… Then who is this government?
I do not understand.
Did this government come from elsewhere, or is it from here in India?
- Moti, Sharan village
The threat to the country's national parks and sanctuaries continues unabated. But the worst kind of desecration of a protected area is its denotification. It takes years of planning and preparation before an area is declared protected because it is home to various endangered species of wildlife and is rich in biodiversity. But denotification takes much less time and effort once a powerful business house or the State itself sets its eyes on a sanctuary or national park for so-called "development". This could be for mining, or even setting up an irrigation project or a dam.
- Usha Rai for The Hindu, 2000
The documentary film Turf Wars: Conservation Claims in the Great Himalayan National Park (2001) by Moving Images examines the conflict between conservation and national development projects from the perspectives of shepherds, local villagers, forest department officials, biologists, and engineers. Directed by Sanjay Barnela, one of the few Indian filmmakers working at the intersection of conservation and livelihoods, the film explores the political interface between the environment and local communities in the documentary narrative format. Through linearly segmented interviews and voice-over narration by sociologist Amita Bhaviskar, the film highlights contradictions in the government's policy towards conservation through three narrative strands: First, the stripping away of rights and the denial of beneficiary status to those who access the forests. Secondly, local livelihoods, such as pastoralism and horticulture, are rendered expendable in the interests of biodiversity conservation, paradoxically making the ecological areas precarious. Thirdly, the destructive scale of the Parbati Hydroelectric Project (HEL) is an ecological and social disaster. The documentary utilizes the conflict between development and conservation to mediate a larger discussion on the politics of national ecological considerations and Protected Areas (PAs). This film review addresses the thematic concerns of the documentary project and assesses its relevance in the 24 years since its resolution.
The Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP) boasts significant biological values, including a high diversity of flora and fauna, with many species of herbs such as Mehndi, Dhoop, Karu, Muskvalla, Patish, Hatpanja, Dorighas, and Gucchi, and pheasants such as the western horned tragopan that is endemic to the Western Himalayas. The ecologically prime area plays a crucial role in sustaining local livelihoods, particularly through pastoralism and horticulture. The Park's alpine meadows provide grazing land for livestock, while its forests and surrounding areas offer resources for non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and medicinal plants (both serving subsistence and commercial purposes). The conflict between conservation of biodiversity and livelihoods, and between local and extra-local interests, has become an integral part of conservation experiences in most parts of the world. At the height of which, in 1999, the final notification of the GHNP banned grazing and plant collection by locals, ostensibly in the interests of conservation. Both the Himachal Pradesh state government and the Government of India have excluded the local population of the villages at the fringes of the Park (denoted Ecozones) from accessing herbs and protected lands in the forests for their livelihoods, instead offering monetary compensation in the form of a settlement to the 314 families mentioned in Anderson's Settlement Report. The peculiar irony is that Anderson's report was written in the 1880s. A major question arises: why were eco-development schemes being formulated with outdated and essentially a lack of information on demography, resource dependency, etc. of the villages in the Ecozones of GHNP? Using the antiquated report as the basis for recognizing the rights of the local populace resulted in the exclusion of more than 10,000 people for whom herb collection is the only source of income.
Turf Wars addresses the realities of eco-developmental projects concerning local dependence on the GHNP. And subsequently, the sustainability of Protected Areas. Through its narrative, the documentary examines both the Park's biological value and its importance to local livelihoods. The film presents conservation and local resource use as often conflicting, with herb gathering and pastoral activities viewed as threats to biodiversity. Grazing pastures are frequently characterized as invasive and unregulated. Such approaches, lacking ecological nuance, have displaced traditional rights from local communities. In addition to the loss of rights, alternative livelihoods have not been provided to affected villagers. Reports of misallocated funds in the eco-development project include abandoned forest department buildings. Investment in agriculture and irrigation infrastructure could have supported alternative livelihoods, potentially reducing dependency on herb collection. As a result of restrictive policies, villagers have resorted to unofficial access, sometimes through informal payments to forest officials or by conducting unauthorized grazing.
At the time the documentary was filmed, the State denotified 10 sq. km. of Jeeva Nalah within GHNP, habitat of the western horned tragopan, to enable the construction of Parbati Hydroelectric Project (HEP). Turf Wars remains relevant as it anticipated the ecological and structural issues that have emerged around the hydel project over several phases. The project has experienced construction delays, increased costs, environmental concerns, and tunnel accidents. The Parbati-II Hydroelectric Project, designed for 800 MW, encountered significant delays and a doubling of costs. The final unit became operational in April 2025, over 15 years later than scheduled (see more, NS Energy). The ecological impact on sensitive environments such as the Parbati Valley remains a concern, with the region's geology prone to cloudbursts and flash floods that may be worsened by hydropower. There have been reports of crop damage in nearby villages due to leakage during testing (see more, SANDRP). The project has also seen tunnel collapses and worker fatalities (see more, Dialogue Earth). Decomposition in reservoirs can increase methane emissions, potentially affecting local weather patterns.
Turf Wars illustrates the challenges posed by governance approaches and the implementation of large development projects within India's environmental politics. Governments advocate conservation while concurrently promoting eco-development initiatives that can undermine conservation principles. Local communities continue to register resistance to exclusion and developments such as the Parbati Hydroelectric Project. The documentary comments: "While local livelihoods can be sacrificed for wildlife, wildlife must make way for development." This reflects how development priorities are often favored over conservation. By bringing together diverse stakeholders, the film argues for an inclusive approach to reconcile conservation and development as interconnected and political. Advancements require strategic engagement with both political actors and local populations. Turf Wars continues to prompt questions about resolving these contradictions through informed management of ecological landscapes, suggesting regulated resource extraction, community monitoring, seasonal collection, and strengthened local stewardship.
This is an occasional blog post written by a member of Centre for Pastoralism (CfP). The views, analysis, and arguments expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of either Sahjeevan or CfP.
