Institutional Strategy for Improving Mountain Farming: A Study of the Uttarakhand State in

the Indian Himalaya

H. C. Pokhriyal*

Problem Identification and Justification

The need for alternative policy advocacy for harnessing the opportunities of
mountain marginal farming for improving the livelihood of the people is now increasingly realized.
In the emerging context of bio-diversity and the need to improve the basic life support system the
mountain farming, based on ‘marginal lands’, has now been identified as one of the future fortune.
The indispensable constituents of mountain farming systems are crops, animal husbandry and
other land based economic activities. The need to radically alter the present policy negligence,
specifically in the context of India, grounded upon indifferent attitude, is growing louder and
irreversal in the context of livelihood improvement. The 'marginality' is mainly concerned with the
passive attitude on the part of development officials and non-significant status given to the
mountain farming in the macro policy framework. Reverse to it, the mountain farming, varied in the
size and quality, could be seen as the land of ‘foreordained opportunities’. The ‘small is beautiful’
approach is equally applicable to the tiny holdings of the mountain peasants, which could enhance,
not only the food security, but improve the quality of life. The necessity is to provide institutional
mechanism to make these land terraces as viable units of farm production that could be taken as a
vital dimension and resource base to the human development in the mountains.

Broadly, the institutional and technological approaches have been adopted by the policy
planners and development administrators for improving the natural resource based livelihood in the
mountains. These approaches have been used both as complementary and in sequential manner
depending upon the priority and political visioning in different states located in the Indian Himalaya
and other parts of the HKH region. Generally, the technological bias has been found reflected in
many of the policy documents for improving the mountain agriculture. Even the basic conceptual
framework of green revolution reflects the technological bias. In many of the case studies it has
been demonstrated that merely relying on the technological measures to improve mountain farming
system would only be beneficial in the short run and will not yield long term sustainable results.
The institutional approach focus on the ownership related issues and formulating legal framework
and measures to increase the farm productivity. Comparing it with the technological approach, the
institutional strategy would be more difficult and slow in providing the expected results. But, the
institutional strategy got an upper edge in the context of environmental sustainability, bio diversity,
retaining the soil fertility and providing remunerative prices to the marginal farmers. More over the
emphasis would now being gradually shifted towards the long term and sustainable livelihood
improvement initiatives taken within the ambit of institutional strategy. The recent realization
coming out of the farming experiences reemphasizes the relevance of the institutional dimensions
of the mountain agriculture development. It also emphasized that sustainable results can only be
achieved if the technological aspects should be kept as complementary and supporting component
to the institutional approach.

In the present study efforts have been made to understand the institutional framework of
mountain farming system and to reemphasize the skillful innovative and entrepreneurial struggle of
the marginal mountain farmers to adopt appropriate skills in the changing set of conditions. The

1
institutional approach to study the typical development trend and pattern of mountain farming
would focus on the Uttarakhand state in the Indian Himalaya and this analysis will be based upon
the land records and other information available during the last two hundred years.

Uttarakhand is a newly created state in India (created on November 9, 2000) that was
earlier remained as on of the economic region comprising of a few districts in the Uttar Pradesh
state. Main factor for creating separate state remained the peculiar nature of underdevelopment
and aspiration of the local people. In the context of Uttarakhand Himalaya, in the last five decades,
the continuous negligence of the mountain farming created a situation where the mountain farming
communities were taken as the offenders destroying the forests and environment caused due to
their cultivation and animal rearing and grazing in the ‘fragile’ mountain eco-systems. Generally,
the analysis and studies conducted only to represent ‘our’ (scientists or the researchers) view
points over ‘their’ (mountain farmers, especially women) problems. In this ‘we’ and they syndrome’,
the opportunities inherited in the mountain farming were converted as the constraints and the
people were kept at the receiving end. With the result, the farming sector, including animal
husbandry, never got priority over the 'other development activities' which are mainly fulfilling the
requirements of ‘our’ own development biases.

In general, as well in the specific context of the Uttarakhand Himalaya, what so ever little
space provided to improve the marginal farming, has been mainly focussing on the short termed
technocratic solutions and the in-built, as well inherited, potentialities within the mountain farming
sector were bypassed. In this situation, the significance of a different institutional approach is self-
evident. The institutional approach would be mainly focus on the ‘insiders’ viewpoints and 'their
own perception' about the traditionally sustainable and sedentary mountain farming that has been
collected from the land settlement reports and land records. The analysis of institutional issues is
implicitly painstaking, largely non-quantitative in nature and need more time and patience. The
institutional cutting edge issues are mainly related to ownership over land and water resources,
attitudes and perceptions, land consolidation and capacity building along with proper sensitization
of the development functionaries including bureaucracy. The appropriate institutional structure for
decentralized and participatory planning is also needed to be investigated. In the institutional
dynamics of marginality, the gender participation and empowerment are essential part of
development strategy based on institutional approach.

Objectives

The present paper aims to analyse and demonstrate the benefits of the institutional
strategy that could become an integral part of the alternative policy advocacy for the improvement
in the mountain marginal farming, specifically in the context of Uttarakhand development. Following
are the specific objectives drawn over the rationale discussed above.

1. To investigate process of development and micro policy initiatives taken in the

mountains based on sustainable utilisation of land resources for sedentary cultivation
purpose
2. To analayse the land settlement process of the sedentary farming in the mountains
mainly focussing on the ownership and right to transfer on cultivable and other land
resources.

2
 3. To investigate the possibility of expansion of the cultivated land into cultivable waste
and also to anlayse the enhancement feasibility in the irrigated area.
4. To study the viability of land consolidation to control the subdivision and fragmentation
of the land holdings in the mountains along with identifying suitable institutional
structures available for improving the marginal farming. This will also include the policy
advocacy to improve the marginal farming in the mountains.

Methodology:

In the present paper attempts have been made to analyse the institutional
dimensions of agricultural development by selecting a mountain region that is still practicing the
traditional sedentary mountain cultivation. The secondary data and information available from the
land settlement reports published since 1815 AD are analysed and some of the specific studies
already conducted on this issue are also reviewed. In the present case study, the whole process of
conversion from shifting cultivation into sedentary cultivation in the last two hundred years could be
vital to understand the dynamics of marginal farming in the Uttarakhand Himalaya. Besides, the
other secondary sources and database related to land use information have also been reviewed.
Efforts were also made to use the original land records, which are generally kept at the land record
office in the district head quarters.

The Participatory Rural Appraisal was also conducted with the community and to
share their perception on various issues related to the mountain farming. The qualitative tolls are
found very effective in discussing the insiders' view and their perception about the whole issue of
marginal farm improvement. The PRA not only help in understanding the perception of the people
in a participatory way, but more importantly it serves as a tool and approach to the people,
especially women, to help them in the process of development through empowerment.

Present Status of Mountain Farming in Uttarakhand:

Out of all the hill states in India, Uttarakhand is having relatively diverse agro-climatic
features covering a somewhat plain area called ‘tarai’, mid mountains and the high land nearing the
snow lines. These diversities have not being utilised for complementing each other agro-climatic
regions in terms of farm production and providing backward-forward linkages. Based on the latest
population estimates (Census 2001), a total of 8.5 million people are living in 15024 inhabited
villages (comprising 75 % population) and 84 urban centres spread over 53483 square km. A
relatively high literacy rate (around 72 %) of the state could be taken as one of the better indicator
of social development. The average production of the main crops also reflects the diversity in the
agro-climatic conditions and the relative importance given to agriculture in different districts. It is
found that in the high yielding varieties like- wheat and paddy the average productivity in
quintal/hectare remained 18.35 for wheat and 19.77 in paddy respectively. Whereas in the
traditional non-irrigated crops like ‘mandua’, ‘jhangora’ and maize remained 13.08, 10.72 and 11.10
respectively (for details see Pokhriyal, 1999). A wide variation among districts in terms of average
production is found in the high yielding varieties, which is absent in the course grain produced in
the unirrigated fields.

3
 The average productivity is relatively low in the mid himalaya districts, like Garhwal and
Almora. Interestingly, in the low productivity areas an abnormally very low decadal population
growth is found. Although the average population growth in the whole of Uttarakhand between
1991 and 2001 remained 19.20 per cent, but the least population growth is found in the mid
Himalayan districts of Garhwal (03.87 %), Almora (03.14 %) and Bageshwar (09.21 %). Comparing
this with the other districts, a higher population growth rate is found in Nanital (32.88 %),
Udhamsingh Nagar (27.70 %) and Hardwar (26.30 %). The population growth rate in Uttarkashi
district is fairly high (22.72 %) along with higher average productivity in the farm sector (for detailed
population figures for 2001see Census 2001) . Whereas, Uttarkashi district is similar to the
Garhwal and Almora in terms of agro-climatic diversity. These contrasts show the positive
correlation between the farm productivity and rate of growth of population in a limited sense. The
extreme variation from 1991 to 2001 census in the population growth between 3.14 per cent to
32.88 percent within the state is significant and definitely needed an explanation. Even with in the
similar agro-climatic situation a large variation in population growth is found. The inherent factor
behind the low productivity-low population growth and vice-versa is related to the male migration
process in the mid Himalayan districts.

Partial male migration process is an inherent characteristic of the mountain communities in

the Uttarakhand. But this process has been speeded up during the post independence phase of
mountain development, specifically after 1947. The rate of male migration also increased due to
policy neglect of the mountain farming and keeping mountain at the periphery of public policy
discussion. Even in these discussions the mountain agriculture and animal husbandry related
issues have been treated negatively only by emphasizing the high pressure on land and higher
level of population erosion due the human and animal population (see Government of India 1998).
A review of the public policy documents published by the Indian central and state governments
clearly show the lack of understanding on the part of the policy makers and the unwillingness of the
development officials to implement the proactive programme interventions to improve the livelihood
of the marginal farmers intentionally (Pokhriyal 1999). To some extent the recent administrative
decision of the Government of India to carve out a separate state of Uttarakhand was taken to
formulate the need specific planning in the smaller state.

Generally, the partial male migration in the mountains of Uttarakhand has not occurred due
to non-availability of livelihood resource base. It remained mainly because the migrants are more
attracted towards the ‘soft-option’ in the non-agriculture occupations and service sector available in
the urban areas in India. Practically it was not a distress migration in search of food security or
survival through entitlement exchanges. The important aspect of the Uttarakhand male migration is
that the majority of the migrants generally return back to their native villages. But, due to policy and
planning gaps and deliberate negligence, these return migrants do not get absorbed in more
productive employment and the economic opportunity for sustainable livelihood. Whereas, these
returned migrants with higher capacities already built during the migration period, could play a
crucial role in promoting a unique model of mountain development.

The land use data in the Uttarakhand also show a steep rise in both the ‘current fallow’ and
‘cultivable waste area’, resulted into a considerable decline in the ‘net sown area’. This peculiar
aspect has been continuously found reflected in the land use data (see Pokhriyal and Bist 1988)
and still the process of abandoning the cultivated land is going on. The net sown area is around 13
per cent of the total geographic area in 1998 (total area under forest department is approximately

4
63 per cent of total area) and proportion of the cultivable waste area current and other fallow land
in the total area is around 7 per cent of the total area. In the similar manner, the water utilisation
and irrigation proportion also went down in the recent years. It has further increased the
marginalisation of the mountain farming communities, especially in the high migration areas.
Although there are various government departments and other institutions established to support
mountain farming and other related activities in the primary sector. But, due to attitudinal
indifference and non-accountability on the part of development officials as well non-participative
approach the marginal farmers, especially women, remained detached. The mountains are treated
as the place for punishment posting for the government officials. In such a situation what type of
innovation could be really expected from the government extension officials. Even in the new
situation there is a great need for attitudinal change within the government functionaries. Equally,
the net potentialities and possible advantages from both the net sown area and putting waste into
niche based economic activities need a comprehensive policy advocacy.

Learning from Land Settlement Process

Role of mountain farming should always be seen in the future perspective. In the new set
of situation, the environmental sustainability, food security and bio-diversity related Issues become
important in the context of mountain farming development. In the whole debate on the necessity of
better physical quality of life and relevance of bio-farming, mountain agriculture again re-emerged
from the degenerated recent past. It is expected that in the emerging realities the marginal
mountain farming would get more attention than the past and better market linkages will further
improve the income opportunities to the mountain farmers, especially to the women.

In the re-emergence of mountain farming, the selection of the right type of strategic policy
interventions is crucial. Again, it is emphasized that mere technological solutions will not be able to
provide a sustainable base to this new transformation. In this context the institutional approach,
having more emphasis on the land tenure related dimensions, would be appropriate in providing
sustainability to any of the programme intervention. In the context of the Indian Himalayan states,
Uttarakhand state seems to be peculiar to the neighboring states like Jammu and Kashmir and
Himachal Pradesh as well to the north eastern Himalayan states. The north –western states like
Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh have already adopted the state dominated highly
subsidized programme interventions, which may not go back to traditional farming. Contrary to it,
due to the policy neglect, major areas in the hills in Uttarakhand have been confined to traditional
farming and high male migration syndrome along with abandonment of the cultivated area into
waste. More over these two states, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh will have to face
the international competition of WTO regime with more international trade liberalisation. During last
decades, even the plain areas of some of the adjoining states have successfully copied some of
the advantages that were accruing to the mountains by using the new technology. But in a very
different and peculiar way the whole cultivable area in the mountains of Uttarakhand is having the
strength of bio-fertilizers and the bio-diversity that needs to be harnessed to improve the income
and employment opportunities available to the marginal farming communities.

In the Uttarakhand, both type of experiments were initiated and implemented during the
last two hundred years, namely, the institutional efforts were carried out during the British rule form
1815 to 1910AD the period between 1910 and 1947 could be taken as non-activity phase of the
British period. The technological phase is found in the post independence period starting from

5
1947. During the technology dominated phase, the halfhearted efforts to improve the hill farming
were made. But as already explained that during this phase instead of improvement in the
mountain farming, a considerable down fall has been observed. Although many other push and pull
factors could be identified with this down fall. Moreover, intentionally neglecting the potentialities
inherited in the mountain farming could be identified as one of the major factors remained for the
sluggish growth of hill agriculture.

It is quite relevant to learn from the various conscious efforts made in the different phases
of the ‘farming history’ of the mountains in Uttarakhand. On the basis of the land settlement records
and the reports on the land tenures, the last two hundred years can be divided in to three broad
phases. These three phases are namely, the ‘khaikari/occupancy phase’ (pre 1890), the
‘Hissadari/right to transfer the cultivated land ‘ (1815 to 1920) and the ‘post-independence phase of
indifferent attitude’ (post 1947). In between these three phases two transitional intervals could also
be seen, one from 1790 to 1815 and the other 1920 to 1947. During the first transitional interval
intentionally some conditions were created through public policy government intervention and in
the later transitional phase circumstances pushed down the mountain farming in the Uttarakhand.
On the basis of the records and some of the qualitative evidences a normative scale is prepared
and the normative scale based trend is shown in figure 1

In figure 1 an approximation of what happened in the last two hundred years is

summarized. The normative scale is prepared on the basis of the overall efforts made through
public policy and programme intervention to improve the mountain farming. The normative scale
also take into consideration of the kind of enthusiasm that was found and importance given to
create a sustainable resource base for the peasants in terms of expansion of the area under
sedentary cultivation and better utilisation of water resources for irrigation purpose. Even the

6
settlement of new villages could be taken as one of important determinant of the slope of the trend
line. As a whole, the overall up-ward movement and altogether downward movement in terms of
mountain farming development is shown with the help of the normative trend line.

The interesting upward movement in this trend line is seen in the middle phase, where the
maximum intensity is identified. This upward trend between 1815 and 1900 was mainly due to the
deliberate public policy initiatives and strong support on the part of implementing government
agencies. The institutional initiatives and introducing the right to private property within the
cultivated land that remained the vital institutional instrument. It was taken as an innovative
concept originated from the industrialized country, like England that was transplanted by the British
colonial authorities into the cultivable lands in the mountains. Gradually the mountain farmer
realized the significant difference in the ‘occupancy right’ and the ‘right to transfer’. With the result
every peasant family tried to make use of the extended opportunity to own the cultivated land
legally. It was only due to the awareness of private ownership over land resources and the
consistent effort on the part of the government that resulted into a major transformation in the
mountain farming in the nineteenth century.

The right to transfer in the cultivated land introduced by the British authorities was known
as the ‘hissadari rights’ (right to transfer the cultivated land), which were far superior to the ‘khakari
rights’ (right to cultivation only). Beckett (1874) anlaysed the total process of change in the
cultivated land, where he says, “under the native rule up-to 1815 private property in land was
hardly recognized”. The whole awareness building was done in the initial phase of the colonial rule
between 1815 and 1830 and after this period the right of private property in cultivated land was
fully recognized and thoroughly understood by the farming communities.

Interestingly, a peculiar type of shifting cultivation was also practiced in the native phase (
pre 1790) known as ‘katil’ and ‘ijran’, which was reduced considerably in the British period due to
the institutional initiatives. Consequently, the sedentary mountain cultivation was deeply
institutionalized within the rural socio-economic fabrics of the mountain communities. Besides,
these initiatives also resulted into empowerment of the people and environmental sustainability. It
is also interesting to mention that the private property rights were limited to the private property
resources in the cultivable land including the current cultivation and new land put under cultivation.
The major portion of the common property resources, the forests were kept out of the private
property concept. In such a way the whole of nineteenth century could be seen as the golden era
of the mountain farming in the Uttarakhand.

The twentieth century started with the independence movement against the colonial rule in
India. After realizing it, even in the mountains, the British almost stopped further to take any
initiative to improve the mountain farming. Ibotson (1928) did the last British land settlement in the
mountains of Uttarakhand. The non-significant start of the twentieth century is seen in terms of
further degeneration of mountain farming in terms of abandoning of cultivated fields and reducing
the importance of mountain farming in the main stream mountain development. The other factors
triggering deterioration in the mountain farming have been identified as the opening of other soft
sectors for the employment to the partial male migrants. Apart from serving in the military, the
service sector provided relatively low paid employment opportunities within the government
departments in the plains to the male migrants. Due to both the policy negligence and indifferent
attitude on the part of development functionaries as well availability of ‘soft-options’ to the male

7
partial migrants, the normative trend declined sharply in the post independence period as shown in
figure 1. In the other parts of the Indian mountain states, in their own context many political and
administrative changes were observed. Especially, the case study of Himachal Pradesh is
important to mention for comparability. The land resource based development in Himachal Pradesh
has been mainly due to strong political will in the initial phase of development and state specific
policy advocacy as well strong state support to land based activities, like horticulture, in terms of
subsidy, research and providing backward-forward linkages. These were the missing links in the
post independence phase of development in Uttarakhand.

In understanding the dynamics of development and identifying strategic policy

interventions the comparative learning between the Himachal Pradesh and the Uttarakhand is
essential. Himachal Pradesh mainly focussed on the resource base available within the state and
found apple model of development. Consequently, the traditional crops were replaced by
commercialized activities in like the horticulture, potato and off-season vegetable in the larger part
of the state with very high state subsidy. Contrary to it, as discussed above, the mountains in the
Uttarakhand were facing the crisis of degeneration in the farm sector. The impact of outside
dependence of Uttarakhand converted these mountain communities in to money order economy.
The weaknesses of the Himachal Pradesh model are state subsidy based higher
commercialization and market dependency as well no facing the threats from globalization in the
apple sector. In the new situation, where the state is withdrawing from subsidizing economic
activities, many problems could be perceived in Himachal Pradesh In the Uttarakhand scenario still
the traditional farming is practiced in the larger mountain region and there are many opportunities
inherited within the traditional sector linked with the bio-diversity and emerging demand for bio
farming based agricultural products. The future development policy of Uttarakhand needs to be
seen in this perspective and one of the inference that can be drawn is related to the utilisation of
the comparative advantages and the niches available with the traditional farming sector.

New Institutional Initiatives to Improve Land Resource based Livelihood

Presently, three groups of mountain regions could be broadly identified within Indian
Himalaya , namely, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and the north -
eastern states. In the present context Uttarakhand provides another opportunity for higher
economic growth and sustainable livelihood to the rural people using its traditional farming as the
take-off point. This type of initiative will be cost effective and local skill based as well
environmentally more sustainable. Some of the infrastructure development is already there that
can support the backward and forward linkages.

The institutional approach provides primacy of the community needs and this initiates
through empowerment and participation of the marginal farmers. Especially, the gender dimension
to the whole reforming process is vital. The institutional approach will through light on the bypassed
and complex institutional aspects of livelihood improvement, wherein the mountain farming and
animal husbandry are taken as the integrated components of land based development strategy.
This will also help in designing appropriate public policy for long term improvement based on
decentralised management and participation of the stakeholders, especially women.

One of the major aspects of the institutional approach is to put all the other interventions
within the umbrella of institutional dynamics. It also demonstrates that the technical aspects would

8
be designedly put under the institutional framework. Various initiatives related to ownership, land
tenure consolidation and appropriate technological interventions could be included under the
institutional approach. It equally takes into consideration the demand driven land reform process
within the socio-political complexities, power structure awareness and sensitizing development
officials and reorientation training that become a part of the broader agenda of capacity building.

The consolidation of fragmented and distantly located land parcels could be seen as the
fundamental institutional reform to the marginal mountain farming in the Uttarakhand. The need for
initiating ‘mountain consolidation’ has been raised many times and in the focus group discussions
with the real stakeholders in the villages the demand for consolidation is raised on the priority basis
(see Pokhriyal and Bist 1988, Pokhriyal 1994, 1995 and Society for Mass Communication 1999). In
the major part of the mountains of Uttarakhand, the vicious cycle of “partial male migration-
abandonment of the net sown area including reduction in the irrigated area and increasing
proportion of cultivable waste area” has been continuing unabatedly especially in the post
independence period. The responsible factors have already been identified above, those are
mainly sprung out from the deliberate policy negligence and half hearted programme interventions
implemented without stakeholders’ participation. Consequently, the present scenario of the
mountain farming looks dismal and the inherent potentialities and comparative advantages could
not be harnessed. Approximately, the hill farming has been found high cost loss making preposition
and returning only half of the inputs used in and more than fifty percent time is wasted in
commuting within the small, fragmented and distantly located isolated terraces. In some of the
villages more than half of the cultivated field are abandoned, which becomes the active component
and cause of the vicious cycle. It has also been found that with the help of consolidation the viable
ploughing units will be created ensuring a minimum level of food security and even economies of
scale could be harnessed.

The consolidation in the mountains is a very complex task, which needs intensive
discussions and negotiations before coming to common consensus in the village. Consolidation of
mountain terraces never means conversion of all the cultivated terraces into on compact area. It
means that the larger number of tiny terraces (some times up to 25 parcels) be reduced in to three
of four large patch of different quality of cultivated field satisfying the farmers. Land issues are very
complex in the mountains and needs to be tackled with proper understanding and orientation of the
land settlement officers. The abortive efforts for land consolidation have been started by the state
government in 1989 in the mountain areas by opening land consolidation offices in Garhwal and
Almora by the then UP state. But these passive efforts were flopped by 1996 due to non participate
and highly provocative and anti consolidation role-played by the government officials responsible to
implement the programme at the cutting edge level. There was no situation analysis and absence
of strategic planning aborted the efforts even before it could take roots on the ground. Out of these
events it can be inferred that even the felt need based government intervention flopped because it
was non participative and the governmental officials, were not oriented properly to the sensibility of
the land related issues in the mountain community having right to property in cultivated land and
following the ‘mitakshara’ method to the distribution of cultivated land among the sons of the family.

Contrary to the unwilling efforts taken by the government officials, the people’s initiatives in
some of the pockets of Uttarkashi district of Uttarakhand converted the uneconomic and
unsustainable marginal farming into highly profitable and viable preposition. It is a successful story
from the Beeph village of Uttarakashi district of the voluntary consolidation that was carried by the

9
villagers mutually leaving aside the inefficient and non-cooperative government officials. The
initiative for land consolidation were taken around 1975 and in the last twenty five years almost all
the land of the villagers were put within the consolidation frame by reducing the distance to the field
and increasing the size on individual holding as three or four places (society for Mass
Communication 1999). The success was due to local leadership who constantly motivated the
people and the demonstrative effect of the economic viability of the ploughing unit that provided lot
of incentives based on the comparative advantages of the mountain farming. Maximum gainer from
these efforts were the women, who could save their valuable time and using the saved time to
household activities and caring their children. Apart from time saving, this whole process has
provided firm base for empowerment to the hill women. In the process of consolidation, women’s
perception on the mountain farming system, their participation in the improvement programmes
and their real empowerment could be the other issues associated with the consolidation. In the
context of reducing the drudgery of rural women farmers these efforts produced good outcome.

These results have altered the present indifferent viewpoint on the possibility of
consolidation. The successful case studies of some of the villages in Uttarkashi needed to be
revisited. The context specific approach, flexibility of the rules of consolidation and voluntarism are
the other factors remained behind the success story. This also tells that in spite of the adversities
and inability on the part of the government officials to provide a legal base for the consolidation,
things can really happen at the grass root level. The demonstrative effect of this village has started
taking places in the adjoining villages. The need of the hour is to learn from this success story and
to initiate government supportive programme for voluntary land consolidation. Only condition to the
success is people’s demand-based approach and constant support to the initiative. The issue is
equally related to the mind set and attitude of the officials and policy planners, who think that hill
farming is nothing but a big danger to the ecology and mountain farmers are the offenders
increasing the soil erosion.

Another important aspect of this institutional dimension is linked with the new legal
initiatives taken through the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments in India. In these
amendments the local governments, known as the panchayati raj institutions, working at the district
and below level have been empowered to plan for village development. Major areas related to
agriculture and other primary sector activities are legally been assigned to the local level
governments. The impact of new constitutional amendments at the village along with the process
of consolidation is important in terms of decentralised management of cultivable and common
property resources. As a consequence, the need for integrated planning at the village level and the
participation of bureaucrats and capacity building of the local self governments are also identified.
Under the new situation, these possibilities are needed to harness the inherited niches available in
the mountains of the Uttarakhand state.

In quantitative terms the expansion of cultivated area within the ‘revenue land’ and
relationship with common property resources- like forests can also be associated with the
consolidation process. Once the initiative taken, it will provide a sustainable resource base that
could be harnessed for optimizing the profit. The possibility of expansion of cultivated land without
disturbing the forest areas could be identified as well this also provide the basis of good
understanding about community ownership and management over common property resources.
The requirement is to analyse ‘their perception’ over ‘their problems’ and ‘their options’ on

10
sustainable development of mountain sedentary farming comprising with tiny holdings. These are
some of the other significant dimensions related to institutional reform introduced in the mountain
farming. Besides, the qualitative issues like producing high demand traditional varieties and bio-
food would be the other possibilities opened after the consolidation. Wide scope of improved water
resource management including expansion of irrigation to the dry terraced fields and reviving thee
abandoned irrigation methods will automatically emerged and even many of the traditional water
resource utilisation practices can be revived.

A broad framework for institutional approach is shown in the figure 2 that is annexed at
the end. Figure 2 highlights more comprehensive approach to improve the land resource based
livelihood in the mountains. This frame work is also having comparative relevence and some of the
learning could be initiated in other regions within the Hindu Kush Himalaya. The institutional
approach has many complementary facets those focus on the attitudinal issues related to
development of the marginal mountain farming. In the following table 1, some critical aspects of
mountain farming development, emerging out of the analysis presented above, have been shown.

Table 1: The Preceptional Gaps and Institutioanl Strategic Options for Marginal Farming
Development in Uttarakhand Himalaya

‘Main Issues’ ‘Our perception’ ‘Their Felt Needs’ ‘Strategic Option and
‘the Constraints’ ‘The Opportunities’ Priorities’
Limited land Poor- limited soil cover, Livelihood base, food Renewed emphasis on
resources, Net unscientific, soil erosion security, quality, taste, bio-diversity and human
Sown Area and unsustainable and terracing and contour environment, New Land
Culturable waste unproductive, limited tillage, inherited skill Settlement process
Irrigation and No possibility for Traditional skill to use Rethinking on the
possibility of using irrigation expansion, soil water, new schemes faulty irrigation and using the
water resources erosion in high hills design and negligence traditional skill
Farm Productivity Very low, non significant ‘Mixed cropping and fertility Providing market
farm production a non management of the land’ access and backward-
significant activity out put to be seen in forward linkages to
totality-food & fodder increase the productivity
Partial Male Cause of Return migrants new skill Deliberately, resource
Migration underdevelopment and and information, process of base should be
nothing can be done, capacity development strengthened, ‘using the
migration will continue skills of return migrants
Tiny land holding Marginal, subdivided Equity in benefits and low Voluntary land
and fragmented, no priority given to land consolidation in the
future, threat to ecology related issues by the phased manner and
and environment government departments learning from people
Public Policy on ‘We and They New emphasis on the ‘Participatory
the marginal Syndrome’- we are village institutions, grass management, the local
mountain farming solution they are root realities and bottom- self governments, more
problem; Top down’ up planning emphasis on attitude
‘indifferent attitude’ and institutions, training

11
 In table 1 the main issues are raised and the gap in ‘our perception’ and ‘their realities’ is
clearly seen. The interesting inference that can be drawn out is the dire need for the new land
settlement oriented towards the consolidation of land and recording the rights in the consolidation
process. The only post independence land consolidation was completed during 1962 and 1967 in
the Uttarakhand and it was proposed that the new settlement will be carried out only after forty
years of the earlier one. The forty years land settlement would be good in the context of the plain
areas. But, keeping in view of the need of the mountain communities and even for environmental
sustainability, there is a dire need for conducting the new land settlement in the mountains. It is
expected that the new millennium approach to farming development through consolidation will give
a new thrust to the mountain development. The right to private property in cultivated land remained
the mile stone in the nineteenth century and similarly the future of the mountain farming in twenty
first century would be brighten by adopting land consolidation as the major institutional strategy
that will be followed by other management and technological inputs.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

*H. C. Pokhriyal, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, National Society for Promotion of Development Administration, LBS
National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie, 248179, Uttarakhand, India, Phone 91 135 630842 (office),
650907 (Residence), fax- 91135 632686, 632350 epbx- 632236, 632489, 632405, extension 4005, email
hcp@lbsnaa.ernet.in , hcp@nda.vsnl.net.in

12
 Selected References

• Aitchison, O. U. (1929) Treaties, Engagement and Sanads: Calcutta: Government Printing

Press
• Atkinson, Edwin T. (1886) The Himalayan Districts of the North Western Provinces of India,
volume 3: Allahabad: The NWP and Oudh Government Press
• Batten, J. H. (1851) Official Reports on the Province of Kumaon 1949-1950 : Agra: The
Secundra Orphan Press
• Beckett, J. O. B. (1874) Report on the Revision of Settlement in the Kumaon District 1864 –
1873: Allahabad: The NWP Government Press
• Census of India 2001(2001) Provisional Population Totals- Uttarakhand. Lukhnow: Directorate
of Census Operation, Uttarakhand,
• Government of India (1998) Ninth Five Year Plan, 1997-2000, Volume II, Special Area
Programmes, New Delhi: Planning Commission
• Ibotson, A. W. (1931) Revenue Rate and Assessment Report of Pargana Garhwal District:
Allahabad: Government Printing Press
• Pauw, E. K. (1896) Report on the Tenth Settlement of the Garhwal Dostrict: Allahabad: The
NWP and Oudh Government Press
• Pokhriyal, H. C. (1994) Human Environment and Socio-Economic Development in the
Himalayas, New Delhi: D. K. Publishers and Distributors (P) limited
• Pokhriyal, H. C. (1999) Rich Land and Poor Peasants: the Institutional Analysis of Marginal
farming in the Uttarakhand Himalaya. Paper presented at the International Workshop on
Issues and Options for Improving Livelihood of Marginal Mountain Farmers, ICIMOD, 11 –14
October 1999, Kathmandu, Nepal
• Pokhriyal, H. C. (1999) Uttarakhand Development: Whose Priority, ICIMOD News Letter,
Spring 1999, Kathmandu
• Pokhriyal, H. C. and Bist, N. S. (1988) planning for agricultural Development in the Himalayan
Region: An Environmental Approach: The Environmentalist, Volume 8, Number 1, pp. 47-56
• Pokhriyal, H. C. Pokhriyal (1993) Agrarian Economy of the Central Himalaya: New Delhi: Indus
Publishing Corporation
• Pratep, Tej (1999) “Sustainable Land Management in Marginal Mountain Areas of the
Himalayan Region “, Mountain Research and Development , volume 19, No. 3, pp. 251-260
• Society for Mass Communication (1999) Role of Land Consolidation in the Development of
Uttarakhand: Srinagar: Society for Mass Communication
• Stowel, V. A. (1907) A Manual of the Land Tenure of the Kumaon Division: Allahabad: The
Government Press

• Walton, H. G. Almora A Gazetteer Being Volume XXXV of the District Gazetteers of United
Province of Agra and Oudh: Allahabad: the Government Press

13