Environmental History and British Colonialism

Environmental History and British Colonialism in India: A Prime Political Agenda
Author(s): Vandana Swami

Source: CR: The New Centennial Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, coloniality's persistence (fall 2003),
pp. 113-130
Published by: Michigan State University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41949868
Accessed: 20-02-2019 12:42 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Michigan State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to CR: The New Centennial Review
This content downloaded from 106.210.37.16 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:42:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Environmental History and
British Colonialism in India
A Prime Political Agenda
VANDANA SWAMI
State University of New York, Binghamton
THIS ARTICLE HAS DEVELOPED FROM A DESIRE TO DEVELOP A THEORETICAL
position for "Nature" in the context of modernity. It argues th

total absence of theories of nature in modern Western social th
in stark contrast to the remarkable extent to which nature has assisted and
indexed the rise of modernity itself. This historical-theoretical imbalance

has had grave social consequences, and it calls for an urgent reintegration of
nature in theoretical discourses. The recently emerging genre of "environ-
mental history" has carved a small but significant niche for itself in this
direction. Some exciting literature has been produced that addresses itself
to the task at hand. It is interesting to note that even though, as a discipline,
environmental history registers its rise in the West, particularly the United
States in the early 1970s, most of the radical environmental histories that are
being written today emanate from the "peripheral" zones of the global polit-
ical economy. While the peripheries have been severely exploited for their
raw materials and natural products in the international division of labor
since the beginnings of the modern world-system, it is also strangely not
coincident that in the cultural division of labor, so to speak, these periph-
• 113
114 • Environmental History and British Colonialism in India
eries have been seen as part of the wild, natural world, whereas the core,
Western regions have portrayed themselves as bearers of civilization and
cultural advancement. Thus, it is appropriate that some of the radical envi-
ronmental histories have committed themselves to analyzing the environ-
mental impact of colonialism on peripheral societies. I would like to propose
the term environmental colonialism as a metaphor and point of departure
through which I will locate and critique practices and structures of colonial-
capitalist-modernity over the last five hundred years, along with the differ-
ent strategies, discourses, and narratives employed to enact environmental
colonialism in different parts of the earth.
THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE
Environmental History of India
In line with this emerging body of research, I see

project the intellectual and political decoloniz
edge, practice, and history - in the South Asian
say, this would be a very elaborate project, but
exploring the following research questions that
• What are the specific modalities and methods

the environment and nature during the perio
India? How were these techniques for the exp
ment different or similar to previous regime
colonialism constituting a decisive break as fa
conquest of nature and environment is concer
ity with respect to the theme in question? In o
in locating what Partha Chatterjee, in another
difference"1 of the environmental regime in I
question also calls for an analysis of the envir
practices of the colonized population, taking a
how far the mostly anthropological notion of
sustainable," and nature-nurturing communit
cally viable one.
Vandana Swami • 115
• How much is the problem of "nature" and the enviro

problem of modernity? What is the peculiarly modern com
problem? In what ways has the separation of the categor
and "culture" itself been the construction of modernity?
seemingly naturalized separation between nature and cult
from considering the fact that it is human labor that m
nature and culture, and the different categories of race,
der that mediate this mediation. In other words, I would l
and critique the theoretical separation of nature and cult
in terms of a framework that allows a historical view of nature and an
ecological view of labor.2

• With the notion of body-power, or "biopower" in Foucault s terminol-
ogy- both as a social body and natural body - race, gender, nation, and
class can be viewed through ecological lenses. Although I do not deal
with the issue of the body in the South Asian context at all in this paper,
I feel that it is one of the most significant issues at stake, especially for
the way in which the "body" is treated as the site of "truth." Therefore,
the body as "nature" provides raw visibility into "natural truths" which
can then unlock all social and cultural mysteries that inhere in the colo-
nized spaces. The body can also be a very illustrative metaphor with
which to read the entire discourse on the "tropics"3: the pathology of the
tropics, the tropics as the site of danger and disease on the one hand-
and, on the other, an "exotic oriental" space that serves as a challenging
terrain for the "expansion" of the frontiers of the Western mind.
• Another crucial theme pertains to a critical reading of the emergence of
natural history as a discipline in the subcontinent, and the interaction of
this order of knowledge with the Western organization and understand-
ing of natural history. A world-historical understanding of the emer-
gence of natural history remains very crucial for understanding the
ecological encounter between South Asia and Britain. In a broader per-
spective, natural history describes not just "nature," but society as well;
thus, what gets placed in either category says a lot about the generation
of human understanding of both human beings and their surroundings.
• A study of religious-cultural approaches to nature is of great importance
in studying environmental history in India, given the overwhelming

importance of the former in shaping social structures and institutions.
This might, thus, explain what are some of the symmetries and asym-
metries between different religions, and the attendant interactions with
nature in the subcontinent, and why these might lead to a better under-
standing of some prevailing environmental ethics in India.
ON THE QUESTION OF A TEMPORAL

FRAMEWORK FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL
HISTORY OF INDIA
The question of choosing an appropriate time frame for

ing the environmental history of India is not one that ha
The question of time frame remains debatable, especially
that Ramachandra Guha and Madhav Gadgil, leading scho
South Asian environmental history, have suggested t
period may be seen as the "golden age" of ecological harm
in their famous work, This Fissured Land , "despite the
caste and class, precolonial Indian society had a cons
coherence and stability. This permitted a rapid turnover
without major upheavals at the level of village. On the o
traditions of prudence ensured the long-term viability of
duction
alter the existing patterns of resource use and the so

they were embedded. It was an entirely different st
Europe' (Guha and Gadgil 1997, 113).
Historical research, however, has now proved that
case; in other words, precolonial India was by no m
ecological harmony. Several instances of ecologicall
were carried out by precolonial regimes as well.4 Ric
larly argued against the "golden-ageist" view, rejec
dismissal of the efforts of colonial conservation and
mere disguises by a subordinate colonial science fo
and forest control. Through this approach, according
overlook the innovative and complex nature of early
policies of the British in India. I do not think that Grove

the complex impulses behind the establishment of col
policies effectively undermines the deeply destructive eco
British rule in India. Indeed, compared to the systematic
caused by colonialism, the precolonial age might very
golden age of sorts, despite - as Mahesh Rangarajan has po
tions about whether the continuation of traditional land use would have
been more effective than company forest departments and the post-1857
regimes in curbing deforestation for timber and other arable cultivation.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the precolonial age was certainly not the golden
age of ecological equilibrium. While there were some customary restraints,
such as in the "sacred groves" (Guha 1994), and the use of some trees was
curtailed, there is enough evidence to support the fact that peasants were
constantly clearing the forest for settled cultivation; and in some regimes,
such as those of Mohammed bin Tughlaq in the Delhi Sultanate (1325-51),
peasants were even rewarded for clearing the forest cover in order to make
way for agriculture. On the other hand, there was also a close link between
forests and military campaigns, meaning that apart from the need to extend
agriculture, forests also became targets of attack in order to extend the mil-
itary and political power of the rulers and other landed elite; once forests
were cleared, it became very hard for peasants to find places of refuge from
high taxes that were levied on them. Also, "bandits" and "thieves" found it
hard to hide themselves from the authorities when the forests became thin.
In the southern part of India, the Emperor Tipu Sultan is also known to have
cut and burnt away several miles of trees and bushes during military cam-
paigns. In the northwestern part of the country, the Sikh rulers indulged in
similar activities. However, all of the relationships of the Indian states with
forests were not completely negative: the Talpur Mirs of Sind undertook an
extensive afforestation program in areas near the river Indus in the north-
west part of India during the late eighteenth century, continuing it up to the
mid-nineteenth century, and the British had to seek permission to cut wood
in these areas.
At least one thing stands out clearly from the above discussion: forests
generated different meanings and signified different value systems through-
out various periods in South Asian history. There was no fixed meaning
attached to forests and their importance, and the degree of use evolved with
changing social needs over time. Rangarajan appropriately designates the
situation of forests in the immediate pre-British period as one of "limited
but significant state intrusion" (Damodaran, Grove, and Sangwan 1998, 15).
This also raises the question of the distinctness of the precolonial situation
from the colonial one as far as ecological issues are concerned. Guha and
Gadgil, as mentioned earlier, maintain that in the precolonial period the vil-
lage communities had control over forest management, and landlords made
limited demands on peasants, quite unlike the situation in the colonial
period. On the other hand, Grove has proposed that deforestation had
reached significant levels even before the colonial period, and that changes
in the colonial era were only a culmination of trends from the earlier period.
Making an incisive critique of Groves position, Rangarajan contends that
this part of his argument is simplistic. It overlooks the fact that not only was
there a qualitative change as far as deforestation itself is concerned, but it
also ignores the important fact that the entire social and political frame-
work within which the colonial regime functioned had subjected the natu-
ral resources of the subcontinent to the demands of the transcontinental
compulsions under which the colonial regime operated. Moreover, there is

as yet no evidence of total collapse or sharp conflicts among communities
over ecological issues in the precolonial period like those one can find dur-
ing the colonial period. That being said, it should not be assumed that the
story of forestry in colonial India is a narrative of simple conquest, either.
Much meticulous research needs to be done in order to present the problem
of periodizing ecological history in India in all its complexity. Thus the com-
ment by Rangarajan5 that the story of forestry can be more than a subtext in
the story of the consolidation of imperial control over India; it can itself
enable a reassessment of the nature of imperial power. The study of forestry
can hence provide insights into issues of wider historical significance. His
observation that colonial rule was not a seamless web, but was marked by
significant changes in the attitudes and interests of rulers, and that the eco-
logical context of imperial forestry was complex enough for it to be more
than a mirror of political and economic conflicts, makes particular sense in
the face of the hard-line positions that scholars have take

agenda for ecological history should therefore be to r
influence of "revisionist" ("nothing changed") versus "gold
thing changed") assumptions about issues of nature and en
subcontinent. A more historically grounded picture of
should be sketched.
FORESTS AND PEOPLE: COMMUNITY RIGHTS
and State Conservation
The historical unfolding of debates over stat

forestry in India reveal some of the ways in wh
with issues of community rights in the forest.
always (and some would say never) a case of p
and wildlife at work. Practical considerations
timber for railway and ship-building activities w
for setting up forest conservatories in differen
Gadgil mention that by i860 Britain had emer
deforestation, destroying not only its own fore
South Africa, and some parts of the northeaster
provide timber for ship-building, iron-smelting,
idly shrinking oak forest cover at home, England
manent supply for the Royal Navy. Search parti
coast, and the Indian teak industry virtually
Napoleonic wars and its subsequent maritime e
consuming up to 4, 937, 000 tonnes of wood ann
The setting up of the railway network (along
greatly increased the pressure put on forest res
tion where the coal mines had not been sufficien
used both to build railway sleepers and to bu
observed, "it appears certain that for a consider
supply of railway fuel must come from the nat
levels of deforestation effected to satisfy demand
about the fact that India's forests were not inexhaustible and would soon
require "management" to ensure a steady level of supply. Also, the high lev-
els of deforestation led to unwarranted spells of flood and drought, resulting
in disruptions in systems of irrigation and food production, heightening the
fear of social unrest and revolt, and putting the security of the colonial gov-
ernment in danger. In the words of Guha and Gadgil, "the railways consti-
tuted the crucial watershed with respect to forest management in India- the
need was felt to start an appropriate department and for its effective func-
tioning, legislation was required to curtail the previously untouched access
enjoyed by rural communities" (122-23). Therefore, as Guha and Gadgil
assert quite rightly, the setting up of the forest department can be read as a
qualitative shift in the colonial perception of the strategic value of forests:
the commercial compulsion to safeguard forests needed legal mechanisms
to enforce rules and claim monopoly on lands that were, for the most part,
communally owned prior to the setting up of these rules. The Forest Act of
1865 was set up to establish state monopoly and acquisition, especially in
those regions that were found suitable for obtaining railway supplies. Since
the question of property rights in the forest could not be completely resolved
by this act, a new Forest Act of 1878 was implemented that removed all
ambiguities about these property rights. Centuries of customary use of
forests by rural populations were erased away, and moreover, a detailed set
of penalties was prescribed for transgressions of the act. A "scientific" man-
agement of forests was established, and forests - even remote ones - were
integrated into the commercial circuit of timber production through
improved transportation networks. In addition, and very importantly, com-
mercially valuable varieties of trees were cultivated at the expense of other
forest resources that may have been more useful for the inhabitants of the
forest.
As a consequence, colonial forestry had a negative impact upon tradi-

tional conservation and management systems that existed among the forest
communities. State forestry also contributed to the breaking up of these
communities, denying them their customary rights to the forest and its
products. Efforts made by these displaced communities to regain access to
their rights led to their being branded by the colonial authorities as "crimi-
nal tribes." For example, the forest laws enacted in the so

Hyderabad affected the Chenchu tribes by making their h
illegal and questioning or denying their existing monopoly
duce, thereby reducing them to a status similar to serfdom
higher landowning and cultivating castes. Small wonder th
Gadgil observe, that such tribes took up acts of banditry
to survive. In other parts of the country as well, moving
to resettle in a fixed area, changing their existing relation
logical order and giving rise to feelings of alienation and d
is illustrated in the case of the Kadar and Baiga tribes, wh
into territorial boundaries even as the colonial state har
standing knowledge of forests and forest resources to
forest produce. Ironically, while the new forest laws curbed
ing by the tribes, there was a very significant rise of the m
" shikar game-hunting for pleasure and entertainmen
officials. Thus, while the British officers indulged in shoo
deer, birds, and other animals in outstanding numbers
denied precious and scarce sources of protein and other fo
tion the interruption or extinction of cultural customs as
forest, such as ritual hunting, certain interpretations
cycle, etc.
The issue of "jhum" or shifting cultivation, proved to be another ecolog-
ical battleground between the colonial authorities and the local residents of
the different areas. Jhum cultivation refers to the clearing and cultivation of
forest patches in rotation, especially in hilly areas where regular plough agri-
culture is not always possible. There are varying opinions on the ecological
soundness of this method of cultivation; but for the most part, it is believed
that the alternate burning and cultivation of plots of land - leaving them
uncultivated for several years - allows the vegetation and soils to regenerate
and recover lost nutrients. Jhum is also not simply an agricultural technique.
It has much importance in terms of structuring social institutions, myths,
and legends of tribal life.
In contrast to its importance for local communities, jhum was pejora-
tively viewed by the colonial administration as being primitive, unremuner-
ative, and unproductive, especially in comparison to plough agriculture, and

the administration strove to destroy this practice because of the "threat" it
posed to forest conservation. Commercialization of the forest and the
influence of the agricultural revolution in Europe made it all the more nec-
essary and justified to eliminate "wasteful" practices like jhum. All the while,
however, there was a realization among colonial officers that any attempt to
curb jhum would provoke a sharp oppositional response from the cultiva-
tors, which is precisely what happened in many areas. Verrier Elwin has
described these violent conflicts among different tribes and the colonial
state in his writings. The opposition that occurred in the Gudem and Rampa
hill tracts against the intrusion of the market economy and plains people
has also been well noted by some scholars.7 Settled cultivators and even arti-
sans also met with a similar but less disastrous fate, and their customary
rights to the forest were also affected by the 1878 Act.
In short, the impact of the slowly crystallizing market economy and state
intervention in the shape of commercial forestry had the effect of making an
age-old and ecologically sustainable practice fall into disrepute and disfavor;
there was also the criminalization of the native population and an almost
complete disruption of the balance between the humans and the forest.
Guha and Gadgil ascribe the emergence of state conservation almost wholly
to the growing needs of industrial capitalism in Britain - a tide of events
that swept away entire lifestyles and habitats of forest-dependent commu-
nities in various parts of India.
Grove is quite critical of the "golden-ageist" interpretation of precolonial
ecological systems, common property rights, and sustainable resource use
that he finds in the work of the two authors. Their view, Grove asserts,
reflects a picture of "Merrie India" of sorts, which is not only not historically
validated (because there is enough evidence of precolonial deforestation and
unsustainable resource use), but also Orientalist in the Saidian sense. Grove
contends that attempts at state control of forests started as far back as the
end of the seventeenth century, mainly to safeguard timber for the purposes
of the navy. Even as early as 1760, there was anxiety about the misuse of tim-
ber for purposes other than ship-building and house construction, and sub-
sequent difficulties in obtaining timber encouraged much company
expansionism and military intervention in timber-rich

tance of India's forests to Britain during the Franco-Britis
the realization of the need to ensure their long-term sur
tion, despite the fact that both the colonial state and Bri
to gain enormous benefits from reckless short-term felli
These environmental concerns generated some ironic tens
colonial state and the British commercial class over the is
vation of these forests.
The East India Company (EIC) medical service played a crucial role in
coming up with an analysis of the ecological transitions taking place under
colonial rule, and, according to Grove, they played a crucial role in evolving
an interventionist response to threats posed to human health and economic
stability by deforestation and land degradation in India. Contrary to the
opinion of Guha and Gadgil, Grove wants us to see how the emergence of the
forest conservation policies can help us to see in a different light the chang-
ing notions of responsibility of the colonial state in India in the first half of
the nineteenth century. There was a growing fear that uncontrolled forces of
local and European capitalism would threaten the survival of peasant agri-
culture, and thus put the security of the colonial state in danger. Grove
writes that "conservation thinking represented a stark contradiction and an
impediment to short-term capital interests, so that its successful advent
raises some awkward questions about the ideological stance adopted by the
colonial state in relation to the control of destructive and capitalist eco-
nomic forces" (Grove 1995, 384). Grove also contends that the significance of
conservation thinking has also been lost in recent historical literature
because attention has been focused on the undeniable erosion of customary
patterns of access to Indian forests, and the patterns of popular resistance
that developed in some regions as a consequence. While important as a part
of the "subaltern history of colonial India," says Grove, this preoccupation
has also served to obscure an equally interesting story, which consists of an
unusually precocious and nonconformist response to a series of ecological,
climatic, and subsistence crises in colonial India; historical analysis has also
neglected the fact that the environmental critiques and interventionism of
the EIC surgeons, who were closely involved in formulating conservation
124 # Environmental History and British Colonialism in India
policies, embodied radical and reformist messages that had a real concern
about environmental health, and also encapsulated a critique of the moral
consequences of industrialism and colonialism.
Forests in colonial India were therefore the sites on which several
conflicting relationships of power were enacted, and there were several

ambiguities surrounding the question of state conservation. Quite clearly,
the pressure from commercial activity set the tone for the use of the forest
and forest produce. However, in devising strategies of power, the colonial
state drew selectively from the precolonial past of the subject population,
and thus found various ways to legitimize conservationist arguments. For
instance, in the context of the Forest Act of 1878, the practices adopted by
the Mysore emperor Tipu Sultan were cited in the declaration of teak trees
as "royal," hence giving exclusive right to the state to harvest these trees.
This act also aided in taking away all preexisting rights of communities and
tribes living in those forests because the latter were believed to be leading
lifestyles that were intrinsically hostile to the natural environment. Most
ecological misfortunes such as droughts and floods were blamed on unsus-
tainable practices of these communities and their "ignorance" of conserva-
tion practices. Some of these tribes were then "criminalized"8 in the process
of carrying out massive colonial development projects such as the railways,
which made great use of natural resources and human labor. Thus, many
methods of coding and classifying both the natural and human wealth of
India were devised.
In the context of state conservationism, the debate between Guha/
Gadgil and Grove is certainly quite important, not least because the two
sides let us see different aspects of the problem. However, in some senses, I
feel that too much has been made of their so-called differences. For one
thing, they are each looking at different time periods. Guha and Gadgil look
more at the post-1857 mutiny period, while Grove examines the pre-1857
mutiny period. Moreover, the focus of their inquiry is also different: Grove is
more interested in showing us the complex colonial origins of modern envi-
ronmentalism, as well as the complex ideological stances that marked the
early colonial state in India. For him, the question of common property
rights in the forest defined communities and tribes and their worldviews,
Vandana Swam i # 125
and their resistance to colonial forestry, though importan

significant. These, however, are the most significant questions
Gadgil. They are more interested in presenting the broad unity
ideology, and arguing that the practices of colonial forestry w
linked to the revenue needs of the empire. Thus, I feel that th
should not be read in opposition, but should be seen as complim
mutually corrective, because they each highlight very importa
colonial forestry in India, and enable a more complex and s
understanding than is otherwise possible.
new Approaches to Colonial Forestry
Much to the advantage of those interested in co

series of recently published works around thi
aforementioned debate between Guha/Gadgi
spective. Although these works do not take up
tion of temporality and ecological change d
connections, agreements, and disagreements b
Ajay Skarias excellent study Hybrid Histor
unraveling some of the discourses around fo
"wildness" in the western parts of colonial Ind
how to "civilizē" these tribes; but equally impor
this civilizing discourse itself was used to "p
tribes, who themselves could not see the impo
scientific, and industrial order on the forests.
of oral history and archival work, Skaria prese
discourses of colonial forestry to show how th
and tribes of India to continually recreate and
To this end, various strategies were used: dema
timber so that the British had sole power to ha
tected" zones where the colonial state allow
customary forest rights by the tribes, while
harvest timber from these areas. Extensive denudation of these forest zones
ensued. In the "reserved" areas, the colonial state virtually excavated the
tribes from their forest homes, and granted itself exclusive and sole rights to
the forest and its produce. Apparently, Skaria seems to be leaning more
towards the side of Guha than Grove, as far as the violence of colonial envi-
ronmentalism is concerned. He mentions very accurately that "it would be a

mistake to treat desiccationist environmentalism as innocent of colonial
domination- the point is not so much that imperialism was green as that
green or environmentalist discourses were imperialist. The violent and often
brutal domination and exclusion of colonized peoples practiced by the Forest
Department was part of environmentalist idealism, rather than separate from
it" (Skaria 1999, 201). Thus, the desiccationist environmentalism that Grove
speaks about actually served to hasten a more forceful exclusion of Dangi
tribes from their forest, and the ideology of colonial conservation became
central to this technology of exclusion. Skaria skillfully manages to bring out
the voice of the "subaltern" tribes through his use of oral history sources, nar-
ratives, stories, and legends that exist among the "wild" tribes that he is writ-
ing about. Not only is his work a contribution to the environmental history
of South Asia, it is also a very useful subaltern history of resistance to the
"violence of colonial environmentalism," as well as a sketch of the "counter-
aesthetics of modernity" as seen through the lives of the Dangi Bhil tribes of
western India.
Mahesh Rangarajans (1996) work also focuses on similar themes as pre-

viously reviewed authors: questions of forest conservation and ecological
change in the central provinces of India during the years 1860-1914. The
story that Rangarajan narrates is similar to others in that the author talks
about the commercial thrust that leads to conservation policies in the
forests of central India, and the destructive impact this has on the tribes and
shifting cultivators from that region. The favorable attitude taken by the
colonial state towards permanent as opposed to shifting cultivation and the
appropriation of timber forests was much against the interests of the Baiga
and Gond tribal groups. Continual pressure upon these tribes to become
cultivators led to their slow incorporation into the wage-labor economy of
the forest department around the mid-nineteenth century. As far as the
question of ecological change in the precolonial versus the colonial period is
concerned, Rangarajan writes that while it is necessary to be sensitive to
Vandana Swami # 127
precolonial social change, one also has to be cognizant of

from the past. Crucially, the fact of colonial intervention also
jected against a history of economic and political ties between
society at large (202); doing this, says Rangarajan, would t
polemical debates of precolonial versus colonial ecological
focus more on the social and political processes that make
possible.
K. Sivaramakrishnans book Modern Forests (1999) also takes up the issue
of forestry and environmental change in the eastern part of India. His analy-
sis of the reasons for forest conservation and its impact on local communi-
ties and tribes tends to be similar to other scholars of forest history that
have been discussed so far. However, Sivaramakrishnans work contains an
important critique of both Guha and Grove, as well as of the dominant

model of writing environmental history which, according to him, derives
from the Western, mostly American paradigm. Mainly, what Sivarama-
krishnan feels is that South Asian environmental history remains conceptu-
ally caught up in the nature-culture dualism, in addition to having a
preoccupation with identifying colonialism as a watershed in ecological
terms. The author also gives a fair warning about the need to be more care-
ful about the deployment of categories like colonizer and colonized, because
their shape and occupants are not always as readily apparent as they might
seem. For example, in southwestern Bengal, landlords are at times conser-
vationist, and at other times, they exploit forests to their own detriment.
Similar ambivalences characterize the peasantries, bureaucrats, and profes-
sional foresters. He therefore suggests that rather than simply juxtaposing
"Third-World" environmental history against "First-World" environmental
history, one should try to see how these are intermixed and interconnected.
It is very instructive to note that the plan for state conservation of forests
was an issue not just in colonial India: even though the most elaborate sys-
tem of state forestry was set up by the colonial state in India, this model was
then transplanted to other colonies worldwide, thus pointing to the fact that
deforestation had become a major global issue by the nineteenth century.9
Great attention and care has to be paid to the structures and historical
rhythms of large-scale economic structures, inasmuch as they moved in
dialectical conjunction with "local" socioeconomic structures to create a

script for the way in which natural and human resources would be affected
by the demands of this increasingly interconnected world economy.
Conclusion
Environmental history has made an important star

the colonial experience in South Asia. However, its
limited, and, while significant, only a small range of
to forestry are currently being addressed under its
Asian context, therefore, environmental history ne
so that it may further advance our understanding of
social-historical inequalities in this region have been
a very crucial and challenging interdisciplinary f
scholarly attention. Environmental history definitel
safer and more humane future, and should take thi
political agenda in the times ahead.
NOTES
This paper was presented at the Spring 2001 Coloniality Research Worki
SUNY-Binghamton. It is part of a larger project on environmental histo
South Asia that is being carried out as part of my doctoral dissertation. I wi
Kelvin Santiago-Valles, Professor Dale Tomich, and Professor Anthony King
port and willingness to engage in discussions, making helpful comments

project. Thanks are also due to members of the Coloniality Research Workin
to Vishnupad for providing constant encouragement and motivation

detailed critical analysis of the project. Needless to say, this project has
from all the ideas and suggestions that I have received from these indivi
1. See Chatterjee (1993).

2. James 0' Connor (1998) has undertaken a similar project in his wor
an ecological reformulation of Marxist thought, thus making a co
advancement of environmental history as well as ecological Marxism
3. See David Arnold (1988, 1993, 1996), as well as Arnold and

themes related to the issue of the body and tropicality in the
the Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 21, no. 1 (2000) f
tant articles on this theme. Mark Harrison (1999) has also dis
4. See "Introduction" in Grove, Damodaran, and Sangwan (199
5. See Rangarajan, "Production, Dessication and Forest Man
Provinces 1850-1930," in Grove, Damodaran, and Sangwan (19
this view.
6. This observation has been quoted in Guha and Gadgil ( 1997

7. See various chapters in David Arnold and R. Guha (1995).
8. See Nigam (1990) for a discussion of the debates m the distri
about different possible causes of "criminality" among nomadic
India.
9. See Grove (1998) for details on the emergence of colonial conservationism in Mauritius,
South Africa, Australia, and Nigeria. For the emergence of the conservation movement
in the United States, see Donald Worster (1994) and Samuel Hays (1959). For Africa, see
Grove and Anderson (1989). For Southeast Asia, see Nancy Lee Peluso (1992). Also, see
Richard P. Tucker and John F. Richards (1983).
REFERENCES
Arnold, David, ed. 1988. Imperial Medicine and Indigenous Soci

University Press.
India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Arnold, David; and R. Guha, eds. 1995. Nature, Culture, Im

University Press.
Bala, Poonam. 1991. Imperialism and Medicine in Bengal New D

Chatterjee, Partha. 1993. The Nation and its Fragments. New De
Damodaran, Vinita; Richard H. Grove; and Satpal Sangwan, eds
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Grove, Richard. 1995. Green Imperialism. New Delhi: Oxford Univ
Grove, Richard; and David Anderson, eds. 1989. Conservation i

Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guha, Ramachandra, ed. 1994. Social Ecology. New Delhi: Oxford
Guha, Ramachandra; and Madhav Gadgil. 1997. This Fissured
South Asia. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, Mark. 1999. Climates and Constitutions: Health, Race and Environment in British
India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Hays, Samuel. 1959. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Nigam, Sanjay. 1990. Disciplining and Policing the "Criminals by Birth." Indian Economic and
Social History Review 27, no. 2-3.
O'Connor, James. 1998. Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York: Guilford Press.
Peluso, Nancy Lee. 1992. Rich Forests and Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rangarajan, Mahesh. 1996. Fencing the Forest- Conservation and Ecological Change in India's
Central Provinces, 1860-1914. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Sivaramakrishnan, K. 1999. Modern Forests: Statemaking and Environmental Change in Colonial
Eastern India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Skaria, Ajay. 1999. Hybrid Histories. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Tucker, Richard P.; and John F. Richards. 1983. Global Deforestation and the Nineteenth-Century
World Economy. Durham, N.C.: Duke Press Policy Studies.

Worster, Donald. 1994. Natures Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Environmental History and British Colonialism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental History and British Colonialism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental History and British Colonialism in India: A Prime Political Agenda

Author(s): Vandana Swami

State University of New York, Binghamton

THIS ARTICLE HAS DEVELOPED FROM A DESIRE TO DEVELOP A THEORETICAL

position for "Nature" in the context of modernity. It argues th

indexed the rise of modernity itself. This historical-theoretical imbalance

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE

Environmental History of India

In line with this emerging body of research, I see

• What are the specific modalities and methods

• How much is the problem of "nature" and the enviro

ecological view of labor.2

in studying environmental history in India, given the overwhelming

ON THE QUESTION OF A TEMPORAL

The question of choosing an appropriate time frame for

alter the existing patterns of resource use and the so

policies of the British in India. I do not think that Grove

compulsions under which the colonial regime operated. Moreover, there is

the face of the hard-line positions that scholars have take

FORESTS AND PEOPLE: COMMUNITY RIGHTS

and State Conservation

The historical unfolding of debates over stat

As a consequence, colonial forestry had a negative impact upon tradi-

nal tribes." For example, the forest laws enacted in the so

ative, and unproductive, especially in comparison to plough agriculture, and

expansionism and military intervention in timber-rich

conflicting relationships of power were enacted, and there were several

In the context of state conservationism, the debate between Guha/

and their resistance to colonial forestry, though importan

new Approaches to Colonial Forestry

Much to the advantage of those interested in co

ronmentalism is concerned. He mentions very accurately that "it would be a

Mahesh Rangarajans (1996) work also focuses on similar themes as pre-

precolonial social change, one also has to be cognizant of

important critique of both Guha and Grove, as well as of the dominant

dialectical conjunction with "local" socioeconomic structures to create a

Environmental history has made an important star

Kelvin Santiago-Valles, Professor Dale Tomich, and Professor Anthony King

port and willingness to engage in discussions, making helpful comments

to Vishnupad for providing constant encouragement and motivation

1. See Chatterjee (1993).

3. See David Arnold (1988, 1993, 1996), as well as Arnold and

6. This observation has been quoted in Guha and Gadgil ( 1997

Arnold, David, ed. 1988. Imperial Medicine and Indigenous Soci

India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Arnold, David; and R. Guha, eds. 1995. Nature, Culture, Im

Bala, Poonam. 1991. Imperialism and Medicine in Bengal New D

Grove, Richard. 1995. Green Imperialism. New Delhi: Oxford Univ

Grove, Richard; and David Anderson, eds. 1989. Conservation i

India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

World Economy. Durham, N.C.: Duke Press Policy Studies.

You might also like