In regions experiencing rapid commercialisation of forest resources, how has the traditional relationship between indigenous communities and their environment been altered?
India’s tremendous cultural diversity is evident not only in its varied religious traditions and cultural roots but also in the deep and enduring bond that many of its tribal groups have historically had with their natural environment.
With a population of 104 million, India’s tribal communities are spread across the country, serving as guardians of the forests. Guided by indigenous knowledge systems, customs, and rituals, they prioritise environmental balance and sustainability in their way of life. Major tribal communities in India, including the Gond, Bhil, Korku, and Santhal, have co-existed with nature for centuries, adopting practices that protect and conserve forest ecosystems. Sacred groves, rituals related to the worship of trees, and the sustainable harvest of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are just a few examples of how these tribes have maintained harmony with their surroundings without degrading ecology.
Indian tribal communities have long relied on indigenous knowledge-based practices for forest conservation and maintaining a sustainable relationship with nature. For example, in Central India, followers of the Sarna faith worship the sacred groves, which are considered the abode of deities and are strictly protected from exploitation. This practice ensures the preservation of biodiversity and ecological balance, with groves featuring species such as teak, mango, Indian gooseberry, neem, peepal, bargad, bahera, and bael.
Similarly, the Bishnoi community and Garasia tribe in Rajasthan follows religious principles that strictly forbid cutting trees and killing animals, thereby contributing to the conservation of local flora and fauna in the desert ecosystem. In Meghalaya, the Khasi and Jaintia communities dedicate forest areas to deities and spirits, restricting resource collection to protect biodiversity The Gond community in Madhya Pradesh engages in rotational farming, where traditional methods involve rotating cultivation areas to allow forest regeneration and avoid overexploitation, showed by shifting cultivation practices. And, the Toda people of the Nilgiri Hills practice controlled cattle grazing in specific forested areas to prevent overgrowth and maintain ecological balance, a method known as Toda pasture management. Meanwhile, the Bhil communities in Gujarat and Rajasthan use controlled burns to manage forest health, promote biodiversity, and prevent larger uncontrolled fires.
In Arunachal Pradesh, the Apatani community’s wet rice cultivation in terraced fields helps to maintain water levels and conserve surrounding forests. The Jarwa community in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands works nomadic practices and controlled use of forest resources to ensure sustainable use and conservation for generations, and the Munda community in Jharkhand protects specific forest areas through religious rituals and community regulations, preserving forest resources in sacred forests.
But the commercialisation of forest resources has altered the traditional relationship between indigenous communities and their environment. Historically, indigenous communities were self-reliant at larger extent; they used to perform barter systems within their community or village and intensely relied on sustainable methods of gathering forest produce, ensuring a balance between their livelihood and the environment. However, market-driven forces centralised the flow of commodities and services in particular places such as cities, urban towns, suburbs and industrial zones, making service providers either migrate towards these places or dependent on these places for their needs and wants. Furthermore, the increasing demand for forest products in the market has created pressure on these communities to overharvest and engage in intensive collection practices. This shift, driven by both demand-supply dynamics and the promise of economic gain, has resulted in the unsustainable exploitation of pristine natural forest resources. Some of the govt. policies or regulations also pushed indigenous people towards this shift.
For instance, the Indian Forest Act of 1927 and later amendments, forests were placed under State government control, restricting traditional access to forest resources. Similarly, the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, which aimed to create protected areas for wildlife, also curtailed tribal rights to access forests, resulting in the loss of their forest-based livelihoods. Although these policies were intended to regulate deforestation and conserve wildlife, they paradoxically forced many tribal communities into exploitative labour arrangements, migration, illegal harvesting of forest resources which offered immediate cash returns but led to overharvesting and disrupted traditional harvesting methods, further depleting forest resources.
Similarly, government-backed programmes promoting NTFPs as sources of income pressured tribes to increase their collection activities beyond sustainable levels and increased tensions among them due to rapid competition in the collection arena. Additionally, economic pressures, such as fluctuating market prices for forest products and the need to meet short-term financial demands compounded the situation, driving tribes to prioritise immediate economic survival over long-term environmental conservation. The result was a shift away from their traditional sustainable practices towards market-oriented exploitation, further aggravated by the lack of sustainable alternatives or adequate compensation for their labour.
As a result, these unsustainable market-oriented practices not only threaten the environment but also undermine or are in tension with the foundational spiritual and religious practices of diverse indigenous groups across India, which have existed for generations. The modern approach to forest conservation, which often prioritises capitalistic goals (maximising the profit at any cost) and resource extraction, fundamentally differs from the sustainable practices traditionally used by Indigenous communities. Creating economic opportunities which incorporate tribal knowledge systems, aligning with traditional (spiritual) livelihoods, would provide a more sustainable solution.
The obstacles to implementing more inclusive and sustainable policies include —a disconnect between government-led conservation efforts and tribal realities, economic pressures that prioritise market interests over ecological sustainability, and the absence of educational programmes that align with indigenous practices. This misalignment has led to a conservation model that neither protects the environment nor ensures the welfare of the tribes, revealing a need to rethink how conservation is approached in tribal regions.
The way forward in enhancing forest conservation and protecting tribal communities involves several key strategies. Firstly, integrating indigenous knowledge into conservation policies is crucial. Government policies must prioritise traditional practices like protecting sacred groves and practicing rotational farming, which have maintained ecological balance for generations.
Establishing collaborative conservation frameworks is essential. This requires creating joint decision-making platforms where tribal voices are prioritised, ensuring conservation policies are both environmentally sustainable and culturally respectful. Through implementing these strategies, conservation efforts can be more effective and inclusive, benefiting both the environment and the communities who depend on it.
Acknowledgements: We express our appreciation to Dr. Divyanshu Kumar Dixit for his insightful discussions and valuable suggestions during the preparation of this article.
Photo by Demure Storyteller
Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of LSE Religion and Global Society nor the London School of Economics and Political Science.
📨 Click here to sign up to the LSE Religion and Global Society newsletter.
