|
|
|
Previous
Next
|
| On the Diversification of Common Property Resource use by Indian Society - A case from cluster of villages in Uttara Kannada, Karnataka, India |
|
Reference |
| Gadgil, Madhav & Iyer, Prema: " On the Diversification of Common Property Resource Use by Indian Society." in Fikret Berkes (ed.): " Common Property Resources. Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development.", p.p. 240-255, Belhaven Press, London, 1989. |
|
Introduction to the Institution |
| Indian Caste Society, crystallized around the fifth century AD, provided a resource management system by which particular castes of given communities only had access to certain resources, while more commonly used resources, such as fuelwood, were controlled by small multi-caste communities which linked different castes. In some areas, mostly rural, the system still has some influence.
ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT: The study concentrates on a cluster of villages located at the mouth of the Aghanasani River. spurs of the hill range of the Western Ghats run all the way to the sea in this region, creating a rich mosaic of terrestrial, riparian, and coastal habitats with a great diversity of natural resources. |
|
Coverage of the Institution |
| The Caste system as such prevailed all over India, except from tribal areas. Today the importance of the system is decreasing. The institution is concurrent. |
|
Rules for Management
of the Institution |
|
(a) Boundary Rules |
| SOCIAL BOUNDARIES: Common Property land and resources belong to specific villages. Within the villages, specific groups (castes) will have exclusive access to harvest specific resources, which can then be exchanged among the groups.
SPATIAL BOUNDARIES: A cluster of villages in Uttara Kannada. |
|
(b) Governance
rules |
| The Caste system is embedded in religous and traditional ways of life. How the system is governed today is not reported, but norms and rituals might play a major role in this context. Violation of the rules in the system are most likely to mean social exclusion. |
|
(c) Resource Allocation |
| In a cluster of villages in Uttara Kannada, 19 endogamous groups can be grouped in seven categories: Fishing communities; Agriculturalists; Horticulturalists; Entertainers; Service castes; Artisans and Traders. Each group tend to have exclusive access to certain resources, and for individuals, the only socially acceptable way of life is to follow the traditional occupations of his or her group. F. ex only three groups can do fishing from boats and the fishing territory is divided among them, so that one group (The Ambigas) will fish in the river, one group (The Harikantras) in the estuary and one (The Jalajirs) on the seacoast. Once the resources are harvested, they link the groups in a network of reciprocal exchange and mutual obligations. Use of resources could be restricted by different rule systems: Quantitative quotas; Closed seasons for hunting and gathering; Protected life history stages, e.g. not catching pregnant animals; Protection of individual species; and protection of specific localities, often by declaring them sacred. |
|
Conflict Resolution Mechanism |
| Internal conflicts are not reported. But local institutions as such have been involved in a conflict with central offices regarding the governance of natural resources in the area (see Prob.) |
|
Problems Faced by Institution |
| In pre-colonial India, local communities were relatively strong compared to the central authorities. Two major events have affected this relationship, and the amount of common property given to local communities.
Firstly: During British Colonial Rule, commons went under Government rule, as the British claimed right over all land which was not cultivated. This meant that the villagers could no longer control the forests in their area, although they were still allowed to extract the resources. Thus, areas earlier under communal control became open access resources. Often the result was exhaustive overuse of the forests, and in some cases the villagers themselves appointed watchmen to monitor the government forests in order to keep non-residents out and regulate harvests. Through the Indian Forest Act of 1924 village forest councils were established in order to set up rules for, and monitor, the use of local forests. In the area of this study three villages established forest councils (Van Panchayats) in 1929. Two of them still exist today. Members were elected and they supervised the management of the minor forests under their control. The Van Panchayats, however, remained exceptions. Most of the minor forest areas were nor supervised by a Van Panchayat and thus remained open access.
Secondly: Nehru's attempts to turn India into a modern industrial nation gave priority to urban-industrial interests. Again, local control over common property resources, such as fisheries and forests, decreased and further erosion of the resource base took place. Recently voluntary agencies have taken an interest in reconstructing the authority base of the local communities. In the area described in this study, a local headmaster of the high school initiated and coordinated some programmes in order to organize the villagers, at a later stage supervised by the authors of this study. |
|
Changes in the Institution over time |
| Modern bureaucracy and economy has introduced new occupations to the system, while some of the old occupations, such as temple dancing, are longer viable. Generally, changes in the occupations of the groups will follow from economic and technological changes in society, but even today the groups largely adhere to their traditional modes of subsistence. |
|
Other Features of Institution |
| The fieldwork of the study was done in 1984 - 87 |
|
Purpose |
| Resource Management. |
|
Country |
| India. |
|
Region |
| Uttara Kannada, Karnataka |
|
Date Of Publication |
| TroB. 190396 |
|
| |
