to sell in distantmarkets. The Basseri of Fars sells sheep offspringmilk and wool in local markets.

The analysis of three tribes inhabitingdifferent parts of the Himalayas with variationsin their topography draw together some of themajor features of the pastoralists of Himalayas.Out of three tribes, Gaddis of Bharmour, (DistrictChamba, Himachal Pradesh) at the height of 2100

and Bhutias of Lachen and Lachung, Sikkim at analtitude of 3,000 metres follow Alpwirtscaft typeof strategy, associated with the movement ofpeoples and animals in vertical space, communalcontrol of pastures, combined with individualcontrol of plots and haying fields and socialinstitutions that schedule the complex movementin space and time. The third group is of Changpas,who inhabit the cold desert of Changthang,Ladakh at 3,500 to 4,500 metres. Unlike the othertwo groups, who happens to be agropastoralistsin varying degrees, Changpas are nomads. Gaddisraise flocks of sheep, goats while Bhutias ofSikkim domesticate herds of yak and flocks ofsheep and Changpas of Changthang raise herdsof yak and flocks of sheep and pashmina goats.However, their animals are not raised on anycultivated fodder crops but survive exclusivelyon natural pastures. Their complete reliance onnatural pastures creates difficulties for year roundsustenance. In the high altitude areas of Chang-thang, natural grasses stop growing in mid-September. The grasses start rejuvenating in lateApril or early May. In the beginning of May, thequantity is meager and is not sufficient for thesustenance of livestock. Changpa pastoral cycleis striking as there are few areas where anythinggrows in winter. Unlike Gaddis and Bhutias,Changpas have no reason to migrate to far offplaces.

Changthang nomads represent one of the lastgreat examples of nomadic pastoral way of lifeonce common in many regions of the world(Goldstein and Beall 1990). Changpas arepastoralists like Masai and Bedawlb Beja amongothers. Pastoral way of lifestyle involves per-petual mobility in extreme conditions in remoteareas. A pastoral nomadic lifestyle is an adaptationto dry, cold rangelands with extremely harshenvironment that are non-arable and limited intheir production capacity. Their way of lifeprevents living in permanent settlements.Therefore, their pattern of migrations differs fromGaddis of Bharmour, Himachal Pradesh andBhutias of Lachen and Lachung, Sikkim who havepermanent houses at middle altitude. Gaddis andBhutias move with their flocks to high altitude insummer and to lower altitude in winter (Bhasin1988, 1989, 1996). Changpas of Changthangchange places all over the year according to theavailability of pasture, water and needs of thelivestock. The highlands of Rupshu-Kharnak inChangthang, besides having an arid environment,

153

VEENA BHASIN

support a large number of livestock population-goats, sheep, yaks and horses. The tent-dwellingChangpas traverse with their livestock across theChangthang. The nomadic groups of Chang-thang are politically distinct with traditionalgrazing rights and well-defined boundaries.Traditionally, the rangeland of Changthang wasstate-owned and individuals had usufruct rights.They migrate to different valleys for summer andwinter grazing of their herds. During summer andautumn, the Changpas generally live together asone encampment.

Agroastoralists employ different strategies toadapt to variations in the environmental, socialand political risks they confront. Their actionscontradict the common representation ofpastoralists as illogical, capricious and politicallysubmissive migratory people. Instead, manystudies (Bhasin 1988, 1989, 1996) show them asconsciously pursuing specialised strategies formaking a living, dealing with states and marketingtheir products. Pastoralists enter into contractswith state agencies and cultivators where theypay for their animals to graze and at other timesare welcomed for the manure of their animals. Likepeople everywhere, pastoralists follow economicstrategies that are set by physical, social andeconomic conditions at the local, regional andnational levels. Together, these conditions cha-racterise the community’s ability to adapt, surviveand even prosper in relatively harsh and marginalenvironment. Though all pastoralist societies arefeeling the currents of change and consequentlytheir economies are also varying. This happensmainly with an increase in national and inter-national tourism and the availability of govern-ment and non-government salaried positions.However, agropastoralism continues to play a keyrole in household economic strategies. This isimportant because tourism is particularly sensitiveto economic, political and other fluctuations,beyond the control of local people. By resortingto variety of ecological, social and market niches,pastoralists minimise the risks that are part of lifein constraint environments.

PASTORAL ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES

Mobility

Physical conditions in a region, especiallyclimate cannot be altered but the human activitiesin the region can be manipulated. Mobility is one

of the most important components of pastoraladaptation. Mobility allows pastoralists to exploitmore than one environment simultaneously, thuscreating the possibility for marginal regions tosupport human life. Rather than adapting theenvironment to suit the “food production sys-tem” (Bates 1998: 104), pastoralists successfullymanaged their environment with a high degree ofdiversity. In order to adapt to harsh climate, theindigenous people migrate to different locationshaving a combination of seasonal and ecologicalvariables in the location of pasture and water.Consequently, for appropriate economic andecological land use, mobility is essential. It is thebasis for survival strategy in the environmentsof herders. According to Janzen (1993), mobilelivestock keeping is a best active human adap-tation to the harsh environment and is probablythe only way of putting the pastures to economicuse without a huge expenditure of capital. In viewof biodiversity conservation, exploiting eco-system diversity is another ecological reason ofnomadic movement. It is certain that mobilityallows pastoralists to take advantage of resourceswith low productivity and irregular spatialdistribution but markets are important as well inpermitting them to exchange their special goodsfor grains and other necessities of life.

Besides owning animals in large numbers,which necessitates transhumance, two out of thethree tribes of Himalayas under considerationhave additional reasons for adopting a transhu-mant way of life. There are Gaddi families inBharmour who do not have enough land or donot rear enough sheep and goats to meet theireconomic needs throughout the year. Apart fromthis wool and woollen products need some wayof disposal, which is not possible if they arestagnant locally as the area lacks market network.

Likewise, for Bhutias of Lachen and Lachung,animal husbandry was not sufficient to sustainthe population, so they indulged in marginaltrading activities with the Tibetans across theborder. For centuries, Bhutias of Lachen andLachung in North Sikkim had grazed their herdsof yak and flocks of sheep in Khama Dzongsection of the Pahari district of Tibet duringsummer and fall months. In these areas marginalagriculture and animal husbandry was not suffi-cient to sustain the Bhutia population. Conse-quently, the Bhutias of Lachen and Lachung weretrading with Tibetans across the border. The barterof timber, wood, dyestuffs and dairy products of

154


North Sikkim for Tibetan salt and wool formedthe basis of this trade. The Bhutias of Lachenand Lachung pursued it as an occupationintimately interwoven with their pastoral activities.

Diversity of Pastoral Systems

A large variety of pastoral systems classifiedby the degree of mobility from pure nomadic totranshumant to agropastoral is found in theHimalayas. With increasing altitude, mobilityincreases and reaches the extreme in theopportunistic migratory pastoralism which utilisethe most marginal areas. In some areas, farmersalso domesticate animals for work as well as totrade animal products. Pastoralists are flexible bynature and can switch over to another way ofmanaging the living, if need and opportunityarises. A traditional nomadic society or somefamilies within it become more or less transhumantin their migratory mode of production if oppor-tunity arises or vice-versa.

In the high altitude areas, like Changthang inLadakh, Changpa nomads divide the season in-to two parts and they refer to their pastures as‘winter pasture’ and ‘summer pasture’. They usethese pastures in rotational grazing system,namely two season grazing system. Livestockgrazing in the Changthang could survive throughthe centuries because of the indigenous practiceswhich maintain the livestock ratio and to avoidoveruse of some pastures or low use of others(confining grazing of horses and yaks to separatepastures, herding sheep and goats together andavoiding simultaneous disturbance of pastures).Their production system involves raising yaks,sheep, goats and horses; harvesting theirproducts; paying a portion to gompa as taxes;consuming a portion and bartering yet anotherportion along with salt to obtain grain and othernecessities like tea. As environment is notconducive to any other form of land use, nograzing land is irrigated, fertilised or sown.

On the contrary, the areas with variedtopography have three season grazing system,which include a transitional belt between winterpasture and summer pasture to support thegrazing activities in spring or autumn. The Gaddisof Bharmour, Himachal Pradesh, follow threeseason grazing system. Among the Gaddis, thegrazing area is spread over three ecological zones,with distinct pasture types: subtropical grazingof the lower hills; sub temperate-temperate

pastures of the middle hills; and alpine pasturesof the high hills. Some Gaddis, who accompanythe flocks of sheep and goat, take turns monthsat a time, in shepherding and in cultivation withbrothers, cousins, uncles and sons. In Kangradistrict these areas (kandi dhars or ban) areclaimed by Gaddis as warisi (inheritance).ThereGaddis allow their flocks to pasture on fields andreceive payments from the land-owner becausethe flocks provide natural manure to the fields.Winter pastures are poor but extensive. Gaddisare in touch with the people of lower hills whilegrazing their sheep and goats. During the sameperiod, their families are working in the homes ofthe people in the Kangra hills. Migration towardssummer pastures starts in April- May.

For spring and autumn grazing, the flocks arebrought back to the village in April to manurefields. Pastures exist in patches along the valleyswhere Gaddi camp during the summer. In thebeginning of September, shepherds travel downslowly the valley below Kugti to Bharmour, andflocks return to trakar pastures (village fields).When flocks are in the trakar pastures, the Gaddisjoin in the various activities of the season of theyear. Migration towards summer pastures startsin May. Gaddis walk to different pastures at differ-ing altitudes to graze their herds on nutritiousgrass of Lahoul and Spiti, even to the border ofLadakh and Tibet. The collection of medicinalplants from the alpine pastures and distanceforests is combined with grazing of animals. Gaddiscollect medicinal plants mostly for marketinghowever they keep part of it for self-consumptionas well.

Among agropastoral Gaddis of Bharmour,Himachal Pradesh, ecological conditions of thearea necessitate their winter migration to lowerhills in and around Kangra hills. Land holdingsare small and often the different fields belongingto a family are widely scattered. Excessive snow,severe winters and presence of dhars (grasslands)in the region facilitates transhumant adaptations.Upper ranges of these mountains are noteworthyfor their large, lush meadows and other summergrazing. However, these pasture are seasonal,Gaddis cannot rely on them for year-round sus-tenance. Consequently pattern of transhumanceis developed to utilise the productive mountainarea in its productive season- migrating in summerto Bharmour upper ranges and in winter to Kangrahills (Bhasin 1988, 1996). Prior to the establishmentof the profitable timber trade in the Indian state

155

VEENA BHASIN

of Himachal Pradesh, local kings encouragedherding for raising revenue for the state. LikeGaddis, other pastoralists of Himachal Pradesh,Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Gujarat and MadhyaPradesh in the plains, pay taxes to governmentagencies or cultivators pay money for manuretheir fields.

Total travelling is around six hundredkilometers. Migration towards summer pasturesstarts in May. In March, traders come to the Gaddisand strike deals for the purchase of animals;during downward move-ment, the traders arriveagain in September.

Water and Fodder

Balance between availability of naturalresources, as water and fodders are indispensableto pastoralists. Pastoralists mostly depend onnatural resources, particularly for fuel, fodder andwater. Their dependence on natural resources isinstitutionalised through a variety of social andcultural mechanism such as religion, folklore andtraditions. Pastoralists mostly depend on naturalresources, particularly for fuel, fodder and water.Their dependence on natural resources is insti-tutionalised through a variety of social and culturalmechanism such as religion, folklore andtraditions.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

Property rights systems institutes’ relation-ship between people, not between people andbelongings. Property rights systems are part ofcommunities’ law and as such are the foundationessentials that differentiate communities. Propertyrights simply do not define and grant rights; ratherthey establish the rights and responsibilities ofthe system participant’s vis-à-vis each other.Pastoral societies cannot perform without accessto grazing lands. There are state-owned pastures,crop-residue and institutional arrangements madewith other communities to have access to theirpastures and purchased feeds. The majorities ofpastoral land resources are held under a controll-ed access system that is communal in form.‘Communal’ land tenure relates to that system oftenure in which the tribe or clan or a group hasaccess to land. Tenure is thus a social institution:a relationship between individuals and groupsconsisting of a series of rights and duties withrespect to the use of land. Traditionally, in pastoral

societies, land belongs to a group or family thatis linked by descent or cultural affiliation. Rightsof access to resources are highly limited and tendto be allocated through inheritance, sibling co-operation and marriage. Because of politicalmarginalisation of pastoralists, unfavourable landtenure reforms and the alienation of pastoralistsfrom their lands, traditional mechanisms andcustomary methods of negotiations, arbitrationand adjudication over land issues are breakingdown. Pastoralists follow established migrationroutes and often develop long-standing exchangearrangements with families to make use of cropresidue or to trade goods. These people holdproperty rights in herds, pastures and routesbetween the pastures. Their legal arrangementsinclude the means for control over the pasture,identification of herds, regulation of access toroutes, regulation of disputes over property rights,marriage disputes and other social problems. Thefailure of state-ownership and statutory legislationto achieve better resource management hasfostered new interests favouring communitycontrol and management and customary tenure-systems (Jodha 1991; Blaikie 2001). The capacityof pastoral institutions is based on availability ofresources both at local level as well as in thebroader vicinity, where they serve as accessoptions. Spatial mobility is required to achieve abalance between man, animals and pastures.There is a great variability in herd managementstrategies, social organisation and degree ofmobility. Descent regulates relations betweendifferent groups and at the same time establishesthe individual’s membership in a given society asa whole and in specific subdivision of it; thismembership involves both corresponding rightsand commitments and some times even socialposition. Kinship establishes the position ofindividual in the society; descent legitimises it(cf. Marx 1976). Each geographical region has itsown unique pattern of development and inter-action with the sedentary societies. Pastoralist’seconomic dependence on their domesticatedherds in varying degrees is the only feature thatall pastoralists share in common. Where herderslack proprietary rights to specific grazinggrounds, they use labour, capital or kin networksto exchange resources.

Unlike much of Central Asia, where commandeconomies over-ride traditional access rights, theBhutias and Changpas have communal pasture-land with strong community regulation of land

156


usage. Among Goddis Historically speaking, allthe land belonged to the Rajah (King) of Chambawho would rent out small fields to differentfamilies. The lush mountainous meadows andgrazing grounds in the area facilitated the raisingof sheep and goat. They were given propertyrights in the Alpine pastures and customaryrights or contracts with residents in low hills forgrazing. Gaddis spend the summer in theirpermanent homes in Bharmour and cultivate theirlands and in winter, they migrate to lower hills ofKangra valley with their sheep and goats. In wintermigrations, their families also accompany them.While men go with animals, women and childrenwork as labourers and house help. The proprietorfarmers provide shelter and grazing on their fieldsafter harvest or on meadows. In return, the farmersget manure for their fields. In summer migrations,when agricultural activities demand attention, theGaddis engage puhal (shepherd) on wages tolook after the flocks. The year-round migration insearch of pastures between upper and lower hillsis independent of other economic activities ofthe flock owner (malhundi) (Bhasin 1988, 1996).All customary institutions relating to transhu-mance are based on reciprocity; the underlyingprinciple of this practice is coordination betweennomadic pastoral groups and communities ofcultivators on the way and the foot-hills. Survivalof the pastoralists and their livestock calls forcomplementarity, rather than competition,between arable and pastoral demands onresources at different altitude. There should beprovision for economies of scale for both arableand pastoral land-use pattern.

Changpas have neither crop-residue optionnor any institutional arrangement with othercommunities for grazing their animals. They haveonly access to their traditional grazing in differentvalleys in summer and winter. Single resourcecompetitors always have framework to overcomescarcity and conflicts due to internal pressures(population growth, growth in herd size andchange of activity) and external pressures (climatechanges and environmental degradation) as theirresources are limited. The organisation of spatialmovements is important in pastoral communities.Among Changpas, these movements are regularand cyclic between the areas of summer pasturesand winter pastures. The orbit of routes andpastures, the routine, direction and schedules ofmigration are fixed.

Changpas have communal pastureland with

strong community regulation of land usage.Changpas follow the traditional system of grazingwherein the headman- the goba decides areas foranimal grazing. A unique feature of the traditionalpastoral system is the complex administrativesystem of pasture allocation and reallocation bygoba. The Changthang is divided into a numberof named pastures of varying size, each withdelimited borders recorded in register book.Changpa households can use only their assignedpastures. Each pasture is painstakingly suitablefor a fixed number of animals calculated locallyon their own system. Thus, access to pasturewith particular characterstics is allotted to aparticular household with some combination ofanimals, totalling to a specified number. Eachpasture is expected to sustain only what isconsidered an appropriate number of livestock.Triennial censuses of adult animals determineeach household’s herd size and its allocation ofpastures and taxes. Additional pastures areallocated to household whose herds haveincreased and are taken from those whose herdshave decreased. The whole area under his controlis divided in to two zones—one for gompa(monastary) animal grazing and the other forcommunity animal grazing. Every year threefamilies selected by goba in rotation take gompaanimals with their own herds to allotted pastures(lungrung). The community and gompa animalsgraze at pastures, which are far off from each other.In addition, one selected family has to take allcommunity as well as gompa horses for grazing.The gompa animals graze on the best pasturesand so do the animals of the caretaker families.The families who look after gompa animals are inan advantageous position as their animals havegood graze, along with gompa animals.

Like Changpas, Bhutias of Lachen andLachung have also preserved their traditional formof dzumsha (village council) and phipun(headman) administration, which control the landdistribution. The Lachen and Lachung area has aspecial status with regard to settlement, landrevenue and local administration. The Bhutias ofLachen and Lachung have communal forest/pastures and agricultural land with familyownership of land but with strong communityregulation of the land usage. The village is animportant land-holding unit. The whole systemof land distribution is sago. In this form of landtenure, the communal authority overrides anyclaim the state might extend on internal

157

VEENA BHASIN

sovereignty or state landlordism. In Lachung,there are three types of land: (1) land in applebelt; (2) land in maize, wheat and millet belt and(3) temporary belt. Land in apple and grains beltsis permanent. Each family, which is a member ofthe dzumsha and fulfills his duties as a member isentitled to spcified portion of land. Communitymembership entails mandatory participation in anumber of domestic rituals, as well as ceremoniesof territorial and ancestral deities. These ritualshelp ensure the health, fertility and prosperity ofthe individual, the land and the household (Bhasin1993).

COMMON PROPERTY RESOURCES

Hardin’s Tragedy of commons (1968) describedhow common resources, such as the land sharedby pastoralists, ultimately become ruined (Hardin1968). Private property proponents have erred inbelieving that common property necessarilyresults in resource degradation. Blaiki andBrookfield (1987) define common propertyresources as resources that are “subject toindividual use but not to individual possession”,has a limited number of users with independentuse rights, and have users organised as a“collectivity and together have the right to excludeothers who are not members of the collectivity”.Many studies have shown that people can worktogether to manage common-property resourcessustainably (Brombley 1992; McCay and Acheson1987). As can be seen among Changpas andBhutias, shared rights can lead to a more equitabledistribution of scarce or dispersed resources andreduce risk in the face of environmentaluncertainty (Bhasin 1994, 1996).

Most ‘common - property ’ studies, neglectthe importance of production strategies andresource access options used by pastoralcommunities to evade risks associated withenvironmental variability and other externalpressures and thus maintain their pastoral system.‘Access options’ are bundles of options availableto individuals and communities for securing theirlivelihoods and production in response to theconstraints they face.

HERD DIVERSIFICATION

Pastoralists raise mixed herds of sheep andgoats for animals and animal products, anddomesticate yaks, horses etc. for their products

as well as for transportation of goods and humanbeings. Changpas domesticate a mix of yaks,goats, sheep and horses. These animals fulfill theirmany needs. Yak, goat and sheep provide themwith wool needed for ropes, tents, clothingbeddings, milk, meat and transportation.Composition of Changpa herd is not random butis an adaptive response to environment, whichthey inhabit and the resources available to them.The herd of different animals takes full advantageof the use of vegetation in the same pasture asdifferent animals graze on different plants makingefficient use of resources. Different animals alsoprovide diversified products for self-consumptionor sale. “ Maintaining diverse herd compositionis also a strategy employed by nomads to minimizethe risk of losses from disease or harsh winters,since a mix of different species provide someinsurance that not all animals will be lost andherds can be rebuild again” (Miller 2004). Meat israther a by product of the necessary process ofslaughtering animals from the flock, which takesplace before the winter, so as to avoid wastingscarce fodder on animals which have outlivedtheir usefulness. The domestic goats of Chang-thang produce the finest cashmere wool orpashmina. Rupshu has highest livestock popu-lation and consists on an average 300 animalsper family. The household depends for its sub-sistence on the animals owned by its members.Changpa’s flock must include sheep and goatsas producers, yaks to transport the belongingson the migrations and a dog to guard for the herdand tent.

Gaddis domesticate two types of animals, non-migratory and migratory. Gaddis keep the non-migratory domestic animals - bulls and cows inthe permanent villages of the middle hills. Thecattle subsist on wild fodder, which they forageand that which is gathered for them comes fromforest trees, brush and grassland. No fodder cropsare grown, although chaff, stocks and occa-sionally grains, are fed to them. During wintermonths when most of the families depart, a smallpercentage of the population is left behind to lookafter the cattle (that subsist mainly on corn stalks),fields and spinning and weaving of the woolens.

The migratory flocks of Gaddis consist ofsheep and goats, whose survival depends largelyon transhumant herding. Sheep are raised mostlyfor their wool, which is sheared thrice a year toprovide the coarse wool, which is woven intorain resistant blankets and the snowshoes for the

158


shepherds. Gaddis raise goats for their milk andmeat. Milk is the staple of the shepherd’s diet onmigration. Of greatest financial value is the meat.To maintain the size of the flock, about 40 percentof the goats are sold during winter. Althoughsheep produce more wool, they as compared togoats are less hardy and give less milk and meat.Goats are able to survive on poorer pastures thansheep but at the same time tend to destroy thepasture after they have grazed for a certain lengthof time, as their sharp hooves cut the turf, exposingthe top soil, which is blown away by the wind(Bhasin 1988).

Bhutias of Lachen and Lachung raise yaks,dzow (a breed of yak and common cow) sheep,horses and mules. They obtain milk, meat andwool from the animals. Bhutias rely on yaks,ponies and mules for transportation (Bhasin1989).

CONCEPT OF WEALTH

An accumulation of material goods beyond acertain point restricts the pastoralist’s freedomof movement, thus reducing his ability to care forhis herds and intimidating his livelihood. Thepastoral nomad’s economy is not organised forsustained production even in normal times.According to Lattimore, “the pure nomad is poornomad” (cf. Salzman 1980: p. 34). However, thereis emphasis on accumulation of more animals.Having a large herd is cultural goal of mostherders; prestige and status are defined by havinglarger herds than one’s fellows. Work is organisedby “non-economic” relations in the conventionalsense, belonging rather to the general organisa-tion of society. In nomadic pastoralist society,inequality is more the organisation of economicequality and one secures or maintains highposition by generosity.

The economic structure of a society becomevisible from the interaction of the general forceswith the specific thoughts, habits, culture andpatterns of social organisation and institutionsexisting in the society. Even as pastoral nomadsshow a variety of social organisation, they aregenerally simple in nature and frequentlydominated by kinship relations. An economicsense for these pastoralists means an efficientway to exploit natural grassland resources.According to Barfield, “the economics of pasto-ralism is based on the type of animal raised andwhat is done with the products” (Barfield 1993: p.12). Concept of wealth is different among pastoral

nomads. Wealth is tied to the ownership of ani-mals rather than the ownership of land. Thenumber of animal heads they possess determinesthe prosperity of pastoral households. Thehousehold depends for its subsistence on theanimals owned by its members.

According to Salzman (1980), “they also seetheir herds as banking and investment devices,so that they will try, for example, to keep somesmall stock as relatively liquid assets or ‘smallchange’ for consumption purposes, or will con-vert downward to small stock from their remaininglarge stock after a drought to take advantage ofhigher growth rates and lower per-unit riskfactors” (Salzman 1980: p. 177). Importance ofnon-economic goals in pastoral societies revealsmany interesting aspects. Their economicsrequires distinguishable strategies for short-termproductivity and longer-term insurance.

Pastoral societies are not often homogenous,but are discernible by household variation inwealth and livestock ownership. Livestock, unlikeland, constitute fluid capital for a pastoralist,which they use as a productive resource, amarketable surplus and a form of stored wealth.Livestock are subject to both natural increasesand catastrophic losses, and amassing wealth inpastoral society has been described as volatilewhere the fortunes rise or fall (Barth 1966). Fratkinand Roth (1990) examined the effects of 1984drought upon household wealth differences in acommunity of Ariaal pastoralists of northernKenya. Their analysis confirmed the hypothesisthat the drought resulted in increase householdwealth inequalities.

Among all the three tribes, ownership of herdis the key determined of a man’s wealth and status.Number of animals in herd is always moreimportant than quality. Animals are also the onlyform of inherited wealth, since access to pasturesis acquired by lineage affiliation and is notpersonally owned.

The members of the three groups use theiranimals to acquire prestige and influence in theirsocieties. Loaning of milk animals to needy,accumulation of impressive dowry, gift giving,commitment of resources are not strictly under-standable on an economic grounds alone. Theincreasing of animal numbers is not a projectionof prestige or an indicator of only social status. Itis as an insurance against constraint events,herders have to struggle to increase stock num-bers, in order to provide security in case of losses,

159

VEENA BHASIN

to leave a remainder of feasible size, to rebuild itsherd.

SETTLEMENT PATTERN

The scattered and constantly shifting herdingunits of the pastoralists are truly the primarycommunities of pastoral society. They correspondto hamlets among sedentary people. The membersof a herding unit make up a socially boundedgroup. Unlike a sedentary community, whichpersists unless the members abandon their houseand land and depart, a herding unit of nomadscan only persist through continuous reaffir-mation by all its members. The coordination ofcomponents of economically independent herd-ing units is essential to make it a viable unit. Theconsent of the members of the herding unitregarding such decision is important for themaintenance of a herding unit as a social unit. Insome areas, the transhumants live in tents andmove with their animals and families on fixedroutes. When routes are fixed between thesummer and winter pasture, they may constructhuts at both the places. In such cases, tents areused only during migrations. Gaddis at mid-altitude own permanent houses and agriculturalland. Some Gaddis also own houses and fields attheir winter pastures. Gaddis do not use tents inany of their migrations. They like to travel lightly.They obtain products from animals and use themdirectly. When they pass agricultural areas, theybarter animal products for grain and othernecessities. When pastoralists have regularsummer and winter pastures, they start growingmillet, barley or vegetables near them, as Bhutiasand Gaddis do. The grain is for the humanpopulation and left-over of arable farming asforage for animals.

Like Gaddis, Bhutias of Lachen and Lachunghave houses at their permanent villages but theyalso use byah (tents) made of yak hair duringmigrations to high altitude pastures. Lachenpasmigrate seasonally and have encampments atdifferent places. Lachenpas inhabit Lachen frommiddle of February to middle of May and then movetowards Menshithang. As a rule, young peopleaccompany their herds to grazing area but someLachenpas do take their families along as they havebuilt Kachcha houses there. Besides grazing animals,they collect firewood and grasses. After April, onlyyoung men and women migrate to higher villagesof Zemu, Tallum, Samdong, Yakhang and Kalep and

later to Thanggu area to sow potatoes. From Mayto September, they stay in higher region and engagethemselves in different activities like agriculture,pasturing, trade and collecting minor forest produce.Thanggu is the meeting place of migratingLachenpas as they have a yak-tent gompa and acommunal tent kitchen for feast. Dzumsha meetingtakes place twice a month at Thanggu.

Among Lachungpas there are no encamp-ments as the families do not migrate seasonally.The three busties (hamlets) of Lachung revenueblock have cultivable lands at Khedum, Leemaand Lothen. All these places are nearby and totalcultivable land is about 16 hectares. During themonths of November-December, male members gowith animals beyond these places. While grazingthey collect grasses and firewood. In May they taketheir animals to high altitude pastures halting atYumthang (3,660 metres), Yume Samdong (4,880metres) and Chholhamo. Thus, Lachungpas migratesix kilometres up the Lachung to Chholhamo andsix kilometres down Lachung to Khedum, LeemaLothen. Two phipun (headman) look after the affairsof these encampments, which are primary commu-nities of Bhutia society. The members of encamp-ment make up a clearly bounded social group, theirrelations to each other as continuing neighboursare relatively constant while other links aregoverned by chance. Members of the encamp-ment must agree in their decisions on the vitalquestions economic strategies, such as divisionof cultivable land at different places, grazing land,migratory schedules and other social matters.Aphipun holds his encampment together by exerci-sing his influence in establishing and formulatingunanimous agreement within the encampmentson dates of migration and beginnings ofagricultural activities (Bhasin 1989, 1996).

Among Changpas, though places ofmigration and routes are fixed but they have manyreasons of not building permanent houses. Thepastures are assigned only for three years for aparticular group. This rotation and lack of buildingmaterial restricts Changpas from buildingpermanent houses at any altitude. They live in ablack tent (rebo) with designs, suited to localeconomy and availability of raw materials in thevicinity. These tents are woven and made byChangpas themselves. These tents are strongenough to last many generations. The tent iswater-proof because of natural greasiness of thehair and the oily smoke of yak dung burned insidein the hearth. These tents withstand heavysnowfall and strong winds.

160


Almost all nomads have a base, usually in atraditional winter village from where they make well-established moves with their livestock to seasonalpasture. The number of moves from winter toseasonal pastures depends upon the availabilityof water and fodder. The Changthang nomadsmove along with their livestock annually betweensummer and winter encampments with associatedpastures. The migration sequence enables thenomads to utilise the different pastures in theirgrowing period. Often, households move parts oftheir herds, say, male and non-lactating sheep andgoats to a secondary satellite camps at otherpastures and in a different season pregnantfemales are moved to another satellite camp,depending on availability of pastures and labourto do so. This system applies only to sheep andgoats. Yaks are moved according to differentsequence. They leave male yaks unsupervised inthe mountains throughout the year until they areneeded for transportation. In autumn, the femaleyaks are herded daily and move with the sheepand goats. In winter, the female yaks are movedto mountain slopes to forage there. According toChangpas, their traditional system has allowedthem to survive on Changthang Plateau forcenturies without destroying their resource baseprecisely because it fostered a balance betweentheir highly adapted herds and the harsh environ-ment. This also justifies the individual herdmanagement strategy. Changpas have permanentstone and mud houses in winter villages, whereparents settle after retirement from transhumantlife.

The Changpa economy is labour intensiveand the labour resources of a household set anupper limit on the number of animals they cancare for. Changpa household consists of eithernuclear families or polyandrous households.These domestic units are stable in composition,but camp groups, herding groups and groups thatmigrate together are very unstable in composition.These groups tend to change in composition withevery season as households make temporaryagreements based primarily on economicconsiderations. Households are grouped intoshallow agnatic lineages based on knowngenealogy and there (Bhasin 1996).

SOCIAL ORGANISATION

Pastoral nomads present not only differentliving lifestyles and means of subsistence but

also various types of social organisation. Pastoralpopulations are organised into so-called descentgroups (tribes, clans and lineages). The socialstructure, social organisation and community lifeof pastoralists emerges out of the needs of itsindividuals and social groups.

The role of Indigenous Institutions in thePastoral Communities is very important. Theindigenous institutions play the role of governingthe behaviour of individual member of the society.

The indigenous institutions are organised toserve the social, economic, security and develop-ment needs of its members. They also have theresponsibilities of decision-making and enforce-ment of resource use rules through politicalauthority.

Majority of pastoral groups in the world arepatrilineal. The pattern of social, functional andadministrative groups in the nomadic pastoralsocieties have emerged out of the needs to meetthe demands of a migratory mode of production.Resulting organisation of labour and socialorganisation is complex and variable. Flexibilityis required to manage herd movement, informationsharing, risk pooling, aggregation and dispersalof herders across the region. Formal institutionsare necessary to control ownership and transferof property as well as adjudicate conflicts.

Among Bhutias and Changpas, the encamp-ment is a level of social organisation, which is anadministrative and jural unit. It remains the mostinclusive level of political activity. The Bhutia andChangpa polity is characterised not by a hierarchybut by equality among its members. Power andauthority is diffused among members. Bhutiashave their own local government organisation,dzumsha, an assembly composed of the heads ofthe separate households. The dzumsha is themost powerful traditional system governing natur-al resources. In Bhutia system, laws regardinglivestock production involve range-land andwater resources management as core componentsof the indigenous institutional system, which stillstrives to be adhered to. Management of theseresources are closely bound to the pastorallivelihood and strictly observed by the society.Every member of the society is required to respectcustomary laws. Under the general assembly,dzumsha, phi-phun has the highest authority inthe system. He has two gyapons, who work ashis helpers and acts as constables and messen-gers as well. Village elders gen-me assist phi-phunin the effective working of village administration.

161

VEENA BHASIN

The institutional structure extends to communityand village levels where the actual administrationsand management of resources take place. Villageelders reinforce co-operation and social solidaritybetween people through shared rituals andresource sharing.

Among Changpas there is one official headgoba and Members (ghansum) number of whichdepends on the size of the camp. Like Bhutia’s’phipun, goba holds Changpa encampmentstogether and unites into unit. In this democraticform of government, the village council (chogdus)selects goba (Headman). The village councilconsists of all the male heads of the separatehouseholds. Membership and affiliation in villagecouncil is founded on the formal recognition ofboth descent and residence rules. Changpas allowa fellow villager to attend village council, if hehas fulfilled his duties as a member of the society.Selection of the goba is by consensus. Thisconsensus is arrived by finding the person withpositive qualities of simplicity, honesty, truth-fulness, social status, reputation and dealingability. A sound economic background is not anessential factor but it is an added qualification.Occasionally, a situation of discord arises for theselection of goba. In case of discord, religiousbigwigs have the final say. The life and culture ofChangpa is strongly religion-ridden. Religion is adominant force manifested in all aspects ofChangpa life. Ecological conditions in the areamake religion and religious dignitaries an impor-tant part of their life. Gompa men, Chhog Jot andKushok (head Lama) have final say in theselection of goba. In turn goba selects Members(ghansum), sangcho (camp heads) and kotwal.

The goba regularly exercises his authority inallotting pastures and coordinating the migra-tions and settling the disputes. District Commi-ssioner and other members of the administrationanticipate his co-operation in all sorts of econo-mic, social and educational schemes and develop-ment programmes.

Sangcho, camp head, who is responsible forthe management in his section to the goba,manages the scattered tent camps and in his turn,goba is responsible for the whole group. Goba’smandatory registration with the tehsildar andMember’s registration with National CongressOffice in Leh link the village council to wider politi-cal party. Each section has a kotwal appointedby goba who act as constable, messenger andodd job man. Kotwal informs the people about

the meetings; and collects funds. He is not partof the judiciary but acts as messenger.

Bhutia and Changpa societies are largelyunstratified. The indigenous system of prestigeand power among Changpas is based on relativeegalitarianism. This system differs from “kinshipsocieties” as there are no divisive characteristicsof a kinship system overpowering the socio-political system. There are no social classes andthe whole population carries out the same kind ofeconomic activities.

Gaddis of Bharmour have small compactvillages or hamlets. The members of these villagesmake up a clearly bounded social group; theirrelation to each other as continuing neighboursare relatively constant, while all other contactsare passing, ephemeral and governed by chance.Like all Hindu communities, Gaddis are dividedinto endogamous groups called castes. The casteties stretch outside the village to unite people ofthe same caste. The village, which appears as aunit from outside, reveals clear social divisions.The division of a village into number of castesplays a part in actual social interaction becausesocial interaction is limited by membership ofdifferent castes. Members of different castes areexpected to behave differently and to havedifferent values and ideas. These differences aresanctioned by religion. In Bharmour villages, thereis major division between high castes and lowcastes, with only minor hiearchical distinctionswithin each level. Most of these castes recogniselarge categories of caste mates united by a myththat they were related by a patrilineal descentfrom a common ancestor. Each of these categoriesis denoted by its own name and its members arefound in several villages. These groups areknown as gotras. These gotras are further sub-divided into many khinds, als and jaths. A gotraforms a kind of corporate group sharing territoriallands; it makes demands on the loyalties of itsconstituent members, each member beingresponsible to and for the whole group. It is alsoespecially useful as landholding entity, servingas a broad basis for recognising and protectingland rights. Al- association is a form of co-operation and mutual insurance, and through it,a man maintains a large range of significantinterpersonal relations within a wider society inwhich he lives. Because of ecological conditionsand resultant economic pursuits, the ties ofcommon residence, daily cooperation and face-to-face relations in local neighbourhood always

162


keep on changing. A person may not see his alassociates for lengthy periods as they arescattered widely and arbitrarily over a large area,and both his and their locations changefrequently. The relationship of al-associatestherefore consists primarily in mutual assistanceon the more important occasions of individualsocial life during the months of concentration.For much of the time, these relations remaindormant, being reactivated as occasion requires.Occasional pastoral co-operation may occurbetween al-associates. The obligation of supportin judicial affairs also exists and these are moreimportant as most disputes are settled in thetraditional biradari courts. The patrilineage isdivided into the khinds named after the ancestorswhere the split is supposed to have taken place.A khind consists of number of tols. Each tolconsists of two-three generations in depth andmay consist of one or more brothers and share acommon hearth. Though physically and econo-mically divided, a family remains nevertheless apart of tol or extended family. Frequently, all thefamilies of a tol keep their flock together underthe supervision of two hired shepherds and twotol members (belonging to any family who canspare two male members at that time for reason).In addition to these kins, Gaddis have help ofdharam - bhai (pledge brothers). Dharam-bhaisare associates whose ties are not coincident withkinship, but which, by virtue of reciprocal rightsand duties have a pseudo-kinship quality. Anunderlying theme of Gaddi social organisation isthe general difficulty of group activity on anylarge scale because of widespread dispersal ofpopulation together with diverse and frequentmovement. Practically every household is afarming and pastoral unit. In Gaddi communitywhere agricultural labour cannot be purchased,they have assured a stable labour supply throughbarton (obligatory assistance) and co-operationbetween families. At the same time, the bartongroup exercises an enormous amount of controlover society. The barton relationships are,therefore internal regulators of Gaddi society,which bind relationships and castes organisation.In the cases where fields of the family aredispersed and far apart, then the few members ofthe family or one nuclear family may reside infield dwelling. A large extended family may ownthree or four field dwellings at different places.The residents of the field dwellings are consi-dered as being members of the village community.

They participate in all village ceremonies andfulfill their barton (obligatory assistance))obligations. Failure to fulfill this obligation breaksthe barton and creates great ill-will. The fielddwellings are regarded as the extension of thevillage, occupied in order to take advantage ofthe cultivated fields. The allocation of the peopleto these field dwellings “is a significant socialstrategy in local demography, with importantimplications for social ecology. It facilitatesoptimal land use and maintenance of suitableratios of people to land” (Berreman 1978: p. 351).

Every village is headed by an elder known asPradhan and everybody abides by his decisions.A group of villages is organised into a Panchayat,the local governing body. Local disputes aresettled at the level of Pradhan, whereas the localPanchayat settles disputes between villages(Bhasin 1988).

Studies have shown that decision-makingorganisation and pastoral nomads’ camp-sizedepicts variation. It is suggested on both theore-tical and empirical grounds that tendency andmaximum potential range of variation in camp sizeamong nomads groups is heavily constrained bylimitations on the ability of individuals and smallgroups to monitor and process information indecision contents (Johnson 1981).

Social organisation of pastoral groups isbased on kinship. However, it is not only pastoralsocieties, where kinship, pseudo-kinship form thestructural basis of social organisation, othersocieties following different economic systemsalso has a kinship base. Transhumant way of lifenecessitates relation beyond the limits of a village.The quality of social relationships in which,transhumant engage: their form and meaning, theway they are initiated and sustained, is similar.However, despite the apparent likeness, there arecultural differences. All the three-transhumantgroups have bond brotherhood type of relations.Widespread and diffused social ties haveecological and herd maintenance advantages fora broad variety of nomadic peoples regardless oflocal or the particular species herded (Pastner1971).

It has been reported by Lanchester andLanchester (1999) that among nomads of Arab,all activities have both subsistence and surplusaspects. With a choice of conduits like gifts,exchange, hospitality and taxation surplus is dis-tributed. Among nomads, the social relationshipssupported mainly by generosity imply much more

163

VEENA BHASIN

significance than mere material wealth. Accordingto Lancaster, Arab nomads see social relationshipas the practical base of their flexibility, which isthe key of their survival. They see their socio-economic system as more sustainable than thatof the state systems, because former is based onstrict morality lacking in state system.

Among Changpas through the law ofprimogeniture, the eldest son inherits theproperty of the parents including rebo (tent). Afterthe wedding of his eldest son and birth of hisoffspring, father hand down his tent to his eldestson and move to a reb-chung. They leave theirmigratory life and settle in traditional wintervillages of their sections. In traditional wintervillages, they have a small house, little piece ofland and few animals sufficient for the support ofthe several fathers, the mother and unmarriedyounger sisters. The eldest son or daughter incase of no sons acquires the remaining, largerportion. The children do not abandon theirparents and regularly visits them, especially onfestivals and other social occasions. Traditionally,Changpa practiced polyandry. However, now alltypes of marriage are prevalent. The polyandrousmarriage provides the required labour to setthemselves as an economically independent andviable household unit (Bhasin 1996, 2009 inpress).

Among Bhutias of Lachen and Lachung, thecomponent households are economicallyindependent. Each house has its own animals,land and grazing rights by virtue of his dzumshamembership. All sons inherit equally. Though theherd of a household is administered and utilisedas a unit, individual members of the householdusually hold separate title to the animals. Whenthings are going good, fathers frequently give afew animals to their sons and daughters. In cases,where there are no sons, female inheritance iscommon. Like Changpas, after the birth of a child,the couple establish themselves in a separatehouse. Bhutia society make arrangements where-by productive property in the form of land, herdsand equipment and additional labour force areprovided to secure the viability of newly esta-blished incomplete elementary families (Bhasin1989).

The household units of Gaddis are based onnuclear families. With the death of the father, theauthoritarian unity of his nuclear family ceasesand it breaks into a number of independentgroups. These groups still comprise the ‘family’

of the father but now these are the primary unitsof inheritance and will be nuclear family of eachson. The establishment of each nuclear familyfrequently coincides with at least informal divisionof property. The widow mother and unmarriedsibling stay in the father’s house. If a father hasone wife, the property is divided among the malechildren called mundawand (munda-boy, wand-division). If father has more than one wife, theproperty is divided among the number of wivesone has. Later on wives divide their share amongtheir sons (Bhasin 1988).

Among Bhutias, Changpas and Gaddis thehousehold is the smallest and most important unitof production and consumption. However, incases of need, group structures-larger than thehousehold and smaller than the villages areaccessible. These are the mutual aid groups basedon reciprocity, consisting of neighbours and/orrelatives, mostly on residential and customarylines. Though these are informal groups, violationof its rules may lead it to formal level.

The three groups practice different form ofmarriage. Gaddis practice monogamy, whileBhutias and Changpas practice polyandrous,polygamous or monogamous form of marriage.Under extreme environmental conditions, certainsocial structures like polyandrous marriage areimportant as an ecologically conditioned socialand economic structure.

Transhumant Gaddis of Bharmour, HimachalPradesh are agro-pastoralists, who own perma-nent houses, land and practice agriculture at mid-altitude. They rear large flocks of sheep and goat.In winter, they move to lower altitudes with theirflocks and family, where men pasture their flocksand women and children work in the houses oflocal people. In summer, they go to high altitudepastures with their flocks, while the familymanages the agriculture. For all these diverseeconomic activities, they do not resort topolyandry but manage with the nuclear family.They do have institutional support to addmembers to their family. Gaddis have provisionfor supplementing work force in these patrilocalfamilies by marriage, birth/adoption andincorporation. In case, wife is infertile, polygynyis a mean to seek a heir; when a woman is widowed,polygyny (through the mechanisms of levirate,i.e. fraternal widow inheritance) is a means toprovide her a husband within the family, retainingher labour and avoiding her separation from herchildren she has produced from a previous

164


marriage. Incorporation of young male relationsand ghar-jawantari (a typical form of marriage)are the means to supplement work force of thefamily. In this form of marriage, the boy has towork, as a helping hand in the house of his wouldbe father-in –law for a specified period decidedearlier (Bhasin 1988).

While considering the exchange pattern ofany society, anthropologists analyse threefundamental forms of exchange-reciprocity,redistribution and market exchange. Amongpastoralists, the three fundamental forms ofexchange are practiced in different combinations.

The use of surplus time and resources issocially, culturally economically specific. Bhutias,Changpas and Gaddis practice the three funda-mental forms of exchange-reciprocity, redis-tribution and market exchange in different combi-nations. Food sharing beyond the domestic unitis uncommon. Rights of access to pastoralproducts lie within the domestic sphere and arenot generally shared beyond the household.Relationships beyond the family or corporategroups tend to be based on balanced reciprocityand animals are used in many pastoral groups asa basis for creating social debt or obligation butgenerally within constraints of access toresources. All the three groups practice redistri-bution in various forms. As stated by Crapo (1995),that generally, the ‘gift’ constitutes the basictheme of reciprocity. Carpo (1995) elucidatesreciprocity as “the system of exchange in goodsor services are passed from one individual orgroup to another as gifts without the need forexplicit contracting for specific payment” holdsgood for the three groups under discussion. Asstated by Friedl (1976) that redistribution “entailsthe collection of goods by central authority andthen the reallocation of those goods accordingto some principle to the members of the society”(p.319), the Bhutias, Changpas and Gaddis, collectmaterials and redistribute by arranging a feast.The feasts are sponsored either by rotation or byan individual in lieu of crime committed againstthe society in all the three groups.

A sexual division of labour is common inpastoral societies, but the role of women’s labourstands in sharp contrast to that of women inforaging societies. In pastoral groups womenhave limited rights to dispose of the products ofpastoral production, which tend to be controlledby men. Though women labour is important tosocietal reproduction, the status of women is

lower in pastoral groups. In all the three groupstraditional rules and regulations form thefoundation of women’s position which is reflectedin the traditional practices. The tools of pro-duction are owned by men as are the forces ofproduction –animals and pasture rights. Limitedright of girls’ access to education, lack of accessto control resources and the associated rightsand benefits of their roles in community affairs,decision-making, labour division etc. In all thethree societies under study, women power doesnot extend to societal or political spheres. Theeconomic power of the women in the householdis not translated in to corresponding communityauthority. Men’s work in public sphere has usuallyenjoyed higher status than women’s domesticwork. Women supremacy is restricted within thefamily domain and does not extend to social orpolitical spheres. The main obstacle to haveequality in status of women and men is thewomen’s lesser ability to perform work other thandomestic work. By convention every villagePanchayat has a female member, the lady nevertake any active interest in the proceedings ofPanchayat. Bhutias have a tradition of collectivedecision making by communities through theinstitution of dzumsha. However traditionalinstitutions do not witness a significant role forwomen and dzumsha is constituted of males only.In the absence of a male member, a female canrepresent her family unit. If a male head is absentfrom dzumsha meeting, he is fined, however ifrepresented by female head, she is liable to payhalf the amount for her absence. This shows thatwomen have a secondary importance in publicaffairs and community decision-making. Womenare generally bypassed and marginalised eitherbecause they lack the requisite skills or becausewomen’s heavy and unending domesticresponsibilities makes attending meetings andparticipating in decision-making difficult (Chapter14 in the present Volume).

PERCEPTION OF RELIGION

The perception of religious phenomenonamong pastoral nomads is different from settledsocieties. The gather together habitat of the wintercontrasts with scattered habitat of the summerseason, with its mobility and the splitting of thegroup into families in the narrowest sense of theworld. There are two ways of occupying land andtwo ways of thinking as well. This contrast

165

VEENA BHASIN

between life in winter and summer is reflected notonly in rituals, festivals and ceremonies of all sorts,but it also deeply affects ideas, collective repre-sentation, in a word, the whole mentality of thegroup. In summer, the life is somewhat secularis-ed. The ecological constraints to which the groupis subject make mobility necessary and group’srequirements come to restricts religious thoughtand practice. The mobility that characterisespastoral societies is indeed the central feature oftheir organisation. When they come to wintervillages, they have more time and their thoughtprocess is different. Among transhumant, socialrelations become activated through changes ofplaces-proximity and distances are not relevant,and space is in a sense negated. Among theBasseri, pastoral nomads of Iran, the paucity ofritual activity is striking. The central rite of societyis migration itself. The movement leads nomadsinto closer recognition of the one constant in theirlife, the environment and its life-giving qualities.Under such conditions of flux where group andeven family relations are brittle and fragmentary,the environment in general and ones’ ownencampment and grazing lands become for eachindividual the one reliable and rewarding focusof his attention, his loyalty and his devotion. Thenomad does not have the impression of inhabitinga fabricated world but is in direct contact with thenature. He is controlled by nature and not bypersons. The domestic animals whose inter-ventions he exploits the wild objects, serve onlyto mediate this relationship with nature. Mobilityand fluidity of groups and within groups, affectthe ideology of nomads and that may be reflectivein collective representations in rituals. Nomadismand its underlying ideology is a “certain type ofbehaviour” rather than a mode of economic pro-duction or as a variable determined by environ-ment. This particular attitude in the face ofsupernatural and the symbolic world is governedby nomadic way of thinking (Spooner 1973;Barfield 1993). Legitimating of the social structureis the primary purpose of the religion. Wheneverpeople gather into groups that are in generalconcordance with one another- such as religiousservices and ceremonies-the existing socialstructure is maintained because balance has beenpreserved. Religion of Changpas may includeworship of their animals and becomes so meaning-ful that the ceremonies and rituals surrounding ithave become apotheosized. Both Bhutias andChangpas are Buddhists, while Gaddis are

Hindus. Gaddis are staunch Shaivites and believethat Lord Shiva resides at Mani-Mahesh for aperiod of six months and migrates to Piyalpuri,the nether land, during the winter months. Themigratory period of the Gaddis coincides with themigratory pattern of their main deity, Lord Shiva.Gaddis’ eco-socio-cultural configurations areconceptually derived from this upward-downwardmovement of Lord Shiva. The Gaddi annualcalendar of activities is accordingly divided intotwo halves and represents two distinct modes oflife during the summer months at Bharmour andthe high passes of the Dhauladhar and wintermonths in the valley of Kangra. The up and downmovement is cyclical and follows nature’s rhythm.When Shiva migrates to Piyalpuri, he takes awaywith him all the living creatures, so the Gaddi toomigrates. This upward-downward movement is soimportant to the Gaddi that it is reflected in hismore sedentary existence as well, namely in theconstruction of his houses, which stand as if on avertical pole and the life within the house, whichalso follows this movement. Despite being Hindus,they worship many spirits and supernaturals.

The Bhutias of Lachen and Lachung areBuddhists and believe in the basic principles ofmerit and sin. They also believe in a vast array ofgods and spirits whom they propitiate atappropriate time for the general welfare of society.The Bhutias place great emphasis on coerciverites of exorcising and destroying demons. Theexecution is in the hands of trained specialistspau, nejohum and lamas. Bhutia nunneries(manilkhang) are geographically separated fromthe gompas and nuns do not perform rituals andfuneral rites for people. There are frequent servicesin busti (village) gompa, conducted by the locallamas on different occasions at specified timesthroughout the year. Such services entail theconstruction of complex altar arrangements(destroyed at the completion of the event) andreadings of religious texts, but every serviceculminates with a distribution of food, for whichall Bhutias come. Each family contributes to theceremonies performed at the busti gompa.Compulsory work and contributions are expectedwhen festivals are held and rituals performed toward off evil spirits and natural calamities. Bhutiasare very particular about these services and havebuilt a gompa in a tent at Thanggu, the summergrazing area. In addition to public gompa events,Bhutia religion also consists of privately sponsor-ed services, usually held in sponsor’s home, on

166


birth, marriage, illness and death. A householdmay sponsor a ceremony in the absence of anylife crises, simply for the purpose of gaining merit,good luck, protection or all three for the house-hold. All religious ceremonies have a broadlycommon base, centering on offerings andpetitions to god, and offerings and threats to thedemons and closing with a ritual food to allpresent. And finally, village religion includes theprimordial tradition of shamanism (Bhasin 1989).

Changpas worship inside the tent as well asoutside in the herds. Changpas worldview is thatrelation between animals and humans is basedon link or association rather than a clear boundarybetween them. The belief is that both humansand animals exist as subjects within the sameworld and have a relationship of mutualdependency. Buddhist pantheon represents athree-tier division of the world. Gods inhabit theuppermost level, klu (spirits of aquatic andsubterranean world) dwell in the lowest and thepeople and btsan (demonic deities) occupy themiddle level. Among pastoralists, animals are avital link between man and the gods. It is importantto understand that the expressed relationshipbetween living beings is not the general love foranimals as such. Some animals are of importancefor people’s subsistence become icon of worshipin a culture, as the sheep among Changpa. AmongChangpas, sheep are the focal point of thisentreaty of gods, btsan (demonic deities) and klu(spirits that inhabit aquatic and subterraneanworlds) and have to be constantly appeased.Through sheep, the Changpas receive blessings.However, the correlation between ‘worship’ andsubsistence value of an animal is not applicableto all pastoralists or hunters. Changpas herdsconsist of sheep of different colours. From eachherd, five male sheep with specified colourcombination are dedicated to different gods.Changpas keep few sheep for expelling cursesand bad luck. These are not dedicated to anyparticular god. In case of evil eye or when anothercurses a person, Changpas offer incense andrecite prayers over such a sheep to ensure thebreaking of spell. They do not sacrifice thesesheep but keep them simply for worship. Somefamilies dedicate goats for worship too. Changpascommit male yaks and horses as well. Thesehorses and yaks are property of the gompa.Changpas worship these yaks and horsesannually, at the beginning of the annual gompafestival along with the other dedicated male sheep

and goats of the gompa. Changpas make regularofferings to the dedicated animals in the herd.They neither kill nor sell these committed animalsin any circumstances. Eventually, after their death,young ones replace them.

In addition, each family keeps some animalsfrom each type of either gender for the welfare ofthe family members. Head of the family select theseanimals. To select tshe-thar, he throws prayerbeads in the air and on which animal’s body thebeads fall are the chosen ones. Then a lama comesand blesses these animals. These animals elevatesuffering of the family and take away sin or evil.All these selected animals get preferred treatment.They do not carry weights. Changpas do not rideover dedicated or selected horses. However, theyshear dedicated sheep and remove pashmina fromthe goats. After the shearing of livestock,Changpas hold a large prayer ceremony and invitethe Rinpoche of Dubbock to preside over theprayers. It is for the welfare of the community aswell as the livestock.

The cultural interpretation of pastoralism isnot separate from its practice but is more importantfor the outcome than the procedure. Changpasconsider sheep as sacred and receive blessingsthrough these. The perception of sheep as sacredimplies that animals possess magical or super-human qualities, well thought-out for practicingsuccessful pastoralism. The lamas of the gompasare very important even if they do not participatephysically in herding animals. The festivals, ritualsand associated taboos are all important. “Thereciprocity between humans and animals wasconceived of as an agreement between partnerswhich prevented human beings from taking morethan he or she needed” (Vecsey 1980: p. 20).

Ceremonial life of Changpas consists ofindividual rites involving the family members.Some ceremonies include people outside thefamily, the Pha-spun members. Other ceremoniesinvolve feasts and other entertainments whereall the members of pha-spun are present. Theinter-pha-spun participation include activities likejoining a procession, the tent god (phug-la), thetutelary of each pha-spun, represented throughthe sacred arrow, is housed in the upper mostpart of the tent (Bhasin 2009, in press).

Rappaport (1968) pointed out that religion andrituals had advantages for humankind when itcomes to building sustainable and reliablesystems for society and in the long run, theenvironment. People invest emotions and their

167

VEENA BHASIN

deep-rooted traditional ecological knowledge inperforming rituals. Since rituals are social events,the entire society becomes involved. Accordingto Anderson, rituals regulate the egoistic andwasteful behaviour and embed the message ofresponsibility in a more efficient way than do meresecular ways. Traditional societies encode theirresource system in rituals. All traditional societiesthat have succeeded in resource managementhave done so partly by embedding their praxis inreligion and rituals (Anderson 1973).

RELATIONS BETWEEN STATE ANDPASTORAL GROUPS

The relationship between states and pastoralnomads has been the subject of many studies(Klute 1996; Lenhart and Casimir 2001). Statepolicies regarding forests, agriculture, irrigation,fodder, famine, pastoral rights and migration aresome of the mechanisms that contribute to thealteration of pastoral life style. Some policiesinfluence pastoralists directly and others havean effect on even if these were not aimed atherders. The pastoralists have been affected bythe events that took place outside their ownterritory. Particularly, environment societyrelationship has been altered pervasively andconsiderably, an important feature being theexpanding linkages with other productionsystems and a number of development interven-tions for the betterment of humans and livestock.Development of animal husbandry is a majorgovernment goal. The impetus to increaselivestock productivity by scientific methods isstrong. However, intervening in fragile environ-ments with complex ecological systems is adifficult undertaking. Many pastoral progra-mmes in other areas of world have resulted not inprogress, but rather in destruction of the way oflife of the inhabitants and an environment inpoorer condition than before (Sandford 1983;Swift and Maliki 1984). It has been observed fromdevelopment activities in pastoral communitiesin arid environments in inner Asia as well as fromAfrica and the Middle East, where external factorshad detrimental effects on the traditionalpastoralism and the sustainability of the naturalresources (Nimir-Fuller 1999).

Tibetan nomads have been the subject ofChinese reforms. The advent of Chinese state,collectivisation, reform and economic develop-ment have swept away old forms of leadership in

Amdo and brought significant changes to thepastoral economy. However, the nomads’narratives of continuity reflect the persistence ofan essential model of tribal organization (Pirie2005). To avoid this, it is extremely important thatplanners understand the traditional livestockmanagement system.

Recent research points to the fluidity withincertain pastoral groups and the fact that indi-viduals move in and out of herding, in responseto a wide variety of factors-market conditions thatmay alter the profitability of herding, the availa-bility of alternative options including agricultureand jobs in existing place or return to pastoralgroups. All pastoral groups in Himalaya face thesimilar constraints and stimuli. Natural exigencies-extreme weather conditions, drought, epidemicsand predators result in reduction of animals.Likewise, social crisis, such as phases in domesticdevelopmental cycle and work force shortage inherding groups cause concern in the community.The presence of diffused web of social ties-consanguineal, affinal or pseudo kins coupledwith their physical mobility enables pastoraliststo overcome such pressures. They utilise suchties periodically for replenishing depleted stock,gaining access to an ally’s pasture in time of localdearth or realigning personnel for herdingefficacy. The pastoralists have managed tosurvive because of their position in the exchangesystem. Pastoralism is an important economicactivity in the Himalayas, where ecologicalconstraints restrict agriculture. It was through thedomestication of numerous herds and flocks thatthe resources of distant pastures could beconverted into wealth. The physical environmentof the region has created a way of life, wheregroups of people along with their livestock areon move and are involved in regional transactionsat different levels. These nomads are an essentialpart of the larger socio-economic system of theregion. Before the closing of the border, they usedpastures on both sides of the border. Along withtheir pastoral activities, they carried on bordertrade. Despite the ecological constraints, pasto-ralists were managing their environment formaking a living without outside intervention.

There is chain of adverse conditions, whichare forcing Changpas to abandon their nomadiclives, their traditions and total loss of their identityand culture. The key factors are harsh winterperiods with temperatures reaching -40 degreesCelsius. During these six months, they remain cut

168


off from outside world. They survive on the foodcollected during summer and completely dependon tsampa, lentils, rice, milk, butter and drycheese. This results in high levels of malnutritionand micronutrient deficiency. During the harshwinters, children do not attend school, as thereare no heating arrangements. Even teachers arenot willing to teach under such conditions. Thereare no shelters for animals. Many perish underheavy snow. During winter, medical help is notavailable to the human as well as the animalpopulation. It is not that Changpas have not beenconfronting such conditions from centuries. Bothanimals and humans are highly adapted to theecological peculiarities of the region. The patternsof living and rearing specific animals are basedon the tested experience of centuries. However,due to recent changes in the area brought in bythe closure of Tibetan border and Changpasdespair has increased. Weakened by lack of food,animals had given births to dead lambs and kidsin winter. In 2007, 124,530 sheep and goats and10,390 yaks were directly affected by pasturescarcity caused by the desert locust attack (Sub-Division Report of Changthang 2008). Thealready overgrazed pastures were subject tolocust attack resulting total loss of pasture. Overcenturies, they have evolved an indigenousrangeland management system in which theyreserve certain pastures to be used in winter whenit snows in higher grazing areas. When otherpastures were grazed or covered with snow, theChangpa used these ‘emergency pastures’.During this period, the shepherds split the herdsintosmaller units. Stronger animals were taken topastures higher up. In 2008, because of badweather conditions and poor pasturage, herdinggroups shifted to spring pasture in January andFebruary, one-and-a-half to two months ahead oftime. There is scarcity of fodder and the traditionalsystem of ‘winter reserved pasture’ is under strain.

Since the Independence of India, thepastoralists of the Himalayas have faced a seriesof significant changes from external political andeconomic changes. These structural alterationshave brought adjustments in many aspects ofthe traditional pastoral system, includingmigratory cycle, local economy and social organi-sation. Many important changes have taken placein the region due to Indo-China war in 1962. Chinacaptured a lion’s portion of the Indian territory inmany border areas, including Changthang sub-division and Lachen and Lachung area in North

Sikkim, reducing pasturelands to their minimumlevels. Chinese annexation stimulated the Tibetanmigration to Changthang. Many of them settledin Changthang, creating social and economicproblems. Changpas have long histories ofcultural and religious homogeneity with theTibetan refugees. Nevertheless, the additionalhuman and animals’ population in the areacreated a tremendous pressure on the carryingcapacity of the land. Shortage of feed and fodderresulted in the death of a number of animals. Theloss of trade and the winter pasture led to drasticchanges in their life-style. There is increasingcommercialisation of livestock values, competitionwith other pastoralists, diminished self-sufficiencythrough local dependence on local market,encapsulation by regional administration, de-creased mobility and increasing social diffe-rentiation and inequalities in wealth and degreeof economic security. Many Changpas left theirtraditional transhumant way of life and settledalong valleys. Some have settled in urban areasnear Leh, others stick to the pastoral activities bychanging the composition of livestock by increas-ing number of goats and decreasing number ofyaks.

The development process in Leh has increas-ed opportunities of waged labour. This hasencouraged the out-migration of many Changpas.According to a household survey data carriedout between 1962 and 2001, 306 Changpas leftRupshu-Kharnak to settle near Leh town. Al-though small in number, this constitutes roughlyone-third of the original population of Rupshu-Kharnak. Over the past two decades, out-migration has reduced the number of KharnakChangpas. The Kharnak Changpas have esta-blished a permanent settlement about ten kilo-metres from Leh town. The clustering of migrantsat one destination has facilitated additionalmigrants there, creating a ‘chain migration’, byreducing the associated costs and risks for sub-sequent migrants (Hugo 1981, cf. Goodhall 2004).

The advent of reforms and economicdevelopment has brought significant changes tothe pastoral economy. Introduction of PublicDistribution System (PDS) in 1983 has broughtrations to their door steps at subsidised rates.However, this has increased the need for cash inthe local economy and has exposed householdsto the risk and uncertainty of price fluctuations.Traditional trade relationships with lowlandagricultural communities have declined in impor-

169

VEENA BHASIN

tance. Local availability of grains has encourageda shift in Korzok away from the cultivation ofsubsistence crops towards a focus on pastoralproduction, which is far more lucrative (LNP 1995).

Changpas rationally make use of theirresources and are perceptive and practical people.Their dependence on natural resources isinstitutionalised through a variety of social andcultural mechanism such as religion, folklore andtraditions. When government assumes controlof natural resources, these mechanisms becomedefunct and a radical reorientation of existingpatterns of resources take place, including atransition from collective to individual use ofresources. The results are protests, socialmovements and the violation of official laws, alongwith an erosion of social bonds that formerlyregulated the customary use of resources. Theyare open to change when they perceive newoptions to be appropriate to their way of life andcultural value. For example, they have startedusing trucks for transportation and many havebought radio and cassette players during the pastfew years. Variety of manufactured goods ispopular.

The local conditions in Changthang keep onchanging, consequently development andconservation decisions must be based on micro-level data.

The question of the future prospects of highmountain pastoralism within a framework ofsustainable development is complex. The fate ofhigh mountain pastoralism within ChangthangPlateau has revealed that socio-economic trans-formations are reflected in all sectors of pasto-ralism.

Nomadism has been undergoing regularchanges, modifications and adjustments. Inparticular their transforming socio-politicalenvironment and their incorporation within aregional market structure. Adaptation andmodification are influenced to a greater extendby political and social developments than bychanging environmental conditions in the regionwhere these practices are applied. Consequently,pastoral practices and the use of pastures willcontinue to play an economic role in Changpaslife.

Like Changpas of Changthang, Bhutias ofLachen and Lachung were also victims ofChinese’s aggression in 1962. Traditionally, inthese areas marginal agriculture and animalhusbandry was not sufficient to sustain the

Bhutia population. Consequently, the Bhutias ofLachen and Lachung were trading with Tibetansacross the border. The barter of timber, wood,dyestuffs and dairy products of North Sikkim forTibetan salt and wool formed the basis of thistrade. The Bhutias of Lachen and Lachungpursued it as an occupation intimately interwovenwith their pastoral activities. Thus, as long astrade was unhampered by political restrictions, itenabled them to remain economically inde-pendent. However, with the closing of the Tibetanborder in 1962, life changed for these people. Itdeprived them of their livelihood and had anadverse effect on their traditional crafts. As longas Tibetan wool was imported in large quantities,weaving flourished and they produced variety ofwoven articles. The Bhutias were sufferers inanother way too because of the closure of border.The Chinese seized many of their herds of yaksand flocks of sheep in 1962 during their seasonalmigration under the traditional trans-borderpasturing using arrangement. Their economyreceived a setback and underwent a number ofchanges. Military encampments, supply basesand defense posts were set up in the NorthernBorder area. Bhutias reallocated from pastoral andtrading economy to agriculture, small-scalehorticulture and wage-earning economy. Becauseof the scarcity of arable land near permanentvillage, the Bhutias of Lachen move to other areasalong river valleys for agriculture and collectionof grasses and firewood. During the rainy season,all Lachenpas move to Thanggue area (3900metres) where they have their agricultural andpastoral land. The growth of barley, maize andbuckwheat is restricted up to 2,745 metres butroot crops like reddish and potatoes grow wellup to 3,660 metres as a summer crop. From Juneto September, they stay in their farmhouses oryak huts on the Thanggu plateau. Lachenpasmove back after harvesting the crops, potato,radish and cabbage and some of them make asecond move to down south to Chungthang orMangan to sell the crops and dairy products. Onthe other hand, Lachungpas practice rain-fedagriculture on the fields near the village. Theygrow wheat, barley, potatoes and cabbage.Surplus production and export of potatoes andcabbage has brought prosperity to the village,especially after the introduction of road andvehicular traffic. Until 1903, agriculture waspractically unknown and the people devotedthemselves to their yaks and cattle. In 1903, there

170


were 400 yaks, 40 cows, 100 ponies and 30 goats.However, they grew potatoes, turnips and a littlebuckwheat (Freshfield 1903: p. 94). The alpinepastures in and around Lachung facilitate animalgrazing. Pastoralism is still a major economicstrategy, however, agricultural activities contri-bute to subsistence. They raise yak, dzow, sheep,goats, horses and mules. They move above andbelow the river valleys and exploit the grazinglands and arable land for cultivation along thevalleys and surrounding areas. The seasonalmigration emerges as an activity organised byfamily and community structure. In recent years,Lachung has gained prominence as one of themajor tourist attractions. As a result there isprofusion of lodges and hotels in and aroundLachung. This has facilitated infrastructuraldevelopment in the village bringing affluence tothe Lachenpas who ventured into tourismindustry as lodge owners, taxi owners and touroperators. The newfound prosperity has improv-ed the way of life. Unlike Lachung, Lachen doesnot attract many tourists because the villagewears somewhat dilapidated look as Lachenpasdo not inhabit it year around. However, someLachenpas have started building guesthouses atLachen and Thanggu. Lachenpas have benefitedfrom the army headquarters of 112 MountainBrigade and avail amenities like electricity, watersupply, transport etc. Many of them pursue multi-occupations as agro-pastoralists-cum-traders-cum-transport operators. The Bhutias of Lachenand Lachung have adapted culturally to diversenatural landscape and have established settle-ment patterns and production activities tailoredto the limitation imposed by the region. (For detailssee Bhasin 1989, 1993, 1996, 1997).

War of 1962, did not affect the Gaddis ofBharmour like the Bhutias and the Changpas, butthey are under stress because of the curb on theirmovements and restriction on the number oflivestock. Transhumant Gaddis population ofHimachal Pradesh are under great pressure(Chakravarty 1998). Before the mid-nineteenthcentury there was no legislation on the use offorests and grazing land but as increasing pre-ssure became a threat to their existence, a nationalForest Law was passed in 1865, giving thegovernment powers to regulate most of the forestsand pastures. Land settlement, carried out inKangra between 1865 and 1872, led to thepromulgation of the 1878 Forest Law, whichintroduced a system of reserved and protected

forests. The settlement earmarked grazing areasfor each Gaddi family and herd size was fixed, aswere the migration routes for each family and itwas stipulated that each flock would move at leastfive miles daily, spending one night at eachstopover. The Gaddis did not appreciate thesecontrols. Goats were identified as a major threatand in 1915 herders were asked to pay a higherherding fee for goats than for sheep, evensedentary stock came under this regulation. Later,the deterioration of the forests was the subject ofdiscussion and evaluation by many experts andacting on a 1920 report on the degradation ofpastures in Kullu, the local forest settlement, aban was proposed on grazing by local flocks butmigratory flocks were exempted from the ban.

After Independence, two Himachal PradeshCommissions on Gaddis reported in 1959 and 1970.The second recommended a freeze on flock size.In 1972, the State Government again issued ordersregulating flock size but due to political pressure,these decisions have never been implementedstrictly. Continued and uncontrolled grazing hasresulted in severe degradation of the productivepastures. The livestock trends suggests selectivegrazing and overstocking along grazing routesas the main reason for decline in pastures withhazards like soil erosion and weed invasion inHimalayas (Tyagi and Shankar 1988). Due to highgrazing pressure, palatable grasses and legumesdo not get sufficient time for seed setting anddispersal. Meanwhile undesirable plant species,which are not grazed, get conducive conditionsto thrive and set seed. The unchecked growth ofweeds has led to their dominance in most of thepastures (Shankar and Singh 1996).

Developments in plains, including reservoirs,irrigated agriculture, urban expansion and intensi-fication of cash cropping have reduced access towinter pastures. At high altitudes, where she-pherds take their herds for summer grazing,serious over-grazing is taking place. At the sametime, the herder’s payment for winter in the formof providing organic manure during the processof grazing has become obsolete as a number ofpermanent agriculturalists are applying chemicalfertilizers. Thus, the early movement of the herdsup through the forest belt must begin progre-ssively earlier because of restricted winter pasture,yet movement on the alpine pasture is restrictedby the season. The enforced delay in the upwardtransfer of the herds adds to the grazing impacton the intermediate forests. Finally summer

171

VEENA BHASIN

grazing is prolonged as long as possible which inturn is leading to the over-grazing of the alpinemeadows. This is leading to a break down of thetraditional arrangement between the herder andthe permanently settled cultivators. This is detri-mental to both the groups as well as to the alpinepasture, the winter grazing area at low altitudeand the forests along the migratory routes.Officials identify herding as the main cause forerosion of the north-west Himalayas. Gaddis arefacing a double challenge: shrinking low altitudepastoral areas in the Siwaliks and rapidly erodingclaims to whatever is left. Three dams constructedin the foothills of the Siwalik Hills have forcedGaddis to change their migration patterns withharmful effects for themselves and the environ-ment. Pastoral resources are related to reserva-tions and risks, which shepherds put up with.Gaddis practice transhumance because theycannot make their living by staying at one placethroughout the year. With given simple techno-logy, rugged terrain, steep slopes, small fields,absence of irrigation make agriculture insufficientby itself as a subsistence base. They compensatefor agriculture deficit, by utilizing grazing groundsin the area by rearing sheep and goats. The highaltitude combined with higher precipitationresults in a greater accumulation of snow. It tendsto accumulate through winter and it remains atsome places in region up to March and April. Theshorter season and absence of irrigation elimi-nates rice (most productive per land unit) as afood crop. These features serve to restrict theagricultural production and the number of animalsthat can be kept during the winter season as thedraft animals that are left behind have to beprovided with stored fodder throughout themonths of winter. No parallel restrictions limit thepossibility for summer grazing. Upper ranges ofthese mountains are noteworthy for their large,lush meadows and other good summer grazing.However, these pastures are only seasonal;Gaddis cannot rely on them for year round sus-tenance. Now-a-days, the forest departmentgrants permits for grazing to individuals, notcommunities; in some, cases, based on rightsgranted in the last century. Gaddis are transientcommunity bound together briefly; in summer bya stake in the Alpine common and not by bloodties. Rights in the Alpine commons are communaland are different from ‘rights of way’, which areindividual. Transhumance tied nomadic grazingto sedentary farming and was in turn sustainedby them. Ignoring the needs and the experience-

based wisdom of pastoralists will lead to tremen-dous loss of social capitol and destroy a systemof self-managed livelihoods.

The process of sedentarisation begins whena fully transhumant household begins to berooted in land at any locality on the migrationroute or nearby town either due to enrichment orimprovishment. The typological separation of thepastoral from the agricultural mode of life of thetranshumant from the settled mode is not rigid.The two modes of production, pastoral andagriculture exist side by side within the samehousehold. Those who have settled and practiceagriculture support pastoralists by growing foodfor them. Social intercourse between the two iscommon.

The sedentary adaptation requires an entirelydifferent organisation of society. The principalsources of food among pastoralists (their herds)are mobile and demand transhumant patterns ofsettlements and social relations. Both agricultureand pastoralism involve the domestication of ani-mals but the use of draft animals to draw ploughsdenotes an entirely different strategy of adapta-tion than herding. The stability of a pastoralpopulation depends on the maintenance of abalance between pastures, animal population andhuman population. Changpas worldview is thatthe relation between animals and humans is basedon connection rather than a clear boundarybetween them. The belief is that both humansand animals exist as subjects within the sameworld and have a relationship of mutual depen-dency. The interplay between pastoralists andtheir environment is set up on required need fulfill-ment rather than exploitation.

Pastoralists mostly depend on naturalresources, particularly for fuel, fodder and water.Their dependence on natural resources is insti-tutionalised through a variety of social andcultural mechanism such as religion, folklore andtraditions. When government assumes controlof natural resources, these mechanisms becomedefunct and a radical reorientation of existingpatterns of resources take place, including atransition from collective to individual use ofresources. Goldstein and Beall (1990) in their studyof Tibetan nomads demonstrated that traditionalpastoral systems of Tibetan nomads successfullymaintain their high-altitude grassland systems.In contrast, the modern strategies proposed bythe Chinese government threaten to degradethese ecosystems by limiting mobility of the pas-toral population. The results are protests, social

172


movements and the violation of official laws, alongwith an erosion of social bonds that formerlyregulated the customary use of resources. Link-ages between ecological and socio-economicapproaches insure that development is locationspecific. Centre for Sustainable Development andFood Security in Ladakh, a NGO is workingtowards an enhancement of the living standardsof the most deprived section of the Ladakhipopulation- the Changpa nomads. Food andnutrition security is important at the level of eachindividual for productive life; body security inturns depends upon the security of livelihoods.Environmental security is the base on which bothfood and livelihood safety rests. Thus, conser-vation and development of the natural resourcesbecomes necessary components of a sustainablefood and livelihood.

All Indian pastoralists are facing commonproblem of shrinking of their pastoral resourcebase. The establishment of national parks andsanctuaries, in combination with the expansionof agriculture in to marginal areas has underminedthe traditional livelihood of all of them. As a result,almost all the groups are involved in long standingconflicts with the forest authorities and many ofthem were barred from their grazing areas. Forestauthorities are continuing with their policiesthough there is mounting evidence that livestockgrazing contribute to the conservation of bio-diversity and eco-system.

The main challenge is how to establish a sus-tainable and efficient level of operations for themaintenance of natural resources and to ensurefood security in the area. The authorities have todeal with problems of the depleted animals andvegetal genetic resources and increasing povertyin Changthang. However, there is no clear policywith legal, institutional and planning frameworksfor sustainable development in Changthang.Wildlife development is a specialised field andrequires skilled workers to implement the inte-grated development programme. There areconsiderable problems of integration, overlapsand duplication of efforts among developmentagencies, with no common vision and objectives.The development agencies are working withoutcommon vision and objectives causing problemsof assimilation, overlaps and repetition.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Himalayas are characterised by highlycomplex sociological system, with rich cultural

diversity linked with equally rich biologicaldiversity. Himalayan pastoral movement is highlyfocused and its propensity is toward achievingspecific production or other roles. Generally,pastoral mobility is used to precede productiongoals in a number of diverse sectors. In Himalayanmountain milieu, we find a full range of mobilepractices in livestock keeping from mountainnomadism through transhumance to combinedmountain agriculture (Alpwirtschaft). However,pastoralism is not tied to one type of economicsystem, some pastoralists have generalisedconsumption- oriented production, while othersare specialised and market-oriented. Nor ispastoralism limited to one type of land tenure,some pastoral groups migrate within the territorythey control, while others have no political orlegal claim over the land they use. Moreover, somepastoral groups live in isolated regions far fromother populations, while others live close topeasant and urban population. Pastoral groupsvary in political structure from state-controlledpeasants, to centralised chiefdoms, to weakchiefdoms, to lineage system. The dress designs,social practices, beliefs and rituals prevalent inthe three areas are intimately linked with the localeconomy, availability of raw materials either locallyor nearby and culture-historical factors. Once ahuman group has made a particular techno-economic adaptation, there remains latitude forsocio-cultural variation. The traditional pro-duction strategy of pastoralists is of convertingtemporary abundance into storable form that canbe used throughout the year. Though thepermanent and essential resources are protectedand shared, the herds are owned privately. Thestability of a pastoral group through time can bemaintained by balancing an equation betweenpastures, animals and human population. Thequality and quantity of pastures in an area canset limits to the number of animals in a herd thatcan be supported in an area at a given time. Simi-larly the size of herds and pattern of productionand consumption can also set limits to the size ofhuman population that can be maintained.However, the equation is not so simple and allpastoral groups have to adopt certain strategieslike dispersal and concentration of animals andhuman population to overcome such problems.Culture is an adaptive strategy. It is devisedaccording to the constraints and limitations posedby the environment, with it are associated thepolitical factors.

173

VEENA BHASIN

Traditional pastoral systems have remainedstable for a long time, particularly through flexibleresponses to short-term variations of climaticconditions. Today, however, numerous demo-graphic and economic changes of long-term naturehave occurred, which triggered adaptive changeslikely to transform this system significantly. SinceIndependence of India, the pastoralists ofHimalayas have faced a series of significantchanges from external political and economicchanges. These structural alterations have broughtadjustments in many aspects of the traditionalpastoral system, including migratory cycle, localeconomy and social organisation. The mostimportant changes that have taken place in theregion are: (i) loss of winter pasture at Skagjung;(ii) settlement of Tibetan Refugees in the regionwith their livestock; and (iii) changes in economy.The advent of reforms and economic developmenthas brought significant changes to the pastoraleconomy. Traditional trade relationships withlowland agricultural communities have declined inimportance.

The development process in Leh has increas-ed opportunities of waged labour. This hasencouraged the out migration of many Changpas.According to a household survey data carriedout between 1962 and 2001, 306 Changpas leftRupshu-Kharnak to settle near Leh town.

The number of pastoral households inRupshu-Kharnak remained relatively constantover many decades because of cultural practicesthat promoted low natural increase throughpolyandry, inheritance by primogeniture andmonasticism. With the break up of polyandry andinheritance through primogeniture, nuclearhouseholds have started coming up. With moreavenues of earning, opportunities of wagedlabour, changing expectations among communitymembers and lure of better life facilities in theurban areas, all have helped Changpas in makingdecision to migrate.

Pastoralists play an important role in theecology of India. Contrary to their reputation,pastoralists have traditional practices for con-serving vegetation by rotational grazing. Pasto-ralists make a significant contribution to India’seconomy in terms of food security (milk), pro-vision of draft animal power, organic manures aswell as foreign exchange earnings (meat, fibre e.g.pashmina wool). Since pastoralists do not ownland, the produce is generated by dependenceon communally and state owned grazing land.

Currently, the trend towards globalization of themarket, with pastoral lands increasingly beingcommercialised and/or turned in to national parkshas created problems for the pastoralists. Due toneglect by officials and policy makers, pastoralistsface deprivation from their traditional and custo-mary rights to these grazing areas. The politicalmarginalisation of pastoral communities pavedthe way for forcible eviction from their land and/or restriction of their movements. Paradoxically,demand for products of pastoralists is very high.Such herding groups produce practically all thegoat-meat in India. These herding groups alsoprovide the much-needed organic manure foragriculture and horticulture. According to Kohler-Rollefson (1992), pastoralism is necessary tosustain the environment. “In Germany, when peo-ple stopped grazing livestock in the forests, thisled to a change in vegetation, totally altering thelandscape. The government now actually paysherders to graze their animals in the forest”.

As a signatory to the United Nation Conven-tion on Biological Diversity, India has committeditself to respect, preserve and maintain know-ledge, innovations and practices of indigenousand local communities embodying traditionallifestyles relevant for the conservation and sus-tainable use of biological diversity. Therefore, thegovernment of India is obliged to consider reco-gnising and protecting the role of pastoralistsand conferring certain rights that will supporttheir livelihoods and community conservation ofdomestic animal biodiversity. Governmentsshould restore traditional grazing rights in forestareas including wildlife centuries and nationalparks and in those areas earmarked for grazingpurposes in village common lands.

REFERENCES

Agarwal Arun, Sabarwal VK 2004. Whither South AsianPastoralism? An Introduction. Nomadic Peoples,8(2): 36-53.

Anderson JN 1973. Ecological Anthropology andAnthropological Ecology. In: JJ Honigman (Ed.):Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology.Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 143-178.

Barfield Thomas 1993. The Nomadic Alternative. NewJersey: Prentice Hall.

Barth Fredrik 1961. Nomads of South Persia-The BasseriTribe of the Khamesh Confedracy. London: GeorgeAllen & Unwin Ltd.

Barth, Fredrik 1966. Models of Social Organisation.Occasional Paper Royal Anthropological Institute.London: Royal Anthropological Institute.

Berreman GD 1978. Ecology, Demography and Domestic

174


Strategies in the Western Himalayas. J AnthropolRes, 34: 326-368.

Bhasin Veena 1988. Himalayan Ecology. Transhumanceand Social Organisation: Gaddis of HimachalPradesh. Delhi: Kamla-Raj Enterprises.

Bhasin Veena 1989. Ecology, Culture and Change:Tribals of Sikkim Himalayas. New Delhi: Inter-IndiaPublications.

Bhasin Veena 1990. Habitat, Habitation and Health inthe Himalayas. A Comparative Study of the Peoplesof Sikkim and the Gaddis of Himachal Pradesh.Delhi: Kamla-Raj Enterprises.

Bhasin Veena 1993. Social Dimensions of Politics: The Caseof Tribal Democracy in Sikkim. J Hum Ecol, 4: 63-78.

Bhasin, Veena 1994. Patterns of Adaptation in Sikkim. JHum Ecol, 5: 153-168.

Bhasin Veena 1996. Transhumants of Himalayas:Changpas of Ladakh, Gaddis of Himachal Pradeshand Bhutias of Sikkim. Delhi: Kamla Raj Enterprises.

Bhasin Veena 1997. The Human Settlements and HealthStatus of People of Sikkim. In: KC Mahanta (Ed.):People of the Himalayas: Ecology, Culture, Develop-ment and Change. Edited by K.C. Mahanta. Delhi:Kamla-Raj Enterprises, pp. 153-187.

Bhasin Veena 2009. Pastoral Women of Himalayas. In:Veena Bhasin, Charles Susanne (Eds.): AnthropologyToday: Trends and Scope of Human Ecology. Delhi:Kamla Raj Enterprises, pp. 193-215.

Blaikie C 2001. Why do the Nomads Settle? Livelihood,Sustainability and Rural-Urban Migration amongthe Kharnak Community of the Chang-pa of Ladakh.M.Sc. Dissertation. University of London.

Blaikie P, Brookfield H 1987. Land Degradation andSociety. London and New York: Methuen.

Dollfus Pascale 1981. Peopling and Migration: SomeRemarks based on Research in Ladakh. UPR: CNRS.

Brombley DW (Ed.) 1992. Making the Common Work:Theory, Practice and Policy. San Francisco: Institutefor Contemporary Studies.

Chakravarty Kaul Minoti 1998. Transhumance ofCustomary Pastoral Rights in Himachal Pradesh:Claiming the High Pastures for Gaddis. MountainResearch and Development, 18(1): 5-17.

Crapo H Richley 1995. Cultural Anthropology:Understanding Ourselves and Others. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Dahl G, Hjort A 1980. Some thoughts on theanthropological study of pastoralism. Commissionon Nomadic Peoples, Newsletter, 5: 14-15.

Evans-Pritchard EE 1971. The Senusi of Cyrenaica.Oxford: Claredon Press.

Fisher James F 1987. Trans-Himalayan Traders Economy,Society and Culture in Northwest Nepal. Delhi:Motilal Banarsidas.

Fratkin Elliot 1991. Surviving Drought andDevelopment: Ariaal Pastoralist of Northern Kenya.Boulder: Westview Press.

Fratkin Elliot 1998. Ariaal Pastoralists of NorthernKenya. Needham Heights, Mass: Allyn and Bacon.

Fratkin Elliot, Abella Roth Eric 1990. Drought andEconomic Differentiation among Ariaal Pastoralistof Kenya. Human Ecology, 18(4).

Fratkin Elliot, Smith Kevin. 1995. Women,s changingeconomic roles with pastoral sedentarization:Varying strategies in alternative in Rendillecommunities. Human Ecology, 23: 433-454.

Freshfield Douglas 1978. Round Kangchenjunga, (1903).Reprinted, Kathmandu: Ratna Pustak Bhandar.

Friedl John 1976. Cultural Anthropology. Harper’s CollegePress.

Gellner E 1973. Introduction to Nomadism. In: C Nelson(Ed.): The Desert and the Sown. Berkeley, California:University of California Press.

Gluckman Max 1960. Custom and Conflict in Africa.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Goldstein MC, Beall CM 1990. Nomads of Western Tibet.The Survival of a Way of Life. London: Serindia.

Goldstein MC, Masserschmidt DA 1980. The significanceof latitudinality in Himalayas mountain ecosystems.Human Ecology, 8: 117-134.

Goodall Sarah K 2004.Rural to Urban Migration andUrbanisation in Leh: A Case Study of Three NomadicPastoral Communities. Mountain Research andDevelopment, 24(3).

Gradus Y 1985. Desert Development: Man andTechnology in Sparselands. Bostca: D. ReidelPublishing Company.

Hardin, G 1968. The Theory of Commons. San Francisco:W. H. Freeman.

Harden G and Baden J (Eds.) 1977. Managing theCommons. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Harowitz Michael, Jowkar Forouz 1972. Pastoral Womenand Change in Africa, the Middle East and CentralAsia. Working Paper No. 91. Binghamton, New York:Institute for Development Anthropology.

Hugo GJ 1981. Village Community Ties, Village Norms,and Ethnic and Social Networks: A review ofevidencefrom the third world. In: GF Dejong, RWGardner (Eds.): Migration Decision Making:Approach to Microlevel Studiesin Developed andDeveloping Countries. New York Programme, pp.186-224.

Human Ecology – Special Issue 1996. Gender andLivestock Management, 24(2).

Irons WG 1971. Vatiations in politicalstratificationamong Yumut Turkmen. Anthropological Quarterly,44(3): 143-156.

Janzen, J 1993. Mobile Livestock Keeping in Somalia-General situation and Prospects of a way of LifeUndergoing Fundamental Change. In: MPOBaumann, J Janzen, HJ Schwartz (Eds): PastoralProductin in Central Somalia. Eschborn: OTZ.

Jodha NS 1991. Rural Common Property Resources: AGrowing Crisis. London: IIED. Gatekeeper SeriesNo. 24.

Johnson Gregory A 1981. Decision-making organizationand pastoral nomad camp. Human Ecology, 11(2).

Kango GH, Dhar B 1981. Nomadic Routes in Jammuand Kashmir. Studies in Transhumant andPastoralism in the Northwest Himalayas. Srinagar:Directorate of Soil Conservation.

Khatana, R.P 1976a Marriage and Kinship among theGujar Bakarwals of Jammu and Kashmir. Delhi:Manohar.

Khatana, R.P 1976b. Some Aspects of Transhumance inMountainous Traits. A Case Study of Gujar,Bakarwals of Jammu and Kashmir. M. PhilDissertation, Unpublished. Centre for Study ofRegional Development. New Delhi: J.N.U.

Klute G (Ed.) 1996. Nomads and the State. NomadicPeoples, 38(1).

Kohler-Rollefson I 1992. The Raika dromedary breeders

175

VEENA BHASIN

of Rajasthan: A pastoral system in crises. NomadicPeoples, 30: 74-93.

Krader L 1959. The ecology of nomadic pastoralism.International Social Science Journal, 11: 499-500.

Lanchester W, Lanchester F. 1999. People, Land andwater in the Arabs Middle East. New York: Taylor& Francis

Lattimore O 1989. Inner Asian Frontiers of China.Boston: Beacon Press, 1940, Reprint, 1989.

Lees S, Bates D 1974. The Origin of Nomadic Pasto-ralism: A Systematic Model. American Antiquity,39(2): 187-193.

Leh Nutrition Project (LNP) 1995. A Report on BaselineSurvey of Karsok, Ribil- Sumdo, Ankung Villages inNyoma Block District. Unpublished Report, LehNutrition Project, Leh.

Lenhart L, Casimir M 2001. Environment, Property,Resources and State. Nomadic Peoples, 5(2).

Marx, Karl 1976. Capital. A Critique of PoliticalEconomy. Vol. 1. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books.

McCay B, Acheson J (Eds.) 1987. The Question ofCommons. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Miller DJ 1998. Tibetan population: Hard time on thePlateau. Tibetan Studies Internet Newsletter, Volume1.

Netting Robert McC 1977. Cultural Ecology. Menlo Park,Ca: Cummings.

Newell WH 1967. The Scheduled Castes and Tribes ofthe Bharmour Tehsil of Chamba District. Simla:Government of India Press.

Nitzberg FL 1978 Changing pattern of multiethnicinteraction in the Western Himalayas. In: James F.Fisher (Ed.): Himalayan Anthropology. The Hague;Mauton, pp. 103-110.

Nimir-Fuller M 1999. Managing Mobility in AfricanRangelands. FAO and The Beijer InternationalInstitute of Ecological Economics.

Nitzberg Frances Lou 1970. Land, Labour and Status.The Implication of Ecologic Adaptations in aRegion of the Western Himalayas of India. Ph. D.Thesis, Unpublished. Combridge, Mass: HarwardUniversity (1970).

Nitzberg Frances Lou 1978. Changing patterns ofmultiethnic interaction in the Western Himalayas:In: James F Fisher (Ed.): Himalayan Anthropology.The Hague: Mouton, pp. 103-110.

Paine R 1974. Second thoughts about Barth’s “models”.Occasional paper No. 32. London: RoyalAnthropological Institute.

Paine R 1994. Herds of the Tundra: a Portrait of SaamiReindeer Pastoralism. London: WashingtonSmithsonian Institution Press.

Pastner Stephen 1971. Camel, Sheep and Nomad SocialOrganisation: A Comment on Rubel’s Model. Man,6(2).

Pirie Fernanda 2005. Segmentation Within the State:The Reconfiguration of Tibetan Tribes in China’sReform Period. Nomadic Peoples, 9(1).

Rao A, Casimir MJ 1982. Mobile pastrolists of Jammuand Kashmir: A preliminary report. Nomadic People,10: 40-50 (1982).

Rappaport, R1968. Pigs for Ancestors: Rituals in theEcologyof a New Guinea People. New Heaven:University Press.

Rhoades Robert E, Thompson. Stephen 1 1975. Adaptivestrategies in Alpine environments. Beyond ecologicalparticularism. American Anthropologist, 2: 535-557.

Salih M 1990. Pastoralism and the State. NomadicPeoples, pp. 25-27.

Salzman PC 1971. Movement and resource extractionamong pastoral nomads: the case of Shah NawaziBalluch. Anthropological Quarterly, 44(3): 185-197.

Salzman PC 1972. Study among pastoral peoples, inBaluchistan (Iran), Rajasthan (India), and Sardinia(Italy), Ph. D. Thesis, Chicago: University of Chicago

Salzman PC 1980. Processes of Sedentrization asAdaptation and Response. In: PC Salzman (Ed.):When Nomads Settle: Processes of Sedentrization asAdaptation and Response. New York: Praeger, pp.1-20.

Salzman Philip Carl 2002. Pastoral Nomads: Some generalobservations based on research in Iran. Journal ofAnthropological Research, 58(2): 245-264.

Salzman PC 2004. Pastoralists: Equality, Hierarchy andState. Boulder: Westview Press.

Sanford S 1983. Management of the Pastoral Deve-lopment in the Third World. New York: J.Wiley &Sons.

Scholz F 1995. Nomadismus. Theorie and Wandeleinersozio-okologischen kulturweise. Stuttgart.

Shankar Vinod, Singh JP 1996. Grazing Ecology. TropicalEcology. 37(1): 67-78.

Sharma, Vijay Paul, Kohler-Rollefson Ilse, Morton John2003. Pastoralism in India: A Scoping Study.Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management.

Singh RCP (Ed.) 1964. A Village Survey of Brahmaur.Brahmaur Sub-Tehsil Chamba District. HimtchalPradesh. Census of India, 1961 Vol. XX, Part VI,No. 5, Government of India Press, Simla.

Spooner B 1973. The Cultural Ecology of PastoralNomads. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesely PublishingCo.

Sweet LE 1965. Camel Pastoralism in North Arabia andthe Minimal Camping Unit. In : A Leeds, AP Vayda(Eds.): Man, Culture and Animals: The Role ofAnimals in Human Ecological Adjustments. Ameri-can Association for the Advancements of Science.

Swidler WW 1973. Adaptive Processes RegulatingNomad-sedentary Interactionin. University ofCalifornia Press.

Swift J 1977. Pastoral Fevelopment in Somalia: herdingcooperatives as a strategy against desertification andfamine. In: MH Glantz (Ed.): Desertification andEnvironmental. Boulder, Colorado: Westview-Press.

Swift J, Maliki A 1984. A Cooperative DevelopmentExperiment among Nomadic Herders in Niger.London: Overseas Development Institute, Paper 18c.

Tapper Richard 1979. Pasture and Politics. EconomicsConflict and Ritual among Shahsevan NomadsNorthwestern Ban. London: Academic Press.

Thomas R Brooke 1979. Effects of change in highmountain human adaptive pattern. In: PF Webber(Ed.): High Altitude Ceoecology. Boulder: West-ViewPress, pp. 139-1XX.

Troll Carl 1968. Geo-ecology of the Mountainous Regionsof the Tropical Americas. Dummlers. Bonn:Collaquium Geographicum 9.

Troll Carl 1972. Ceoecology of the High MountainRegions of Eurasia. Wisenbaden: Franz Steiner.

Tyagi RK, Shankar Vinod 1988. Pastoralism and grazingsystems in Central G Himalayas. 3rd InternationalRangeland Congress. Absract Volume II. RangeManagement Society of India, pp. 665-668.

Uhlig H 1976. Rice cultivation in die Himalayas. In:

176


Germans Scholars in India. Volume 2. F.R.G.Cultural Department, Bombay.

Vecsey Christopher 1980. American Indian environment-al religion. In: Christopher Vecsey, Robert Venables(Eds.): American Indian Environment: EcologicalIssues in Native American History. Syracuse, NY:Syracuse University.

Vincze Lajos 1980. Present animal husbandry: A dialecticmodel of technoenvironment integration in agropos-tral societies. Ethnology, 20: 387-403.

Wu Ning 1997. Indigenous Knowledge and SustainableApproaches from the Maintenance of Diversity inNomadic Society- Experience Tibetan Plateau. DieErde, 128: 67-80.

177

Jhe 33-3-147-11-2176-bhasin-v-tt

Education

Transcript of Jhe 33-3-147-11-2176-bhasin-v-tt