Why have People of Uttarakhand not Resisted De-commoning of Van Panchayats in 21st Century?

1. Introduction

Uttarakhand- a Himalayan state of India is known for many landmark social movements which have not only transformed the region but also have significant national and international impacts. People of Uttarakhand in the last more than a century have led both conventional and new social movements. Key movements in the state have been forest rights movement, statehood movement, Chipko movement, alcohol ban movement, anti-dam movement, river conservation movement and movements around women empowerment.

Of all these movements, people of Uttarakhand have shown great courage and mobilization on issues around forests and subsistence livelihoods. The early twentieth century movement against centralization of forest governance by the British colonial government, the Chipko movement in the 1970s and Tehri dam movement in 1990s indicate assertion and vigilance of locals on issues of forests and water necessary for their subsistence livelihoods.

The early twentieth century movement in British governed Uttarakhand against regressive forest policies was significant. This movement forced the colonial government to roll out the ‘Van Panchayat Policy’ in 1931. Van Panchayat system is a unique system of community forest governance which allows villagers to form a Van Panchayat committee at village level for protection, conservation and management of their village forests. Today, these Panchayats are formed in more than 12000 villages in Uttarakhand and have been supporting agro-pastoral livelihoods of millions of mountain people in the state.

People of Uttarakhand have always been connected to the Van Panchayat system as it is an integral part of their livelihoods. After the formation of Uttarakhand as a separate state carved out of Uttar Pradesh in 2000, many changes were made in the Van Panchayat policy. First changes were made in 2001 which had reduced the authority of Van Panchayat Committee to self-help groups. New changes were made in 2005, which allowed the state government to control management of all forest resources including firewood, fodder, grazing, water and timber leaving the Van Panchayat Committee with no power to manage and distribute forest resources.

These changes have disrupted the governance of village forests and affected people’s customary rights on forests for their livelihoods. These changes in a way reinstated policy ideas of the colonial government in the late nineteenth century to which local people fought and reclaimed their forest rights through the system of Van Panchayat. Despite such drastic change in village forest policy, no significant social movement developed in Uttarakhand which is otherwise known for eloquently and vigorously expressing its dissent. This article attempts to comment on a few reasons behind this passiveness of a historically active social group.

2. What Leads to a Social Movement

Social movement has grown as a separate discipline of study in the social sciences in the last 7-8 decades. There are many theories proposed in different times to offer a framework to study and understand social movements. Buechler (1995) commented on some prominent theories on social movement and concluded that these theories are greatly diverse because of the theoretical approach used by theorists and social and political context of their research work. The author however found that despite differences in theoretical approach there were common threads which include social movement leading to social transformation and social structure itself creating spaces for social movements.

The structural strain theory and resource mobilization theory explains social movement as mobilization of masses around their collective grievances. The structural strain theory relies that people who feel that they are deprived mobilize themselves and manifest in the form of social movement (Smelser, 1962). On the other hand, the resource mobilization theory argues that to convert deprivation into mass mobilization, resources in the form of money, goods, social capital and support of elites are required (Kornhaser, 1959).

The other set of theories on social movement including mass society theory and relative deprivation theory assumes that the sense of empowerment led by an organization or leaders mobilizes masses around their grievances (Gurr, 1970). In a relatively newer analysis of various theoretical frameworks on social movements by Raphaul and Nulman (2018) found that new social movements are globally inter-connected influencing each other. Authors argue that all these prevalent social movement theories need to be re-looked in the context of globalization and deeply inter-connected issues at the global level.

While there is a greater level of differences in approach and structures of social movement theories developed in the last one century, there exists few common tools to understand and study social movement. Some of these common tools found places in across theoretical frameworks include following:

• Structural Strains- People must realize that their society has some problems which can be resolved. This social problem must have a direct impact on their lives, livelihoods or any other aspect of their life.
• Solution- people in strain must realize that there is a definite solution for their problems. That solution must be explained and propagated so that it reaches the masses to convince that solution is achievable.
• Catalyst- The strain and solution itself are not enough. Often a catalyst requires connecting these different dots to mobilize people. The catalyst can be an individual leader or an organization committed to leading people.
• Conduciveness- All above pre conditions must create conducive conditions for mobilization of affected people.

3. Pro-active resistance in Uttarakhand for Forest Rights

Uttarakhand a Himalayan state of India has a long history of social movements around their subsistence livelihoods dependent on local natural resources especially forests (Guha, 2006). Mobilization of indigenous masses in mountains of today’s Uttarakhand started in the early nineteenth century when the British government started controlling forests in the region. In the first half of the nineteenth century the British government rolled out a number of forest related policies including multiple rounds of land settlements, constitution of the forest department and enactment of Indian Forest Act. All these policies had a direct adverse impact on lives and livelihoods of local people (Pathak, 1997). In the early twentieth century the anger and dissent of people in the mountain erupted in the form of a large mass movement against regressive forest policies of the colonial government. Forest policies and their impact on subsistence livelihood created a conducive environment for this movement and local leaders who were also part of India’s freedom movement acted as catalyst.

The Chipko movement is yet another example of a successful social movement that originated in these mountains. Yet again, this movement started to assert the rights of locals on forest produce, especially timber. The Dasholi Gram Swaraj Mandal and its leader acted as catalyst and government decision to extract timber in the region for commercial sale created a conducive environment and structural strain for the movement (Gadgil and Guha, 2018).

Until 2001, this mountain region was part of Uttar Pradesh. People in the mountains had a feeling that their lives, culture and geography is not well integrated in the governance and policy making of the large state- Uttar Pradesh. This public sentiment gradually spread through able catalysts in the 1990s. A mass statehood movement emerged from the region yet again on the issue of localized public policy and responsive governance for better livelihoods and future of Uttarakhand mountains (Joshi, 2016).

These three big social movements in Uttarakhand in the 20th century grossly transformed society and governance in the Uttarakhand mountain. Forest movement in the early 20^th century led to the formation of the Van Panchayat Policy that paved ways for governance of common forests for bonafide use by villagers in the 1930s. Today, Van Panchayats are operating in more than 12 thousand villages of Uttarakhand and governing nearly 13% of total forests in the state. The Chipko movement of the 1970s has aroused environmental consciousness across the globe. It has also greatly influenced environmental policy making in India. Thirdly, the statehood movement intensified in the 1990s and led to the formation of Uttarakhand as a separate state in 2000. Apart from these three social movements, Uttarakhand had been a pioneer in social movements on various issues of women, students, dams, rivers and forests in the 20^th century. These examples indicate that the indigenous society of Uttarakhand always expressed themselves against injustice and asserted their rights especially around their subsistence livelihoods.

4. Why did Changes in Van Panchayat not Lead to a Social Movement?

Panchayati forests (community forests) have been the backbone of subsistence livelihoods in hilly districts of Uttarakhand. Policies governing the van panchayat system significantly changed in 2001 onwards. These policy level changes have centralized the entire system, and the government has taken full charge of managing forests and distributing resources. This new system has proved to be contrary to the very idea of community forest management as envisaged in 1931. As a result people and the state forest department are on loggerheads on issues of control and usage of Panchayati forest resources (Negi et al, 2012; Nagaham et al, 2016). This section uses theoretical tools discussed above to comment on the very passive response of forest dwellers against the new Van Panchayat policy that disenfranchises them and adversely affects their subsistence.

4.1 Structural Strain

In late 1990s, the government of India introduced the Joint Forest Management (JFM) program in various parts of India in accordance with its National Forest Policy (MoEFCC 2002). The objective of this program was to involve forest dwelling communities in management and conservation of degraded forests. This program encountered problems in some areas where the old system of community forest governance structures was available. Uttarakhand was one such region. However, the state government decided to re-draft the rules of Van Panchayats to accommodate national level guidelines of the Joint Forest Management Program.

Aiming to synchronize the well-established Van Panchayat system with newly introduced Joint Forest Management (JFM) program, the state government re-drafted rules in 2001 for Van Panchayats. To further align Van Panchayats with updated JFM regulations these rules were further amended in 2005 (GoUK 2005). These changes in 2001 and 2005 provoked opposition from villagers and activists who viewed these measures as further encroachments on local forest governance (Negi et al 2012).

Changes in Van Panchayat rules in 2005 alleviated the role of the state forest department from being a marginal stakeholder to the main regulator and planner for community forest governance in the region.  The Divisional Forest Officers (DFOs) now prepare composite forest plans, and Van Panchayats must align their own micro-plans accordingly. Additionally, the forest guard serves as an ex-officio secretary to each Van Panchayat controlling funds and functions of Van Panchayats (GoUK 2005), a move that many believe constrains the Panchayats’ original independence and community-driven decision-making.

Redistribution of role and responsibility between forest dwellers (Van Panchayats) and state Forest Department was brought in to align Van Panchayat with JFM. However, it created a power imbalance and compromised the institutional integrity of Van Panchayats. Under these updated rules, the state forest department emerged as both regulator and a primary beneficiary of forest resources. Each Van Panchayat must now accept a forest official as member secretary and must develop a forest micro-plan that is drafted and approved by forest officials. This setup diminishes the freedom Van Panchayats once had to make decisions about forest conservation, protection, and resource distribution. Ironically, even though the department exercises significant control over these forests, villagers and Van Panchayats remain accountable for safeguarding them, reflecting a significant shift away from the original, community-driven ethos.

Policy changes in 2001 and in 2005 have created structural strain by taking powers and autonomy of community institutions to manage and distribute forest resources. It is also manifested in the form of incidents of rising conflict between forest dwellers and villagers.

4.2 Catalysts and Solutions

Soon after the issuance of the new Van Panchayat Rules in 2001, a few social activists and leaders of Van Panchayats in the Kumaon region of Uttarakhand formed the Van Panchayat Sangharsh Morcha. The objective of this group was to demand the repeal of the newly issued rules and to introduce more democratic changes in the Van Panchayat regulations to further strengthen the autonomy of thousands of Van Panchayats in the region. The first meeting of this group was held on 22 June 2001, a few days before the official release of the Van Panchayat Rules on 3 July 2001 (Joshi 2005).

Aggrieved by the new rules, the group conducted several meetings in the districts of Almora, Champawat, Bageshwar, Nainital, and Pithoragarh to mobilize communities and Van Panchayat leaders against the provisions of the new rules, which were aligned with the Joint Forest Management (JFM) program. In this process, the group also mobilized other civil society organizations in the region and launched an active media campaign to raise awareness about the centralizing provisions of the new Van Panchayat Rules. In many places, public demonstrations were organized to express the dissent of the Van Panchayat Sangharsh Morcha (Joshi 2005). This advocacy group was formed by a few social activists and prominent Van Panchayat leaders from the eastern parts of Uttarakhand. Key leaders of this group included Mr. Ishwar Joshi and Mr. Tarun Joshi.

A few years later, in 2006, a similar effort was initiated in the western part of Uttarakhand to mobilize communities against the centralization of Van Panchayats. This movement was led by senior activist Mr. Prem Singh Sanwal in districts such as Chamoli, Rudraprayag, Tehri, Uttarkashi, and Pauri. He, along with other Van Panchayat leaders in western Uttarakhand, established district and sub-district-level committees of Van Panchayat leaders known as the Uttarakhand Van Panchayat Sarpanch Sangathan. These committees were responsible for working with their local communities and creating pressure on the government to roll back the JFM-influenced Van Panchayat Rules. Within two years, five district-level committees and over twenty-five sub-district committees of the Van Panchayat Sarpanch Sangathan were established.

Both of these movements—one in the eastern and the other in the western part of Uttarakhand—received positive responses from civil society groups, activists, Van Panchayat leaders, academicians, and environmentalists. They also received considerable coverage in the contemporary print media. However, despite these efforts, the movements failed to gain widespread public support (Negi et al. 2012). Consequently, successive governments in Uttarakhand ignored their demands for greater autonomy for Van Panchayats in distributing forest resources and enforcing forest conservation and protection measures.

4.3 Conduciveness

 Changes in the Van Panchayat system have affected forest rights of indigenous people in Uttarakhand. These changes have created required structural strain. Furthermore, two serious attempts to catalyze the process were carried out with clearly articulated solutions to ease current strain and deprivation of affected people. Yet, no social movement erupted in the state on the issue of shrinking forest rights of villagers. The reason for such passive response from people whose livelihood is affected lies in question- whether these preconditions for a social movement have created effective conduciveness for a new movement around Van Panchayats in Uttarakhand? This section attempts to answer this question.

The above sections discussed that fundamental changes in Van Panchayat policy in 2001 and followed in 2005 had created structural strain, various catalytic organizations were formed, and a clear solution was also offered by catalytic organizations. Yet, no social movement erupted in the state. Fundamental changes in the Van Panchayat system which supported local livelihoods for seventy years (1931 to 2001) did not instigate a social movement despite a suitable ground because those grounds/factors were ineffective in shaping desired conduciveness for a social movement. There have been few safety valves which prevented structural strain and catalytic mobilization to create a conducive environment for a social movement in Uttarakhand. These key safety valves are listed below:

4.3.1 Prolonged Celebration of Uttarakhand’s Statehood

After a very long statehood movement of Uttarakhand, the state came into existence in 2000. The new state was carved out of Uttar Pradesh including nine hilly districts (Chamoli, Rudrapryag, Tehri, Uttarkashi, Pauri, Almora, Champawat, Bageshwar and Pithoragarh), two semi-hilly districts (Nainital and Dehradun) and two districts from tarai region (Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar).

People had a lot of emotional connections to this movement as they had the perception that Lucknow has its own governance limitation in addressing developmental issues of its mountain districts. Despite very limited industrial establishments in the region, people wanted to have the hills of Uttar Pradesh as a separate state so that its natural resources could be optimally used for the development of its people. The first ten years of the new state were part of celebration of the new state. People were in celebration mode, they also kept patience in hope of realizing their aspirations of wellbeing and dreams.

This is the time when most regressive policy decisions were taken by the state government to centralize Van Panchayats and have greater control on Panchayati forests of Uttarakhand. The first round of changes to Van Panchayat rules were made in 2001 by the interim government of the state. People resisted the dilution of Van Panchayats (Joshi, 2005). Responding to these voices of resistance, the first elected government of Uttarakhand introduced a new set of Van Panchayat rules in 2005. However, these changes in Van Panchayat rules kept the entire system under the state forest department. These rules suddenly empowered the state forest department to have full control over all forest resources including fodder, firewood, water, stone, sand and timber. The state government also took over power of erstwhile Van Panchayat’s power to prepare management plan, financial management and resource distribution (GoUK, 2005).

Above changes in Van Panchayat were regressive and against the very principle of community forest governance as eloquently envisaged in Van Panchayat rules 1931 and 1976. However, this did not lead to conduciveness for a strong social movement because of prolonged celebration and mesmerisation. An edited book by Dr. R. S. Tolia (First chief secretary of Uttarakhand) on completion of 15 years of statehood reflects on the extended period of celebration of statehood because of its deep civilizational history and emotionally connected long statehood movement (Tolia, 2016). This hope of getting things done in order by their own government of hill people undermined many ecologically and economically regressive policy decisions relating to natural resources of the state. Changes in Van Panchayat within five years after formation of the state did not bother indigenous forest dwellers as there was a feeling that the new governance is in the hands of their own people and they will take care of our resources wisely.

4.3.2 Change in Subsistence Lives and Livelihoods

Fuel wood and fodder including grazing are two major dependencies on forests. These dependencies observed a great shift even after marginal increase in population. A 1998–99 survey by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO, 54th Round) reported that 87% of households in Uttarakhand’s hill regions collected firewood from forests as their main source of cooking energy (NSSO 1999). No comparable NSSO survey has since been conducted to track trends in fuelwood use. However, surveys by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on the uptake of clean cooking fuels, such as LPG and electricity, offer an indirect indication of change.

Table 1: Households using Clean Cooking Fuel in Hill districts of Uttarakhand

(Data from DLHS, 2002-04; NFHS, 2019-21)

The District Level Household Survey (DLHS 2002–04) and the National Family Health Survey (NFHS 2019–21) provide data on the proportion of households using clean cooking fuels in the hill districts. In 2002–04, nearly 33% of households in these districts were using clean fuels. This share increased to 38.33% in 2019–21 (see Table 1). In other words, about 62% of households in the hill districts of Uttarakhand remained dependent on forests for fuelwood. A comparison with the NSSO survey of 1999 reveals that the proportion of households dependent on forests for fuelwood declined from 87% in 1999 to 62% in 2019–21.

Population growth in the mountain districts of Uttarakhand has been relatively low compared to many other parts of the country. In fact, several hill districts recorded negative population growth between 2001 and 2011. Given this demographic trend, it is highly likely that the number of fuelwood users has also declined in absolute terms over the past two and a half decades.

Fodder is another major forest product that contributes to the dependency of agro-pastoral communities on forests. Forests in the hill districts have long supported livestock-based livelihoods, which generate cash income through the sale of dairy products and meat. However, between 2003 and 2019, livestock numbers in the nine hill districts declined from 3,348,238 to 2,845,449—a reduction of more than 15% (DAHD, 2019).

Table 3: Fodder Requirement in Uttarakhand

Source: Directorate of Animal Husbandry, GoI

The decline in the livestock population has had a direct impact on fodder requirements. Table 3 shows that the total annual fodder requirement fell from 6,338,977 MT in 2003 to 4,599,964 MT in 2019—a decrease of 1,739,013 MT. This decline reflects a reduced reliance on livestock and, consequently, reduced pressure on forests for fodder and grazing.

Table 3: State of Agriculture Land in 9 Hilly District of Uttarakhand

Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Famer Welfare

Agriculture as the main occupation has also declined in the mountain districts of Uttarakhand. Data compiled by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, indicates that fallow land has gradually increased, suggesting the abandonment of agricultural land by mountain farmers (see Table-3). Moreover, the total cropped area has declined over the two decades between 2000–01 and 2020–21. According to the available data, the total cropped area in the hill districts of Uttarakhand decreased by about 29% during this period. People have also stopped cultivating their land for more than one crop per year.

Livestock and agriculture forms subsistence life in mountain districts of Uttarakhand. In last two decades, considerable changes were observed in lives and livelihoods in mountain districts. People’s dependency on forests for fuel, fodder and agriculture has decreased significantly. More people have moved towards clean cooking fuel, the cattle population has also decreased leading to lower dependency on forests for fodder and grazing. Moreover, people in hilly parts of Uttarakhand are also abandoning their agricultural land. All these changes in the social and economic front have reduced people’s interest in management of community forests. This has therefore acted as yet another safety valve to release pressure created due to structural strain around Van Panchayat and management of community forests in Uttarakhand.

4.3.3 Mass Outmigration and Alternate Livelihoods

The above discussion indicates that people’s dependency on forests for livestock and agriculture in the mountain districts has substantially decreased over the last few decades. This observation is further supported by the radical shift in Uttarakhand’s economy. In 2004–05, the primary sector (including agriculture, livestock, and forestry) contributed 23.48% to the State Gross Domestic Product (DES 2018). By 2024–25, this share had drastically declined to just 9.34%. During the same period, the share of manufacturing in the state’s economy increased from 27.02% in 2004–05 to 44.65% in 2024–25. This sharp rise is attributed to significant manufacturing investments in the plain areas of Uttarakhand (DES 2025).

Between 2001 and 2011, the proportion of main workers engaged in primary sector activities in Uttarakhand fell from 54.7% to 46.6%. During the same period, the absolute number of main workers in the primary sector increased by 536,463. Of these, 509,341 main workers (Table 4) were added in the four plain districts—Haridwar, Udham Singh Nagar, Dehradun, and Nainital—while the remaining nine mountain districts contributed less than 25,000 additional main workers. These figures indicate a sharp decline in dependency on forest-based livelihoods in the mountain districts.

Table 4: Livelihood Dependency on Primary Sector in Uttarakhand

Source: Compiled from Census, 2001 and 2011

In recent years, a growing share of the mountain population has shifted away from traditional agro-pastoral occupations. The decline in livestock numbers, coupled with changes in agricultural practices, reflects a shrinking segment of the population directly dependent on forests for fodder and grazing. At the same time, the degradation of natural resources—water, forests, and land—has had direct and adverse effects on indigenous livelihoods.

Table 5: Distress Outmigration from Hilly Districts of Uttarakhand from 2008 to 2018

Source: Department of Rural Development, Palayan Aayog, Govt of Uttarakhand

A sizable population from the hill districts is distressfully migrating in search of livelihoods. The Migration Commission (Palayan Aayog), constituted by the Government of Uttarakhand, found that more than 48% of migrants from hilly districts left in search of livelihood or employment (Palayan Aayog 2021). The survey further shows that about 11% of migrants cited declining agricultural productivity (5.46%) and increasing incidents of crop destruction by wildlife (5.32%) as key reasons for migration. Management plans of forest divisions in the mountain districts also indicate that incidents of human–wildlife conflict have increased over the past couple of decades due to habitat loss and fragmentation. These data suggest that local forests are no longer effective in supporting subsistence agriculture and animal husbandry, and that degradation of forest habitats is contributing to heightened human–wildlife conflict as well as distress migration from the hills.

The importance of forest based livelihood has also declined in Uttarakhand with decrease in agricultural productivity, shrinking rights over forest resources and mass outmigration from mountain districts. Now very few people are there in the mountains. Moreover, a large portion of the working population of mountains has moved out in search of alternative livelihoods. This has provided another safety valve for increasing structural strain caused by highly centralized Van Panchayat policy of the state.

5. Conclusion

The forest-dwelling communities of the Uttarakhand region in India have a remarkable history of managing their forests as common property resources through collective decision-making. These communities are also well known for defending their traditional forest rights. In the early twentieth century, they successfully resisted the centralizing forest policies of the then colonial government and compelled it to introduce the policy of Van Panchayats. Furthermore, in 1973, they opposed the commercial exploitation of timber in the mountains and reaffirmed their traditional rights through the famous Chipko Movement.

However, the same communities responded rather passively in the twenty-first century when the Government of Uttarakhand weakened the Van Panchayats through a new set of rules issued in 2001. Under this new governance framework, the ownership and distribution of forest resources – critical for local subsistence – were brought under government control. These changes had created the foundation for a social movement such as structural strain, catalytic groups (Van Panchayat Sangharsh Morcha and Van Panchayat Sarpanch Sangathan) which had suggested a clearly articulated solution. However, these preconditions for a social movement remained ineffective in creating a conducive environment for a social movement against centralization of community forest governance in Uttarakhand. The answer to such passive response from a socially conscious community lies in three different safety valves which pacified structural strain created due to centralization of community forest governance in Uttarakhand. These safety valves include an extended celebration of statehood with hope of realization of their developmental aspiration, change in subsistence livelihoods and mass outmigration from mountain regions in search of livelihoods.

References:

 Buechler, Steven M. “New Social Movement Theories.” The Sociological Quarterly 36, no. 3 (1995): 441–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00447.x.

Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India. 20th Livestock Census: All India Report. New Delhi: Government of India, 2019.

Department of Economics and Statistics, Government of Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand Arthik Survekshan 2024–25. Dehradun: Government of Uttarakhand, 2025. https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3a9365bd906e11324065c35be476beb0c/uploads/2025/07/20250825474961815.pdf.

Gadgil, Madhav, and Ramachandra Guha. This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press India, 2018.

Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Joint Forest Management Guidelines. New Delhi: Government of India, 2002.

Government of Uttarakhand, Department of Rural Development. Palyan Aayog Report. Dehradun: Government of Uttarakhand, 2021.

Government of Uttarakhand. Uttaranchal Panchayati Van Niyamawali, 2005. Forest and Environment Section-2, no. 705/X-2-2005-20(1)/2005. Dehradun: Government of Uttarakhand, 2005.

Guha, Ramachandra. How Much Should a Person Consume? Thinking through the Environment. Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2006.

Joshi, B. K. “Some Reflections.” In Uttarakhand: Fifteen Years of Development, edited by R. S. Tolia. Dehradun: Centre for Public Policy, Doon University, 2016.

Joshi, T. Van Panchayat: Niyam wa Vishleshan. Dehradun: Shri Communication, 2005.

Kornhauser, William. The Politics of Mass Society. New York: Free Press, 1959.

Nagahama, K., K. Saito, M. Masuda, H. Gairola, S. K. Kala, and R. Rakwal. “Forest Commons Use in India: A Case Study of Van Panchayat in the Himalayas Reveals People’s Perception and Characteristics of Management Committee.” Environment and Ecology Research 4, no. 3 (2016): 128–39. https://doi.org/10.13189/eer.2016.040302.

National Sample Survey Organisation. Common Property Resources in India: NSS 54th Round, January 1998–June 1998. Report No. 452 (54/31/4). New Delhi: Department of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 1999.

Negi, B. S., D. S. Chauhan, and N. P. Todaria. “Administrative and Policy Bottlenecks in Effective Management of Van Panchayats in Uttarakhand, India.” Law, Environment and Development Journal 8, no. 1 (2012): 141–52.

Pathak, Shekhar. “State, Society and Natural Resources in Himalaya: Dynamics of Change in Colonial and Post-Colonial Uttarakhand.” Economic and Political Weekly 32, no. 17 (1997): 908–12.

Raphael Schlembach and Eugene Nulman. “Advances in Social Movement Theory since the Global Financial Crisis.” European Journal of Social Theory 21 (2018). SAGE Publications.

Smelser, Neil J. Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press, 1962.

Tolia, R. S., ed. Uttarakhand: Fifteen Years of Development. Dehradun: Centre for Public Policy, Doon University, 2016.