Pastoralism in Rajasthan Thar: Muslim Pastoralists of Chitrang (Bikaner)

-->

The region, referred to as the Chitrang tract of north- west Bikaner was predominantly a pastoral society and economy, surviving by customary sanctions, practices and communal institutions linked to the sprawling extensive pastoral grasslands, catchments, deep wells and ponds of the wide open desert.

Each important village in Chitrang had _johads_ or _tobas_ which were ponds where rain water would collect and could be got for four to five months even after rains. The particular community or caste would move to it's _toba_ along with the family and livestock and stay there in the monsoons and some months after it. The tale told by Khamise Khan Baloch of the _toba_ of Gogliwali tells how pastoralists slowly over time develop close relations with land around a _toba_.

Gogliwali which is around ten km north of Sattasar has been a part of the village. The Balochs have been associated with the water source ever since the Balochs were given shelter by the Thakur of Sattasar centuries back. The ancestors of Khamise Khan and his other Baloch brethren have been coming to this toba with their livestock from generations. They would cultivate the land around the toba for subsistence. For a long time the place was a temporary dwelling for these Balochs who used to return to Sattasar after the water in the tobas used to dry up. One of the forefathers of Khamise Khan made a well here which ensured a more consistent and longer supply of water. During the conversation he and his sons kept pointing to that old structure of the well. This really saved us during summers, he murmured. They were not so compelled to go on the long migration to Punjab except during severe famines like that of the 1969 or 86-87. For him like most others in Sattasar areas around Nal and Bikaner provided the fodder and water during those grueling months of summers.

After the coming of the canal in the seventies the land around the well came under the command area and was allotted to the Balochs. The Gogliwali dhani as it is called now is a permanent settlement of around twenty five houses of Balochs who cultivate land as well as keep cattle. This _toba_ system allowed a more regulated use of village pastures as well distributed the pressure of livestock to different points. Once the water in the tobas would dry up the families and their livestock would use the wells in the village for water.

20.5.1994 at Gogliwali dhani, Chhatragarh with Jetha Ram

Arid Zone Environmental Research Centre (AZERC) in URMUL Trust PARIVAR

The drought of 1987 compelled Urmul Trust to become concerned with issues of natural resources and their management. This concern was reflected in the growing range of activities like the fodder farms and the fodder bank, the Nahar Yatra, farmers' organizations, and work with animal breeders. AZERC was also an outcome of the same concern, an attempt to tie together all these different efforts in the same direction.

The rationale behind AZERC is to facilitate movements in this direction, and hence it can be thought of as a road building organization, a sort of PWD. The destination of the road is freedom from, or protection against the three types of _kal_, i.e. security of food, fodder, and water. The foundation of the road is the belief that to achieve this triple security it can never be enough to bring from elsewhere exotic species, techniques, or ideas. The road to food, fodder, and water security for all can only be built on the bedrock of values and systems that have existed here earlier, of caring and cooperating to ensure the survival with dignity of the entire family of living beings. And in Western Rajasthan there is a solid layer of human thoughtfulness which has evolved to make up for nature's niggardliness.

AZERC's task is not to run away into a past of dubious validity from an insufficiently understood present, or to extol the virtues of the particular, the regional, at the expense of the universal, however. It is rather to understand the natural and the socio-cultural environment of Rajasthan in its relationship to the past, and to describe those of its features which would be of wider interest, not just for their own sake, but to facilitate attempts to set up or revive systems of food - fodder - water security.

(AZERC team: Kashyap Mankodi, Rahul Ghai; Advisory Committee: Chetan Ram, Arvind Ojha, V K Madhavan, Sanjoy Ghose, Diba Siddiqui)
(Note for translation into Hindi, to be circulated within the Urmul Parivar by 1 September 1994)

Photo Credits Rajesh Vora

Natural common property resources and rural poor in Rajasthan

Common Property Resources (CPRs) are an important form of natural resource endowments in India, especially in Rajasthan. Broadly defined, CPRs include those resources that are used by the entire community without any exclusive individual ownership or access rights. In Rajasthan, especially in the desert west, CPRs included:

Community based grazing lands, including permanent pastures, uncultivable and cultivable wastelands, and fallow lands contributing to the grazing area of the village; Village forest and woodlands, including orans; Private croplands available for public grazing after the harvest of crops; community threshing and waste dumping grounds; community ponds and animal watering points; Migration routes and facilities; and Community facilities for stock breeding. To this we could add the rivers, rivulets and their banks and beds.

The CPRs are one of the means to adjust to the harsh production environment, and make useful contributions in terms of a] physical products (fodder, fuel, food, fibre; etc.,) b] income and employment generating activities; c] larger social and ecological gains in terms of resources conservation, ground water recharge and regeneration of renewable resources.

CPRs were managed through different institutional arrangements however, the focus and control of all these arrangements were local. For instance, in a study of Sikar district, Rita Brara found that regulations regarding access to the commons and sanctions against the contraventions were decided by a village committee of mukhias. The conventions evolved by this group of mukhias were accepted by the entire village.

The CPRs are now faced with a major crisis, as reflected by the shrinkage in their area, productivity decline and management collapse, in many parts of the state. The reason this has happened is three fold: a] the state investment in infrastructure, which have changed the exclusive, internal and symbiotic relations that the communities had with their resources- as the needs have been taken care of by the state development efforts; b] The state land policy has adversely affected the acreage under CPRs. By defining categories of land use-khatedari, charagaah, and siwai-chak- effectively a process of privatisation of common properties was set in motion. Although ostensibly to redistribute the lands to the poor, the land reform programme also involved giving up of CPRs; c] factors such as increasing demographic pressure, the role of the market and the environmental stress.

With the advent of the democratic politics and related socio-economic changes, the options of "exit" and "voice" of the common people has improved. Hence, appeals to higher orders of power have become the norm, leading to gradual disintegration ties of solidarity at the village level. The panchayats which were expected to step in and replace the traditional forms of authority and as custodians of the CPRs have singularly failed in their upkeep.

The panchayats became the legal custodians of CPRs under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act 1953. However the dominance of the written law over rights based on customary usage has adversely affected the fate of the commons in different ways. In Rajasthan all land is the property of the state, and this has given overarching powers to the state vis a vis the Panchayats in law suits regarding commons. This has given legal force to a process of Statization of the CPRs, often with the compliance of the dominant interests at the level of the Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat as the legal holder of rights and the necessary locus standi in the case of disputes over commons is a unit whose rights extend over many small and big villages, the jurisdiction in many cases covering the area of a whole panchayat samiti. In comparison with the community which manages the CPRs which are invariably local bodies at the village level it is an entity forged by record and State intervention. This has often led to a disjunction of aims and motives of both these respective parties having different types of relation with the CPRs. The Gram Panchayats in many instances have failed to represent the voice of the villagers who are `aggrieved parties' pointing to the mismanagement or unequal appropriation of fodder or fuel from the commons or the trespassing of the influential in the domain of the commons as the case may be.

This is inspite of the fact that the panchayats have legal powers to regulate the access to the CPRs. In fact, in many instances, the panchayats have been responsible for the erosion of CPRs, and have blatantly legalized illegal encroachments for political expediency. It is also clear from the literature that is available that wherever the panchayats have undertaken the upkeep and development of CPRs, the poor have rarely been the beneficiaries.

May be the questions of the role Panchayats can play in the changed context of the reallocation of resources for rural development and the empowering of people and the restoration of the sovereignty of the local groups women or otherwise in the context of the proposed democratic decentralization should take into account the rather ambiguous and poor track record Panchayats have had in the management of the CPRs partly of their own making and partly the way they got implicated in the way the process of the creation of property rights in commons by written law which the State initiated.

However, the advent of the New Economic Policy [NEP] with its emphasis on individual enterprise, and the market as a mechanism for allocating resources, negates the entire basis of the CPRs and the institutional mechanisms for sharing the CPR. This combined with the fact that the fiscal discipline required as part of the new economic policy would mean that the subsidies and the allocation for rural development are likely to be curtailed in future. In other words, on the one hand, it is likely that the state sponsored rural development is likely to be curtailed in the future, and on the other, the macro policies of restructuring the Indian economy may undermine the CPRs, and hence the sustenance which the poor draw from them. Hence, in a context where privatisation of resources is seen as a means to achieve efficiency and growth, do we need to consider CPRs at all? Restated, if privatisation and the parcelling of CPRs as private property, can be the basis of the future growth in the economy, and thus help in eradicating poverty, is it worth preserving the CPRs? On the other hand, if it is believed that the CPRs offer a safety-net of sorts to the poor in the villages, and given the fact that in the new dispensation, the allocation of resources for rural development is going to be reduced, can we think of development process centred around the common property resources, to be evolved in the rural areas ?

If it is indeed necessary to consider the latter option, what do the experience of the self-help groups and other CBOs suggest in terms of extent of participation. Also, with the recent constitutional amendment, promoting democratic decentralisation, can the management of the CPRs be the bedrock on which the new structure of Panchayati Raj develops? As mentioned above, the track record of management of CPRs by panchayats has been very poor. However, under the proposed democratic decentralisation, one-third of the total constituency is to be reserved for the women. Since, women depend on CPRs more, and given the fact that they have been deprived the most, can we envisage the involvement of the poorer women, in atleast one-third of the panchayats, in the management and control of CPRs, and in the process develop leadership and countervailing power?

A version of this paper appeared as

"The Importance of Common Property Resources in Rajasthan's Rural Economy", S.Ramanathan & Rahul Ghai, EXCHANGES, Issue No.8, March 1995, Action Aid, Bangalore

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