Ensuring Sacred Groves Do Not Go The Temple Way: Harmonising Tradition, Conservation, And Governance

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) asked the Union government to formulate a comprehensive nation wide framework for the management of sacred groves in the country.

These revered forests, meticulously conserved by local communities for centuries, represent a unique tapestry of ecological wisdom and cultural heritage. Nurtured by indigenous traditions and deeply held religious beliefs, they, unlike numerous conventional temples have largely withstood the onslaught of colonial laws and the relentless march of "development".

Is SC's move reminiscent of the take over of Indian temples by the colonial-era HRCE acts?

Before drawing any parallels to the challenges faced in regulating traditional temples in India today, a careful consideration of the evolution of environmental jurisprudence in India and its relationship with indigenous rights is essential, given the unique nature of sacred groves and the communities that steward them.

From Conflict And Confrontation to Collaboration

The forest laws in India have shifted from that of conflict and confrontation between the state and the indigenous population to one of collaboration.

It began with the British enacting the first forest policy in 1894, which was purportedly based on the principle of scientific forestry. While this policy recognised the importance of forests to local communities, it failed to safeguard their rights, as its primary focus was on generating revenue and profit from timber resources.

Over time, the colonial powers began notifying nomadic and pastoralist communities as 'criminal tribes' and progressively alienating many forest dwellers from their traditional lands, resulting in loss of livelihood, ownership, and an increase in forced evictions, labor, and exploitation of forest resources.

Even post independence, up until the 1970s, forestry practices were largely isolated from local communities, with little interaction between forest officials and the people living in these areas.

Scientists and environmentalists argued for years that degraded natural forests in India could regenerate rapidly and could experience significant increase in biomass and biodiversity if they're strategically protected by the communities living in or around them.

Consequently, in 1988 the New Forest Policy finally introduced the concept of Joint Forest Management (JFM). This marked a shift toward participatory management. This policy elevated local people from being passive beneficiaries of forest resources to active co-managers, alongside forest personnel, of designated forest areas.

Thus, the Indian Forest Policy has gradually evolved to incorporate concepts like communal consent and explicit guarantees of customary rights. This is in stark contrast to the approach adopted by the HRCE acts towards temples across India, where there is an erosion of traditional management practices and the displacement of authorities, such as hereditary trustees and priests.

Given the diverging approaches of forest laws and HRCEs Acts towards indigenous rights, the challenges faced in temple regulation need not impede the development of bona fide policies that seek to address urgent concerns regarding the conservation of sacred groves.

While apprehensions regarding the potential for government overreach exist even within the affairs of sacred groves, it would be prudent to analyse the level of autonomy granted to these sites by existing environmental legislation and their effectiveness in conserving both biodiversity and customary rights instead of outright dismissal of any regulation as undesirable.

This brings us to the recent Supreme Court directive to the central government to formulate a national policy for their governance. It's a crucial juncture that presents both an opportunity and a challenge: to bridge the gap between traditional stewardship and formal environmental governance while ensuring that the unique spirit of these sacred spaces remains intact.

Ownership Models and Traditional Stewardship

At the heart of this effort lies the diverse ownership and management models of sacred groves across India, which are deeply intertwined with local traditions and cultural practices.

Understanding these traditional frameworks is essential to crafting policies that honor the legacy of these sacred spaces while integrating them into modern governance structures.

For instance, a 2021 study titled 'Cultural Dimensions of Sacred Forests in the Western Ghats Biodiversity Hotspot, Southern India, and Its Implications for Biodiversity Protection' highlighted the various ownership models of sacred groves in Sawantwadi Taluka, located in Maharashtra's Sindhudurg District.

The research found that a significant portion of the groves (41%) is owned by temple trusts. This is largely due to the establishment of the Paschim Maharashtra Devsthan Prabodhan Samiti in the 1960s, a government body under the Revenue Department that had already, much like the HRCE departments in various states assumed control of several thousand temples and their associated groves in Western Maharashtra.

Additionally, a considerable share of the groves (48%) is managed by village panchayats, where the clan elders (gavkars) play a critical role in decision-making processes. A smaller percentage of the groves fall under the jurisdiction of the local forest department (6%), while the remaining 5% are privately owned by individual families.

In contrast, stewardship of the groves in the northeastern states of Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh has been more equitable. The reason being that the administration and management of the region's geographically and culturally diverse sacred groves here is often overseen by the autonomous village councils.

Regulation in Goa is more amorphous. In 2002 a Mapusa-based Goa Foundation in its publication, 'Fish Curry and Rice' had provided a list of 27 sacred groves in the state. Except Nirankarachi Rai of Maloli and a couple of other groves within wildlife sanctuaries, it can been seen that today most of the sites lack any form legal protection.

This is particularly unfortunate as there was once a time where every village in the state used to have a sacred grove where the bond between the local community, nature and the deity could not be erased despite vehement efforts from the Portuguese.

It is only thanks to local traditions such as of Rashtroli and Dadd in the talukas of of the Old Conquest, Bardez, Tiswadi, and Salcete, that the villagers still manage to maintain sacred groves and trees.

Similarly, with rising urbanization within the talukas such as Cunchelim, it is customs in the name of the deity Kazreshwar that are preserving indigenous trees such as kazro and vadd amidst cement and concrete structures.

In such instances the formulation of policy as prescribed by the court would prove to be a blessing as without it these trees and patches of greeny lack explicit legal recognition.

Legal Frameworks for Sacred Grove Conservation

The apex court's recent directive to formulate a nationwide governance framework for sacred groves stems from the landmark 1996 case, T.N. Govardhan Tirumalpad Vs Union of India, (the plaintiff is widely regarded as the father of environmental jurisprudence in India).

This case arose from a public interest litigation filed in 1995, and since then, the court has been closely monitoring the progress of its initial judgment.

Over the years, several subsequent orders have been issued, with the most recent emphasising the need to associate and link provisions of the existing environmental legislation to be inclusive of sacred groves in order to bolster their protection.

1. Now Sacred Groves Qualify as Forests.

Highlighting the cultural, spiritual and ecological importance of Orans, the court directed Rajasthan to expedite surveys of these groves, to classify them as forests and involve local communities in conserving them.

This is of significance as in the 1996 judgement, the Supreme Court has broadened the definition of forests under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 (formerly known as the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980). It said that the word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning, irrespective of ownership, legal status and vegetation. This paved the way for sacred groves to eventually be recognised as forests.

By granting this recognition, and classifying sacred groves as “deemed forests,” the court has effectively extended protection to sparse tree ecosystems that were earlier neither recorded nor categorised as forests.

2. Community Reserves

The court also specifically called for the application of Section 36(c) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, which allows for the declaration of community reserves. "This would legally protect these areas, recognising their (local communities) role in biodiversity conservation and cultural practices," the court noted.

Extending the concept of community reserves to sacred groves carries several important implications.

Under this framework, the state government, after obtaining the consent of local communities, would decide which groves can be classified as community reserves. This designation typically occurs when a community or individual volunteers to contribute to the conservation of wildlife and its habitat. Once a grove is designated as a community reserve, its management is overseen by a dedicated committee specifically established for this purpose.

One of the key elements of community reserves is the imposition of land-use restrictions. Any changes to land use within the boundaries of a community reserve would require approval through a resolution authorized by both the State Government and the Management Committee.

Additionally, people would not be allowed to use community reserves for agricultural practices, such as jhum cultivation and would be restricted to collecting only what is classified as 'minor forest produce'.

If all sacred groves across the country are eventually identified, surveyed, and brought under the umbrella of community reserves, this could disrupt existing traditional ownership models. It would necessitate a shift from traditional systems, requiring communities to relinquish some control and place management authority in the hands of a committee under the supervision of the state government and the Chief Wildlife Warden.

While transitioning to formal environmental governance does bring legal recognition and thereby potential for greater access to state resources, it also risks undermining the traditional systems of management, systems which often strike a unique balance between cultural practices and conservation efforts, and which can be more effective in some contexts than formal governance structures.

This challenge has already been observed in Nagaland, where sacred groves were declared community reserves and Joint Forest Management was introduced through an MoU with village councils.

Consequently, the forest department became a co-manager and shared decision-making authority. However, many village councils, often lacking literacy, were not fully aware of the implications of entering such agreements. Additionally, forest department officials, sometimes insufficiently sensitised, failed to adequately educate the councils before urging them to share control, leading to misunderstandings and complications in management.

As Alemwapang T Imchen, assistant conservator of forests, Mangmetong village, told Down to Earth:

“The village councils in Nagaland are autonomous bodies that enter into the MoU after convincing the land owners that declaring a particular patch of forest will be good for conservation.”

 “After a forest has been made into a community reserve, people cannot hunt there, nor can they use it for agricultural practices, leave alone jhum cultivation,”

3. Forest Rights Act, 2006

The court sought to strike a balance between government intervention and the rights of indigenous communities through the provisions of The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 — commonly known as the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

It directed the Rajasthan government to identify traditional communities that have historically protected sacred groves and to designate the areas they occupy as community forest resources under Section 2(a) of the Act.

It also placed emphasis on the role of the Gram Sabha and highlighted how the Forest Rights Act via section 5 empowers these communities via the Gram Sabhas to protect wildlife, biodiversity, and natural resources. In particular, the right to regulate access and prevent harmful activities.

"Granting the communities authority to regulate access and prevent harmful activities would preserve the legacy of stewardship and promote sustainable conservation for future generations" it stated.

However, complication arises when it comes to sacred groves that are owned by individuals as private property or are dedicated and restricted to particular castes alone; or when some groves deny entry to menstruating women.

If the state takes over will it continue to uphold such customary restrictions? Are such practices given protection under the forest rights act? Will it need to justify or ‘reform’ customs on lines similar to what was insisted upon in the Sabarimala verdict? These are some questions that will need to be addressed.

4. Biodiversity Act, 2002

The importance of  these groves and the need to preserve them is well established. The question now largely revolves around how. While the Supreme Court in its recent verdict laid major emphasis on Community Reserves and Forest Rights Act, there is yet another potent piece of legislation suitable and perhaps tailor made for sacred groves — Biodiversity Act, 2002.

Enacted to fulfill India’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya protocol, apart from ensuring access and benefit sharing with indigenous communities, through Section 37 it also empowers the State Governments to notify in the official gazette, in consultation with 'local bodies', areas of biodiversity importance as Biodiversity Heritage Sites (BHS).

The advantage of declaring sacred groves as biodiversity heritage sites is that BHS does not lead to any change in the land ownership but at the same time brings in the deserving spotlight to the conservation ethics and efforts of local communities. The BHS tag ensures immediate recognition at the national as well as international levels.

However, unlike in community reserves where the the first authority is vested within the Gram Sabha, when it comes to BHS, via sub section (2) of Section 37 of the Biodiversity Act, the State Government in consultation with the Central Government may frame rules its management and conservation.

Additionally, the State Governments are empowered to frame schemes for compensating or rehabilitating any person or section of people economically affected by such notification — something which is generally harder to ensure within the framework of community reserves where financial compensation is rarely explicitly mentioned.

Despite India's rich biodiversity boasting four globally recognised hotspots and countless sacred groves within them, the provision to declare Biodiversity Heritage Sites (BHS) under Section 37 of the Biodiversity Act, 2002, remains significantly underutilised.

As per National Biodiversity Authority, only 45 sites have received this designation as of February 2024. This suggests that the full potential of this crucial provision for conserving remains largely untapped.

Threats to Sacred Groves

Biotic factors, such as the spread of invasive alien species like Prosopis juliflora, pose a significant threat to the biodiversity within these fragile ecosystems. Furthermore, a growing disconnect with traditional practices, often exacerbated by rural-to-urban migration, contributes to a decline in their reverence. The young often perceive these age-old traditions as mere superstitions or taboos, leading to apathy towards their conservation.

The cumulative impact of urbanization, land encroachment, deforestation, and climate change further exacerbates the decline of these vital ecological and cultural hubs.

Despite these challenges, sacred groves remain invaluable repositories of both ecological and cultural services. They often serve as vital sources of medicinal plants and ritualistic raw materials such as timber and turmeric used in Hindu worship.

Moreover, their strategic locations, frequently situated on the boundaries of villages, have historically played a crucial role in maintaining social harmony. These groves (as seen in Maharashtra) often serve as neutral grounds for dispute resolution, fostering a sense of community and facilitating peaceful coexistence among neighbouring villages.

Sacred groves represent a harmonious blend of ecological conservation and cultural heritage, standing as living testaments to the symbiotic relationship between nature and humanity. The Supreme Court's directive to establish a nationwide framework for their governance is a step toward ensuring that these ecological and spiritual sanctuaries receive the recognition and protection they deserve.

However, as this policy evolves, it is crucial to strike a balance between traditional stewardship and formal governance. While integrating sacred groves into modern legal frameworks like community reserves, biodiversity heritage sites, or forest rights policies brings potential benefits, it also necessitates careful consideration of the unique customs, ownership models, and ecological practices that have sustained these groves for centuries.

It is imperative to ensure that these policies empower local communities rather than alienating them, preserving the delicate balance that has historically safeguarded these sacred spaces.

As India stands at this crossroads, it must tread carefully, crafting a framework that honors the spirit of sacred groves while addressing contemporary challenges. By doing so, the nation can ensure that these groves continue to thrive as bastions of biodiversity, cultural wisdom, and community harmony for generations to come.