




































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 4 (1): 113–122, January 2021 

 
SPECIAL SECTION: The Commons: A Revisit  
 

Gender and the Commons: Water Management in 
Trans-Himalayan Spiti Valley, India 
 

Ranjini Murali,  Ajay Bijoor,  Charudutt Mishra  
 
Abstract: Studies on common pool resource governance have largely focused on 
men, who tend to have disproportionate rights and ownership with regards 
property and resources. This has resulted in the access and control rights of women 
being generally overlooked. Gender disaggregated analyses have revealed the 
important role of women in the governance of the commons. While certain 
commons may be relatively more important for women, there are variations in their 
level of resource access and management role, influenced by social structures and 
divisions. We examined the role of gender and how such intersectionality could 
shape the governance of the commons in the Spiti Valley in the Indian Trans-
Himalaya. We found that gender, class, and caste intersected in the governance of 
irrigation water. Our study highlights the role of women in the governance of the 
commons and points to the nuanced and variable roles found within this gender 
group. 

Keywords: Decision-making; Intersectionality; Local institutions; Women. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The importance of local institutions in common property resource 
governance has been well established (Ostrom et al. 1999; Agrawal 2002). 
Studies of local institutions often focus on the factors and conditions that 
enable successful governance of the commons (Ostrom et al. 1993; Wilson 

                                                           
 The Snow Leopard Trust (SLT) and The Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF), 1311, 
“Amritha”, 12th Main, Vijayanagar 1st Stage, Mysore 570017, India; ranjini@ncf-india.org. 

 
 SLT and NCF; ajay@ncf-india.org. 

 SLT and NCF; charu@ncf-india.org. 

Copyright © Murali, Bijoor and Mishra 2021. 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.v4i1.378  

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v4i1.378


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [114] 

2013). Early studies, by default, described institutions run and managed by 
men, since, across most societies, men tend to have disproportionate rights 
to property, access, and control (Casari and Lisciandra 2016). Gender 
disaggregated studies subsequently revealed the crucial role of gender in 
better understanding the governance of the commons. Experiences, 
knowledge, perceptions, and capabilities with regards natural resource 
management varied between genders due to social structures that determine 
property rights, resource access, and control (Leach et al. 1995; Leach et al. 
1997).  

Social structures built around gender roles are embedded in culture and 
traditions, are context-dependant, and can vary from place to place. These 
mechanisms manifest in women and men having different access to 
information, environmental and social spaces, knowledge systems, and 
opportunities and challenges in relation to environmental change (Allendorf 
and Yang 2013; Leach 2007). For example, many women in rural India are 
responsible for meeting the fuel and food needs of the family, which 
require them to tend to land and gather forest produce, which gives them 
knowledge of the ecosystem and resources (Agarwal 1994, 1997). Often, 
women have limited access and control over resources, their own labour, 
the labour of others, and capital (Leach et al. 1997). For example, land rights 
in agrarian systems are largely concentrated among men (Zwarteveen and 
Meinzen-Dicks 2001). Gender and the commons influence each other, with 
gender structuring outcomes in the commons and the commons themselves 
shaping gender roles (Nightingale 2019). Gender is not homogenous and 
intersects with other axes of social differentiation such as class, caste, race, 
culture, and ethnicity in shaping access to land, water, and other spatially 
distributed environmental resources (Crow and Sultana 2002). 

In this paper, using a case study, we examine the role of gender and how its 
intersectionality with other social influences shape the governance of the 
commons. We describe the governance of the irrigation system and the role 
of women in a high altitude agro-pastoral system. Our study focused on 
Kibber village, a Tibetan-Buddhist community located in Spiti Valley in the 
high altitudes of the Indian Trans-Himalaya, where agricultural lands are 
largely owned by men, while the water for irrigation is largely managed by 
women. 

 

 

 

 



[115] Ranjini Murali, Ajay Bijoor, Charudutt Mishra 

2. METHODS 

2.1. Case study area 

Kibber is an agro-pastoral village located at an altitude of 4,200 m above 
mean sea level in Spiti Valley, Himachal Pradesh, in the Indian trans-
Himalaya. Temperatures range from -40° C in peak winter to 30° C in peak 
summer. Precipitation received is mainly in the form of snow in winter, 
which starts to melt in late March. The landscape is rocky, with steep slopes 
largely dominated by grasses, herbs, and shrubs.  

There are 79 agro-pastoral households in the village. Most households in 
the valley are Tibetan-Buddhist. The main cash income is from the sale of 
green pea (Pisum sativum). The other crops grown are barley (Hordeum vulgare) 
and black pea (local variety of pea). 

The community is composed of three traditional social groups: the chechang 
(landlords), who are considered „upper‟ caste, and the dzo (drummers) and 
beta (pipers), who are considered to be of a „lower‟ caste. Each family in the 
social groups is split into the khangchen (big house), which is the family of 
the eldest son, and the khingchun (small house), comprised of all younger 
siblings. Land ownership is restricted to the chechang khangchen. The chechang 
khingchun and the dzo and beta khangchen and khingchun do not own land, but 
they can rent land from chechang khangchen. In 2020, 55 households belonged 
to the chechang community, 16 households to dzo, and 8 households to beta. 
Of this, 21 households were considered chechang khangchen. 

An extension of land rights to the landless took place under the Himachal 
Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, which were enacted in 1968 to provide 
agricultural land to people across the state, and especially to people from 
designated tribal districts, including Lahaul-Spiti. Under this scheme, the dzo 
and beta received property. The nautor lands are shared between villages 
(e.g., some of the nautor land given to Kibber households are interspersed 
with land given to households from other villages such as Kee), where the 
water management system is different, and mediated by the government‟s 
Public Works Department. In the following sections, we describe the cycle 
of farming for traditionally held land. We also include a brief description of 
water management for nautor lands.  

2.2. Data collection 

We collected data through key informant interviews with seven members of 
the village. We interviewed three men and four women. All three men 
belonged to chechang families; two of them belonged to khangchen households 
and were in their thirties, while one who was past 60 belonged to a 
khingchun household. Among the four women who participated in the 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [116] 

discussions, one woman in her thirties was from a chechang khangchen 
household, two women in their sixties were from chechang khingchun 
households, and one woman in her thirties was from a dzo household. The 
interviews were open-ended discussions on the governance of water. The 
information was also supplemented by the knowledge of the authors, who 
have spent over ten years working in this system. 

 

3. RESULTS 

The irrigation system is closely interlinked with the land property rights 
system. We briefly describe the details of the land property rights system 
after which we describe the irrigation system. A more in-depth analysis of 
the property rights system can be found in Tsering (2018). 

Table 1: Social classification of Kibber society and the distribution of traditional 
property rights 

Social 
classification 

Traditional property rights Class and caste 

Chechang 
khanchen 

Ownership Upper class and upper caste 

Chechang 
khingchun 

Can rent land Upper caste and lower socio-
economic class 

Dzo khanchen Sometimes (if gifted by the 
village), if not can rent land 

Upper socio-economic class 
and lower caste 

Dzo khingchun Can rent land Lower socio-economic class 
and lower caste 

Beta khanchen Sometimes (if gifted by the 
village), if not can rent land 

Upper socio-economic class 
and lower caste 

Dzo khingchun Can rent land Lower socio-economic class 
and lower caste 

Source: Authors. 

3.1. Property rights 

In Kibber, there are broadly three types of households with respect to 
property rights. The chechang khanchen, considered the original inhabitants of 
Kibber, hold most of the property rights. They are also considered upper 
caste and upper class. Property rights belong primarily to the men of the 
household. The first son inherits all the land, and the chechang khanchen 
households are considered the first son descendants of the original 
inhabitants of Kibber. The second sons usually become monks. They are 
left a little land they can cultivate, which is returned to the eldest son after 
their death, and cannot be inherited by their children. These households are 
chechang khingchun. If there are only daughters in a family, the husband of the 
oldest daughter inherits all the land. He is considered an adopted son. The 



[117] Ranjini Murali, Ajay Bijoor, Charudutt Mishra 

dzo and beta, traditionally drummers and pipers, do not own property under 
the traditional property rights system. They can rent land from the chechang 
khanchen in exchange for their labour. They are considered to be of a lower 
caste than the chechang khanchen and khingchun. In Kibber, there have been 
instances where the village has given dzo and beta households land from the 
common temple land. For example, a dzo household and all its descendants 
were given the responsibility of closing the water source each afternoon 
(5:00 p.m.) during the cropping season. In return, they were gifted land. 
Another dzo household was gifted land in lieu of their musical contribution 
to the village.  

3.2. Irrigation system 

The traditional irrigation system in Kibber is considered the domain of 
women. It was initially built for irrigating the traditional crops barley and 
black pea, but it was subsequently adapted by women to irrigate green pea, 
a cash crop.  

Snow melt is the main source of irrigation water, which is brought to the 
fields using water channels that are repaired before the start of irrigation 
each year and are maintained through the growing period. The agricultural 
season is from March to September, determined by seasonality. All 
households have use rights, but land owners have the right to irrigate their 
fields first.  

The crops are irrigated in cycles through the season, and each time a 
particular sequence is followed. In preparation for irrigation, women build 
embankments in the fields, based on natural gradients, to guide the flow of 
water. This is done as the men plough the land using yaks or tractors. The 
date of ploughing is decided in a village meeting, attended by a male 
representative of each household and the numbardar, who is the rotating 
head of the village. A religious ceremony performed by the oracle (devta) 
marks the beginning of ploughing. The first round of irrigation, called 
yurma, occurs 40 days after ploughing. Weeding is carried out by women 
before the first irrigation cycle and is done periodically thereafter. Just 
before yurma, the women scatter the fields with dried Aconogonum sp. plants 
collected from pastures to increase water retention and prevent soil run-off. 
Irrigation on the first day of yurma is reserved for the fields of the traditional 
healer (amchi) and the devta. Women from all households participate in 
irrigation on the first day. The second day is reserved for families who have 
faced a serious illness or death the previous year or have pregnant women 
who are unable to work in the farm. The third day, referred to as tiping 
langzet, is reserved for families who support the khangchen and have 
participated in the maintenance of water channels. The land is owned by the 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [118] 

khangchen, but the families have rights to the produce from the field. After 
the third day, the remaining fields are irrigated. Fields have designated days 
for irrigation. If on certain days the water flow is less and fields receive less 
water, it is considered divine intervention and they are not given another 
chance. The second and third irrigation cycles follow the same system of 
irrigation.  

This order is followed for the first three irrigation cycles, after which the 
fields of the khangchen receive fixed turns. It is the responsibility of khangchen 
women to ensure the dzo and beta who have rented land from them receive 
enough water. The khangchen can also give water to the khingchun of their 
family on their turn. 

The women from the chechang khanchen households have the control rights 
over the irrigation water and all women who own and rent agricultural land 
have use rights. After the first irrigation, the women from chechang khanchen 
households decide when the second and third irrigation is to take place 
based on soil, weather, and crop conditions. This decision is made 
collectively, with all women from chechang khanchen households having equal 
voice, irrespective of age or amount of land owned. Once they decide the 
dates, they approach the numbardar who informs the devta. The devta 
performs a religious ceremony after which the second round of irrigation 
begins, which follows the same sequence as the first.  

Two women chosen on an annually rotating basis from the khanchen 
households manage the daily distribution of water. They are in charge of 
inspecting and monitoring the condition of the water channels and 
communicating to the numbardar about repairs needed, ensuring that the 
fields receive water on the assigned days, ensuring that the water pressure to 
all the fields is similar, etc. To assess the water pressure, blocks of wetland 
sedges are placed in the channel and the pressure is assessed based on the 
movement of the sedges. The two women also resolve any disputes. 
Persistent disputes are taken to the numbardar, who may take them to the 
village council and the devta. The interviewees reported that the rules are 
written in a book in the possession of the devta. However, no one in the 
village has seen the book. The devta refers to it at the time of conflict or 
confusion, and his word is taken to be final. An interesting story from a few 
generations ago is still often narrated. A conflict between two women over 
water distribution turned violent and one of the women was killed by the 
other. It was decided that the family of the woman who lost her life would 
receive all the overflow water through the night till 8 a.m. the next morning, 
when it would be divided for the rest of the fields. This arrangement is still 
followed today, several generations later. Myths exist that also determine 



[119] Ranjini Murali, Ajay Bijoor, Charudutt Mishra 

watering patterns, such as too much or too early watering can make the 
plants „thirsty‟.  

The rules for the irrigation system in Kibber are thought to have existed for 
centuries and our interviewees were not sure if women were involved in 
their original conceptualization. Today, the women from chechang khanchen 
households formulate collective choice and operational choice rules. For 
example, decisions related to the repair of water channels are made by 
women and are communicated to the village through the numbardar. 
Similarly, decisions related to the start of the second and subsequent cycles 
of irrigation are made collectively based on their knowledge of farming.  

The role of men in the management of the irrigation system is limited. Men 
are responsible for ploughing the land, providing labour to maintain the 
irrigation channels, collecting Aconogonum, and, along with the other 
members of the household, harvesting. The pastures are primarily managed 
by men. 

The nature of the management of the irrigation system is different for non-
traditional land, i.e., nautor land. Reforms enacted through the Himachal 
Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968, mandate the allocation of land for 
agriculture to those with less than 4 acres of land for self-cultivation. This 
legislation allowed the large landless population to claim land for 
cultivation, especially in the tribal districts of Lahual-Spiti and Kinnaur. 
Land owned by the government, considered „wasteland‟, outside towns, 
reserved and demarcated protected forests, were provided as nautor land, 
and each household was granted a maximum of 4 acres of land 
(Rahimzadeh 2018). In terms of irrigation management, households from 
multiple villages own arable land in the same area, and each village appoints 
a person to coordinate matters for their group. These representatives 
coordinate among themselves to decide water distribution among the village 
groups. This responsibility is usually held by men. The Irrigation and Public 
Health (IPH) Department under the district administration is responsible 
for the maintenance of the water channels in nautor lands. In case of a 
conflict, the resolution agency is the IPH and the office of the sub-
divisional magistrate (SDM), unlike in traditional land, where the path to 
conflict resolution is within the community. 

 

4. DISCUSSION 

In our study system, gender, class, and caste intersected in the governance 
of the irrigation system. Land is owned by men, and the ownership of 
agricultural land gives households access to irrigation water. Women‟s 
management of the irrigation system is mediated by male ownership of 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [120] 

agricultural land. This system is common to other villages in Spiti Valley 
(Tsering 2018) and to irrigation systems in Nepal (Upadhyay 2003).  

Control rights over the irrigation system closely followed the class and caste 
distinctions of the private property system, with only the upper caste and 
upper class having control over irrigation water. The dzo, beta, and chechang 
khinchun had access to irrigation water if they rented land from the chechang 
khanchen, and water was provided under the direction of their landlord.  

In the case of gender, while women did not have land rights, chechang 
khanchen women (upper caste and upper class) had control rights. They have 
the power to control and restrict access to irrigation water. Their work is 
explicitly recognized and they are considered the managers of the irrigation 
system. They have the power to make decisions and are involved in conflict 
resolution mechanisms. Although this power to control irrigation water is 
mediated through men, who are their husbands or fathers, their voices are 
represented in the system. This role of women, as actors with agency in a 
management system, is fairly rare, especially in patriarchal societies where 
women are rarely represented at the community or policy level (Upadhyay 
2003).  

Although the chechang khanchen women have significant influence, the 
chechang khinchun, and dzo and beta women have no formal power in the 
system. Rather, they have to negotiate access to irrigation water by aligning 
themselves with a chechang khanchen household either by renting land or 
through labour. This reiterates the perspective that women are not a 
homogenous group; rather, the same societal divisions of class and caste 
also operate in systems managed by them, with certain sections having 
greater privileges than others (Joshi and Fawcett 2005). One important 
limitation in our study is that our interviewees were primarily from chechang 
households as we had a greater access to them. Therefore, the views of dzo 
and beta households may be inadequately represented. 

 

5. CONCLUSION 

If the sustainable development goal of „no one left behind‟ is to be 
achieved, it is essential that the perspectives, knowledge, and interests of 
both men and women be integrated into decision-making (Brown and 
Fortnam 2018). Case studies have shown that when women are involved in 
community forest management, and the group composition consists of 
more women, forests are in better condition (Agarwal 2009). Further, 
women are also more likely to comply with the rules if they are involved in 
management. To integrate women into decision-making, it is important to 



[121] Ranjini Murali, Ajay Bijoor, Charudutt Mishra 

focus on the different roles they occupy in society, while being aware of 
caste and class barriers to participation.  

We have described a long enduring water irrigation system managed by 
women and its intersection with gender, caste, and class. While women are 
the primary managers, their power is mediated by men who own the 
agricultural land. We also found that due to societal barriers of class and 
caste, power was concentrated among the chechang khanchen (upper class and 
upper caste) and excluded women from lower classes and castes from 
decision-making. Thus, understanding the role of women in the governance 
of common resources requires a disaggregated analysis not just between 
genders but also within women as a group.  

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We would like to thank all our interviwees, especially Tanzin Thilley and 
Kalzang Gurmet, for explaining the irrigation system to us in detail and 
helping with the other interviews. We thank the Whitley Fund for Nature 
that has continued to support our research and conservation work. 

 

REFERENCES  

Agarwal, B. 1994. A Field of One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511522000 

Agarwal, B. 1997. “Environmental Action, Gender Equity and Women's Participation.” 
Development and Change 28 (1): 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00033 

Agarwal, B. 2001. “Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An 
Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework.” World Development 29 (10):         
1623–1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00066-3 

Agarwal, B. 2009. “Gender and Forest Conservation: The Impact of Women's 
Participation in Community Forest Governance.” Ecological Economics 68 (11): 2785–
2799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.025 

Agrawal, A. 2002. “Common Resources and Institutional Sustainability.” In The Drama 
of the Commons, edited by E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, E. U. 
Weber, 41–85. National Academy Press. 

Allendorf, T.D., and J. Yang. 2013. “The Role of Ecosystem Services in Park–people 
Relationships: The Case of Gaoligongshan Nature Reserve in Southwest China.” 
Biological Conservation 167: 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.013 

Brown, K., and M. Fortnam. 2018. “Gender and Ecosystem Services: A Blind Spot”. In 
Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation: Trade-offs and Governance, edited by Kate 
Schreckenberg, Georgina Mace, and Mahesh Poudyal, 257–270. New York: Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507090 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511522000
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00033
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00066-3
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.013
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507090


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [122] 

Carlisle, K., and R. L. Gruby. 2019. “Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical 
Model for the Commons.” Policy Studies Journal 47 (4): 927–952. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12212 

Casari, M., and M. Lisciandra. 2016. “Gender Discrimination in Property Rights: Six 
Centuries of Commons Governance in the Alps.” The Journal of Economic History 76: 
559–594. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050716000565 

Crow, B., and F. Sultana. 2002. “Gender, Class, and Access to Water: Three Cases in a 
Poor and Crowded Delta.” Society & Natural Resources 15 (8): 709–724. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920290069308 

Joshi, D., and B. Fawcett. 2005. “The Role of Water in an Unequal Social Order in 
India.” In Gender, Water and Development, edited by Anne Coles and Tina Wallace, 39–56. 
New York: Berg. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003085461-3 

Leach M., S. Joeks, and C. Green. 1995. “Gender Relations and Environmental 
Change.” IDS Bulletin 26: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-
5436.1995.mp26001001.x  

Leach, M., R. Mearns, and I. Scoones. 1999. “Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics 
and Institutions in Community-based Natural Resource Management.” World 
Development 27: 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00141-7 

Leach, M. 2007. “Earth Mother Myths and Other Ecofeminist Fables: How a Strategic 
Notion Rose and Fell.” Development and Change 38: 67–85. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00403.x 

Nightingale, A. 2019. “Commoning for Inclusion? Commons, Exclusion, Property and 
Socio-natural Becomings.” International Journal of the Commons 13 (1): 16–35. 
http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.927. 

Ostrom, E., L. Schroeder, and S. Wynne. 1993. Institutional Incentives and Sustainable 
Development: Infrastructure Policies in Perspective. Westview Press. 

Ostrom, E., J. Burger, C. B. Field, R. B. Norgaard, and D. Policansky. 1999. “Revisiting 
the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges.” Science 284 (5412): 278–282. 
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5412.278 

Rahimzadeh, A. 2018. “Political Ecology of Land Reforms in Kinnaur: Implications and 
a Historical Overview.” Land Use Policy 70: 570–579. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.025 

Tsering, T. 2018. “Socio-Economic Organisation in a Border Area of Tibetan Culture: 
Tabo, Spiti Valley, Himachal Pradesh, India.” Mountain Research and Development 38 (4): 
411–412. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.mm226 

Upadhyay, B. 2003. “Water, Poverty and Gender: Review of Evidences from Nepal, 
India and South Africa.” Water Policy 5 (5–6): 503–511. 
https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2003.0032 

Valdivia, C., and J. Gilles. 2001. “Gender and Resource Management: Households and 
Groups, Strategies and Transitions.” Agriculture and Human Values 18 (1): 5–9. 
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007608717996 

Wilson, D., E. Ostrom, and M. E. Cox. 2013. “Generalizing the Core Design Principles 
for the Efficacy of Groups.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 90: S21–S32. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.010 

Zwarteveen M. and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2001. “Gender and Property Rights in the 
Commons: Examples of Water Rights in South Asia.” Agriculture and Human Values 18 
(1): 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007677317899 

https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12212
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050716000565
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920290069308
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003085461-3
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.1995.mp26001001.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.1995.mp26001001.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00141-7
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00403.x
http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.927
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5412.278
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.025
https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.mm226
https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2003.0032
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007608717996
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.010
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007677317899

