The story of the Western Tragopan is complicated by another factor. The water of one of the valleys of the Park is proposed to be harnessed for generating hydel power for the state. This parallel act of larger interest requires the construction of diversion weirs and underground tunnels in precisely the area that is preferred by the Western Tragopan. Through a peculiar sequence of events in 1999, a part of the Park was carved out to make way for the Parvati Hydro-electric Project. The larger interest of 'development' appears in this case to have edged out the larger interest of 'conservation'. This is the story of the Parvati and the Tragopan -- emblematic representations of development and conservation -- as it has played out in the GHNP over the last two decades. In this essay we will explore the contours and drivers of these emerging conflicts over resources within the GHNP. We will first provide a very brief account of developments in the GHNP, and then examine key elements of this story within a larger discussion on the politics of conservation and development.

• The Importance of Being GHNP:
  The Great Himalayan National Park lies in a relatively isolated part of the Kullu Valley, in Himachal Pradesh. It was established in 1984, following a survey conducted by an international team of scientists who judged that based on the relatively low human pressures in the area and the exceptional condition of the forests, this would probably be an ideal location for a national park being planned for the state. It is noted for having one of only two protected populations of the Western Tragopan (thought to number 1600 animals in the wild), amongst four other pheasant species, sizeable, contiguous populations of Himalayan Tahr and Blue Sheep , and an endangered population of musk deer.

  At the same time, the GHNP is used by local communities for a variety of resources. Approximately 11,000 people live in a five-km wide belt, on the western side of the GHNP border. All families cultivate land, for the most part small parcels of land that provide subsistence for some portion of the year. The bulk of the population depends on a variety of additional resources to meet their annual income requirements, including the commercial grazing of sheep and goats, the extraction of medicinal herbs to be sold to a burgeoning pharmaceutical and cosmetics industry, and the collection of morel mushrooms, considered a delicacy in many parts of western Europe.
  Continue reading this section ....

• Politics, Conservation and Development:
  The basic centrality of politics to the outcomes of conservation initiatives comes through repeatedly in studies of conflicts over natural resources (Guha 1989, Peluso, 1993, Neumann 1992). Many of these studies however, document a harsh state, bent on the exploitation of nature and labor. And yet, the notion of the omnipotent state, capable of exerting its will over disparate, fragmented communities, has come under serious attack (Yang 1992, Saberwal 1999, Sivaramakrishnan 2000, see also Chhatre this volume). An emerging literature is increasingly keen on providing more nuanced descriptions of community and the means by which access to resources is negotiated or contested within and beyond the community (Agrawal 1999, Jeffery and Sundar 1999, Sivaramakrishnan 2000).

  The problem we pose in this preliminary and highly speculative argument is that in this move towards the local, toward obtaining a better understanding of how power plays out within communities, there has been an unfortunate reduction in focus on the larger politics of state formation, in particular the question of electoral politics that keeps a post-colonial government in power, and development politics, that today keeps the state financially solvent. Development has often been left out of the conservation picture in the expectation that exploitative development and exclusionary conservation are related phenomenon, with similar roots, but that these are ultimately separate issues. Joint Forest Management, thus, gets discussed within the context of questions of livelihoods and more equitable access to forests, rather than within the larger context of development policy and how that relates to conservation. Thus, for example, we focus on issues of gender within Orissa?s JFM experience, but rarely locate JFM within a larger discussion on Orissa?s development orientation.
  Continue reading this section ....

And so finally, we return to the issue of what happens with GHNP. It should perhaps be recognized that within the Himachal Forest Department, there is an extremely small lobby of officers with an interest in wildlife conservation. That two of these officers are men of great integrity and are pursuing the closure of GHNP in the context of a commitment to conserving biodiversity can hardly be questioned. But the relative isolation of GHNP, politically speaking can also not be glossed over. Within Himachal Pradesh, practically the only other people with an interest in the Park are the people who are currently being denied access to its resources. If they cannot be directly and politically involved in the management of the park, there is little chance that the department will ultimately succeed in keeping people out. And in the absence of recognizable authority of either the forest department or of local institutions, GHNP will remain an area of open access, vulnerable to intrusion by developmental activities such as dam building as also to grazing and medicinal herb collection, quite in contrast to the park director?s oft repeated argument that the park has now moved from open to closed access.

In counterpoint, there is a positive argument from a conservation perspective that can be made for allowing residents of adjoining villages into the park. The continuation of grazing practices is likely to be necessary to maintain high levels of herb diversity within the alpine meadows. The presence of people with a real stake in the biological resources of the park can also lead to far greater levels of support for effective management of the park, including better monitoring of who goes into the park, for what, and at what times of the year. Poaching could be more effectively controlled, as could the excessive extraction of medicinal herbs. And were people to have a stake in the park, it is possible that electoral pressure will be used to counter real threats to the park, in the form of big dams and other industrial development. Already there is talk of establishing hydro-projects on the Sainj and Tirthan rivers. Without the support of resident villagers, there is little chance that any significant opposition will be mounted against such developments.

• Part II: The GHNP
  Part III: Politics, conservation and development
  Part IV: References

• Ordering "Turf Wars", the film

Vasant Saberwal, an indepedent film-maker, is an academic researcher with interests in ecology, development and indigenous cultures. He received his doctorate from Yale University in 1996 for research on change and continuity among the Gaddi, a pastoral community of Himachal Pradesh. His film "Turf Wars" can be ordered at www.movingimagesindia.com. Ashwini Chhatre is a member of the Department of Political Science at Duke University, in North Carolina. This article has been accepted for publication in Himalayan Research Bulletin, and is reproduced here with permission.

• Environmental Issues Homepage
• Feedback: Tell us what you think of this article.