Local management of resources within the Kulu Valley utilized the spatial and temporal diversity and energy flows found in mountain ecosystems. Over time a diverse collective emerged with different groups within the collective specializing on different products of the ecosystem. This resulted in villages composed of sub-groups represented by pastoralists, agriculturists and labourers. One of those groups, the pastoralists, focused on utilizing the grazing areas, forest meadows found within the forests, and alpine pastures found at a higher elevation but contiguous to the forests of the region. The pastoralists formed part of the village institution (mimbers) but management of the grazing resource was also seen to occur through the customary rules and practices of pastoralists. Pastoral management of the grazing resource was based upon rules and practices which were encoded in cultural practice and which were not easily interpreted by the outside observer as cognizant management decisions.

The ability of the pastoralists to influence the use of the grazing areas was influenced by the framework of Law set by the state and the negotiated balance between different forest interests within the village. The interests of agriculturists were seen to be changing as the market presented new opportunities. Pastoral management of the grazing commons was observed in the customary practice of pastoralists but the customary practice was seen to be in conflict with the interests of the state and other villagers. The diverse subsistence strategies of the Kulu Valley villages were in a process of simplification as different interests were translated into property rights.
 

5.1 Grazing Strategies of the Kulu Valley

The grazing resource of the Kulu Valley was used by village agriculturists, village pastoralists, Ghaddis³ and Gujjars. Each group pursued a unique herding strategy which utilized different parts of the temporal and spatial diversity of the mountain grazing resource. These strategies were categorized according to a framework developed by Stevens (1993) for Himalayan pastoral strategies which is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Village Vicinity and Upper-lower Slope Herding. Village-vicinity and upper-lower slope herding was the predominate strategy of Goshal and Chichoga agriculturists. Village-vicinity herding depended upon pasture which surrounded the village and hay collected from fields and forests to feed the family dairy cow, the bullocks during plowing season and the odd sheep or goat which was kept around the house. Lower-upper slope herding was also practiced by village agriculturists. This herding strategy utilizes lower pasture areas near the village, or hay during the winter, and pastures at a higher altitude during the summer. In the spring, after plowing has occurred, the village agriculturists of Goshal and Chichoga move the bullocks and heifers to the village’s higher pastures. While the animals were in the high pastures a number of families combined their herds and shared the duties of looking after the animals. The bullocks and heifer were brought back down to the village for the fall plowing and remained in the village area until the following spring.

Long-distance Herding. Village pastoralists and Ghaddis both practiced long-distance herding of sheep and goats. The difference was that village pastoralists are considered to be transhumant herders while Ghaddis are nomadic or semi-nomadic herders from the Kangra valley. Transhumance is a grazing strategy "...in which the livestock is generally accompanied by hired men but also by owners and their relatives, but rarely by a whole family, on a long migration or transit between two seasonal ranges" (Rinschede 1987). The herding strategy of Goshal and Chichoga pastoralists was specifically intermediate stationed transhumance as the village was located between the summer and winter grazing ranges.

Ghaddis were considered to be semi-nomadic, and not nomadic, because they obtained permanent dwellings in the Kangra valley from a government sedentarization programme. Whereas nomadism is defined as a grazing strategy in which "...the livestock is herded by a whole social group (e.g., a family) as owners on their permanent and periodic movement from range to range. Nomads live all year round in mobile tents, yurts, or huts, and rarely in permanent settlements.", semi-nomadism "...combines the seasonal movement of livestock with seasonal cultivation. On their seasonal migrations--largely with small livestock--the social group lives in mobile camps but also in permanent settlements" (Rinschede 1987:97). Although Ghaddis kept permanent dwellings the herding unit was still composed of the entire family unit.

Upper-lower Valley Herding. Gujjars were the main group which focused on upper-lower valley herding. Gujjars were previously nomadic waterbuffalo herders but were considered to be semi-nomadic as they received permanent homes through the sedentarization programme of the Indian government. The Gujjars move up the Beas river valley in the spring to graze in the village forest areas of the Kulu Valley and down to their villages in the fall where the waterbuffalos are stall fed during the winter.

The long-distance or transhumant herding strategy of the village pastoralists formed the focus of the present study as they were found to be the major users of village forest areas. Gujjars were also included as they used the village grazing grounds during the summer months. Ghaddis were not part of the study because they did not use the grazing area of Goshal or Chichoga during the year of the study.

5.2 Characteristics of the Major Herding Groups

Village Pastoralists. The village pastoralists formed a sub-group of Goshal and Chichoga. Out of approximately 130 families in Goshal seven were presently recognized by the pastoralists and other villagers as being pastoral families. Likewise in Chichoga there were three pastoral families out of 80. Table 3 presents the data for the pastoral families of Goshal and Chichoga based upon estimates provided by village pastoralists during a focus group session and checked individually with each major shepherding family. Although pastoral families were a small segment in terms of numbers they still formed an important part of the village as can be seen in Table 3. Approximately half of the sheep which village pastoralists took to the summer grazing grounds belonged to other village members or people from other villages in Mandi district. Village pastoralists undertake this service in return for a nana (fee)⁴. The economic value of the herd which village pastoralists take to summer grazing areas demonstrates the importance of the pastoral families to the local economy.

During interviews with village pastoralists the following estimates were offered. An average sheep (35kg) was worth 800.00 Rupees (Rs)⁵ and an average goat (40kg) was worth 1,000.00 Rs. In addition sheep produced 3.5-4.0 kg of wool yearly worth 50.00 Rs per kg or 175.00-200.00 Rs per sheep per year. The estimated standing stock value of the animals for Goshal was 1,763,000.00 Rs while it was 800,000.00 Rs for Chichoga. The value of the wool per year from the village pastoralists’ sheep was 102,725.00 Rs - 117, 400.00 Rs. The value of the pastoral activity for only Goshal and Chichoga was 2,563,000.00 Rs which made it an important part of the village economy in terms of capital directly held by villagers.

Generally, each pastoral family owned their own animals and herded as

Table 3.

independent units. Pastoral families did form joint herding groups: when the family herd was small in number; if one family did not own a grazing permit and had to work under another families permit; and during the summer and village grazing periods. Group numbers in Table 3 indicate those families which combine their animals into joint herds for the village and summer grazing periods. Group 3 is an example of two families who combined their herds because one family did not hold a winter permit. Village pastoralists formed a sub-group, organized along family lines, but who worked in cooperation with other village pastoralists and village agriculturists.

Gujjars. In Goshal it was found that there were eight Gujjar families which utilized the village grazing areas. Table 4 shows the characteristics of the Gujjar herding families. Gujjars were also organized as independent family herding groups but sometimes joined their animals into a joint herd as shown by group 3. The Gujjars of Goshal were part of an extended family with seven out of eight families from Mandi district, and one from Kulu district. Some of the extended family would stay in the home village to cultivate crops during the summer or they would share the grazing duties so that each family could spend some time cultivating crops. The mainstay of the Gujjar herding economy was waterbuffalo milk which was sold in the villages surrounding Manali although some of the families kept goats, cows and bullocks (Table 4).

As with village pastoralists, the value of the Gujjar herding was an important addition to the regional economy. Each waterbuffalo was estimated by the consultants to produce about 12 kg of milk per day. The Gujjars, which utilized the grazing grounds of Goshal, grazed 37 waterbuffalo (Table 4) which resulted in a total milk production of about 444 kg of milk per day. Waterbuffalo were grazed in the Goshal grazing grounds for approximately 150 days each year which results in a total production of milk during the summer grazing period of about 35,000 kg of milk, assuming half the animals were productive. Milk was sold in Manali and other villages, during the summer of 1994, for 8 Rs per kg. Thus, the value of the summer grazing to the Gujjars was estimated as 280,000 Rs per year. Profit from the waterbuffalo herding was only realized during the summer grazing as during the winter, the cost of fodder, increased costs which only allowed milk sales to meet the cost of animal maintenance. In addition, the village of Goshal collected a fee of 150 Rs per waterbuffalo per year for a total of 5,500 Rs, while the Forest Department collected 8 Rs per waterbuffalo per year for a total of 296 Rs. The grazing of waterbuffalo in the village forests thus provided milk to the local villages, a modest income to the village, and an income for the waterbuffalo herders.

Table 4.

Transhumant Cycle of Village Pastoralists. The transhumant cycle of the patoralists of Goshal and Chichoga provided an example of the ways in which management by pastoralists was encoded within their cultural practices. Customary rules, although less visible than formal institutions, did provide pastoralists with a set of rules which regulated the use of the grazing commons. The details of the transhumant cycle are shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5.

The key to the transhumant cycle was the movement from areas of low elevation in the winter to areas of high elevation in the summer. This allowed the pastoralists to take advantage of spatial differences, grazing resources of different ecological zones due to vertical differences (Figures 3 and 4), and temporal differences, grazing resources at different times of the year (Figure 5), thus maximizing the production of their animal stocks. The pastoralists were found to utilize the spatial and temporal diversity found in mountain ecosystems to maximize production and to follow a rotational grazing system which allowed the pasture a chance to rest and recover. The greatest vertical difference for the pastoralists of Goshal and Chichoga was found to be approximately 4,000 meters (Figure 4) as the pastoralists moved from the semi-tropical climatic zone of Bilaspur to the cold arid zone of Lahul. The basic cycle of all pastoralists was similar with the exception that Goshal had its summer grazing in Lahul while Chichoga had its in Spiti. This cycle was codified by the British during the forest settlement so that permit areas and timing of movement were specified.In addition to this macro-cycle, pastoralists also practiced a micro-cycle of rotation within their village forest areas.

The micro-cycle of shepherds followed the same pattern as the macro-cycle in that it was a rotation which utilized the vertical difference between lower forest grazing areas and higher alpine pastures. As shepherds moved up from the winter grazing areas they usually travel rapidly until they reach their village area. Once at the village, the shepherds spent about five days around the village on the way up in the spring and on the way back down in the fall. This allowed them time to do chores around the household and pick up sheep from other villagers. After they moved from the village they used the lower forest meadows, then moved up to the upper forest meadows and finally moved to the alpine pastures before they went to Lahul or Spiti for a part of the summer (Figure 5). Each village forest area contained a number of forest meadows and alpine pastures which are recognized by name as shown in Table 5 and Figure 6. This cycle is then reversed on the way back in the fall. Although the cycle was codified in Law, the shepherds also revealed a number of reasons which influenced their decisions to move between these grazing areas and which were considered as management decisions. Before considering the grazing management decisions, the Gujjar cycle will be discussed to show how most pastoral systems work from the same premise.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Table 5.

Gujjar Herding Cycle. The Gujjar herding cycle, as shown in Figures 4, 7 and 8 was essentially the same cycle that the village pastoralists followed but at a compressed scale. The Gujjars also utilized the spatial and temporal differences of mountain grazing resources to maximize their production of water buffalo milk. The major difference is that the Gujjars did not have permits or customary grazing rights in any forest areas of the Kulu Valley. They were dependent upon negotiating grazing rights from other villages. Villages, such as Goshal and Chichoga, appeared to have more grazing areas in their forests then they utilized, so they said they allowed Gujjars to graze in certain forest meadows and alpine pasture areas. This allowed the Gujjars to move up to higher grazing areas in the summer. This was advantageous as the water buffalo suffered from the heat and were less productive at lower elevations in the summer. Once in the village forest they followed a similar micro-cycle as the village pastoralists (Figure 8). The major difference between village pastoralists and Gujjars was that Gujjars stall-fed their water buffalo in the winter. As grazing resources in the winter grazing areas were in short supply it was impossible for the Gujjars to negotiate grazing rights with any of the customary right holders. The grazing cycle of the Gujjars was thus a unidirectional cycle, up to summer grazing areas in the upper Kulu Valley village forest areas, and back to their homes in the fall.

Grazing Management Decisions. The primary decisions made by pastoralists revolved around decisions on how to move the herd from one grazing area to another in a way which protected the condition of the grazing resource but allowed the maximization of animal production. The most intensive pasture management was found to occur in the winter grazing areas. While in the winter grazing areas the pastoralists would utilize rotational grazing. Rotational grazing was not preferred by the pastoralists because it required a greater investment in labour and time. The herd was watched constantly and kept to a defined grazing area, once that area was grazed it was moved to another. Consultants felt that this maximized the utilization of pasture as it decreased trampling and prevented the animals from grazing selectively.

By comparison, free range grazing was utilized in both the village and summer grazing areas as pasture was considered abundant. The other management practice followed in the winter grazing areas was the cutting of branches to feed the sheep. This was done through an agreement with a village right holder in the winter grazing area whereby the sheep would be penned in a field and fed branches in return for the sheep manure. Both of these intensive management practices were followed by village pastoralists in an attempt to maximize the amount of animals they could keep in the winter

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

area so that they could fully utilize the grazing resources of the village and summer grazing areas. Since the pasture shortage occurred in the winter grazing areas, intensive management was followed to try and increase the productivity of the grazing resource, while in the village and summer grazing areas, free range grazing was practiced as the number of animals did not require an intensive management regime. In the case of winter grazing areas, there was pressure to move the animals in the spring, because of a scarcity of pasture, up to the village meadows.

The primary constraint, reported by consultants, in moving the herd from the winter pastures to the village pastures was snow cover. It was impossible to move the herd to a higher pasture area while the grass was covered with snow. It was also not considered a good idea to move the herd too quickly after the snow melts for a number of reasons, such as: if a herd was moved before the grass had a chance to grow, there would not be enough pasture and the herd would wander; when a herd wandered it increased the effort required on the part of shepherds and increased sheep losses; bloating and diarrhea which would occur when the sheep grazed fresh grass. These constraints, in effect, protected the pasture resource as it kept sheep from tearing up wet pastures which would have allowed unwanted plants to invade and decreased the quality of the pasture.

Pastoralists were also conscious of changing their grazing practices depending on the quality of a particular grazing area. Consultants revealed an extensive knowledge of the plants of the forest and of plants which were good for grazing. Table 6 presents a list of plants, which village pastoralists and Gujjars, recognized by name and which were good pasturage for animals. In addition to good plants, the pastoralists also recognized plants which caused harm to their animals. One such plant, loshri, caused trengidi, which was a disease which caused the sheep to pant due to blood filling the lungs. The lungs turned black and the sheep would die. When these plants began to appear the pastoralists would not graze those areas allowing the good plants to reestablish.

The timing of movement within the herding cycle was observed to match the timing of the agricultural cycle. One example was the timing between sheep grazing of forest meadows and grass cutting. The sheep grazed the lower forest meadows in May while grass was cut in August. The sheep grazed the early growth of grass, the grass then regrew and was cut for hay as it was going to seed. The sheep returned to graze the same grass in November after it had a chance to regrow in September and October but before the snow fell. The integration of the herding and agricultural cycle allowed for three cuts of grass and allowed both patoralists and agriculturists to meet their needs from the same resource.

Table 6.

The final management decision, which was noted, was the decision to take the sheep and goats to Lahul and Spiti for 1-2 months of grazing in the summer. The reason that the effort was made to travel to Lahul and Spiti was on account of Nehru grass. This grass was noted by pastoralists as the ‘strongest’ grass for sheep and goats and the one which made the animals ‘healthy’. As goats were sold during the return trip and sheep were sheared, the weight gain and wool growth were reported to more than compensate for the travel effort. The major constraints, which limited the time spent in the summer grazing grounds were high pass closure from snow and snow on the high pastures. Moving to the summer pastures was not possible until snow left the high pass melted off the high pastures. The return trip had to be made before snow closed the high pass and left the pastoralists, with their herds, stranded. This limited grazing in the summer pastures to a maximum of one to two months. In spite of the risks and short available grazing period, the trip to Lahul and Spiti was seen as a way to maximize animal production and an important part of the grazing cycle for village pastoralists.

The grazing cycle and the decisions embedded within the cycle represented knowledge built up over generations of herding sheep, goats and water buffalo in the Kulu Valley. The culturally encoded management decisions were not arbitrary but represented an attempt to maximize the production of animals while protecting the grazing resource.

Informal Rules. The management of the grazing commons of the Kulu Valley occurred within a formal system of property rights, permits and rules which determined who could graze sheep, where they could graze them, how many they could graze and when they could move from one grazing area to another. A more direct form of management utilized by the Forest Department was the closing of certain grazing permit areas in order to establish a forest plantation. Along side of the government regulated system was a set of informal rules utilized by pastoralists as they interacted with agriculturists, government officials and other pastoralists. Although there were many such rules, only three are presented to demonstrate the types of customary rules which have emerged in the Kulu Valley and which influenced the management of the pastoral commons.

The heaviest fines faced by a shepherd occurred when the sheep or goats strayed unto an agriculturist’s private property, such as an orchard or crop land, and damaged the plants. When this occurred it was understood by the pastoralists that the owner could confiscate the animals and demand compensation. A bargaining process then ensued between the shepherd and the agriculturist. This occurred to a shepherd from one of the study villages during the year of the study. The agriculturist demanded compensation of 500 Rs. but settled for 250 Rs. Neither the shepherd or the property owner wanted to involve the police or panchayat leaders due to the hassle and propensity of having to give them a cut of the compensation. In order to avoid official involvement the agriculturists and shepherds attempted to settle these problems on their own.

Pastoralists also faced other situations when it was necessary to negotiate directly with government enforcement officials and avoid the formal bureaucracy. Shepherds sometimes found it necessary to graze their sheep in a closed forest. It was possible to ask the Forest Department to enter a closed forest for temporary grazing but that was time consuming and permission was not guaranteed. One pastoralist recounted the story of entering a closed forest with 70 goats and 230 sheep. As he was leaving the forest he was approached by the forest guard. The official fine was 5 Rs/animal but the pastoralist and the enforcement officer negotiated a direct fine of 250 Rs. A general practice had emerged which allowed pastoralists to negotiate solutions to problems and influence management practices in concert with local enforcement officials. Within the village forest there were both customary rules which excluded outsiders and which created exclusive grazing grounds for groups of village pastoralists. Village pastoralists did not consider all grazing areas, or thaches, of equal quality. The best thach was the one in the middle of the village forest, surrounded by open forest and close to firewood and water. Each group of village pastoralists preferred to have access to the highest ranked thach. This has resulted in a set of customary rules, followed by village pastoralists, which determines exclusive use for a thach by a pastoral group for a given grazing period. The customary rule of access for thaches was one of first comer’s rights. The group which arrived at the thach first claimed it for the grazing period. The timing of movement required detailed knowledge on the condition of the grazing resource. If a group moved to early, and there was not enough pasture for the herd, the herd began to wander and the group was required to move back down to the previous grazing area. The timing of the move had to be such as to beat the other groups but were sure that there was enough pasture for the herd. Oftentimes a group moved at night to try and beat the other groups. The use of first comer’s rights allowed the village pastoralists to turn the village grazing areas into temporally exclusive grazing areas for each grazing period.

The Diminishing Herding Economy. The most visible sign of a change in the productive strategies of the village economies was the emergence of orchards on dryland and irrigated agricultural land, and onto unprotected demarcated forest land. Initial interviews with villages consultants revealed that villagers themselves recognized this change towards an orchard economy. Consultants also noted that a concurrent decrease in the herding economy was taking place. In order to document the change from herding and the concurrent change towards orcharding two surveys were undertaken. The first survey was undertaken during a focus group sessions with village elders of Goshal and Chichoga, the results of which were corroborated in interviews with the village headmen. The results of this survey, shown in Table 7, represented the view of village elders on the change which they saw occurring in their local villages. The visible impression of an increase in orchards and a decrease in herding was substantiated by the first survey.

A detailed household survey was then undertaken in the village of Goshal with 23% (7/30) of the Scheduled caste and 16% (12/75)of the Rajput households. The results of the household survey are presented in Figures 9, 10 and 11. Figure 11 indicates that the shift to orchards is a relatively recent activity, except for orchard established on natour land received in the early 1970s. This land was often of poor quality so households put that land directly into orchards. The household surveys also revealed an increase in the establishment of orchards and a decrease in herding by Goshal households. The changing visible landscape, a survey with village elders and headmen, and a detailed household survey all suggested that the local economy was in a process of change from a mixed agropastoral toward an horticultural economy based predominately on apple orchards.

During household interviews, and interviews with pastoralists, consultants were asked why they felt that less households were engaged in the herding economy. The answers revealed a number of different factors which made it difficult to pursue a herding livelihood in the Kulu Valley; the primary factor being the lack of grazing land in the winter due to Forest Department closure of winter grazing permits in order to establish plantations. Households in both Goshal and Chichoga mentioned that they had quit herding due to the loss of their winter grazing permit area to a forest plantation. As it became more difficult to pursue a herding livelihood, and more attractive to engage in orcharding, pastoralists also mentioned how they had converted their capital in animals into orchards. They felt that this provided a more secure future for their children as herding would become more and more difficult in the future. As more households changed from herding to orcharding this changed the interests of villages in the forest resource and the social relations which influenced how the forest resource was shared between pastoralists and agriculturists.

As orchards expanded they moved onto land previously used for grazing during the migration cycle of pastoralists. When pastoralists moved their herds from winter to summer grazing areas, and vice versa, they utilized grazing lands which surrounded villages in exchange for providing manure

Table 7.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

for the agricultural fields. As all villages contained a pastoral component, and at some point in their migration cycle depended upon another village, there were social relations of exchange which solidified pastoral access to grazing lands while in transit. Villages which abandoned transhumance pastoralism, in favour of horticulture, were able to break the social relations of exchange which previously existed. A village which no longer contained a significant pastoral component was no longer obligated to allow pastoralists to graze sheep in their village grazing areas. As orchards moved onto the undemarcated protected forest land and were established in the agricultural fields the damage to the trees from sheep and goats became more costly to the villages. The interest of the emergent horticultural villages became the exclusion of sheep and goats from their village lands and forests to protect their orchards and to favour the establishment of tree plantations to produce products upon which they were still dependent. This was pursued in conjunction with the Forest Department as villages would ask the Forest Department to establish tree plantation within their village forest areas and exclude pastoralists from those lands.

As the village economy changed from mixed agropastoral to horticultural it changed the interests of the village in forest lands. When the number of pastoral families in a village decreased, it reduced the pastoral interest and social obligations of a village to other village pastoralists. The new horticultural and forest interests of a village were established by extending their property rights over forest areas in conjunction with the Forest Department which resulted in a decrease in available grazing land. The Forest Department was able to establish a plantation and close a grazing area in a relatively short period of time. A pastoralist had to sell a herd and establish an orchard which could take up to ten years. In the short term, as pastoralists adjusted to the changing regional economy, the remaining grazing lands experienced heavy grazing pressure and degradation. This brought pastoralists into a conflict with both the horticultural villages and the Forest Department. The outcome of changing village interests, and their translation into property rights, was a decrease in the number of village households which pursued a pastoral livelihood in the Kulu Valley.