Restoring natural Common Property Resources in Rajasthan

The workshop on CPRs was held a day after another meeting on the `changing scenario of pastoralism and livestock rearing in North Western Rajasthan’ organised by the URMUL Trust. The meeting had been an informal dialogue with around thirty experienced semi nomadic pastoralists and sedentary cattle breeders who had come from the villages in the vicinity of Chhattargarh. These grand old elders from among the pastoralists with history of braving the harsh desert inscribed on their faces, and the celebration of life so vivid in their body language talked openly on the changes that have come in their lives and the status of their sheep and cattle with the emergence of private property due to the parceling of lands, colonised under the mighty Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana (IGNP Canal).

The meeting on the state of CPRs in Rajasthan was a continuation of the anguish, hopes and desires expressed in the earlier meeting; only, the scope and scale was larger. It was a meeting of representatives of NGOs from different parts of the state, to discuss and document the current status of the CPRs in the state, and the possible options for their future management in the changed context of the new economic policy and the recent 73rd constitutional amendment on panchayati raj. Prior to describing the deliberations of this meeting, which was a meeting for planning the documentation, we shall briefly describe the necessity for undertaking such an endeavor.

Early on in the meeting Kishore Saint raised the issue of the need to understand the state of the CPRs especially in the context of a] CPRs as the provider of life sustaining physical products and space for the rural communities and b] the CPRs as a cultural and a symbolic aspect of the rural communities.

For instance, Shubu Patwa pointed out that over the years there has been considerable expansion in the arable area, as a result of which pastures and other common lands have been shrinking, threatening the very sustainability of the arid agriculture. There is a need to reverse this, and save space for the CPRs. Further, he pointed out that gochars served as important meeting ground for women. Such opportunities for everyday exchange are limited for women given the social customs of the village. Arvind Ojha described the case of the nomadic cattle breeders of Chhattargarh who have practically lost all their gochars and their seasonal migration to Punjab was fraught with problems. Anwar Ali pointed to the important role gochars played in not only sustaining the livestock population but served as sanctuaries for the bird and animal life in an area as well. Dineshwar Acharya argued that the commons are a matter of pride for even the landless of the village. Kashyap Mankodi suggested how `commons' could be used as a real symbol for rallying around collective action for a more organised management of the CPRs.

Kashyap further described the pressures which the IGNP and it's pervasive presence has had on the older value systems and a more harmonious relationship between man and nature. The creation of the command area on the right bank has not only restructured the physical landscape but has put in place a set of attitudes and ambitions which bear a sharp contrast to the way of life on the left bank which is still rooted strongly in the older traditions and modes of resource use. It is this area on the left bank which has to be saved by making efforts in community based management of rangelands.

Kishore dwelled upon the sacred, social and cultural uses of the Orans - local versions of Vrindavan- to emphasise the fact that pastures were not just of economic value but were related to a whole vision of rural life. He bemoaned that ironically it is now a gram swarajya of schemes and projects, not of perspectives, embedded in the lived context of existence of people. He alluded to the fact that the struggle for such holistic perspectives which signified a harmony between man and nature was the formulating basis of the environmental movements all over the world.

Responding to the discussion on values Shubu pointed out how dairying and husbandry are different. Stall-feeding inevitably leads to the market. Instead of going to the breeders with a dairy perspective let us take into account the other dimensions of their relations with the gochars like the reciprocative relation of agriculture and livestock. We should choose with people which particular CPRs -gochars or johads, we have to concentrate upon. Commenting on the afforestation in the command area of the canal by the Forest department, he was very sceptical of the relations livestock owners would have with these `created gochars'. He gave the example of the Jorbeer Rangeland which belongs to the Forest department and is opened for some months in the year for grazing purposes and with which the pastoralists only have a utilitarian relationship. Kashyap intervened on this assertion of a supposed revival of a `traditional pastoral life' through a rejuvenation of gochars which was a mere idealization of past. Instead one has to realistically examine what has changed in that life style and explore the possibilities of building upon the intrinsic rational stratum of those traditions and practices of life within a framework of the changed mode of production. Kishore argued that rather than clinging desperately to some old values it was important to decide on the principles of a good life which have been ever changing and are more related to real life.

Kashyap raised the issue of how does one delineate the term `local', which social groups would it include and what about it's territoriality; can the feelings of a local collective be thickened by raising the productivity of a particular CPR through their involvement ; is it possible to use collective action to overcome the narrowness of perspective on natural resource use management in a specific locale so that they can cope better with the changing times. These questions hav

e to be asked to ascertain how far isit possible for the `local civil society' to circumvent the market and the State. Kishore's opinion was that this was perhaps possible only if the sovereignty of the `local civil society' could feed into larger politics which was the real arena to circumvent the market and State forces. Acharyajee raised the issue of the way the Gram Panchayats have been exercising their formal authority vis a vis the gochars and the illegal encroachments and allotments of goch

ars it has led to. Adding to that Shubu argued it was necessary to examine the relation between the decisions of the Panchayats, the Sarpanchs at the village level and the decisions of the Collector, SDO who he felt exercised mere de jure rights.

Kashyap inquired on how do we place the `local civil society' and it's sovereignty in the face of the ongoing organisational revolution. Given the sovereignty of different `local civil societies' what are going to be the mechanisms and agencies which would mediate relations between them in a manner in which the autonomy of one is not threatened by an intrusion by the other. Kishore argued that given the weight of our traditions, we have more options of freedom in this context of globaliz

ation. Today the government cannot do everything all by itself as it's own options have been cut down. It has to rely more and more on agencies outside it like the NGOs. It is the responsible task of the `local civil society' to create possibilities to shape things in it's favour. A lot would perhaps depend on who is going to use this document - the intellectuals in the NGOs, or the extension workers and the conscious people of the villages.

Kishore gave the example of how the charnots and the customary relationship of local people with them in Udaipur which are being overrun in a variety of ways- be it excessive mining, reclaiming of more than due share of forest land, allotment of the charnots by the State for private and industrial use. The need is to examine the locale specific actual conditions and the

impact of NEP in the context of the ongoing `development' of Rajasthan. What was desirable was an objective study to clearly ascertain the situations especially for those like us who are raising this issue. Diba Siddiqui further impressed upon the need for a clear understanding of the available alternatives.

Different dimensions of local community based management as a viable option were discussed. It was clear that there was no uniform `local community' which could be located in different parts of Rajasthan. Local community constitutes itself around caste, jati, women, or the entire village as the case may be. The search for that was crucial as that would help in understanding what form

s the basis for collective action.

Chetanram raised the question that if people in the villages were earlier collectively managing the CPRs and have stopped doing it now then how does one onvince them. Kishore explained that the point is that certain limits of indiscriminate use are being reached everywhere and it is imperative to get back to the importance of local resource base. It is our role to warn people against the over exploitation taking place due to the intrusion by the means of communication and unequal distribution of resources.

Excerpts from a Report on the workshop on Common Property Resources (CPR) in Rajasthan Chattragadh, Bikaner District, Rajasthan, Organized by URMUL Trust, July 7-8, 1994