




































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 3 (2): 179–183, July 2020 

 
NOTES FROM THE FIELD  
 

Himal Rakshaks of Sikkim: The Burden of Being the 
Flag-bearers of Community-based Conservation 
 

Rashmi Singh  
 
1. INTRODUCTION 

In October 2017, one of my respondents, Karma, an ex-herder in West 
Sikkim, made a statement: “People who keep animals are much more 
concerned for the himal (mountains) here than the Himal Rakshaks (the 
honorary guardians of mountains); just because we do not go and pick up 
plastic from the mountains (i.e., support the conservation agency driven 
mountain cleaning campaign) or wear T-shirts with conservation slogans 
does not make us the destroyers and them the protectors.” Karma’s father 
used to live in the temperate and alpine regions of Khangchendzonga 
National Park (KNP) and Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve (KBR) for 
a large part of the year as part of the seasonal movement necessary for yak 
herding. His son and other family members would accompany him to the 
forest during the summer; the entire family would stay in the pastures and 
help with the day-to-day tasks associated with livestock management. But in 
1998, a grazing ban policy was formulated by the Government of Sikkim, 
and pastoral communities were removed from KNP and KBR between 
2002 and 2004. 

My research project in Sikkim focussed on a wide range of questions about 
historical and recent changes in traditional pasture management. However, 
during the field study, the Himal Rakshaks (HRs) repeatedly surfaced in my 

                                                           
 School of Human Ecology, Dr. B R Ambedkar University Delhi, Lothian Road, Kashmere 
Gate, Delhi – 110006; rashmi89singh@gmail.com. 

Copyright © Singh 2020. Released under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 
4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author. 

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007. 

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web). 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.110  

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.110


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [180] 

interactions with local communities. But who are these people? And what 
made them subject to the anger of the ex-herders of West Sikkim? 

This article examines the contentions that surround the HRs in West 
Sikkim, as epitomized by Karma’s statement. Based on my ethnographic 
research, I show how the honour associated with being an HR is locally 
contested and influences the everyday lives of the HRs. While conservation 
initiatives may benefit biodiversity conservation, they may also have far-
reaching societal consequences for local actors, particularly those who 
become the “face” of conservation initiatives. It is paramount to pay 
attention to these consequences, as they may perpetuate or reproduce social 
inequalities or systematic exclusion and, in some cases, further ecological 
harm. 

 

2. RANGELAND CONSERVATION AND THE HIMAL 
RAKSHAKS 

While the resource management practices of pastoral societies can be 
considered as adaptations to regional and climatic conditions (Behnke and 
Scoones 1992; Niamir-Fuller 1999; Scoones 1994), conservation plans in 
high-altitude rangelands are still based on the principles of the equilibrium 
model of rangeland management. The equilibrium paradigm assumes that 
rangeland ecosystems are potentially stable systems that are destabilized by 
improper use by pastoral communities, which causes degradation (Brown 
1971; Stebbings 1935). Almost as if tracing the steps of fortress 
conservation, which has assumed rather than demonstrated gains of human 
removal (Kabra 2018), the state of Sikkim implemented a grazing ban with 
the aim of conserving the biodiversity in and around KNP and KBR. 
However, following the ban, the Forest Department found it difficult to 
manage the natural resources in the remote and rugged mountain terrain. 

This led to the recognition of the crucial role of traditional knowledge and 
the experience of local herders in the management of high alpines. Based 
on this realization, a participatory conservation of himal (mountains) was 
proposed (Shrestha et al., 2013). In 2006, the Forest Department initiated 
the HR programme, under which 21 individuals were recognized as “the 
honorary guardians of mountains” and were given stewardship of the alpine 
areas. This initiative was indeed unique, due to its aspiration of capacity-
building among local community members to help conserve the high 
reaches of KNP. The HRs were trained by organizations like The Mountain 
Institute (TMI), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and Khangchendzonga 
Conservation Committee (KCC) in basic biodiversity monitoring 
techniques and in documenting and reporting wildlife crimes and instances 



[181] Rashmi Singh 

of illegal grazing in and around KNP and KBR. As many HRs were also the 
Eco-Development Committee (EDC) members who had helped to remove 
the herders from KNP and were expected to report grazing and other 
wildlife-related crimes, conflicts with other community members were 
bound to happen. 

 

3. BEING HIMAL RAKSHAKS: SOCIAL INEQUALITIES AND 
SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION 

While there seemed to be an evident sense of pride in being honorary 
guardians of their own mountains, the HRs mentioned that they often have 
to deal with hostility and social exclusion in the villages within the studied 
area. This was apparent in some of my interviews; ex-herders showed signs 
of agitation towards the HRs. In November 2019, one HR mentioned that 
while explaining the impact of grazing to his fellow villagers, he had gotten 
into a fight with them. Moreover, after that incident, his brother did not 
speak to him for 10 years. In another incident, in November 2019, two HRs 
mentioned that during a discussion on the need to conserve the forest, a 
locally influential herder stated that the HRs had betrayed the community. 
They mentioned that even after more than 15 years since the 
implementation of the grazing ban, some households that had previously 
been involved in livestock herding harboured feelings of hatred and betrayal 
towards the HRs because the latter had supported the forest department in 
the removal of their own community members from the forests. 

During the field surveys, five of the HRs mentioned that they bore the cost 
of conservation in their daily lives, as they were excluded from local social 
events and the associated livelihood opportunities. Social capital is 
extremely crucial in this region to attain the benefits of seasonal livelihood 
opportunities associated with trekking tours (as porters and tour guides), 
seasonal labour in agricultural fields, and daily wage labour under the 
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 
(MGNREGA). Currently, some ex-herders hold influential positions and, 
therefore, play a critical role in providing livelihood opportunities in the 
region. HRs, therefore, lose out on many livelihood opportunities that are 
controlled by ex-herders because of systematic exclusion. 

HRs, as the face of conservation in West Sikkim, have borne the brunt of 
social exclusion, loss of livelihood opportunities, and antagonism from their 
own community. These social exclusions are seldom, if ever, considered 
when evaluating the impacts of conservation policies and decisions. 

 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [182] 

4. CONCLUSION 

Natural resource management, which includes community participation in 
the name of the Himal Rakshak programme in Sikkim, shares some 
similarities with earlier stories of community-based conservation in India, 
where the devolution of policies and community participation emerged as 
an extension of state control (Lele 2004; Sarin, Singh, Sundar, and Bhogal 
2003). However, while the Himal Rakshak initiative started with the aim of 
conserving KNP and KBR by involving knowledgeable local individuals in 
the monitoring of protected areas, it has a unique angle in that it valorizes 
local knowledge only in forms and actions that dovetail state policy. All the 
while, HRs have mixed feelings of contentment and pride on one hand and 
disappointment arising from having to bear the cost of conservation and 
social exclusion on a daily basis on the other. There has been a rapid 
increase in the discourse around community participation and local 
knowledge in conservation policy and practices. However, the unique case 
of the HRs in the Sikkim Himalayas points to the risks and vulnerabilities 
that emerge from the implementation of community-based conservation 
initiatives that do not pay adequate attention to long-term social outcomes 
for the members of the local community who become the flag-bearers of 
conservation programmes. 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I thank the Forest, Environment and Wildlife Department, Government of 
Sikkim, for their cooperation. I express my gratitude to Suresh Babu, Rohit 
Negi, and Asmita Kabra for their guidance. I am grateful to Kinzong 
Sharap Bhutia and Tshering Uden Bhutia for their constant support and 
guidance in the field and Ramesh Chettri for assisting me during fieldwork. 
I thank Syed Shoaib Ali for his valuable feedback. A special thanks to all the 
respondents and Himal Rakshaks for their time and interest in this research. 
 

REFERENCES 

Behnke, Roy, and Ian Scoones. 1992. “Rethinking Range Ecology: Implications for 
Rangeland Management in Africa.” Issues Paper 33. London: International 
Institute for Environment and Development. 

Brown, H. Leslie. 1971. “The Biology of Pastoral Man as a Factor in 
Conservation.” Biological Conservation 3: 93-100. 

Kabra, Asmita. 2018. “Revisiting Canons and Dogmas in the Conservation-versus-
Human Rights Debate.” Ecology, Economy and Society-the INSEE Journal 1 (1): 83–86. 
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v1i1.20.  

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v1i1.20


[183] Rashmi Singh 

Lélé, Sharachchandra. 2004. Decentralising Governance of Natural Resources in India: A 
Review. Report for UNDP Dryland Development Centre, Nairobi.Bangalore: 
Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development. 

Niamir-Fuller, Maryam. 1999. Managing Mobility in African Rangelands. London: 
Intermediate Technology Publications. 

Sarin, Madhu, Neera M. Singh, Nandini Sundar, and Ranu K. Bhogal. 2003. 
“Devolution as a Threat to Democratic Decision-making in Forestry? Findings 
from Three States in India.” In Local Forest Management: The Impacts of Devolution 
Policies, edited by David Edmunds and Eva Wollenberg, 55–126. London: 
Earthscan. 

Scoones, Ian. 1994. Living with Uncertainty: New Directions in Pastoral Development in 
Africa. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications. 

Stebbings, Edward Percy. 1935. “The Encroaching Sahara”. Geographical Journal 86: 
510–518. 

Shrestha, Priyadarshinee, Partha S. Ghose, Lak T. Theengh, and Basant Sharma. 
2013. Monitoring of High Altitude Habitats in West Sikkim by Himal Rakshak. India: 
World Wildlife Fund. 

 


