Spiritual Beliefs and Ecological Traditions

in Indigenous Communities in India:

Enhancing Community-Based
Biodiversity Conservation
Maria Costanza Torri and Thora Martina Herrmann

ABSTRACT
From time immemorial, local and indigenous communities in India have de-
veloped traditions, representations, and beliefs about the forest and biodi-
versity. The cultural practices and beliefs of a community play a significant
role in enhancing community-based initiatives, particularly in achieving
sustainability in the long term. Nevertheless, too often conservation policies
do not take into consideration the link between the culture of local commu-
nities and their environment. A comprehensive understanding of the rela-
tionship between cultural traditions and practices related to biodiversity and
their current status and manifestations is crucial to the concept of effective
and sustainable conservation policy. This article examines the traditional
practices of the communities in the Sariska region (Rajasthan, India) as well
as their beliefs and their values, underlining the special relationship that
these tribal and indigenous communities maintain with the forest and their
usefulness in community-based conservation. Some conclusive remarks on
the importance of adapting conservation approaches to local cultural repre-
sentations of the environment will be drawn.

KEYWORDS
biodiversity, spiritual beliefs, indigenous ecological knowledge, community
conservation, India


Introduction

Over the past decade there has been an insurgence of indigenous

knowledge as an applied theoretical approach in relation to socio-
economic methodologies. The theory of cultural ecology and neo-
evolutionism ideologies stem from the influence of environment on
cultural development. The basic features include the impact of envi-
ronment on culture, focus on adaptation, and reciprocal links between

Nature and Culture 6(2), Summer 2011: 168–191 © Berghahn Journals

doi:10.3167/nc.2011.060204
 SPIRITUAL BELIEFS AND ECOLOGICAL TRADITIONS 
culture and ecology as seen by indigenous groups who rely on forest
resources for survival (Seymour 2004). According to some scholars,
the ecological knowledge systems are culturally evolved and exist as
knowledge–practice–beliefs complexes that are not easily separated
from their institutional and cultural contexts (Naughton-Treves et al.
2005, Berkes et al. 2003, Bicker et al. 2004)
Nevertheless, in many countries in the South, conservation poli-
cies do not take into consideration the importance of the link between
conservation and culture for local communities (Brechin et al. 2003).
While the economic and biodiversity values of conservation are widely
recognized and accepted, intangible or non-material values, such as
cultural values, which have long been of priority concern for local com-
munities, are often disregarded in the implementation of conservation
policies (Laird 2002, Howitt 2001).
As one consequence, the ongoing conservation policies have often
created numerous conflicts between the different stakeholders (Brock-
ington and Igoe 2006). In addition to the neglect of culture/value, var-
ious other factors, such as economic deprivation and political dis-
empowerment consequent to the imposition of protected area status,
have contributed to nourish these conflicts. The conflict between the
views of the local communities, the preservationists, and the state
conservationist institutions can be analyzed first of all in terms of the
oppositions between different mythologies and symbolisms (Town-
send 2000).
The worldwide network of protected areas (PA) has emanated
from the American concept of natural areas treated as untouched and
pristine wilderness, symbolized by the move to set aside Yellowstone
National Park in the last century as an untouched area in the United
States. Protected areas, especially those that involve very restricted
use, are more than a government strategy of conservation: they are
emblematic of a particular relation between humans and nature. The
expansion of the U.S. mid-nineteenth-century idea of uninhabited na-
tional parks is based, first, on the myth of an untouched natural para-
dise. This reactive conservationism of the nineteenth century, in
which the natural world is attributed all the virtues and society all the
vices, was, according to Moscovici, a reaction to “culturalism,” which
sees in nature the infirmity of man, a threat of return to savagery to
which culture must be opposed (Moscovici 1974).
In spite of the dichotomist vision between human and nature which
characterizes the conservation policies in numerous developing coun-

169

MARIA COSTANZA TORRI AND THORA MARTINA HERRMANN

tries, an ecological ethos continue to survive in many local societies,

although often in reduced forms. Investigations into the traditional re-
source use norms and associated cultural institutions prevailing in ru-
ral Indian societies (Ramakrishnan 2007) demonstrate that a large
number of elements of local biodiversity, regardless of their use value,
are protected by the local cultural practices. Some of these may not
have a known conservation effect, yet may symbolically reflect a col-
lective appreciation of the intrinsic or existence value of life forms
and love and respect for Nature.
This is not to say that indigenous people are in constant harmony
with nature, since there has also been depletion of natural resources
due to their uses (Schmidt-Soltau 2003). Indigenous societies have,
however, maintained lands and resources better than other societies.
This is mainly due to low population densities and specific values, be-
liefs, and practices of restraint, thus limiting resource use in various
ways and with less environmental degradation. In general, the dam-
age caused by indigenous groups has had less impact on the ecosys-
tem than large-scale timber harvesting, mining, and migrants from
other regions who are not familiar with the ecosystem (Redford and
Sanderson 2001).
Experience with community-based conservation in South Asia is
extremely rich and comprises age-old practices, refined through cen-
turies of trial and error that are melted into the local culture (Rama-
krishnan 2007). This is a most powerful asset, which can and should be
harnessed for the benefit of protected areas. The spiritual and religious
perceptions can only be integrated into conservation principles and
practices when there is better understanding of these perspectives.
One of the core hypotheses of this paper is the usefulness of the
cultural and religious values perspective to illuminate conservation
practices that will enhance the effectiveness of natural resources man-
agement. Hence, our objective is to investigate the cultural represen-
tations, the values, and the spiritual beliefs of local communities
living in the Sariska Tiger Reserve in northern India, and how they are
linked to their surrounding environment and the possible relationship
between these values and beliefs with conservation practices.
The present paper addresses the following research questions:

What is the general structure of the integration of local soci-

eties with their ecosystems?

What are the sociocultural values of these communities and
their roles in shaping their vision of the ecosystem?

170
 SPIRITUAL BELIEFS AND ECOLOGICAL TRADITIONS 

How do these local communities relate to local wildlife?

At what point do these cultural and spiritual values and beliefs
inspire the villagers to take an active part in the protection of
the environment and the local biodiversity?

The study of these communities is important, as it can provide for the

conception of more inclusive and effective nature conservation poli-
cies by integrating both modern and traditional ecological knowledge
systems and practices.
Our paper is structured in two parts. Section one sets out the case
study analyzing the role of spiritual beliefs and cultural representa-
tions in shaping the vision of local communities vis-à-vis natural re-
sources and their conservation. Section two briefly discusses the case
and analyzes the main findings with some of our observations. Some
conclusive remarks on the importance of adapting conservation ap-
proaches to local cultural representations of nature will follow.
On the basis of field research, our paper concentrates on the as-
pects that apply directly to indigenous peoples’ knowledge and cul-
ture about natural resource management of an indigenous community
living in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. The preferential term
“indigenous environmental knowledge,” as used by Ellen and Harris
(2000), is understood in accordance with the operational definition
provided by Berkes (1999), who describes “traditional ecological knowl-
edge” as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolv-
ing by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by
cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (includ-
ing humans) with one another and with their environment.”
Berkes (1999) conceptualizes indigenous knowledge as a “knowl-
edge-practice-belief complex.” This implies a primary level of ecolog-
ical knowledge regarding animals, plants, soils, and landscapes framed
by a second level of knowledge on land and resource management
systems. A third level refers to social institutions and relations, and the
fourth level is given by the worldview, which includes belief systems
and cultural ethics that shape environmental perceptions.

Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Biodiversity

Conservation in Protected Areas: A Contentious Issue

Many indigenous people, including those in India, experience the en-

vironment as a whole: people, animals, plants, landforms, and energy

171

MARIA COSTANZA TORRI AND THORA MARTINA HERRMANN

sources are not separate entities. They are all linked to each other and
to local places through cultural traditions and interactive relationships
(Turner et al. 2000, Torri and Herrmann 2010). Traditional ecological
knowledge (TEK) is the application of the evolving knowledge accu-
mulated about these relationships. TEK comprises worldview and re-
ligious traditions of a cultural group (Berkes 1999). Each society
shares a range of ecological values, worldview, and ethics along with
their practices that shape their interrelations with the surrounding
nature. The concept of knowledge developed through traditional rela-
tionships with nature can be expanded to TEKW (wisdom), recogniz-
ing the holistic aspect of TEK and that it is not easily subject to
fragmentation (Turner et al. 2000). TEKW acknowledges that there is
more than simply quantitative descriptions of these relationships;
there is also wisdom acquired through understanding and maintain-
ing these relationships in a complex system. Indian belief systems re-
gard nature as divinity, the manifestation of God; as such, natural
elements like plants, animals, water, earth, and fire all become part of
ceremonies and worship (Anthwal et al. 2010).
TEK is conceptualized in many ways, from its role as a livelihood
strategy in poor tribal communities (Gupta 1999) to complex systems,
such as the Indian medical knowledge system of Ayurveda, to its im-
plications for contemporary natural resource management (Ghimire
et al. 2004, Moller et al. 2004, Wehi 2009). Berkes et al. (2000, 2007)
explores the role of TEK in managing the processes and functions of
complex socio-ecological systems as parallel to adaptive manage-
ment. He further suggests that TEK is largely dependent on hierarchal
social mechanisms.
Slikkerveer (2000) provides several examples of TEK, as well as
an extensive treatment of the historical context and principles that un-
derpin the systematic study and evaluation of traditional knowledge
systems. This is generally known as ethnoscience, and embraces the
now-familiar fields of ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnoecology, and
ethnobiology.
A generic conception of local knowledge systems in the context
of natural resources management can also usefully distinguish be-
tween pragmatic knowledge about how the natural world works (pre-
dicting outcomes of management interventions) and cultural values
that modify the desirability of various outcomes. The latter distinction
is controversial, particularly when viewed from the anthropological
tradition, which sees all knowledge as being culturally embedded
(Ellen and Harris 1996). Joshi et al. (2004:19) pointed out that “accept-

172
 SPIRITUAL BELIEFS AND ECOLOGICAL TRADITIONS 
ing these distinctions, knowledge of the natural world can be seen to
comprise ‘explanatory knowledge’ (concerned with ecological proc-
esses) and ‘descriptive knowledge’ (concerned with the properties of
the various components of agroecosystems, such as trees, crops and
soils). This contrasts with ‘supernatural knowledge,’ which consists of
a higher level, often spiritually based, explanation for the order of
things. The latter may form the basis of the rules, norms and values as-
signed by culture, religion and other moral or social imperatives.”
There is a long and active tradition of defining local knowledge
systems as opposed to scientific knowledge (Levi-Strauss 1966, Silli-
toe 1998, Berkes et al. 2000). Various terms are encountered in the lit-
erature referring to this dichotomy: “formal” vs. “informal,” “western”
vs. “indigenous” and “outsider” vs. “insider.” However, the problem
with this sort of frame of analysis is that, in most cases, the knowledge
of local people is not some pristine-indigenous perception of the
world. It is more likely to have been interacting with external knowl-
edge, at least to some extent, for the last 500 years or so (Agrawal
1995).
Many of the world’s richest areas of biological diversity have for
millennia been and continue to be inhabited and managed by indige-
nous peoples (Colchester 1994, Pimbert and Pretty 1995, Redford
and Stearman 1993). Numerous studies underline the strong link be-
tween biological diversity and cultural diversity. Bio-cultural diversity
contributes to the maintenance and, to some extent, formation of bio-
diversity, and studies have shown that although intentional conserva-
tion may be rare among small-scale societies, practices of what is
called today “sustainable resources use and management” is common
among local communities and contributes to biodiversity conserva-
tion through the creation of habitat patterns (Smith and Wishnie 2000,
Herrmann and Torri 2009).
Protected areas are a cornerstone of many conservation ap-
proaches, and the concepts of “pristine” and “wilderness” are still
often considered central to protected area designation and manage-
ment. According to the wilderness conservation approach, “wilder-
ness” shall retain its “primeval character and influence, without per-
manent improvements or human habitation,” and be “protected and
managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” We do agree with
Diegues (2002), when he states that this myth of an untouched and
untouchable nature portrayed by the “wilderness” approach to con-
servation not only reshapes old creeds, but also incorporates elements
of modern science, such as the notion of biodiversity and ecosystem

173

MARIA COSTANZA TORRI AND THORA MARTINA HERRMANN

function, in a symbiosis expressed by the alliance between particular

currents of natural science and preservationist ecology.
In the countries of the South, the number and total surface of pro-
tected areas have grown enormously in the postcolonial period, to
more than 105,000 listed PAs covering approximately 20 million
square km1. Of these, terrestrial protected areas cover 15.3 million
square km, or over ten percent of the land surface of the planet
(Ravenel and Redford 2005). The growth rate of protected areas has
been steady over the past five decades, with faster growth in the
1990s (Naughton-Treves et al. 2005).
The modern environmental movements, which became popular
in the United States and Europe during the 1960s, created in India a
strong international pressure for the adoption of the North American
conservation model, also called the wilderness model. In the interna-
tional context, India attracts attention for its species threatened by ex-
tinction, such as the Asiatic lion, the elephant, and the tiger. Created
during the 1960s, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) represents the most
important catalyst of government action in India. The conflict be-
tween the views of local communities and the preservationist and
state conservationist institutions revolves around a political ecology,
to the extent that the State establishes parks and reserves on the terri-
tories of local communities. In examining the foundations of the con-
flicts between conservation authorities and local communities, it is
important to look at issues of knowledge and identity construction,
which have featured prominently in the politics of conservation in In-
dia. Protected areas have been designed on the basis of a particular
set of scientific principles that focus on standard criteria, such as the
requisite size and shape of the area, landscape fragmentation, the cre-
ation of “breeding nuclei” within “inviolate” core zones, and the as-
signing of ecological values to large mammals, described as
“umbrella” species, against which human actions are to be judged.
Contrary to the idea according to which the habitats must be
“wild,” that is to say inviolated, in India a great number of communi-
ties live around or inside the protected zones and their survival de-
pends on the present resources in the forests. Grazing activites are
present in 2/3 of the protected zones, and in the majority of cases, the
gathering of forest products is a widespread phenomenon (Kothari
1999). Little attention is given to the question of the compensations
for the attacks of the wild animals on human beings and livestock. The
compensations for the loss of livestock granted by the State are almost
symbolic (Krishna and Uphoff 1999). Field studies revealed the con-

174
 SPIRITUAL BELIEFS AND ECOLOGICAL TRADITIONS 
tours of deprivation and social injustice that have resulted from dis-
placements from protected areas (Brockington 2002). Social scientists
and anthropologists point to the extreme marginalization and impov-
erishment that often results from village displacement, particularly in
developing countries where governance systems tend to be ineffective
and enforcement mechanisms are weak (Neumann 1998).
This can be illustrated by the Sariska Tiger Reserve, which has
been constituted and managed as a “natural ecosystem,” despite the
presence of villages located within its core zone. Within this concep-
tual and spatial configuration, the tiger, placed at the apex of a hier-
archical ecological pyramid, is viewed as a potent symbol and index
of ecological health and “wild nature.” The resulting dualism between
people and nature is evident in Sariska’s management principles,
which explicitly identify human habitation and livelihood practices
within the reserve as the main factors responsible for the degradation
of forests and the disturbance of wildlife (Torri 2007). To date, social
research in the context of conservation planning has focused over-
whelmingly on analyzing human impacts on biodiversity, especially
those seen as having negative impacts. While efforts are underway,
more work remains to ensure that strategies are grounded in concrete
understandings of how human activities relate to specific conserva-
tion objectives (Agrawal and Redford 2006, Brockington and Igoe
2006), including greater attention to the importance of cultural beliefs
and spiritual practices centered on traditional ecological knowledge.
It is important, however, to remember that indigenous peoples
and their resource management strategies and stewardship skills
should not be over-idealized. Conservationists have been frequently
criticized for over-romanticizing indigenous peoples, creating a late-
twentieth-century version of “the noble savage” (cf. Verrier Elwin in
Prasad 2003). Acknowledgment of the positive links between indige-
nous peoples and biodiversity has been increasingly tempered by the
recognition that under certain circumstances (high population densi-
ties, market pressures, unsuitable technologies, local disorganization),
indigenous peoples can be disruptive rather than conservationist actors.
As with scientific knowledge, indigenous knowledge (IK) has its limits,
and these limits must be recognized. Historical and contemporary evi-
dence shows that indigenous peoples have also committed environ-
mental “sins” through over-grazing, over-hunting, or over-cultivation of
the land. It is misleading to think of IK as always being “good,” “right,”
or “sustainable” (Thomas 2003). Indigenous knowledge can also be-
come eroded by wider economic and social forces (Clark 2000;

175

MARIA COSTANZA TORRI AND THORA MARTINA HERRMANN

Turner and Turner 2008), and as a result, indigenous beliefs, values, and
practices can be altered. IK that was once well-adapted and effective for
securing a livelihood in a particular environment may also become in-
appropriate under conditions of environmental degradation (Borrie et
al. 2002). Although IK systems have a certain amount of flexibility in
adapting to ecological change, when change is particularly rapid or
drastic the knowledge associated with them may be rendered unsuit-
able and possibly damaging in the altered conditions (Faye 2001).

Methodology

The paper is based on the field research conducted in India over a pe-
riod of six months in 2002 and 2006 by carrying out informal open-
ended unstructured interviews in the local language with the aid of a
translator and participant observation. The research was conducted
within a wholly participatory framework and has been conducted
with the consent of the Gujjar communities involved. The ethno-
graphic method serves as a major framework for qualitative fieldwork
and offers a means for in-depth and site specific understandings. As
anthropology is an empirical science based on observable data,
ethnography is a process of recording, describing, and interpreting in-
digenous ways of knowing, valuing, and organizing the world through
participatory observation.
In an effort to document communities’ indigenous knowledge-
based practices, preliminary fieldwork was conducted in the entire
Sariska reserve and its buffer zone. After reconnaissance of the re-
serve, three villages, Todinenjaran, Kaniyawas, and Rajor, were finally
selected for a thorough study. These villages, all situated in the core
area of the reserve, were selected for their location, where the vege-
tation is denser and where the villagers were likely to experience
more frequent encounters with wildlife, including the tiger. Equal rep-
resentation was given to each village, and a total of 35 villagers were
interviewed. In addition, field research was also conducted in the vil-
lages located in the buffer zone of the Reserve, such as Bhanta
Kolyala. In order to triangulate the data, two informal groups inter-
views, composed on average of ten people each, were conducted in
the villages under study.
The villagers selected belonged to the Gujjar ethnic group. The
decision of interviewing villagers belonging to the Gujjar was moti-

176
 SPIRITUAL BELIEFS AND ECOLOGICAL TRADITIONS 
vated by the fact that they represent numerically the primary ethnic
group in the reserve. In addition, being traditionally shepherds, their
contact with the forest and wild animals was thought to be closer and
more frequent. Interviews with elders were more numerous, com-
pared to the other groups of villagers, due to their more extensive
knowledge about village traditions. In order to gain closer insights
into the spiritual and religious beliefs, five interviews were also car-
ried out with the sadhus2 living close to Sariska Tiger reserve.

The Sariska Tiger Reserve in India

The Sariska Tiger Reserve was declared a wildlife reserve in 1955. In

1978, it was given the status of a tiger reserve, making it a part of In-
dia’s Project Tiger scheme. The park is situated 107 km from Jaipur
and 200 km from Delhi, and lies in the Alwar district of the northern
Indian state of Rajasthan in the Thanagazi block zone. It covers an
area of 866 sq km. Before Independence, the forests within the Re-
serve were part of the Alwar State and considered a hunting reserve
for the local Maharaja. After independence, in 1955, these woodland
areas were registered as a State reserve. Later, in 1975, in order to
achieve the most effective conservation of wildlife, some forest areas
adjacent to the reserve were also incorporated into the Sariska Re-
serve and are now officially Protected Areas.
The protected area includes three zones designated high protec-
tion: core zones I, I and III. The Sariska Tiger Reserve is home to
numerous animals, including the Bengal tiger, leopard, jungle cat,
caracal, striped hyena, golden jackal, chital, sambhar, nilgai, chin-
kara, four-horned antelope “chousingha,” wild boar, hare, hanuman
langur. Sariska is also well known for its rich and varied birdlife (e.g.
grey partridge, bush quail, sand grouse, tree pie, golden-backed
woodpecker, crested serpent eagle, great Indian horned owl). In
2005, it was understood that the entire tiger population had disap-
peared from the Sariska Tiger Reserve (in 1992 there were still 22
tigers). Poaching was one of the major reasons for the disappearance
of tigers (Wildlife Protection Society of India 2006). A relocation pro-
gram started in 2008, and presently, a family of five (two males and
three females, all of them relocated from the Ranthambore tiger re-
serve) are residing in this reserve. The ethnic groups that live in the
forests in India are generally included in the administrative category

177

MARIA COSTANZA TORRI AND THORA MARTINA HERRMANN

of “tribal population,” although some communities living in the for-

est, e.g. in the Uttahkhand region, do not belong in this category3.
Consequently, the term “tribe” was used to designate primitive
and backward groups among the farmers’ communities of the plains
(Sengupta 1989). These efforts to generalize the “tribe” concept and
to make it distinctive from other social groups led to the assignment
of certain features to these communities; in the literature, they have
been described as societies presenting a common property system of
resources and practicing subsistence economic activities (Ira et al.
2008).
Ten villages are located within the core zone I (i.e. the national
park area), and a total of thirty-one villages are located in the entire
Tiger Reserve, along with more than 200 villages present in the con-
tiguous area (Srivastava 2009). The local communities inhabiting these
villages mainly belong to the Gujjar community who practice animal
husbandry (buffalo herding) as their main source of livelihood. The
Gujjar are supposed to have 84 exogamic subgroups, yet about 1,178
subgroups had been counted as Hindu and 380 as Muslims (Galhano
Alves 2000). Meenas, Bairwas, Brahmins, Meos, and Rajputs make up
the remaining population. Unlike the Gujjar, the Meena are mainly
marginal farmers, even though they also practice breeding activities
on a small scale.
Since there is no town/city in the valley, the total population lives
in the rural areas and is engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry
as their primary economic activity. The literacy rate is relatively high
in the Sariska valley as compared to district and state levels. Cultural
diversity, environmental complexity, and precariousness related to
farming have forced people to practice a variety of subsistence-based
techniques for self-sufficiency. In the process, people use locally avail-
able resources in various forms. Use of wild edibles and medicinal
plants, trading of produce, cultivation of traditional crops, and artisan
activities are common indigenous practices. The villages’ longtime
heavy dependence on the forest resources of Sariska poses a severe
threat to wildlife and wildlands. Since 1982, some unsuccessful at-
tempts have been made to relocate national park villages. Successful
relocation of the village Bhagani in November 2007 and the village
Kankwari more recently was possible after the reintroduction of tigers
into the area (Srivastava 2009). But will the relocation of just two vil-
lages be enough if twenty-one villages remain in the reserve and
those situated outside it still pose threats to the natural resources of
the Sariska forests?

178
 SPIRITUAL BELIEFS AND ECOLOGICAL TRADITIONS 

Religious Beliefs of Villagers and

their Link to Forest Conservation

In Sariska, the spiritual beliefs of the villagers and their vision of the
world find their basis in the forest. Considering the principle of unity
present in everything, the interrelationship between human beings
and the forests is deeply felt by the villagers. The concept of Nature
and that of God are equivalent, and when the villagers venerate the
forest, they venerate at the same time the divinities in it.
One divinity which has been assigned a major importance by the
villagers is the Mata, a feminine divinity residing in the forests around
the villages. According to the inhabitants of the Sariska region, this di-
vinity is responsible for the well-being of the forest and all the human
being. The Mata is often invoked to obtain and maintain her benevo-
lence by adopting respectful behavior towards the forest and its wild-
life. Bhagat, a sadhu of the Bhartary temple in the reserve states: “It is
thanks to the devotion of the villagers that the local communities re-
spect the jungle.”
According to these beliefs, the destruction of the environment not
only represents a harmful act towards mankind, but also an offence
against the divinity. This offence will lead therefore to divine sanc-
tions. This concept also can be found in the animist religions. A vil-
lager explains: “The Mata protects the forests. We don’t cut the trees
in the woods because we will be punished by the Mata that lives there.
The punishment of the Mata can be stern and can cause the death of
a member of the family or a domestic animal.”
The villagers believe that prosperity is dependent upon respect for
Nature and that indigence hits those who do not respect the natural
laws. Indeed, Nature is able to make a distinction between the hon-
est and the corrupt. Those who are good and respect the forest will al-
ways be supported by Nature, as well as by God, but “the one that is
bad always suffers accidents, illnesses, and attacks of predators. To be
devoted to forest is equivalent to being devoted to the Supreme Be-
ing.” Illness and death do not just assume a physiological dimension
but also embody, according to the villagers, moral judgments and
implications.
In Sariska, there is a sort of “sacred geography” thanks to which
the elements of the forest and its physical components are venerated
and protected. Among them, the concept of the sacred grove has a
great importance. In general, areas designated as sacred groves in India
derive their sacredness from a variety of cultural sources: sites linked

179

MARIA COSTANZA TORRI AND THORA MARTINA HERRMANN

to specific events, sites surrounding temples, burial grounds or ceme-

teries housing the spirits of ancestors, the homes of protective spirits,
the homes of deities from which priests derive their healing powers,
homes to a powerful animal or plant species, forest areas that sur-
round mythically or spiritually significant natural features such as
rivers, rocks, caves, and “bottomless” water holes, and sites of initia-
tion or ritual (Gadgil et al., 2003). Sacred groves in India are known
under different names in different parts of the country: as “dev” in
Madhya Pradesh, “deorais” or “deovani” in Maharashtra, “sarnas” in
Bihar, “devarakadu” in Karnataka, “sarpa kavu” or “kavu” in Tamil
Nadu and Kerala, and “oran” in Rajasthan where the Sariska Tiger Re-
serve is located. The word oran (also auran) is derived from the Sanskrit
word Aranya, meaning forest or wilderness. Orans are sacred groves of
trees, often set aside during the feudal period in Rajasthan for reli-
gious purposes. Orans were usually dedicated to a local deity which
was supposed to protect the villagers and their animals. Villagers still
regard trees on the oran with some religious significance; however,
today for the most part, oran simply denotes common land with trees
and some grass cover (Agrawal 1994). Agrawal states that the oran
also is distinguishable from cultivated fields by its surface, which has
not been plowed for centuries, and by the relatively higher density of
trees and shrubs. A number of rules formerly regulated the use of
orans. Yet, as shown by Anantram (1988), Brara (1987), and Jodha
(1985), after India’s independence in 1947 many of the existing rules
lost their force. Jodha (1985: 255 cited in Agrawal 1994:45) showed
that out of nineteen rules that villagers in two villages in Western Ra-
jasthan used for managing commons in the past, only two survived.
One of the principal means of securing the practical sanctity of
sacred space is through the assignment of taboo to the species or ar-
eas concerned. Some authors describe taboo as a social restraint that
leads to biological conservation, pointing out how specific-species
taboos have had important ecological ramifications for the protection
of threatened and ecologically important populations of species
(Berkes et al. 2003, Gadgil et al. 2003). While taboos that exercise re-
straint on the use of species or access to areas may have their roots in
symbol or myth, it is equally reasonable to suggest that ecological
function, interpreted in the context of human requirements, may un-
derlie and find expression in the mythic and symbolic status of species
or landscapes.
In Sariska, devta ki banni or bhumia banni ki are named locally
as sacred groves, and represent a common element of nearly all vil-

180
 SPIRITUAL BELIEFS AND ECOLOGICAL TRADITIONS 
lages in the region. They are of different sizes and are generally lo-
cated close to the villages. They are an extension of forest land, hav-
ing a high density of trees and vegetation. According to local beliefs,
the sacred groves are the abode of divinities and therefore strong re-
ligious and social sanctions protect these parts of the forest against all
kind of human activity.
In some of the sacred groves in India, all use of resources is for-
bidden because of a shared belief that any human action could pro-
voke the rage of divinities against the whole community. In others,
entrance is prohibited, except on days dedicated to the religious cer-
emonies and the sacrificial rituals. However, in some groves the col-
lecting of dry wood is permitted but the cutting of wood remains
strictly forbidden. The sacred groves can represent an effective way to
protect local biodiversity (Ramakrishnan 2007). As for the orans,
many were/are open to seasonal grazing; in fact many are protected
as crucial fodder banks for summer or drought times.
Another consideration that facilitates the adoption of respectful
behavior towards the forest is the belief that spirits of the ancestors
abide in some places of the forest, in particular by the trees of peepal
and banyan. Some villagers believe as well that these trees represent
the tie between the world of the living and the world of the dead, and
therefore a link between the physical and metaphysical dimensions.
Occasionally, some offerings (flowers, fragrant oils etc) are made
in these places which are considered sacred, although the spirits of
the ancestors are generally honored through the adoption of respect-
ful behavior when in close proximity to these trees. The villagers re-
call a story of a villager who had not respected this sacred place, and
was punished by the divinities. A leopard killed two of his buffaloes
during the night. According to the villagers, the planting of a tree or a
plant by the villagers around the abode of the deceased’s spirit assures
the spirit’s peace and tranquility. A villager affirms: “I planted a tree
when my father died. We did it as his spirit will be relieved and
will find the peace. I take care of this plant every day and I water it
regularly.”

Plants and their Importance for the Villagers

The devotion of the villagers toward these plants has been important
for the conservation in Sariska, as it encouraged the communities to
increase the vegetation close to the johads 4 by planting trees such as

181

MARIA COSTANZA TORRI AND THORA MARTINA HERRMANN

the peepal (Ficus Religiosa) and the banyan (Ficus Benghalensis).

These trees, associated with specific divinities motivate them in car-
rying out the regular maintenance activities (Table 1).
The veneration of these trees is mainly carried out to ask for the
protection of the divinities that are believed to have their abode in
these plants. Though leaves are lopped for fodder and small twigs are
used as wood for fuel, trees as such are never felled. Sacred trees sym-

Table 1
List of Plants Worshiped and Conserved by tribes on

Account of Magico-religious Beliefs
Name of God
Speci- and Goddess
men Local Vernacular Scientific residing in
no. name name name Family plants

1 Aam Amra Mangifera Anacardiaceae Lord

indica Vidhyadhara
Linn.
2 Arjun Arjun Terminalia Combretaceae Lord
arjuna W & A Brahma
3 Bijapura Nibu Citrus Rutaceae Lord
medica Brahaspati
Linn
4 Bilva Bel Aegle Rutaceae Lord Shiva
marmelos
Corr
5 Nimba Name Azadirachta Meliaceae Serpent
indica King
A. Juss.
6 Basil Tulsi Ocium Lamiaceae Goddess
santum L Lakshmi
7 Baka Agasti Sesbania Fabaceae Lord
grandiflora Narayan
(Linn) pers
8 Karavira Kerabi Nerium Apocynaceae Lord
indicum Mill Ganesh
9 Nilapadma Kamal Nelumbi Nymphaceae Godess
nucifera Ambika
Gaertn
10 Sweta Madar Calotropis Asclepiadeceae Lord Shiva
padma gigantean
(L) R.Br
Source: Authors’ Fieldwork 2000–2007.

182
 SPIRITUAL BELIEFS AND ECOLOGICAL TRADITIONS 
bolize specific arrays of human conditions, possibilities, and anticipa-
tion. In India, species of trees are also worshipped as representatives
of particular stars and planets, and as symbols of the natural elements-
energy, water, land, and air, each of which has its own independent
and relational meanings. As sources of social cohesion, continuity,
and control, religious trees shape human actions (Herrmann 2005). In
the aim of protecting and regenerating the forests, the villagers,
through a village organization called the Gram Sabha, have decided
to associate forestation programs with the religious festivals. The day
of the festival of Rakhi, a festival which celebrates the bond of affec-
tion between brothers and sisters, has been selected as a favorable
day to plant new trees. Ribbons are tied around tree trunks as signs of
love and commitment.

The Relationship of the Local Communities

with the Fauna of the Forest

According to the continuity that links human beings with the forest,
the villagers of Sariska consider that animals and human beings share
the same origin, that is to say the forest. One of the most widespread
tendencies among the Indian tribal communities is the anthropomor-
phization of some animals. The value assigned to specific species of-
ten has roots in religion because it is believed that species assumes a
particular meaning for a specific divinity. A strict relationship with the
animal world has been a determinant element in the evolution of re-
ligion and mythology.
The tiger is one of the most respected species in the region of
Sariska as well as in numerous rural areas in India (Seidensticker et al.
1999). Guardian of the jungle, the tiger has been venerated in India
for centuries, and its veneration has roots that go back to the pre-
Aryan cults (Schaller 1984). The fierce goddess Durgha, who symbol-
izes the struggle against darkness and chaos, is always represented
riding a tiger or a lion.
In the buffer-zone of the Reserve, the villagers of Bhaonta-Kolyala,
especially the elders, are particularly amenable to the presence of the
carnivores. In their opinion, the disappearance of the tiger and of the
other predators has been one of the causes of forest deterioration in
this region. The tiger, as the protector of the forest, not only plays a
functional role in its maintenance but it also has a symbolic value in
these communities, where it is regarded as the Lord of the Jungle. In

183

MARIA COSTANZA TORRI AND THORA MARTINA HERRMANN

the village of Bhaonta-Kolyala, after having reforested the area close

to their village, the people made a large drawing representing the
tiger to ask for the protection of the goddess Durgha, symbolized by
the tiger.
The majority of the local communities, having empirical knowl-
edge embedded in conceptual/spiritual belief systems about ecosys-
tem operations, affirmed their willingness to protect the wild species
in Sariska. According to their point of view, each of the wild species
is important as it contributes to the maintenance of the biotic cycles
and the tropic chain. The presence of the big predators is useful from
an ecological point of view because they constitute an element of
control on the utilization of biomass in the forest and prevent its de-
pletion. Consequently, in spite of the attacks that the tigers and the
panthers make on their livestock, the villagers do not have hostility to-
wards these big predators.

Some Considerations on the Sariska Case Study

The Sariska case study shows the deep link between nature and cul-
ture, which adopts specific shapes according to the geographic con-
texts in which it occurs. As it is evident in Sariska, the spiritual values
of local communities are the foundations of their commitment to pro-
tect their local ecosystem and of their motivation to actively engage
in the conservation of sacred forests and other natural sites.
The case study of Sariska also shows that the relationship be-
tween the villagers and natural ecosystems are complex, as is the im-
age they have of these ecosystems. The concept of space and its
optimal use is linked to the symbolic boundaries of the territory,
which often differ from the uses of land attributed by the conserva-
tion authorities (Pathak and Kothari 2003). Not only do local popu-
lations have a different perception of trees and fauna to that of
outside conservation officials, but from one area to the next their per-
ception of the sacred also differs. Forests have a different significance
depending on how they have been used throughout the centuries.5
As such, the term “forest” itself belongs to a kind of legal-administra-
tive category that may not have the same meaning for the villagers.
In Sariska, the local communities never cut down trees such as the
banyan or peepal tree which are valuable for subsistence and have a
special significance to their religion. Equally, forests that are dedi-
cated to divinities have a particular meaning. On the other hand, a

184
 SPIRITUAL BELIEFS AND ECOLOGICAL TRADITIONS 
woodland area deemed appropriate for agriculture is seen as poten-
tially cultivable.
Kalland has assumed that “infusing nature with spirits is appar-
ently no guarantee for the well-being of the environment” (2000: 323)
and beliefs may have little to do with actual behavior towards the nat-
ural environment, since often economic needs are more decisive for
human behavior than religious beliefs. Nevertheless, as the Sariska
case study shows, the indigenous cosmovision implies manifold con-
servational aspects as it provides philosophical principles of ethical
responsibility and social norms of reciprocity and respect for ecosys-
tem integrity that promote ecologically sustainable behavior. In
Sariska, the beliefs and the rituals of the villagers have driven the de-
velopment of practices that facilitate biodiversity conservation. How-
ever, research in Sariska also shows that villagers can over-use re-
sources, as through overgrazing.
In keeping out external forces of “development” and in reinforc-
ing village institutions, community-based conservation initiatives help
to protect languages, traditions, knowledge and practices that other-
wise could be at risk of disappearing. They may even help to reinforce
the sense of pride among local communities concerning their culture.
Due to the influences and the cultural models coming from out-
side, this culture is in some cases considered to be “backward” and
“outmoded” not only by outsiders but also by community members
themselves.

Conclusions

Through the case study presented, we state that it is through indige-

nous and traditional knowledge, rooted in local language, that a di-
rect articulation is provided between cultural diversity and biological
diversity. Cultures hold the knowledge about biological diversity from
which it is nourished. The values and uses of biodiversity described
and analyzed in this chapter through the Sariska Reserve in India re-
veal the crucial role that biodiversity plays in the economic, socio-
cultural, and spiritual life of the indigenous people. The case study
has shown that the indigenous communities have an understanding of
the species and of the operation of the forest ecosystem of which they
consider themselves a part, which is strongly linked to their socio-
cosmological and spiritual thought. This creates a relationship of re-
spect and rationality in the use of the animal and plant species.

185

MARIA COSTANZA TORRI AND THORA MARTINA HERRMANN

Due to their importance in conservation issues, the local and con-

text-specific cultural values of communities need to have a focus in
conservation practices. The balance that dictates the relationship be-
tween a society and its natural environment is too delicate to be es-
tablished on the basis of prefabricated patterns from the outside
world. An insurmountable chasm exists between the realm of interna-
tional decision making, where so-called universal standards are de-
vised, and the realm where micro-decisions are made in the field by
populations whose survival depends on their environment.
Researchers should consider the cultural and ecological values of
traditional knowledge when carrying out research projects. First and
foremost, incorporating traditional knowledge and local cultural
frameworks into research projects can contribute to local empower-
ment and development, increasing the motivation of local communi-
ties to protect the forest. Utilizing traditional knowledge in research
projects and management plans would enhance their legitimacy and
credibility in the eyes of both local people and outside scientists, in-
creasing cultural pride and thus motivation to solve local problems
with local resources. Local capacity-building is a crucial aspect of
sustainable development, and researchers and development special-
ists should design approaches which support and strengthen appro-
priate indigenous knowledge and institutions.
Traditional knowledge related to the habitat contributes to eco-
logical adaptation and could be used to help design policies for con-
servation. The role of indigenous knowledge at policy level in the
conservation process should be reviewed.
The exercise of examining environmental relations and construc-
tions of Nature from a cross-cultural perspective not only would
deepen understandings of indigenous perceptions but also would pro-
vide insights into cultural implications of the conservation approaches
adopted by local authorities. Such a paradigmatic shift needs to emerge
if the complexity of ecological and social relationships underlying
processes of biodiversity loss is to be approached and effective solu-
tions to environmental problems are to be found.

Acknowledgements

The authors are most grateful to the tribal communities of the Sariska
Tiger Reserve with whom they worked. The authors also jointly wish
to thank the reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions.

186
 SPIRITUAL BELIEFS AND ECOLOGICAL TRADITIONS 


Maria Costanza Torri over the last few years has gained experience in com-
munity-based conservation in Asia and Latin America. Following her studies
in Economics at Ancona University (Italy), she completed two years of re-
search at IAMM-CIHEAM in Montpellier (France) and subsequently a Ph.D.
in sociology at Paris1-Pantheon-Sorbonne. Dr. Torri was a research associate
at the Human Rights Research Centre at the University of Ottawa and a Post-
doctoral at the University of Montreal. She has also carried out numerous
impact studies and assessment analysis in India, Africa, and Europe for sev-
eral NGOs and more recently for the European Commission (EU). Address:
Université de Montréal, Canada, Research Chair in Ethnoecology and Bio-
diversity Conservation, CP6128 Succursale Centre-Ville, Montréal (QC),
H3C 3J7 Canada. E-mail: mctorri@yahoo.it.

Thora Martina Herrmann is the Chair holder of the Canada Research Chair
in Ethnoecology and Biodiversity Conservation and Assistant Professor at the
Department of Geography of the Université de Montréal (Canada). She has
dealt in an international and local context with research and policy related
to culture and well-being of indigenous peoples and the conservation of bio-
diversity and ecosystems that these communities and cultures depend on.
Dr. Herrmann received a D.Phil. in geography from the University of Oxford
(UK), and holds a DEA in Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Devel-
opment from the Université de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV) (France). Previously,
Dr. Herrmann worked at the United Nations headquarters in New York in
the Division for Sustainable Development, at the German Technical Coop-
eration Agency (GTZ), and at the European Union headquarters in Brussels
on issues related to biodiversity conservation policy, sustainable develop-
ment, and international cooperation. Address: Université de Montréal,
Canada Research Chair in Ethnoecology and Biodiversity Conservation,
CP6128 Succursale Centre-Ville, Montréal (QC), H3C 3J7 Canada.


Notes
1. For details, see http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/. The official classification
and information in the World Conservation Monitoring Center (WCMC) database does
not include areas covered by private and informal arrangements for wildlife protection
that are common in many parts of the world.
2. In Hinduism, sadhu is a common term for an ascetic or practitioner of yoga
(yogi). The Sanskrit terms sādhu (“good man”) and sādhvı̄ (“good woman”) refer to re-
nunciates who have chosen to live a life apart from or on the edges of society in or-
der to focus on their own spiritual practice (Flood 1996).
3. The definition of “tribal population” has its origins in the nineteenth century,
from the period of English colonization. Under the English occupation, it was not ap-
propriate to include the communities living in distant and remote zones (e.g. those liv-
ing in the forests) in the category of the castes. Thus these populations were designated
“tribal” (Sengupta 1988).

187

MARIA COSTANZA TORRI AND THORA MARTINA HERRMANN

4. The johads are mainly crescent-shaped earthen embankments approximately

five meters deep, with an area of 100-200 square meters, traditionally built by vil-
lagers in Sariska across a sloping catchment to capture the surface runoff water which
then percolates into the soil, increasing the ground water. Due to this method, the wa-
ter can be stored in the depressions up to a few months after the occurrence of the
monsoon showers, before it disappears through infiltration and evaporation.
5. Pathak and Kothari (2003) underline the importance of not limiting the origin
of change to what is external to these societies. In the relational dynamic between
man and nature, population growth and the inability of resources to meet the popula-
tions’ needs have caused these societies to modify their use of resources. Cultural and
religious aspects have also played an important role in the development of these
changes. With access to forests restricted, villagers’ view of forests was altered. Pathak
states that the relationship of forest dwellers with their habitat cannot be described as
mere “alienation.”

References
Agrawal, Arun. 1994. “I Don’t Need it, But You Can’t Have It: Politics on the Com-
mons.” ODI – Pastoral Development Network. New York: Network Paper 36.
Agrawal, Arun. 1995. “Dismantling the Divide between Indigenous and Scientific
Knowledge.” Development and Change 26 (3): 416–439.
Agrawal, Arun, and Kevin Redford. 2006. “Poverty, Development and Biodiversity
Conservation: Shooting in the Dark?” Wildlife Conservation Society. Working Pa-
per No. 26, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, NY.
Anantram, Krishna. 1988. “Economic Analysis of Harnessing Common Property Re-
sources for Livestock Development in Arid Zones of Western Rajasthan.” Ph.D.
diss., University of Jodhpur, Jodhpur, India.
Anthwal, Ashish, Guptab, Nutan, Sharmac, Archana, Anthwald, Smriti, and Ki-Hun
Kima. 2010. “Conserving Biodiversity Through Traditional Beliefs in Sacred
Groves in Uttarakhand Himalaya, India.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling
54 (11): 962–971.
Berkes Fikret, 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource
Management. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Berkes, Fikret, Johan Colding, and Carl Folke. 2000. “Rediscovery of Traditional Eco-
logical Knowledge as Adaptive Management.” Ecological Applications 10 (2):
1251–1262.
Berkes, Fikret, Johan Colding, and Carl Folke, eds. 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological
Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Berkes, Fikret, Kislalioglu Berkes, Mina, and Helen Fast. 2007. “Collaborative Inte-
grated Management in Canada’s North: The Role of Local and Traditional Knowl-
edge and Community-Based Monitoring.” Coastal Management 35 (1): 143–162.
Bicker, Alan, Paul Sillitoe, and Johan Pottier, eds., 2004. Local Knowledge: New Di-
rections, New Approaches. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Borrie, William T., Neil Christensen, Alan Watson, Thereon Miller, and Daniel W. Mc-
Collum. 2002. “Public Purpose Recreation Marketing: A Focus on the Relation-
ships between the Public and Public Lands.” Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration 20 (2): 49–68.

188
 SPIRITUAL BELIEFS AND ECOLOGICAL TRADITIONS 
Brara, Rabat. 1987. Shifting Sands: A Study of Rights in Common Pasture. Institute of
Development Studies. Jaipur: Mimeo.
Brechin, Steven R., Wilshusen, Peter R., Fortwangler, Crystal L. and Patrick C.
West, eds., 2003. Contested Nature: Promoting International Biodiversity with
Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Brockington, Daniel. 2002. Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of Mkomazi Game
Reserve, Tanzania. London: James Currey.
Brockington, Daniel, and James Igoe. 2006. “Eviction for Conservation: a Global
Overview.” Conservation and Society 4 (3): 424–470.
Clark, Jamie. 2000. “The Value of Wilderness to the U. S. National Wildlife Refuge
System.” International Journal of Wilderness 6 (3): 7–11.
Colchester, Markus. 1994. Salvaging Nature: Indigenous People, Protected Areas and
Biodiversity Conservation. Geneve: UNRISD, Document de discussion n°55.
Diegues, Carlos. 2002. “The Myth of Wilderness in the Brazilian Rainforest.” Available
at http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/cca_acdiegues.pdf, accessed on 18 Janu-
ary 2010.
Ellen, Roy, and Holly Harris. 1996. “Concepts of Indigenous Environmental Knowl-
edge in Scientific and Development Studies Literature: A Critical Assessment.”
Paper presented at East-West Environmental Linkages Network Workshop 3, Can-
terbury, UK, 12th May.
Ellen, Roy, and Holly Harris. 2000. Introduction. Pp. 1–33 in Indigenous Environmen-
tal Knowledge and its Transformations. Critical Anthropological Perspectives, ed.
Roy Ellen. Amsterdam: Harwood.
Faye, George. 2001. “The Effects of Federal Government Wilderness Stewardship Poli-
cies on Tourism Activities in Alaska.” Paper presented at conference, Wilderness
in the Circumpolar North: Searching for Compatibility in Traditional, Ecotourism,
and Ecological Values, Anchorage, Alaska, May 15–16.
Flood, Gavin. 1996. Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Gadgil, Madhav, Per Olsson, Fikret Berkes, and Carl Folke. 2003. “Exploring the Role
of Local Ecological Knowledge for Ecosystem Management: Three Case Studies.”
Pp 189–209 in Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for
Complexity and Change, Berkes, Firket Colding, Johan and Folke, Carl, eds.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Galhano Alves, JoaoPedro. 2000. Vivre en Biodiversité Totale : des Hommes, des
Grands Carnivores et des Grands Herbivores Sauvages. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Aix-Mareille III, France.
Ghimire, Krishna, David McKey, and Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas. 2004. “Heterogene-
ity in Ethnoecological Knowledge and Management of Medicinal Plants in the
Himalayas of Nepal: Implications for Conservation.” Ecology and Society 9 (3)
[online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art6/ (last accessed June
2010)
Gupta, Ashish. 1999. “Making Indian Agriculture More Knowledge Intensive and
Competitive: The Case of Intellectual Property Rights.” Indian Journal of Agricul-
tural Economics 5 (4): 346–52.
Herrmann, Thora Martina, and Maria Costanza Torri. 2009. “Changing Forest Conser-
vation and Management Paradigms: Traditional Ecological Knowledge Systems

189

MARIA COSTANZA TORRI AND THORA MARTINA HERRMANN

and Sustainable Forestry.” International Journal of Sustainable Development &

World Ecology 16 (6): 392–403.
Herrmann, Thora Martina. 2005. “Knowledge, Values, Uses and Management of the
Araucaria Araucana Forest by the Indigenous Mapuche Pewenche People: A Ba-
sis for Collaborative Natural Resource Management in Southern Chile.” Natural
Resources Forum 29 (2): 120–134.
Howitt, Richard. 2001. Rethinking Resource Management. Justice, Sustainability and
Indigenous Peoples. London: Routledge.
Jodha, Nayar. 1985. “Population Growth and the Decline of Common Property Re-
sources in Rajasthan, India.” Population and Development Review 11 (2): 247–
263.
Joshi, Laxman, Shrestha, Pratap, Moss, Catherine, and Fergus Sinclair. 2004: “Locally
Derived Knowledge of Soil Fertility and its Emerging Role in Integrated Natural
Resources Management. Pp. 19–40 in Below-Ground Interactions in Tropical
Agroecosystems: Concepts and Models with Multiple Plants Components,
eds. Meine Van Noordwijk, George Cadisch, and Carleds Ong. Wallington: Cabi
Publishing.
Kalland, Arne (2000). Indigenous Knowledge: Prospects and Limitations. Pp. 319–
331, in Roy, Ellen, Peter Parkes and Alan Bicker, eds., Indigenous Environmen-
tal knowledge and its transformations. Critical anthropological perspectives.
Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Kothari, Ashish. 1999. “To Save the Sanctuaries.” Frontline, July 30.
Krishna, Amir, and Norman Uphoff. 1999. Operationalising Social Capital: Explaining
and Measuring Mutually Beneficial Collective Action in Rajasthan, India. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Laird, Sarah. 2002. Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge. Equitable Partnership in
Practice. London: Earthscan.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1966. The Savage Mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Moller, James, Berkes, Fikret, O’Brian, Paul. 2004. “Combining Science and Tradi-
tional Ecological Knowledge: Monitoring Populations for Co-management.” Ecol-
ogy and Society 9(2), [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/
iss3/art2/ (last accessed June 2010)
Moscovici, Serge. 1974. Hommes Domestiques, Hommes Sauvages. Paris: Union
Généralle d’Editions.
Naughton-Treves, Louise, Holland, Markus, and Kevin Brandon. 2005. “The Role of
Protected Areas in Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining Local Livelihoods.”
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 219–252.
Neumann, Roderick. 1998. Imposing Wilderness, Struggles Over Livelihood and Na-
ture Preservation in Africa. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pathak, Nair, and Ashish Kothari. 2003. “Community-Conserved Biodiverse Areas:
Lessons from South Asia.” Pp. 23–45 in The Full Value of Parks: From Economics
to the Intangible, ed. Harmon Putney. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pimbert, Michael, and Jules Pretty. 1995. Parks, People and Professionals: Putting Par-
ticipation into Protected Area Management. UNRISD Discussion Paper n. 57,
UNRISD, Geneva.
Prasad, Archana. 2003. Against Ecological Romanticism: Verrier Elwin and the Mak-
ing of an Anti-Modern Tribal Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Ramakrishnan, Prakash. 2007. “Traditional Knowledge, Cultural Heritage and Sustain-
able Forest Management.” Forest Ecology and Management 249 (1–2): 91–99.

190
 SPIRITUAL BELIEFS AND ECOLOGICAL TRADITIONS 
Ravenel, Robert, and Kent Redford. 2005. “Understanding IUCN Protected Area Cat-
egories.” Natural Areas Journal 25 (4): 381–389.
Redford, Kent, and Sarah Sanderson. 2001. “Extracting Humans from Nature.” Con-
servation Biology 14 (5): 1362–64.
Redford, Henry, and Allyn Stearman. 1993. “Forest Dwelling Native Amazonians and
the Conservation of Biodiversity: Interests in Common or in Collision?” Conser-
vation Biology 7(2): 248–55.
Schaller, George. 1984. The Deer and the Tiger: A Study of Wildlife in India. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Schmidt-Soltau, Kai. 2003. “Conservation-Related Resettlement in Central Africa: En-
vironmental and Social Risks.” Development and Change 34 (3): 525–551.
Seidensticker, John, Jackson Peter, and Christie Sarah. 1999. Riding the Tiger: Tiger
Conservation in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Seymour, Mike. 2004. “Partnerships to Support Sustainable Development and Conser-
vation: The West-East Pipeline Project, China.” Conservation Biology 18 (3):
613–615.
Sengupta, Sujata. 1989. “Genetic Distances among the Koch Populations of Assam, In-
dia.” Anthropologie 27 (1): 39–43.
Sillitoe, Paul. 1998. “The Development of Indigenous Knowledge: A New Applied An-
thropology.” Current Anthropology 39 (2): 223–252.
Slikkerveer, Jan. 2000. “Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology in the Context of National
Laws and International Agreements Affecting Indigenous and Local Knowledge,
Traditional Resources and Intellectual Property Rights.” Pp. 35–54 in Indigenous
Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations, eds. Roy Ellen, Paul Parkes,
and Anna Bicker. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
Smith, Erik, and Mark Wishnie. 2000. “Conservation and Subsistence in Small-Scale
Societies.” Annual Reviews Anthropology 29: 493–524.
Srivastava, Tanushree. 2009. “Relocation of Villages in Sariska Tiger Reserve.” Current
Science 9 (10): 1399–1400.
Thomas, William H. 2003. “One Last Chance: Tapping Indigenous Knowledge to
Produce Sustainable Conservation Policies.” Futures 35 (9): 989–998.
Torri, Maria Costanza. 2007. Vivre dans la biodiversité. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Torri, Maria Costanza, and Thora Martina Herrmann. 2010. “Biodiversity Conservation
versus Rural Development: What Kind of Possible Harmonization? The Case Study
of Alwar District, Rajasthan, India.“ Journal of Human Ecology 31 (2): 93–101.
Townsend, Patricia K. 2000. Environmental Anthropology: From Pigs to Policies.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Turner Nancy, Ignace Marianne, and Ronals Ignace. 2000. “Traditional Ecological
Knowledge and Wisdom of Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia.” Ecological
Applications 10 (5): 1275–1287.
Turner, Nancy, and Katherine Turner. 2008. “Where our Women Used to Get the
Food”: Cumulative Effects and Loss of Ethnobotanical Knowledge and Practice;
Case Studies from Coastal British Columbia.” Botany 86 (1): 103–115.
Wehi, Priscilla M. 2009. “Indigenous Ancestral Sayings Contribute to Modern Conser-
vation Partnerships: Examples Using Phormium Tenax.” Ecological Applications
19 (1): 267–275.
Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI). 2006. Skinning the Cat. New Delhi: WPSI
Editions.

191
Copyright of Nature & Culture is the property of Berghahn Books and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.