Scholars have been arguing that Anthropocene has its origins firmly rooted in colonialism. It is evident that colonialism was all about violence, plunder and erasure of indigenous peoples, cultures, identities, worldviews, and promotion of slave trade. It didn't stop with people but permeated into control, plunder and erasure of natural resources - damming of rivers, mining or coal/minerals, logging of forests, poaching of wildlife. The "fortress" forest and biodiversity conservation models which we see now in India is not a traditional system, but an Anglo-Eurocentric model imposed upon us. The terms reserved forest, protected forest, national park, sanctuary is the testament of colonialism - these terms are no way indigenous or traditional and alienation and exclusion of local communities was written into their definitions. Does that mean India never had an indigenous/traditional forest and natural governance systems? The scientific management of forests, woodlots, propagation trees, seedlings and nursery management was dealt explicitly in ancient scriptures such as “Vṛkṣāyurveda” (Suresh, et. al., 2013). The time period of Vṛkṣāyurveda ranges from 1200 BCE to the present (Suresh, et. al., 2013). The three basic categories of forests mentioned in the ancient Indian scriptures are: 1. Shrivan – the forest that provides prosperity; 2. Tapovan – the forest where one can contemplate and seek after truth; and 3. Mahavana – the natural forest, home and shelter for all the biodiversity and wildlife. Maybe it is time to decolonize (most importantly contain and prevent internal-colonialism), and restore the traditional systems, indigenous cultures, and knowledge systems for better management of our natural resources. Perhaps it should change with changing the terminology of how forests in India are referred to. Maybe it is time to shun the alien, anglo-eurocentric terms like - reserve forests, protected forests, national parks and sanctuaries and restore the traditional terms - Shrivan, Tapovan and Mahavan in formal classification of forests in India. As the definitions of Shrivan, Tapovan and Mahavan are very clear (inclusive), the use of forests and the way we see and approach them would also change. By definition the fortress conservation terms - reserve, protected, sanctuary, and national park, are anti-local, anti-people and exclusionary and there is no culture, sacredness and spirituality associated with such anglo-eurocentric terms. On the contrary the indigenous terms - Shrivan, Tapovan and Mahavan, are inherently inclusive and has culture, sacredness and spirituality intricately entwined and embedded in their definitions. Erasure of a name can erase the identity of a person, place, that includes forests.
Changing the way we classify, theoretically organize and name natural resources is something humans do all the time. The purpose is to order our thinking to allow for specific terms and functions that facilitate discussion and management of our surroundings. If you believe that changing the classification system of Indian forests from a formal structural classification to a more spiritual and traditional system of viewing forests is going to benefit the way we mentally structure and organize the world then engage with your national officials and policy makers. Is this change going to facilitate a better understanding of the natural world, management of natural resources and a system for exchange of ideas, then go ahead and lobby for this.
Carl Alexander Frisk thank you so much for your contribution to the discussion and valuable suggestions, I find them useful.
The suggestion that forests in India require a name change prompts an important discussion at the crossroads of ecological science, cultural identity, and historical legacy. Forest classification systems in India have long been based on scientific frameworks like Champion and Seth’s (1968) typology, which categorizes forests according to climatic zones, species composition, and ecological functions. This system has been instrumental in forest management and conservation efforts. However, it is equally important to recognize that forests hold deep cultural and spiritual significance for indigenous communities, many of whom have their own names and classifications for local ecosystems. Incorporating these traditional perspectives could enrich forest governance and make it more inclusive (Gadgil & Guha, 1992).
Research indicates that local communities often classify forests by their dominant tree species or the ecosystem services they provide. For instance, Singh et al. (2021) describe how tribal groups in Central India refer to forests as “Mahua forests” or “Sal forests,” reflecting the ecological and cultural importance of these species. Such local naming systems carry valuable ecological knowledge that modern forestry frameworks often overlook. Scholars like Chakraborty et al. (2020) have highlighted the need to decolonize ecological science by integrating indigenous knowledge, which can lead to more sustainable and socially just conservation practices.
While acknowledging the significance of cultural perspectives, it is crucial to ensure that the focus remains on the urgent ecological challenges facing India’s forests, such as deforestation, habitat loss, and climate change. The priority should be safeguarding forests as carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots.
Rishita Pakhira thank you so much for sharing your valuable perspective and enriching the discussion, truly amazing and really appreciate it - thank you so much!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication