Date: 14th June 2014 Place: Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, India

Dear UNESCO World Heritage Committee

We are writing to you, as an urgent communication, to raise our concerns and oppositions against the proposed Natural Heritage Site status to Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP) area of Kullu in Himachal Pradesh, India.

It is disheartening and rather shocking to know that a land where native communities have since time immemorial been living in harmony with environment are now being showcased as hubs with ‘eco­tourism’ potential. In the name of ‘natural heritage’ the local communities are at the verge of losing all their traditional rights which they have on their homeland since centuries.

What’s even more alarming is that the people who are pushing for Natural Heritage Site status are strongly connected to a lobby with vested interests.

We are not sure if you are aware of it, but the concept of national parks, with local native communities ousted from their own land , is more of a colonial and western concept and not in sync with socio­cultural­environmental dynamics in an ancient land like ours.

Since ages, the communities of mountain people in India have a deep rooted religious­spiritual­emotional bonding with their environment and have literally worshipped their forests and kept bio­diversity protected.

It should be noted that the environmental degradation never started when local communities had full control over their land. The environmental downfall started with suppressive colonialism taking control out of their hands; and when after two centuries the country gained independence, the government and administration that prevailed has not set good examples as far as ecological conservation in its true sense is concerned.

Forest department in India has been guilty of corruption and negligence in many ways such as harming the natural biodiversity by engaging in reckless monoculture in areas under its control, conniving with politicians, timber mafia and drug mafia

The NGOs pushing for Natural Heritage status, have some vested interests or deep seated hidden commercial motives.

Considering the strong social and cultural ties that the locals with their environment, they would be the last one to harm the pristine and sacred nature.

1

GHNP’s case seems more fit for ‘Cultural Heritage’ than a converted ‘Natural Heritage’site with traditional inhabitants pushed out in the name of ‘conservation’

Please find below an elaborate list of some grave concerns and fears that haunt the native inhabitants

We would request you to come personally and have a first hand interaction with local communities without any intermediate interference from political or administrative hierarchy.

Hoping that our voice will be heard and environmental justice will not be denied to the innocent mountain communities.

With lots of hopes and prayers

Sandeep Minhnas,

Himalayan Niti Abhiyan

web: http://www.himnitiabhiyan.net Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HimalayaNitiAbhiyan Blog: https://himnitiabhiyan.wordpress.com Please find enclosed the following documents

1. Letter with detailed concerns of the local community, collected through various consultations

2. Supplementary info in support of the concerns 3. Very Important evidence: Video documentary that show the plight

of our Devta(Mountain gods) culture and resistance against Park http://vimeo.com/56653842

4. Supplementary info from UNESCO and its related advisory bodies, on how Cultural heritage has been ignored since ages and now need to be looked into.

5. List of citations, references used in the document. 6. All the resolutions passed by local civic bodies, who are opposing GHNP

as a Natural WHS ( will be uploaded to our blog at https://himnitiabhiyan.wordpress.com, as they are already very heavy images)

2

Contents List of our major concerns Supplementary information regarding above mentioned concerns UNESCO related information supporting our cause

Some other UNESCO References Our request to WHC Appendix 1: Appendix 2 References

3

OPEN LETTER TO UNESCO WHC

Dear World Heritage Committee It is devastating to know that IUCN has recommended Great Himalayan National Park, to be inscribed as a NATURAL World Heritage Site, without even considering the strong opposition lodged by the local community, which has been the main custodians of this sacred Natural site since ancient times. We would have welcomed UNESCO decision on WHS, if it was a nominated as a Cultural Heritage considering it as Sacred Natural Site. As a matter of fact, we feel that WHC should reconsider the application as, Cultural and Sacred Natural Heritage Site instead of pure Natural Heritage Site. It would answer the concerns of all stakeholders and leave a heritage of Outstanding and Intangible Values, for generations to come, nurtured and protected by the same Custodians of this sacred land, who have been doing it since ancient time.

“How [stories] are told, who tells them, when they’re

told, how many stories are told — are really dependent on power.” — Chimamanda Ngozi

Adichie We would like to bring in kind notice of UNESCO WHC, IUCN and honorable member states, regarding how a small group of individuals with vested interests, who do not even belong to our state (Himachal Pradesh), have been successful in portraying single sided story to the Dept of Forest, State Party, IUCN and honorable member states so far. Noting that, by nature, cultural heritage and its conservation are illustrations of these principles along with traditional knowledge which give proof of the capacity of human societies to develop in harmony with their environment, and that despite the terms of Article 5 of the World Heritage Convention, culture and cultural heritage are rarely acknowledged and considered as part of sustainable development; [Resolution 17GA 2011/27 –

Ensuring that culture and cultural heritage are acknowledged in sustainable development ]

4

List of our major concerns Our concerns about the GHNP being inscribed as Natural Heritage instead of more appropriate Cultural / Sacred Heritage Site The term "Sacred site" embraces areas of special spiritual significance to

peoples and communities; and the term of "Sacred natural site" corresponds to the areas of land or water having special spiritual significance to peoples and communities," as proposed by the UNESCO/IUCN Guidelines for the

Conservation and Management of Sacred Natural Sites, 2008

1. National Parks are ALIEN concept for us, however since ancient time, we had common resources, forests, ponds, grasslands and watersheds, which were managed and protected by our Devtas (Mountain Gods) and the community. Nature, in its all forms, is Sacred and mother for us and that is why its an integral part of our lives and culture. Forcing an ALIEN Concept on us is direct infringement on our FREEDOM, CULTURAL and CONSTITUTIONAL rights. [Please refer to Appendix 1 to understand the history of National Parks]

2. Majority of the application to WHS is written by an outsider who has no

regards to our ancient culture,its historic background and our people. A conspiracy hatched by the vested interest a nexus of the corrupt forest officers and outsiders [Please refer to Supplementary Information Section for more details on this]

3. In the name of Natural Heritage, our Cultural Heritage, our sacred Cultural

Landscape, our Spiritual Environment, our Traditional Beliefs, our Religious Sentiments, our freedom to exercise our religious rights, are directly being threatened, which is also against the UNESCO MAB / Sacred Sites Guidelines.

4. Our traditional knowledge that we have gathered over generations,

traditional skills and practices which we have honed since generations, which are related to the nature, our environment, our practices, rituals, our culture, our livelihood, are also under huge threat, which is also against the UNESCO MAB / Sacred Sites Guidelines.

Concerns about our livelihood and our natural resources

5. Since ancient times, we are the Custodians of these forests, even before the forest officials came, even before the Britishers colonised India. Now we are being thrown out of our land, as few people with vested interests know the potential to exploit our natural resources, which we have protected since ancient time

5

6. Our only resource of substantial revenue generation, i.e. herb collection, is

also threatened, as some people driven with sheer greed and vested interests want to exploit our natural resources, which we have been protecting since ages. Many studies have been done in past on how medicinal herbs trade can be organized by evicting the traditional rights holders from the Park and banning their access to the Park thus depriving them from their main source of livelihood. [Refer study paper from Tandon 1997]

7. Dignity of livelihood, which we have enjoyed since ages, is also under

threat, as these people after restricting our access to the Park, are making us dependent on daily labour activities and which will further increase once WHS is inscribed. The so called eoc­tourism in the valley has been introduced by these people with vest interests, however it has only made us their labours and directly hurting our dignity which we enjoyed since ages. Most of the rights holders, instead of getting empowered are working as porters for these people. ( this is what has been happening since the park was established in the name of eco­development , community development, by few individuals).

8. We are concerned that outsiders will over take whatever little business

our local entrepreneurs are doing. There are already many outsiders, who have illegally purchased land and have setup their own thriving business in the valley, thus making lives of the local entrepreneurs very difficult. We would not appreciate if the our Sacred land is exploited to make some favourite corporates rich and thus depriving the locals from their livelihood.

Concerns about restrictions to access the Park

9. We are concerned that our access to our holy places shall be completely restricted as WHS will give the forest dept another mandate to tighten the noose.

10. Its a known fact that even for our religious practices we completely

depend on our forests and its resources. [Reference: Tandon 1997] We are concerned that restricting our access to Park, will have huge impact on our traditional rituals and practices, which will only add to the conflicts between forest dept and locals. There are many important holy places in GHNP and these two sanctuaries where our Devtas (Mountain gods) regularly visit and are taken care by the villagers from these villages. Displacing these villages, will have direct impact on our spiritual and religious rituals / practices, which we fear can bring wrath to our communities. [Refer to the documentary on Devta Activists]

11. Since 1999, the Forest Dept has forcefully banned our entry into the Park

and only due to some political pressure, they let us conduct these Sacred Pilgrimages once a year, compared to many pilgrimages which we used to do prior to this Park establishment. Also NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT

6

exists between Forest Dept and the local community on access rights, and whenever the political pressure will wither, our access will be completely stopped. WHS will be used as a tool by these people with vested interests to exercise pressure on the political parties too to ban entry in the Park.

Concerns about exploitation of natural resources by outsiders

12.We are concerned that the State party, on push from corporates, or profit centric individuals, will make necessary amendments when and where felt necessary by them to exploit our sacred land and its natural resources. A good example is delineating GHNP for constructing Hydel Projects on Parvati river. [Reference#2 ]

13.We are concerned about the the increase in environmental pollution and

degradation, which has already started in our sacred site.

14.We are concerned about organized timber felling and medicinal herbs collection would be out sourced to outsiders, (which is already happening in big quantities already because of Forest Department and its corrupt officers)

Concerns about invasion on our culture and sacred places, from non native cultures and people

15.We are concerned about the increase in drug mafia (foreigners and Indians) which will have long term impact on our culture and children. [Reference#4 to Dailymail article]

16.We are concerned that bigger parties, traders, industrialists, etc will be

brought by State party, in name of investments, which will not only ruin our peaceful and sacred environment but also will add huge pressure on our limited local natural resources.

17.We are concerned with the kind of tourism which will come to our sacred

lands. Already drugs, rave parties, sex, have been introduced in other parts of Kullu and last year itself, a rave party was organized in our Sacred Tirthan valley. [Reference#4 to the Dailymail article and Reference #7, 8 on Rave party video]

Concerns about WHS funds being misused by corrupt forest dept officers

18.We are concerned that again huge funds will come in name of WHS and will be siphoned off by corrupt forest officials as has been the case with major funding received in name of Park and community. Indian govt recently has asked all accounts from the State govt, of INR 5billion, it has given so far to GHNP administration.

Our Concerns about clear violations of UNDRIP, UNESCO sacred National Sites mandate and Laws of land ­ Forest Rights Act 2006 7

19. The local community which are indigenous people of this land, have suffered from historic injustices, (first by Britishers and now the Dept of Forest) as a result of, colonization, and dispossession of our lands, and resources, thus preventing us from exercising our rights to development in accordance with our own needs and interests

20.We are concerned that the State Forest Dept is misleading all the

concerned parties, and is not respect the inherent rights of indigenous peoples, which are derived from their, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources. If you dwell into the GHNP Settlement Award document, you will notice that meagre amount of compensation was paid to selected few families, which was based on a dated documented (Anderson Settlement, 1897) prepared during colonial times and has no relevance in present times. The naive locals were CHEATED by paying, only INR6300/year/per family, (only for 5 yrs period) to purchase their traditional rights , where as if you see study done by [Refer#12, Tandon, 1997], each family was making on an average INR10,000 ­ 14,000, only from herb collection. This clearly depicts the historic injustice done with our people during Park creation. [Reference#1 on HNA blog regarding GHNP Award]

21. To rectify the historic injustice done to the indigenous people of India

since colonial times, a 40 years long India wide movement,resulted in central government approving a national law known as Forest Rights Act 2006, which mandates each state government to recognize the rights and restore them according to the rules and regulations of the same act. However, we are concerned that, the State Forest Dept, is misleading everyone again, by stating that this law of land is not applicable to our state. . [Reference#5 to FRA 2006]

Also refering to Office Memorandum.F.no.23011/22/2010­FRA ­­ Item 4. "It is pertinent to mention here that this letter of MoEF to the state of Himachal Pradesh is not only violative of the spirit of FRA,2006, but goes against the circular issued on 3.089.2009 wherein clause(c) requires certifications of Gram Sabha indicating that all formalities and processes under FRA have been carried out . Since claims under are first received by the Gram Sabha , therefore certificates from the Gram

8

Sabha must be obtained before concluding that all rights under FRA have been settled. This proves that the Forest Dept is bent upon denying the people their legitimate rights and conspiring to prevent them from enjoying their rights even after 8 years of the the rights being recognized by the parliament and restored. Thus the acts of the State Govt and Forest Department(FD) are clearly violation of the law. The letter of Minster KC Deo to the Jayanti Natrajan Minister of Environment and Forests dated 19.11.12 [Reference#11 Letter from Minsitry to State Govts] from First para: "We are in agreement that this is a very disturbing scenario as it is a violation of the legal and constitutional rights of our country's poorest and most marginalized citizens.. The Forest Rights Act empowers the Gram Sabha of villages to act as the central authorities in the process of recognition of rights and also gives them the statutory authority to protect and manage forests, biodiversity, etc, while preventing the destruction of their cultural and natural heritage." Here this extract proves that the Natural resources, biodiversity and everything has to be managed and protected by the village and communities and not any external agency, thus the acts of the FD are clearly illegal and can be challenged . but only by asserting own rights and demanding that the FD has not business to ruin their culture and heritage under any protection unless they process of the rights rec has been completed by the Gram Sabha themselves.

22.We see this action is not in alignment with UNESCO, World Heritage

Convention, and IUCN mission and values, and especially it would be a clear violation of the Guidelines issued by UNESCO / IUCN, on sacred Natural Sites

23. This application, is also not following Kiev Statement on the Protection of

Religious Properties within the Framework of the World Heritage Convention [Reference #6 to Kiev Statement]

Our concerns on WHS evaluation process and working of State Government

24.WHC has been presented with single sided story not based on truth (facts can be easily twisted by people in power). A major concern is the lack of transparency in WHS evaluation process, both at State Govt level and IUCN level. We are concerned about the manner in which the State Forest Department has gone about facilitating the evaluation process, keeping it mostly under­wraps, showing what they wanted to show to State party, IUCN etc , so as to safe guard their own interests, which unfortunately is highly unethical and misleading.

9

According to District Collector, Kullu, no notification has been issued by its office to include Sainj WHS or Tirthan WLS in the Park. This comes under DC, Kullu jurisdiction and Forest Dept has no rights to bypass them. However, its very evident that, in overzealous Forest Dept, to satisfy UNESCO WHC objections, has bypassed the DC office and overlooked the constitutional process. [Refer #9 to the PK news]

25. The concerns of the larger community were not attended to and hence are

not being transparently addressed in WHS process by IUCN. Our representations and objections which we raised last year, were not replied to either by the State party or IUCN or WHC. This raises serious doubts about on the STANDARDS and VALUES being followed during any WHS evaluation process. Also we have proofs that one author of the application, a non State Party, was being copied in official communications.

26. Last year when objections were raised by WHC, the State Government

fabricated a reply to suit their interests and unfortunately no clarifications were even sought from us, both by State Party or IUCN. This again raises huge concerns on the transparency and the working of State Party and IUCN.

A. Until recently we expected a reply from IUCN, however as we didnt hear from anyone, we sought the information under Right to Information Act and found that Dept of Forest has already replied to IUCN long back and keeping everyone else in dark.

B. Regarding GHNP as WHS, State Forest Dept, has replied on our

first objection that they (forest dept.) have gone through public consultation which false. Only one meeting with IUCN team at Sairopa was conducted on the issue in which only FD and their favourite so called NGOs were invited, whereas matter has not been sent to Gram Sabhas (village biggested democratic bodies) for consent and no Pradhans(Presidents) ( of gram Panchayats (Village elected bodies) were not even invited to said meeting. So this can not be considered public consultation.

C. Second about forest rights Act ­2006, FD’s reply is illegal and

false. FRA applies here and all proceeding of implementation are in process in this forest(GHNP and Tritha­sainj WLS). This was confirmed by District Kullu, District Collector in a public meeting help last week. [Refer #9 Please refer to the PK news paper clipping]

D. Third reply is also false. No cultural rights has been considered in

1999 award of GHNP. [Refer to GHNP Award on Refer#1]

E. Fourth reply is false because no participation is so far considered in management of park. BTCA is not Representative body of local

10

vast community but a forest dept. NGO of some vested interest people.

F. Also major decisions to include Sainj Wildlife Sanctuary and

Tirthan Wildlife Sanctuary, were taken without doing any public consultations and again the proposed inclusion will displace many families and directly impact their cultural rights.

G. In the reply, State Forest Dept, admits that they have been

managing the Park since only last 3 decades, but there is no mention about who has been managing this Sacred Natural Site, since centuries.

H. Regarding, other claims by forest department, Forest Dept is

again misleading that the villagers have expressed satisfaction that their inputs get addressed, where as the truth is that majority of the villagers are not even reached for their inputs. Please refer to the attached resolutions from various civic bodies ( some in Hindi) to find about the resentment locals have against FD and GHNP being declared as Natural WHS. [Refer#1 to https://himnitiabhiyan.wordpress.com]

I. Also its clearly reported in a study conduced by Vinay Tandon

(1997), that all villagers are dependent heavily on herb collection from the Park, as main source of livelihood generation, and Forest Dept statement that ecozone is considered adequate to satisfy the forest based needs is misleading again.

J. Also the State reply is trying to mislead that only one or two NGOs

are protesting against WHS status. Himalayan Niti Abhiyan (HNA) is an apex body of more than 70 CBO from all over the state, and in this area, more than 15 local CBOs are voicing their concerns through this platform. HNA is known to for raising concerns on various environmental and rights based issues. [Detailed profile of HNA is mentioned in Appendix 2 for your kind reference along with this letter.]

K. Moreover, what is highly fishy and questionable is the mention

of Sun Shine Himalaya as an NGO in the reply, where as it is a privately managed commercial tour business, which has very strong relationship with the application authors. Also Jagurti is NOT a local NGO and is based in Lug valley, Kullu. BTCA, is fed by Forest Dept and all the members of the Executive body and Group organizers are on Forest Dept payrolls, so we can very well expect, that they wont have any independent say in any process or decision making and usually act as YESMAN of Forest Dept.

L. Also Friends of GHNP, is an unregistered body, founded by the

IFS officer and his American friend, the key driving force in GHNP 11

WHS nomination, to execute their vested interests in the Park and mislead & misuse many genuine volunteers, who in the name of conservation, fall prey to their wrong intentions. We have documented proofs on how they have misused many individuals till now to serve their purpose.

M. It’s a known fact in India, that the government promises are mostly

limited to paper only. Dept of forest may have acknowledged people’s participation in management however in reality all these management's plans are drafted and finalized in Forest offices rather than in a democratic manner i.e. through gram sabhas (100% democratic village body consisting of all adult villager). And for this reason only, the new Forest Rights Act 2006, has shifted the entire responsibility of in hands of Forest Right Committees and Gram Sabhas, where Forest Dept is supposed to ONLY facilitate the process. [Refer to FRA 2006 for details.]

12

Supplementary information regarding above mentioned concerns We have documented evidences that the majority of the application is written by an American earth scientist, (who resides in India for 6 months in an year) and some of his American friends, who are eco­tourism experts in USA. Also some help has been rendered by other individuals from India who have direct / business relationship with him. Unfortunately, since colonial times, in America, (where the first National Park of the world was established, i.e Yosemite National Park), people who are born and brought up in cities, have been conditioned to have entirely different view of

nature, which complete ignores the human / cultural history of the Sacred Natural Sites. Even in GHNP WHS case, the main author of the application, (who is a US citizen and had his education from US) has forced upon, the same Yosemite National Park model without really understanding the cultural significance of our sacred Natural Site and its Custodians – Devtas (Mountain gods) and his people. And that is why GHNP is being proposed as a NATURAL Heritage Site, instead of a CULTURAL / sacred NATURAL site.

13

Even at IUCN level, this failure to recognize the history of local peoples as a formative and ongoing force within the parks is justified through the process of smoothing out, as peoples and their histories are treated as unimportant and unworthy of attention. The landscapes designated as national parks contained a cultural history and modification dating over thousands of years The Yosemite Model, which has been pushed around the world since 19th century, is responsible for wiping out human history and culture of the sacred Natural Sites e.g. Yosemite National Park, Jasper National park, etc.

This model of natural spaces unspoiled by human intervention, has completely ignored the Cultural heritage of the sacred Natural Site and wiped out entire human history, for the same reason is now getting extensively reviewed, even by UNESCO and its advisory bodies under the Task Force on the Cultural and Spiritual Values of Protected Areas in collaboration with UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme “Show a people as one thing — as only one thing — over and over again, and that is what they become.”

— Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie A powerful Indian Forest Services officer, who earlier unsuccessfully tried, to manipulate the local community to establish a huge privately owned tourism project (Himalayan Ski Village, which was proposed by Ford Foundation, in Himachal Pradesh) and faced major agitations by the locals, is the key person pushing the entire case of GHNP WHS in Department of Forest and is misleading the State party, IUCN, and WHC, which unfortunately is not aware about the entire background. [REF1#10 Google Book ]

14

UNESCO related information supporting our cause UNESCO has dedicated an entire volume on sacred Natural Heritage sites to the custodians of these sites, however in case of GHNP, IUCN, an advisor of UNESCO is again pushing to exclude the same custodians from their ancestral lands, who have been protecting these native forests and its bio diversity even before Britishers or the present Forest department came. We would like to dedicate this volume to the many

custodians of sacred natural sites that are so important to environmental and human well­being. May your efforts and resolve to care for and guard these special places continue to gain strength.

Dr Thomas Schaaf , who is associated with UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB), himself stated in the Foreword of sacred Natural Sites – Guidelines for Protected Area Managers , that

In case of GHNP also, the ancient Devta culture has been protecting these forests. The following 30 mins documentary, Devta Activists, (which can be found at this url: http://vimeo.com/56653842) describes the immense sufferings the Mountain gods and their people are having because of the creation of this park and other development projects around their sacred areas.

15

Devta Activists ­ A documentary on the plight of our ancient Cultural Heritage

Figure 1 The video can be found at http://vimeo.com/56653842

Early invoked, may heaven and Earth be friendly, And Air’s and region good for us to look on,

To us may Herbs and Forest Trees be gracious,

RIGVEDA HYMN XXV Dr Thomas Schaaf continues in the Foreword,

This is the exact case, which has happened in with the people living in and around GHNP, when the Park was created. .

16

Exclusion of the custodians and locals from their sacred Natural Site Spread over a vast area of 754 kms the park comprises of the upper catchments of the Tirthan, Sainj, Jiwa and Parbati rivers. Containing only two villages, the area was considered ideal for the creation of a National Park as it contains viable populations of rare Himalayan wild fauna and flora and involved little rehabilitation. However, as in the rest of the state, thousands (15,000 ­ 16,000) of people exercised usufruct rights over its natural resources – primarily for grazing sheep and goat, extraction of herbs and rights of passage to religious places, practices that were considered by conservationists as detrimental to the breeding and habitat of the Western Tragopan. Some of these rights were evaluated by the state government and some of the local people were compensated for their rights. However, this settlement of rights, based on outdated Anderson's Forest Settlement Report prepared in 1897, has been a contentious issue. Instead of doing extensive field exercise, the department of forest, restricted itself to a dated report, which didn't reflect the true picture of the rights holder. Firstly, the report had recorded the existence of only 314 families in the area and only their descendants were considered for compensation. Next, Anderson's report had not recorded practices like collection of morel mushrooms (guchhi) which had lately become a lucrative source of income for the locals. Many beneficiaries were also dissatisfied with the compensation amounts given to them. In 1999 the park's final notification under the Wildlife Protection Act was followed by protests by the thousands of migrant graziers and other right holders dependent upon the forest areas falling within the park, whose livelihoods were adversely impacted due to its formation. An amount of INR 8,63,50,080 /­ was awarded as compensation amount, out of which only INR1,39,01,251/­ was paid to the displaced families and rest of the amount, i.e. INR7,24,31,000/­ was given the Director, GHNP for future planning activities of Eco­Development committee, like development of pasture land, development of fodder plantation, development of medicinal plants, soil conservation work, trainings etc. Unfortunately most of the schemes were executed as eye wash and did not benefit the people on whose name this money was sanctioned. Also entry into the national park was also restricted since 1999, which curtailed the freedom to practise their religious rights. Though the Dept of Forest has tried to mislead the State party, IUCN and WHC by stating that, the locals freely access the Park, however the statements offered by Devta community clearly states the opposite. However there is definitely free access to the medicinal herb mafia, and timber mafia, as they are supported by insiders of forest dept itself. The government has banned our traditional “bartandari” and TD rights to collect wood for fuel, herbs and timber which is unconstitutional, claim villagers. [The Tribune, 20110918]

17

<Quote> Protected area agencies should recognise the cultural and spiritual dimension of sacred natural sites included within their designated boundaries, and recognise the rights and interests of the communities concerned to continue using and managing those sacred sites as places for their cultural and spiritual realization and reverence. National and international organizations should also recognise the skills and knowledge that local and indigenous communities have in managing the resources and areas associated with sacred natural sites. Furthermore, effective action in support of the preservation and effective management of sacred natural sites will have a large impact on enhancing biodiversity conservation, as well as on the long­term vitality of the cultures that have cared for them <unquote> Dr Thomas Schaaf UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme http://whc.unesco.org/en/religious­sacred­heritage/

Some other UNESCO References Approximately 20 per cent of the properties inscribed on the World

Heritage List have some sort of religious or spiritual connection. These properties to be found in most countries around the world constitute the largest single category on the List. Specific and significant spiritual meanings are mentioned to justify the Outstanding Universal Value of a large number of the World Heritage properties

According to ICCROM, living religious heritage has characteristics that

distinguish it from other forms of heritage. Sacred sites, which, according to the UNESCO MAB Programme, "are indeed the oldest protected areas of the planet", and "have a vital importance for safeguarding cultural and biological diversity for present and future generations." Collectively, the religious and sacred properties capture a range of cultural and natural diversity, and each can singularly demonstrate the spirit of a particular place.

The term "Religious property", as used in the ICOMOS study "Filling the

Gaps ­ an Action Plan for the Future", defines "any form of property with religious or spiritual associations: churches, monasteries, shrines, sanctuaries, mosques, synagogues, temples, sacred landscapes, sacred groves, and other landscape features, etc.".

“What we’re accommodating here at Devils Tower is indigenous peoples’

rights to their culture. They’re here for the long haul, and they know it. These sacred sites are central to the perpetuation of their culture, and one of our jobs here at Devils Tower is to protect that right.” Deborah Liggett, Superintendent (1994–1997) Devils Tower National Monument, USA

18

“Propounding wilderness is escapist; malaise with the world inhabited by humans prompts us to suppose and desire a better place, one untrammelled by what disturbs and disgusts us about our created world.” – I. S. MacLaren, Rejuvenating Wilderness, p. 340

http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity­646­1.pdf Resolution 17GA 2011/27 – Ensuring that culture and cultural heritage are acknowledged in sustainable development

Noting that, by nature, cultural heritage and its conservation are illustrations of these principles along with traditional knowledge which give proof of the capacity of human societies to develop in harmony with their environment, and that despite the terms of Article 5 of the World Heritage Convention, culture and cultural heritage are rarely acknowledged and considered as part of sustainable development;

Considering that this regrettable indifference has often lead to damage or

loss of cultural heritage, historic buildings or landscapes resulting from the insensitive application of regulations to control energy consumption or the implementation of other policies in the name of sustainable development, without adequate expertise in cultural heritage and its conservation;

Considers that culture and cultural heritage, its conservation and

enrichment, should be declared a major vehicle (the “fourth pillar”) for sustainable development at the next Earth Summit planned in Rio de Janeiro in 2012;

Resolution 17GA 2011/30 ‐ Our Common Dignity: Rights‐based Approaches to heritage management

Recognizes that an integration of human rights concerns is essential to heritage identification and conservation, and considers that the implementation of heritage conservation initiatives needs to be supported by human rights based approaches introduced as a ‘sustainability check’ to all phases of these activities; and

Requests the Executive Committee to develop an ‘Our Common Dignity’ initiative as a key activity in the ICOMOS 2012‐14 Triennial Action Plan.

19

Our request to WHC We would like to request UNESCO WHC 1) Listen to the other side of the story too, there is a larger community which is vociferously opposing WHS status in its current form. 2) Please postpone the inscription so that both side stories can be heard and properly evaluated. We would like to provide further documentation to expose the truth. 3) Please have a transparent communication channel with us, as we have not been kept in loop even though we raised our concerns directly to UNESCO WHC 4) Please review the cultural aspects of the site instead of only natural aspect.

20

Appendix 1: History of National Parks and Dept of Forests around the world Role of Colonialism Colonialism exploited the natural resources and its people for its own benefits. Even the concepts like nature reserves, sanctuaries, national parks, etc are born out of colonialism, and in designating land to set­aside as protected space the history of human contact and conflict is erased. Capitalism fueling death of human history and culture Since the industrialization started, the cities are fast growing both in numbers and size, and so is the divide between the urban and rural population. The urban people became more detached from the rural landscapes and their culture. Their appreciation of nature became what could be termed Nature, a nebulous entity entirely divorced from the processes of life and the subject of the next section. The duality between man and Nature, and the belief that Nature could only be found in the solitary wilderness, were two pervasive forms of intellectual escapism whose roots lay in the popular American writers and philosophers of the 19th century and the new medium of photography. J. Keri Cronin’s central premise in Manufacturing National Park Nature is the role photography played in creating a Nature that is at once idealized and removed from the sphere of human life. The medium was used to create a landscape seemingly perfect in its approximation of sublimity, with all elements of culture and domesticity removed. It is crucial to realize that these spaces are “part of – and not separate from – the industrial and technological forces driving life in the twentieth and twenty­first centuries” (Cronin, 2011, p. 7), and as such need to be studied within their political and social context. However, early studies of place fell within a colonial framework, which served to further the divide between the cultural and ecological landscapes. Overzealous academia aiding biased views Ethnographic and scientific fieldwork in the mid­1800s played an instrumental role in undermining the right of rural peoples to their space. George Mercer, a surveyor for the US Geological Society, conducted research in British Columbia in the 1870s. He detailed “the Haida culture and the landscapes he encountered, yet his narratives contain striking bifurcations, treating Native culture and the landscape as if they were unrelated categories of the world…. These landscape epistemologies made people and nature legible as unrelated orders of knowledge” (Ogden, 2011, p. 100). Such trends in academia demarcated a line between the cultural and ecological landscapes and provided a strong justification for displacing people from their land in favour of conservation. This displacement was an extension of the larger issues of colonization inherent in

21

Canadian­aboriginal relations; indeed, “the history of the national park ideal … is both simultaneous with and contingent upon the encroachment of white settlers on traditional indigenous lands, as well as the genocides that made these dispossessions possible” (Ogden, 2011, p. 99). Disrespectful views on history and culture The creation of Yellowstone is important to understand, for it is the original national park and the model for many subsequent efforts. It was originally protected by Congress in 1872 as a “public park or pleasureing­ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” Its regulations precluded “permanent human presence – by local Bannocks, Crow, Blackfeet, Shoshone, or anyone else – in its 9000 km2 , so that visitors to comparatively remote realms could behold Nature in its sublime purity and experience supernatural spiritual enrichment unmediated – unperverted – by a human dimension” (MacLaren, 2011, 334). Wilderness therefore received precedent over human history, to the extent that the latter was erased in favour of a changeless landscape found within the very narrow lens of National Park Nature. It is, in essence, the commoditization of nature – an uncritical tunnel vision fueled by branding, nature writing and photography It is an escape valve for those who deplore the modern world yet still wish to exist within its comfortable sphere. Tourism is dependent on this, and it lies at the heart of what drives early national parks. American ideology of nature, being pushed around the world As in America, the disconnect between cities and surrounding Nature existed to a large extent in Canada. Eastern urban dwellers could access the wilderness with comparative ease, and parks were seen to “document our relationship to nature, not just as we wish it could be, but as it has been” (Campbell, 2011, p. 3). The act of encouraging eastern Canadians to enter socially charged natural spaces was a nation­building tool, a colonial force that completely disregarded aboriginal peoples and the lands they resided in. They were smoothed out, wiped clean from the cultural landscape or else treated as of the land and therefore socially meaningless. Parks and native peoples have “been related often, unfortunately, to the detriment of the aboriginals. Many have been displaced to establish parks, and their traditional uses of park areas have been curtailed”. (Marsh, 1998, p. xv). International bodies also aiding the divide The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines category II parks as natural areas set aside to protect large­scale ecological processes, while category V recognizes the interplay between people and the landscape over time (IUCN, 2012). The national parks in Canada almost overwhelmingly fall within category II, as well as Yosemite, Yellowstone, and many other ecologically famous areas across North America. This failure to recognize the history of local peoples as a formative and ongoing force within the parks is justified through the process of smoothing out, as peoples and their histories are treated as unimportant and unworthy of attention. The landscapes designated as national parks contained a cultural history and modification dating over thousands of years 22

Case study: Jasper National Park Jasper National Park was officially protected in 1909, following neighbouring Banff, Yoho (1886), Glacier (1886) and Waterton Lakes (1895) (MacLaren, 2011, 334). It was founded on the Yellowstone model, whereby its illusion of pristinity and virgin wilderness came at the expense of its human history; in order for its manufactured model to succeed, it required “the illusion that there were not cultural landscapes but natural spaces unspoiled by human intervention” (Cronin, 2011, p. 25). The erasure of the cultural landscape effectively dismantled the history of those living in the park prior to its protected status. Its permanent Aboriginal history was minimal, as the evidence collected “suggests that the area we now know as Jasper National Park was not traditionally a location in which large permanent settlements were established, especially when compared with the archaeological evidence found in other nearby regions.” (Cronin, 2011, p.27). Archaeological findings abundantly point out an active human presence stretching back over 1000 years (MacLaren, 2011, 335), yet to the industrial tourism industry it might as well exist in another dimension. The six Metis families living within the park borders were paid compensation and forced to leave, thereby erasing both them and the history they signified from park history. This cultural dispossession strikes at the heart of the colonial exchange with the land, based on beliefs in its timeless and untouched geography. Cultural identity comes through exchanges of cultural information, and the values transmitted through such overt acts of dispossession speak volumes about the rights and place of Aboriginals within the new Canada. Even as recognition changes and park values alter, the tension between aboriginal peoples and the parks remains high. A category V definition ensures the recognition and protection of both the ecological and cultural landscapes, yet Jasper remains a category II, bereft of human history and tied solely to its land. In the Everglades, Royal Palm State Park fell under the same forces of national appropriation. It is essential that we rid ourselves of the old notions of sublimity and primitivism inherent in Nature, and return to viewing it as an integral part of both our culture and ourselves. As long as we continue to develop land as we see fit without taking any responsibility for the untenability of our actions, and pride ourselves on the fact that we can preserve vast tracts of lands in seeming state, we will remain bound to the development that has brought us to this point. The National Park system is grounded in a colonial ethic but bares many possibilities for change. This Essay has been taken from the following website and relevant additions done to emphasize the points. Reference blog on history of National Parks https://blogs.ubc.ca/mkyriakides/essays/national­parks/

23

Appendix 2 Himalaya Niti Abhiyan Village Khundan, PO. Banjar, Kullu, HP.

Email: gumanhna@gmail.com, PH. 9418277220 Brief Profile Himalaya Niti Abhiyan (HNA) is a collective of grass root people’s resistance defending local livelihoods, environment and social equity with the idea of sustainable mountain specific development model. HNA was formed in January 2004. Prior to this the same group of people was working under the banner of Navrachana, a collective of NGO’s and some of independent activists on the issue of Natural Resource Management and local self­government since 1994. HNA has been campaigning for sustainable mountain specific development model, which we call Himalaya Niti. The conceptual understanding of the Himalaya Niti is Livelihood through conservation. The development strategy shall be formalized for the conservation with the active control of locals. But the process of the development carrying out by the state is opposite, Mega development projects, concentration of destructive industries, inflow of huge migrant population and unlimited urbanization has threaten the very existence of Himalaya biodiversity and ecological balance which definitly rivers and local livelihoods. Such development on one hand threatens the livelihood and ownership of locals on the natural resources and other destroying the biodiversity. Thus it is very important to raise and organize the community under the slogan of “Livelihood through Conservation” which will empower the people and restore the biodiversity. It is vital for downstream region too, so that environmental services particularly water through its rivers which may be unpolluted can be ensured to Gangetic and Sindh plains of south Asian region. After the liberalization, privatization and globalization; the pace of establishing Hydro projects, cement industries, incentive based destructive industries, Mega tourism and mega infrastructural projects has caused huge deforestation and limit the rights on natural resources of locals as a result prompted the voice against these so called individual centric development model. The limitless exploitation of natural resources, destruction of local ecology, limiting the rights of commons on natural resources, threatening the agriculture, horticulture through mega hydro electric projects, forceful land acquisition for mega project such as ski village and SEZ, resulted as the movements against the development model. The communities presently are resisting against deforestation, Mega Dams, Hydro projects, Power transmission lines, Cement plants, Renuka Dam, illegal mining, SEZ, Ski village/ mega tourism, preservation project in the name of conservation such as National park and WLS and mega infrastructure projects

24

which are posing grave threat to local livelihoods and ecology at more than 50 sites in the state of Himachal under the common banner of HNA. In this process local movements could influence government policies in various sector. Through these local movement the Ski village project at Manali – Kullu of ford foundation of INR 6500 crore has been stalled, The SEZ at Gagret, Una district was forced to be abandoned, all six new cement plant proposals are in halt, EIA of Lafarge Cement at Alsindi and Grasim at Sunder Nagar were successfully challenged in court, Renuka Dam is also stalled and case is still in green bench. Many micro and mega hydro projects were forced not to continue. Thermal plant of JP (JAL) Industries was rejected and stopped. Recently Himachal High court has penalized JAL more than 100 crores for committing illegalities at various level. Struggles are on at several places and many projects are under construction and at clearance level in spite of strong resistance from local community. State government is selling all commons to companies and violation of environment, forest and revenue law are taking place which High court also indicated in its judgment. Our role is not only restricted to struggle against destructive development but we are also promoting mountain specific policies and development initiatives simultaneously. This is an important plank to show the way forward. We are strongly advocating and fighting for the implementation of community claims under FRA. We strongly advocate that once the FRA is implemented in the state and community claims recognized under the act the sale of the commons to company can be stopped easily. Thus it is very important to establish community control over common resources, regeneration, extraction, and legal conservation right to save the Himalayan ecosystem and mountain communities. Some of our senior activists Shri Kulbhushan Upmanyu, Rattan Chand, Guman Singh, R S Negi, J S Dukhia, Akshya Jasrotia, Sandeep Minhas, Ajit Rathor and many others have worked and are working on local self governance, conservation, managing pro­people forest, fodder development activities and worked for development of Hill Agri Model and land based activities, campaign and movements. Rattan Chand’s work on the, Jadera watershed which is recognized as a model water­shed. Upmanyu ji has successfully led the campaign against Pines and Eucalyptus plantation in nineties and since then HP government has stopped propagation of these anti people species and shifted to broad­leaf plantations. HNA has been decided to launch statewide campaign for implementation of FRA and community control over commons as main focus agenda for future along with existing activities and actions. HNA is having close links and partnership with many national and international people’s movements and campaigns on common issues such as ; opposing land grab, globalization, climate crisis which is the result of this capitalist model of development and are demanding climate justice, community control over commons, defending democracy and secularism. Guman Singh Coordinator HNA

25

26

References

1. A Collection of various resolutions from different local civic bodies https://himnitiabhiyan.wordpress.com

2. How for vested interests state party delineated GHNP area http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/hpg/envis/doc98html/biodpa9981.html

3. The government has banned our traditional “bartandari” and TD rights to

collect wood for fuel, herbs and timber which is unconstitutional, claim villagers. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110918/himachal.htm#3

4. Sex, drugs and narcotics: How peaceful Himachal Pradesh became a rave haven awash

with foreign mafia http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article­2335207/Sex­drugs­narcotics­How­peaceful­Himachal­Pradesh­rave­haven­awash­foreign­mafia.html

5. Forest Rights Act 2006 Home page http://tribal.nic.in/Content/ForestRightActOtherLinks.aspx

6. Kyiv Statement

http://whc.unesco.org/en/religious­sacred­heritage/

7. Sample Rave Party in Kasol, Kullu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vml_Vfmrapc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFC3in4wyeE

8. Rave Party held in 2013 at Sai Ropa, Tirthan valley, Kullu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IED6FfA5fY4

9. Kullu’s District Collector’s , Rakesh Kanwar’s statement We havent issued any notification on GHNP WHS, and this matter would be taken very seriously. We will ensure that no one will be deprived of their tradtional rights. http://himachalpradesh.punjabkesari.in/mandi/fullstory/108739470_365414

27

10. Impacts Of The Proposed Himalayan Ski Village Project In Kullu, Himachal Pradesh http://books.google.co.in/books?id=cQQWyZC4L0wC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=himalayan+ski+village+sanjeeva&source=bl&ots=6VBMU6H9mJ&sig=xaoTENHHyZGWg1fvd8WUTqX2pug&hl=en&sa=X&ei=­_SdU6riMI_JuASc0oDADA&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=himalayan%20ski%20village%20sanjeeva&f=false

11. Important Letters from Hon'ble Minister to Chief Minister of State – HP

(28/2/13) http://tribal.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/LetterToTheHonbleChiefMinisterHMRegardingFRA.pdf

12. Research on GHNP Medicinal Plants Trade, Vinay Tandon 1

http://www.greathimalayannationalpark.com/wp­content/uploads/2012/09/Research_GHNP_Medicinal_Plants_Trade_by_Tandon.pdf

28