Changing rangeland use by the nomads of Samad in the highlands of eastern Ladakh,

India.

Master of management of natural resources and sustainable agriculture. Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway

By Wenche Hagalia Supervisors: Dr. Joseph L. Fox, University of Tromsø. (UiTø) and Dr. Yash Veer Bhatnagar,

Nature Conservation Fund, and formerly of the Wildlife Institute of India. (WII)

The Centre for International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Agricultural University of Norway’s (NLH) twelve departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary Medicine in Oslo. Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (MSc and PhD programmes) and assignments. The Noragric M.Sc. theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the requirements under the Noragric M.Sc. programme “Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture” (MNRSA) and other M.Sc. programmes. The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric. © Wenche Hagalia, November 2004 wenchehagalia@hotmail.com Noragric Agricultural University of Norway P.O. Box 5001 N-1432 Ås Norway Tel.: +47 64 94 99 50 Fax: +47 64 94 07 60 Internet: http://www.nlh.no/noragric Photo credits: Poul Wisborg, Ian Bryceson, Jens B. Aune Cover design: Spekter Reklamebyrå as, Ås

Declaration

I, Wenche Hagalia, declare hereby to the Senate of the Agricultural University of Norway that the present thesis is my original work based on my own research. The present work has not been submitted to any university other than NLH for any type of academic degree. Ås, November 2004 Wenche Hagalia

Declaration

I, Wenche Hagalia, declare hereby to the Senate of the Agricultural University of Norway that the present thesis is my original work based on my own research. The present work has not been submitted to any university other than NLH for any type of academic degree. Ås, November 2004 Wenche Hagalia

i

Acknowledgments

My greatest dream has been fulfilled and I have been given the possibility of living together

with nomads in one of the most remote areas of the world, together with thousands of

livestock,rare wildlife and high mountains The mountains of the Trans- Himalayas with the

old monasteries, monks and smiling herders dressed in colourful local clothes will be

remembered for the rest of my life. I will be ever grateful to Dr. Joseph L. Fox that has given

me the opportunity to learn about the remote area of the Changthang, its people and culture.

The help Dr. Fox has given me is invaluable and cannot be described with words and I hereby

thank him for his help and for his patience with me throughout the two years of study.

After a few years of working, I followed an advice from Dr. Fox at the Department of

Biology, Faculty of Science, at the University in Tromsø (UiTø), from where I had my

bachelor degree in ecology, to fulfil my interest in working with the people and wildlife in the

Himalayas by taking a master degree in “Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable

Agriculture” (MNRSA) at NORAGIC at the Agricultural University of Norway (NLH). At

The MNRSA programme, I could combine my interests of working with inter-disciplinary

research and working in the mountain areas of Asia. The MNRSA programme included two

months of education at the Tribbuhvan University in Pokhara, Nepal and two months of

fieldwork of own interest. I again requested Dr. Fox for help regarding fieldwork and luckily

he had an ongoing project in collaboration with the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), in

Changthang, in the eastern part of Ladakh, northernmost India. Dr. Fox was extremely helpful

and included me in the project and arranged a residence at the WII in Dehra Dun where I met

the participants of the project and received supervision from Dr. Yash Veer Bhatnagar. I am

deeply grateful to Dr. Fox for giving me the possibility to work in the Changthang, which will

be one of the best memories of my life.

I will also thank Dr Yash Veer Bhatnagar at the WII for helping me with the preliminary

work at the WII before going to the Changthang. I will thank Tsewang Namgail at the WII, a

native of Ladakh and an earlier student of Dr. Fox, and who became a good friend in Dehra

Dun, listening to all my questions. He was also of invaluable help in Ladakh where he helped

me getting in touch with local people, government officials and travel agents I will also thank

ii

Dr. S. Sathyakumar, Dr. G.S. Rawat, Dr. A. Awasti and Dr. S. Uniyal for the help they have

given me at the WII.

Dr. Mohammad Ali, from the Jammu and Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department at Leh,

Ladakh, deserves many thanks for the help he has given me during my stay in Ladakh and my

meeting with the nomads of the Changthang. Dr. Ali presented me to the nomads of Samad,

helped me with transport and answered lots of questios regarding development activities in

the Changthang. Much of the success of my project is due to Dr. Ali and his knowledge and

interest in the nomads of the Changthang.

I will thank Prof. Per Mathiesen at the Department of Social Anthropology, University of

Tromsø, for his interest in my work and his visit to Ladakh. I will also thank Camille Richard

for her help throughout my study and for commenting on my thesis. I am also thankful to Tor

Arve Benjaminsen from NORAGRIC and Marius Warg Næss from the UiTø for reading

through my thesis and giving comments. I will also thank my two translators, Sonam

Phuntsok and Sonam Tsering, for accompanying me in the field and providing invaluable help

for interacting with the nomads. They also helped me by answering questions after

completion of the fieldwork and showing great interest in my work. I will thank Tsewang

Phuntsok and Skarma for cooking and helping me in the field during a cold winter.

Not the least, I will thank my father for being patient and sponsoring parts of my study, for

believing in me and listening to my never-ending stories about mountains and nomads. I will

always remember the support he has given me during my education and the time in the field,

while he was worried to death about the border dispute in Kashmir and me travelling alone at

4,600 metres altitude in minus 20 degrees. I will also thank my mother for always supporting

me in my decisions and letting me go my own way, even if it has caused her a lot of worries.

Last I will thank the nomads of Samad, and especially the family of Skarma Samstan for

including me in the household and treating me like a member of the family. I will be ever

grateful to Skarmas family and I hope I will meet them again soon. The family taught me

about life in the extreme environment of the Changthang, and about their culture and values.

Little Kusang Thinley, Skarmas son, threated me like his sister and followed me everywhere

in the field. The little boy touched my heart and his smile and happiness will always be

remembered.

iii

“…..if I die before you come back, I will fly over you and see you from heaven and remember

what you have done for us…” (Kalzang Juskit, Skarmas wife)

iv

Table of Content

Page Declaration……………………………………………………………………….. … i Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….. ii Table of Contents……………………………………………………… …………… iv List of Figures……………………………………………………………………….. vii Abstract………………………………………………………………………………. ix

Part one: Background to the Study Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Context and Problem Setting…………………………………………………….. 1 1.2 Pastoralism and Modernisation…………………………………………………… 2 1.3 Objectives of the Study…………………………………………………………… 3 Chapter 2 Historical background 2.1 The Ladakh kingdom…………………………………………………………… 4 2.2. The Nomads of Changthang………………….. 2.3 Border Dispute between India and China ……………………………………………. 2.4 Loss of Winter Rangeland and Influx of Tibetan Refugees to Changthang………….. 2.5. Changing Movement Pattern 2.6 Abandonment of Polyandry ……………………………………….. 2.7 The Leh- Manali Highway and Tourism in Changthang 2.8 Commersialisation and Pashmina Development………………………………… 2.9 Changthang Proposed as a Protected Area ?……………………………………… 2.10 Development Activities in the Changthang………………………………………… 2.11 Summary Chapter 3 The Study Area 3.1 The Study Area………………………………………………………………………… 3.1.1 The Tso Kar Basin 3.1.2 The Skyangchuthang area 3.2 Climate……………………………………………………………………………….. 3.3 Flora and Fauna…………………………………………………………………………..

v

Chapter 4 Methodology 4.1 Locality and Timeframe…………………………………………………………….. 4.2 Gathering of Information……………………………………………………………… Part two: Results and Discussion Chapter 5 The Nomads of Samad: Social Organisation and Pastoral Production system 5.1 Samad ………………………………………….. 5.2 Human and livestock Population…………………………………………….. 5.3 Social organisation……………………………………………………………….. 5.3.1 Community Organisation…………………………………………………….. 5.3.2 Household Organisation…………………………………………………… 5.3.3 Seasonal Work……………………………………………………………. 5.3.4 Daily Routines……………………………………………………………… 5.4 Pastoral production system………………………………………………………… 5.4.1 Livestock and Livestock Products………………………………………………. 5.4.2 Slaughtering……………………………………………………………………………. 5.4.3 Household Economy……………………………………………………………….. 5.5 Summary………………………………………………………………………………….. Chapter 6 Rationale for Mobility; Flexibility and Risk Avoidance 6.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 6.2 Environmental Risk and Uncertainty………………………………………. 6.2.1 Resource Variability……………………………………………………….. 6.2.2 Blizzards and Heavy Winter………………………………………………. 6.2.3 Livestock Diseases………………………………………………….. 6.2.4 Predation……………………………………………………………………. 6.3 Risk Aversion Strategies………………………………………………………… 6.3.1 Livestock Mobility…………………………………………………….. 6.3.2 Opportunistic Stocking Strategy…………………………………………. 6.3.3 Herd Diversification…………………………………………………. 6.4 Influences on Decision- Making…………………………………………….. Chapter 7 Grazing Pattern in Samad 7.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………… 7.2 The Grazing Unit of Samad …………………………………………… 7.3 Movement pattern……………………………………………………………………… 7.3.1 Winter movements in the Tso Kar Basin………………………………………… 7.3.2 Summer Movements in Skyangchuthang Area…………………………………… 7.3.3 Movements of the Yaks………………………………………………………… 7.4 Summary……………………………………………………………………………

vi

Chapter 8 Changes in the Use of Resources in Samad 8.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………… 8.2 Historical events with impacts on the traditional pastoral resource use……. 8.2.1 Pressure on the Rangeland……………………………………………… 8.2.2 More Shift of Settlements……………………………. 8.2.3 Construction of Highway………………………………….. 8.3 Present Development in Changthang……….. 8.3.1 Health Facilities………………………………….. 8.3.2 Education………………………………………………………………… 8.3.3 Pashmina Development…………………………………………………. 8.3.4 Wildlife Conservation…………………………………………………… 8.3.5 Tourism………………………………………………………………… 8.4 Migration to Centralized Areas………………………………………….. 8.5 Local Changpas versus Tibetan Refugees……………………………… The Tso Kar Basin as a Social Pressure Area…………………………….. Summary………………………………………………………………….. Chapter 9 Summary…………………………………………………………… References…………………………………………………………………………… Appendix 1 Population of people and animals in Samad …………………… Appendix 2 Pastures and settlements in Samad …………………………..

vii

List of Figures

List of Maps Figure 1: Location of Changthang…………………………………………………………… Figure 2.1: Location of Samad in Changthang……………………………… Figure 2.2: Location of Samad, Korzok and Skagjung……………….. Figure 7.1: Samad grazing unit………………………… Figure 7.2: Seasonal and spatial grazing pattern in Samad…………. Figure 7.3: Satellite photo of the Tso Kar Basin………………………. Figure 3.1: Satellite photo of the western Changthang and Samad…………………. List of Pictures Figure 2.3: A soldier in Ladakh…………… Figure 2.4: The market in Leh……………… Figure 3.2: The Tso Kar Basin…….. Figure 5.1: Nomads of the Changthang………….. Figure 5.2: A monk…………………….. Figure 5.3: Nomad woman milking a dimo……….. Figure 5.4: Nomad woman with Changra goats……………… Figure 6.1: Nomad family………………………….. List of Tables Table 4.1: Objectives and Methods…………………………………………….. Table 5.1: Human and Livestock population in Samad……… Table 5.2: Livestock population in Samad………………………………….

viii

Table 5.3: Livestock population in Samad for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 2003…… Table 5.4: Seasonal work and activities in Samad…………………. Table 6.1: Diseases that affect the livestock in Changthang………………. Table 6.2: Livestock mortality in Samad in 2002-2003…………… Table 7.1: Campsites in Samad………………………… Table 7.2: Winter settlements for local Changpas and Tibetan refugees………………… Table 7.3: Yak grazing areas in Samad…………………………………… Figure 8.1: Migration from Kharnak, Samad and Korzok ……………………

ix

Abstract

Traditional pastoralism has been exposed to a number of externally driven factors that have

had major impacts on the use of natural resources in the eastern part of Ladakh, northern

India. This particular case study deals with the nomadic community of Samad, one of three

communities of nomads in the region, and analyses the changes the community has

experienced since the Sino-Indian conflict of 1962. I investigated the resident nomads’

resource use pattern both in a historical perspective and within the context of recent socio-

economic changes. Government officials and non-government officials were interviewed

regarding development activities in the study area. The aim of this investigation was to

identify the present use of the rangeland by the nomads in light of the development activities

and the socio-economic changes that have affected the traditional livestock-grazing pattern.

The number of livestock has apparently almost doubled since the 1970’s and the Jammu &

Kashmir Animal Husbandry Department, herders and conservationists have all raised concern

over degradation of pastures. The increase in the livestock population, partly associated with

an influx of Tibetan refugees, and the more recent rapid increase in tourism and development

activities has resulted in pressure on the land and a difference in opinion among herders,

wildlife managers and developmental agencies regarding land and livestock management in

the area. The herders are producing some of the finest pashmina (cashmere) in the world and

the government is interested in enhancing the pashmina production in the region and to

increase the livelihood of the nomads. At the same time, the Jammu & Kashmir Wildlife

Department have proposed the Samad rangeland as part of a wildlife sanctuary, due to the

abundance of wildlife that is living there. The traditional pastoralism and the use of the

natural resources are changing and due to the cold winters and hard life, more families are

choosing to leave the traditional life as livestock herders in search of a better life in

centralized areas.

x

Part one: Background to the Study

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Context and problem setting

A pastoral nomadic lifestyle is an adaptation to a harsh environment, which is unsuitable for

agriculture, due to a cold or dry climate. According to Miller (1998) nomadic pastoralism on

the Tibetan Plateau is characterized by a harsh environment where the grazing lands are

divided by rugged mountain ranges, deep river valleys, and large lake basins that give rise to a

great diversity in topography, climate, vegetation, and pastoral production practices. Nomadic

pastoralism on the Tibetan plateau differs from pastoralism in the semi-arid regions of Eurasia

and Africa due to ecological factors (Miller, 1998). Water is normally the limiting factor in

the nomadic areas of Africa and Eurasia, while high altitude is a characteristic for the

nomadic communities of the Tibetan Plateau, not lack of water (Miller, 1998). Historically,

nomadic pastoralists have moved their herds over large areas to manage uncertainty and risk

(Scones, 1995), and for converting sparse vegetation into human food. Khazanov (1994:17)

gives a definition of pastoral nomadism:

“….pastoral nomadism may be defined from the economic point of view as a distinct form of

food-producing economy in which extensive mobile pastoralism is the predominant activity,

and in which the majority of the population is drawn into periodic migrations.”

Traditional pastoralism has been the only way of surviving in the high elevation alpine steppe

rangeland of eastern Ladakh, in northernmost India. Traditionally, pastoralists have used

strategies like year-round migration for utilizing the changing seasonal and spatial availability

of resources, among a set of complex herd management strategies for avoiding risk and

uncertainties like heavy snowfall, predation and starvation. Traditional pastoralism faces a

number of changes that are affecting their way of living, use of rangelands and livestock

management due to exogenous factors such as market forces, political systems and

international and national funding (Niamir-Fuller, 1999). The challenge should be to adapt to

theses changes at the same time as sustaining both the livelihood and the natural resources

(Niamir-Fuller, 1999). There have been lessons learned from development activities in

pastoral communities in arid environments in inner Asia as well as from Africa and the

1

Middle East, where external factors may have had detrimental effects on the traditional

pastoralism and the sustainability of the natural resources (Niamir-Fuller, 1999).

The Wildlife Institute of India (WII) and the University of Tromsø (UiTø) are currently

conducting a collaborative project related to human- wildlife interaction in the Himalayan

region, with the Tso Kar basin in the Changthang, easternmost Ladakh, as a primary study

site. The project addresses rangeland ecology considerations and wildlife – livestock

interactions within the basin, with the goal to generate a background for better understanding

and formulation of long-term conservation planning in the region. This study complements

the ecological work in providing a basis for viewing the pastoral use of the rangeland within

the study area.

1.2 Pastoralism and Modernisation in the Changthang

The Changthang means the northern plains and it is a high altitude plateau, bounded by Tibet

(China) in the east and the Zanskar, Ladakh and Karakorum mountain ranges in the west (Fig

1.2). The region is geographically situated in the eastern part of Ladakh, the easternmost part

of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The nomads that move with their livestock across this

plateau are known as the Changpas, or “people from the north”. The Changthang is situated

on the western extension of the Tibetan plateau and the people have cultural and linguistic

similarities with Tibet (Goodall, 2004: 218), and Ladakh is the only region in India with a

Buddhist majority.

Figure 1. The Changthang is located in the eastern part of Ladakh in Jammu and Kashmir State, northern India.

2

The nomads of the Indian Changthang plateau have been exposed to major changes during the

last forty years due to political factors as well as increased development activities and

interaction with the outside world. Major changes occurred in the wake of the Sino-Indian

border dispute in 1961-1962, where India discovered that Chinese had annexed a large area in

the border region in association with Chinese exertion of control in Tibet (Ahmed, 1996;

Chaudhuri, 2000). Thousands of Tibetan refugees entered India and settled in the border

region, in towns and all over the Indian Changthang. The Changpas were essentially forced to

leave behind large winter grazing areas near the border due to a high number of refugees and

soldiers in the area. The migration pattern changed and the nomads had to search for new

winter rangeland. At the same time, the Changpas had to increase their population with

hundreds of Tibetan refugees with thousands of livestock. In addition to changes in migration

pattern and increased population, the nomads were facing socio-economic changes, due to

externally driven influences from development activities and improvement of infrastructure.

The border dispute brought about a high degree of military activity in Ladakh. Roads were

built and thousands of soldiers entered the region. The army brought in highly subsidised food

and supplies that the nomads could purchase inexpensively, which led to an end of the old

trading routes and a change from subsistence economy into market economy (Ahmed, 1996).

The nomads of the Changthang produce the finest pashmina wool in the world, which is the

thin and fine inner wool from the changra goat. Pashmina is also known as cashmere, and the

fine quality is due to the harsh climate on the high mountain plateau where the goats are

reared. The government has shown great interest in the pashmina production and they have

recently started supporting the nomads of the whole Changthang area with various incentives

to promote the pashmina production and to reduce the livestock mortality (ICIMOD 1999).

The Changpas are dependent upon the market for selling their pashmina wool, thus in the

absence of a minimum support price, they are not always able to get a good price for their

products.

At the same time as the government is enhancing the livestock productivity the Wildlife

Department of Jammu and Kashmir has moved to declare a substantial part of the Changthang

region a wildlife sanctuary. The Tso Kar Basin in the Changthang has been of great interest

for the Wildlife Department and conservationists due to the wildlife in the area, but it is also

used by the Changpas for winter grazing. The increase in livestock number in the area raises

the question of impacts of grazing pressure on the rangelands and on the human-wildlife

3

interaction. The western Changthang opened up for foreigners in 1994 and thousands of

tourists are entering the area during the summer season and groups of trekking tourists are

camping in the nomadic land, with pack animals that graze the pastures (Tshangspa, 2000).

In spite of all the development activities and social transformations that may be taking place

in the Changthang, there is recent evidence of nomads leaving their traditional lifestyle, to

move to Leh and other settled villages (Chaudhuri, 2000; Goodall, 2000). These

transformations may have far reaching consequences on the livelihoods of people as well as

conservation and there is thus an urgent need to assess the impacts of such changes on the

people’s economy in particular and the ecosystem in the area as a whole.

The traditional way of living and management of the livestock in the Changthang are

changing due to externally driven factors, and there is an urgent need to understand the

present use of the rangeland for a better understanding of the impacts of the changes that are

taking place. Traditional nomadic pastoralism in the Changthang is based on mobility of the

livestock due to the fact that the animals have to be fed throughout the year. Social

organization, production system and herd management are all based on flexibility in relation

to the variable environment, and there is an urgent need to understand the complexity of the

pastoral use of the rangelands, and a need to understand the importance of mobility and risk

management as a whole to understand the impacts of the changes that are occurring, for

managing a sustainable livelihood of the nomads, for sustainable use of the natural resources

and co-existence between human and wildlife (Fox et al., 1994; Miller, 1998; Schaller, 1998;

Niamir-Fuller, 1999).

1.3 Objectives of the study

The objective of this study is to identify the current use of the rangeland in Samad in light of

the external changes that have taken place, and to understand the impacts the changes have

had on the traditional use of the natural resources. The current use of the rangeland cannot be

explained without knowledge about historical grazing and movement patterns of the

Changpas, as well as detailed information on present spatial-temporal movement patterns.

4

The specific objectives were to:

1. Identify the current use of the rangeland of Samad

2. Gather information about the historical grazing pattern.

3. Identify the changes that have affected the nomadic use of the rangeland and the

implications of these changes.

5

Chapter 2: An introduction to the field of study

2.1 The Ladakh Kingdom

Kashmir in the northernmost part of India has long been called the jewel of India and the

abode of the Gods, with its surrounding Himalayan and Karakoram mountain ranges. About

900 years ago, Ladakh was an independent kingdom, with dynasties descending from the

kings of old Tibet (Ahmed, 1996). Ladakh was known as the best trade route between Punjab

and central Asia and for centuries caravans carried textiles and spices, raw silk and carpets,

dyestuff and narcotics (Margolis, 2000). The famous pashm (cashmere), the oily under wool

of goat, was produced by the pastoralists on the high altitude plateau of Changthang and

western Tibet and it was made into world reknowned high quality shawls (Margolis, 2000).

This trade attracted the ruler of Jammu, Gulab Singh and the British East India Company sold

Kashmir to him in 1846. At India’s independence from England in 1947, the people of

Kashmir were left to decide whether to join India or Pakistan due to the high number of

Muslims living in the region. The situation led to an unresolved and well-known border

dispute between India and Pakistan (Margolis, 2000). Both India and Pakistan have large

numbers of troops on the border to claim their rights of the area and Ladakh has hosted

military presence during the last fifty years, which has resulted in a shift from the traditional

subsistence agriculture and trade to dependence upon market economy and subsidised goods

imported by the central government (Goodall, 2004: 218). The army constructed roads that

went from Manali in the south, through the nomadic rangeland in western Changthang

towards Leh and further towards the border to Pakistan.

2.2 The nomads of the Changthang

In the past there were two groups of true nomads in the Changthang; namely Rupshu and

Kharnak. The nomads of Rupshu used grazing land, which stretched from the Taklangla pass

in eastern Ladakh in the west into Tibet in the east (Ahmed, 1996; Sabharwal 1996), and the

area included Hanley and Nyoma near the Tibetan border (Jina, 1995). The nomads of

Kharnak used grazing land east of Rupshu, called the Kharnak valley. According to

Sabharwal (1996), Rupshu is from where the nomads had their origin in Changthang. She

6

writes that in the past, the king of Stok1 appointed a headman, Goba, to look after his

province Rupshu where five families established themselves in the vicinity to provide their

services to the monastery and the Goba. Rupshu consisted of Samad, which means the lower

part, and Korzok, which means the upper part of a larger area (ICIMOD, 1998). The Goba of

Rupshu had his palace near the Tso Moriri Lake in Korzok. The monastery,or Gonpa, was

also located at Tso Moriri in Korzok while a branch was located in Samad at Thukje in the

Tso Kar Basin (Sabharwal, 1996).

Figure 2.1. Trekking map of a part of the Changthang including the nomadic communities of Samad and parts of Kharnak and Korzok. (Map: Trekking map of Ladakh, 2000)

7

1 Stok is a village in Ladakh, where one of the many monasteries is located in addition to one of the two palaces of the old kings of Ladakh. The heiress of the king is still living at Stok.

The Rupshu Goba was powerful and known as the king. He had much power and he was

responsible for maintaining law and order in addition to collecting tax for the king

(Sabharwal, 1996). According to the nomads, stories tell that the Goba knew what people

were thinking, and if they had bad thoughts about others, he would bury them alive. Until the

17th century the Goba ruled over Changthang and after his death, Changthang was divided

into several village level administrative units (Sabharwal, 1996). The last Goba of Rupshu

died in the 1950`s and he left a wife and two young sons. His wife ruled for about ten years,

until the nomads took the power. From that time, the new Goba was chosen democratically

for three years (Sabharwal, 1996). Old herders said that Samad divided from Korzok after the

death of the Goba and now they choose their own Goba for one year. The nomads said that

the reason for the split was that they did not want to participate in the village activities in

Korzok and that they wanted their own grazing unit.

Old herders from Samad and Korzok said that they used to move towards the Tibetan border

for grazing their livestock in the past. They used the rangelands of the Rupshu plain including

Korzok and Samad with yearly winter movements to Skagjung on the Tibetan border where

better grazing conditions were available in the heavy winter. The migration towards Tibet and

Skagjung started after the Tibetan New Year, losar, at the end of December. The nomads of

Samad started the trek from Tso Kar, where they had celebrated losar at Thukje, while the

nomads of Korzok started from Tso Moriri. According to old herders, Skagjung was located

south of Korzok along the upper Indus valley.

Figure 2.2. Approximate location of Samad , Korzok and the old winter rangeland Skagjung.(Map: Microsoft Encarta world atlas, windows xp 2000.)

8

According to the herders, Skagjung was a huge grazing area, with relatively low altitude, little

snow and plenty of grass. The nomads used to stay at Skagjung for about six months before

returning to Rupshu. They said that the journey took 7-8 days and they needed many yaks for

carrying their equipment. Usually Samad and Korzok people left together for the journey, and

a few households shared tents to reduce the workload. At that time, they only had tents made

of yak wool, which are very warm but heavy. The nomads said that the tents became very

heavy when they were getting wet under heavy snowfall. At the time the nomads used the

rangeland at Skagjung, the families were able to keep 500-1000 livestock each. There were

about 80 households from Rupshu, and one or two families would be selected by rotation to

stay at Skagjung throughout the year to protect the grassland from encroachment (Chaudhuri,

2000).

Until the 1960’s Tibet supplied most of the Himalayan region with salt. The Tibetan

Changpas brought salt into Ladakh and the Rupshu nomads went into Tibet to collect salt

themselves (Ahmed, 1999; Chaudhuri, 2000). Each year, when the nomads from Rhupshu

went to Skagjung after New Year, losar, some of them went to Mindum and Kyeltse salt lakes

in Western Tibet to collect salt (Ahmed, 1999). Herders brought 2-300 sheep to the salt lakes

for carrying the salt on their backs. Those with smaller herds would accompany them in

exchange for the favour of carrying the loads (Ahmed, 1999). The salt was eaten both by the

humans as well as the livestock. The nomads brought enough salt that they could trade in

exchange for barley with agriculturalists in Zanskar, the Kashmir valley and Skardu in

Baltistan. In early autumn, usually August, the Rupshu nomads went towards the south to

Domchul near Himachal Pradesh and traded the salt for tea, sugar, spices, rice and other food

(Ahmed, 1999).

2.3 Border Dispute between India and China

At the same time as India and Pakistan were fighting over Kashmir valley in the 1950`s, the

Chinese army’s occupation of Tibet was going on. The Chinese build roads throughout Tibet

and annexed a large area called Aksai Chin on the border between India and Tibet. The area

was a vast, arid and almost uninhabited plateau of icy lakes and frozen peaks and India did

not find out that China had build roads in the region until early 1960`s (Margolis, 2000). India

went to war with China in 1961-1962 and the area was exposed to high military activity. High

numbers of soldiers were sent to Ladakh and the border region, and the nomadic herders that

9

were living in the area were exposed to major changes in their traditional way of living caused

by the military activity. Until this time, the Changthang was so remote that the only way to

reach it was by foot or horseback. The Indian government had to build roads very fast to

avoid Chinese soldiers in eastern Ladakh and the army provided the local people with highly

subsidised food and supplies at the same time (Ahmed, 1996). In the past, the nomads had

been trading wool, salt and livestock products with agricultural products in other areas. The

vehicular traffic caused an abandonment of the old trading routes and the nomads no longer

felt that they had to travel the long distances for trading food when the rations now came to

them by trucks (Ahmed, 2000).

2.4 Loss of Winter Rangeland and Influx of Tibetan refugees to the Changthang

The liberation process of China started in 1952, but it didn’t reach northern Tibet before 1959.

Thousands of Tibetans were suffering from the new political system and at the same time as

the border dispute between India and China, thousands of Tibetan refugees (TR`s) crossed the

border to India with their livestock. The refugees settled down all over the Changthang, on the

border area and in the cities. Until this time, nomads from the Indian Changthang used

rangelands at Skagjung near the Tibetan border for six months during the winter for grazing

their herds. The Changpas also extracted salt from lakes in Tibet. Salt was an important part

of the diet for both humans and livestock, for avoiding dehydration. In addition salt was an

important part of the barter system, where nomads traded salt and livestock products for

agricultural products and non-pastoral products. The high number of refugees that settled in

the rangelands of Skagjung forced the Indian nomads to leave the area and to find new winter

rangeland. The nomads of Rupshu claimed that there were too many refugees at Skagjung and

the rangeland could not provide grass enough for all of them. A 62-year-old herder said:

“ We left Skagjung because TR`s and Chinese soldiers occupied the area. The TR`s were

under Chinese control, so the soldiers helped them. We were not strong enough to fight with

them. We had much more livestock at that time, and with fewer livestock we don’t have to

travel the long way to Skagjung. The decrease in livestock population is because

of the TR`s “.

Herders from Samad said that some of the richest families continued to the winter migration

to Skagjung after the border conflict. Some of the families worked for the government and the

10

army, by transporting letters as well as people in the remote area. Skagjung could still provide

good grazing areas for the yaks, but these areas were higher in the mountains where the

smaller ruminants were unable to go (S.Goodall, pers. comm.). The nomads of Rupshu left

Skagjung for different reasons. In addition to the high number of Tibetan refugees and

Chinese soldiers in the area, the Rupshu nomads could no longer enter Tibet for gathering salt

and the Indian government provided them with supplies from outside either for free or low

prices, all factors that influenced the nomads to leave the winter rangeland at Skagjung

behind.

In addition to a drastic change in movement pattern the nomads of the Changthang had to

increase their population with hundreds of Tibetan refugees with thousands of livestock.

According to interviews of the nomads of Samad, they had to include about 22 families of

TR`s to their grazing unit. The representative for the welfare of the Tibetan refugees2 said that

there was a total of 6,700 Tibetan refugees in Ladakh and 2,200 refugees in the Changthang

scattered among 8-9 villages3 in 2003. Today the refugees share the rangeland with the local

nomads, but mostly live in separate campsites or settlements.

2.5 Changing movement pattern

The border dispute had a major effect on grazing patterns in the Changthang. Impacts from

the dispute led the herders of the Changthang into a situation of increased population of both

humans and livestock, a heavy reduction of grazing land and pressure on the rangeland.

When the nomads left Skagjung, they also left the old salt trade (Ahmed, 1996). The nomads

could no longer enter Tibet for the salt and the important salt trek for the nomads ended.

Ahmed (1996) writes that the nomads of Rupshu heard that the Tso Kar Lake that was a part

of the Rupshu kingdom was salty, and the nomads started to move to the lake in September-

October to extract salt. The actual time for salt extraction varied from year to year due to the

amount of rainfall that had occurred during the summer and how quickly the water in the lake

had dried up (Ahmed, 1999). According to Ahmed, only men were taking part in the salt

march to Tso Kar, and they were divided into four groups with 17-18 men per group.

2 The Representative for his Holiness Dalai Lama,.Office of the Chief Representant, Central Tibetan Administration, Leh, Ladakh.( Choglamsar) 3 Lower Sumdo has 28-29 families. Kharnak has 8-9 and Korzok has approximately 35 families.

11

According to old herders, the Rupshu kingdom was split at the time of the Sino-Indian

conflict and the nomads of Samad had to find the best rangeland that was suitable for winter

grazing in the grazing unit of Samad, while the nomads of Korzok had to go to winter

rangeland in Korzok after leaving Skagjung. According to the Samad people; the best winter

rangeland was located around the Tso Kar Basin. At the time that the nomads of Rupshu were

using the pastures at Skagjung, the nomads of Kharnak were illegally using rangeland at the

Tso Kar basin during the winter. The people of Kharnak subjugated the Samad area for 45

years during the earlier part of the century. The nomads of Samad said that a few old nomads

from Samad were living at Thukje in the Tso Kar Basin area in the winter, but they could not

manage to force the people from Kharnak out. When the Samad people returned to Tso Kar,

the nomads of Kharnak were forced back to the Kharnak valley. The Samad people chose to

use the grazing areas in the Tso Kar basin in the winter and they said that it was the only area

in Samad that was suited for winter grazing. The nomads said that the rangeland that belongs

to Kharnak has high snowfall during the winter and that was the reason that they went to Tso

Kar during the winter in spite of the boundaries.

The nomads of Kharnak did not agree with Samad regarding the ownership of Tso Kar, and

they claimed ownership of Tso Kar in the 1970`s, after they had been forced out after

encroachment in the 1960`s (Ahmed, 1999). The nomads of Rupshu had proof of their

ownership in addition to Thukje monastery that is located at Tso Kar. Written records dating

back to 1908 showed the ownership by the Samad people (Ahmed, 1999). Hemis Gonpa, the

largest and wealthiest monastery in Ladakh, supported Kharnak in the dispute. In 1982, an

agreement was made between Kharnak and Rupshu4 and Rupshu had to support Kharnak with

8,000 kilograms of salt annually, while Kharnak had to pay 400 Indian rupees. The agreement

was drawn for five years, and when it expired, Kharnak again claimed the ownership of Tso

Kar. In 1987 and 1988, there were violent fights between the two groups (Ahmed, 1999).

According to Ahmed, the case went to court and Kharnak was judged to pay each family of

Rupshu 3,000 Indian Rupees. When the agreement was written up, it said that Kharnak had to

pay 3,000 Rupees to the whole Rupshu instead of to each family. Rupshu went to the Ladakh

Buddhist Association and it was decided that only Rupshu had access to Tso Kar and that they

should provide Kharnak with 800 bags of salt in exchange for 25 paise for each bag.

4 The agreement was made under supervision of the Assistant Commissioner of Nyoma (Ahmed, 1999).

12

It is claimed that the conflict was more about the grazing land than salt (Ahmed, 1999). Tso

Kar provides the best grass and trespassers may encroach the area with grazing livestock with

the excuse of being ‘salt thieves’. The nomads of Rupshu posted guards in the area to protect

against trespassing. The Tibetan refugees were not allowed to join the salt collection, but their

livestock were permitted to eat the grass (Ahmed, 1996). Interviews with the nomads implied

that there have been a number of conflicts regarding grazing rights between Samad and

Kharnak throughout the years.The nomads said that the Rupshu Goba donated a part of the

Rupshu plain, Yarang, in the Kharnak valley to the Hemis monastery, which gave Yarang to

the Kharnak people. The nomads of Kharnak had to pay the monastery about 175-gram

pashmina per goat in tax. One goat gives about 500-600 grams of pashmina. According to the

nomads of Kharnak, this tax is not seriously collected these days. Another area in Kharnak,

Spangchen, also belonged to the Rupshu plain, but Kharnak nomads occupied this area about

30 years ago. After the split between Samad and Korzok, Samad were not capable of fighting

with Kharnak about the property rights of the area. The District Council (DC) recently

decided to let the Kharnak people use the grazing area at Zara, which is a part of the summer

rangeland that lies under the grazing unit of Samad. Kharnak herders are allowed to use the

area until 20 days after the 21st of June summer solstice. If the nomads of Kharnak don’t leave

until this date, they are not allowed to stay there next season. We noticed that the nomads of

Kharnak stayed in the area until the 18th of July in 2003, which is one week too late, but

nobody seemed to care.

2.6 Abandonment of polyandry

Earlier the nomads exercised a system of polyandry, where one woman was married to two or

more brothers. It was a way of balancing the livestock` requirement s with the requirement of

the human population. This system was banned by the government of Jammu and Kashmir in

the early 1940`s, but a few families are still following the system (Tshangspa, 2000).

Polyandry enabled a balance to be struck between a family’s need for labour in the fields, and

the danger of producing more children than those fields could support. Of a number of

brothers, at least one was dedicated to religion as lama; this would normally be one of the

younger ones. The heir to the property would be the eldest layman among them, and any

remaining brothers were free either to go and make their own way in the world or to remain in

the family home, in which case there was a clear understanding that they would be

subservient to the eldest brother. This involved them in marriage with his wife; if they wanted

13

to marry on their own they had to leave their home and set up their separate home, without

any share of the family property. All the children were accepted as being of the eldest brother,

whom they addressed as ‘big father’; the younger brothers would be ‘little fathers’. The main

losers in the system were those women who had to sacrifice their reproductive potential in the

interest of social and economic stability. Some of them entered the religious life as nuns; the

rest remained in the family and contributed to the family labour pool. This system is

deceasing in Ladakh, and it is almost absent in central Ladakh. Polyandry has remained in

some remote areas, like Changthang, but the system has also almost disappeared from this

region. The change from polyandry into nuclear families has led to more families and

according to the nomads the households experience shortages in labour. In the past, a family

could consist of three brothers, one wife and five children. Now, a family may consist of one

husband, one wife and three children. The change has resulted in less manpower to fulfil the

household’s tasks like herding, milking, pashmina combing, etc. The new situation has led to

more families, since most of the women and men will be married. Each family has fewer

livestock per household due to the shortage of labour. Thus, as a result the increasing number

of households has led to an increase in the overall livestock population.

2.7 The Leh-Manali Highway and Tourism in the Changthang The highway from Manali to Leh opened up for non-military purposees for the first time in 1991. The road is

485 km long and crosses the Taklangla pass at 17,480 feet (5,328 metres) (Ladakh book of records), one of the

highest passes to be reached by road in the world. Ladakh opened up for tourists in 1974 after being closed since

1947, while Changthang was restricted for tourism until 1994 (Ladakh book of records). Nowadays tourists can

enter most areas with permission from the District Council in Leh, while some border areas in Changthang are

still restricted and illegal for foreigners to enter.

Figure 2.3. A soldier based on the Leh-Manali highway in December. Warm clothes and goggles are used to protect against cold and strong radiation from the sun.

14

Thousands of tourists arrive Leh by plane from Delhi or with cars by the Leh-Manali road.

The road crosses the rangeland of Samad with heavy traffic during the summer months.

Convoys of army trucks pass through the area throughout the day and thousands of tourists

are entering the area by jeeps, cars, motorbikes and buses. The tourism in Ladakh has

increased much during the last years and the summer of 2004 was one of the peak seasons.

Travel agencies are in abundance in Leh, and offices could be seen in every street. The

agencies could offer the tourists everything from cultural visits to the old monasteries to

trekking tours in the Changthang.

Figure 2.4. The market in Leh, the capital of Ladakh.

A large number of tourists were trekking in Changthang, followed by guides and horses.

According to the Samad people, there were no benefits to them from tourism. Thus, the

nomads could tell that the pack animals, horses and donkeys, grazed in the Samad rangeland.

The nomads felt that the grazing in the Tso Kar Basin was a problem due scarcity of

resources. The nomads themselves did not use the basin area during the summer, to save it

until the heavy winter. The area is also grazed by wild animals like kiang (Equus Kiang), and

the basin hosts many bird species included the rare black necked crane. The tourists also leave

empty bottles, garbage and trash behind on the camping sites. The nomads were sharing

responsibility of guarding the area and collecting a small fee from the tourists for camping in

the grazing land.

2.8 Commercialisation and Pashmina Development

The herders of the Changthang are rearing goats that are producing the world reknowned

exclusive pashmina wool. The trade of pashmina has a long history in Ladakh and as

mentioned in chapter 2.1, the trade was one of the reasons for the invasion of the Dogra in

1834 as well a factor for the configuration of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) in 1846.

15

“ The perception that the trade in pashm had a decisive impact on Ladakh’s political history

is hardly an original one” (Rizvi, 1996)

In 1684, Kashmiri merchants procured a monopoly over the trade of pashmina wool (Rizvi,

1996). The Kashmiris have ruled the market for a long time and there have been many

attempts to break the monopoly. The J&K government has attempted to purchase raw wool

from the producers, but political pressure from influential traders has curtailed such policy

(ICIMOD, 1998). According to investigations, the nomads have been highly underpaid for the

wool, much lower than the price set by the state J&K Sheep and Sheep Products Board

(ICIMOD, 1998). If the nomads sold pashmina at the price set by the J&K Sheep and Wool

Product Board, their income would almost double (ICIMOD, 1998). There have been

attempts to organise co-operations in the Changthang for pashmina production, to keep a

steady price for the producers, but due to the nomads these attempts have also failed. The

nomads complained that they were cheated by nomads from other villages, who sold

pashmina outside the cooperative for a lower price. The nomads also complained about the

smuggling of cheap pashmina from China. These two factors pushed down the price and the

demand for pashmina.

The government of Ladakh has shown great interest in the pashmina production in recent

years and various institutions, including the central government of India, have recently funded

the Jammu and Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department (SHD) of Ladakh to increase the

pashmina production (Jammu and Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department (SHD), annual

report 2001-2002). The SHD recently initiated a five-year project in the Changthang for

development of pashmina production. According to government officials, Leh officials are in

the process of buying a pashmina de-hairing machine for use in Leh, to prevent the use of

Kashmiri middlemen. The government wishes to buy pashmina directly from the nomads to

increase the income for both parts. The aim of the government is to increase the livelihood of

the nomads by increasing the pashmina production. The SHD is attempting to reduce

livestock mortality in the heavy winters, eliminate in-breeding, and convince the nomads to

incorporate into their livestock management the small-scale production and storage of fodder

for heavy winters. Development projects for pashmina production in the Changthang include

health and breeding coverage5, establishment of mini farms, a mobile veterinary dispensary,

5 .“Integrated Sheep and Wool Development Project for Nyoma Block”

16

fodder farm, subsidised fodder6 and a pashmina growers cooperative (SHD, annual report

2001-2002). The SHD also implemented a “watershed development project” in Samad during

1995-1996 in addition to construction of irrigation canals, sheep and goat sheds and horse

stables. During 2001-2002 the SHD implemented various programmes such as the provision

of dipping vats, lambing/ kidding sheds, pashmina kits, vet kits to paramedics and improved

iron pashmina combs. The SHD is training its field workers about the latest techniques in

animal breeding, management and health control.

New farming techniques and livestock management strategies are changing the way the

people view and use the rangelands. The government officials have limited rangeland

management education and most of them have no experience with traditional livestock rearing

on the high altitude plateau (Fox et al., 1994). The government officials have success with on-

farm breeding in lower altitudes, where agriculture is possible and implementation of these

strategies should be considered in relation to the importance of the migration patterns of the

nomadic people (ICIMOD, 1998).

2.9 The Changthang as a Protected Area?

The Changthang is the home of a high number of threatened and protected wild animals that

are attracting both conservationists and tourists from all over the world. According to

government officials the government of Jammu & Kashmir is aware of the situation and the

importance of biodiversity conservation, and the Wildlife Department has declared a

significant portion of Changthang as a wildlife sanctuary. The Tso Kar Basin is home to many

internationally endangered species like several wild ungulates and the black necked crane. At

the same time, the Samad people use the area during the winter season. The nomads said that

they are not hunting wild animals due to their Buddhist belief that loathes killing of animals.

The herders said that they experience problems with the increasing number of kiangs that

graze the rangeland in the Tso Kar Basin, but they said that there is nothing to do about it.

The wolf is killing a relative high number of livestock; sheep, goats and yaks, and according

to the herders; a problem they have to live with by trying to protect the livestock. There is a

wolf trap in one of the grazing areas, but the herders say that the trap has not been in use for a

long time.

6 .“Boarder Area Development Project” 5-year project

17

The competing interests of conservation and different demands on the natural resources

highlights a need for understanding the human-wildlife interaction and creation of a

conservation plan for the area (Fox et al.,1994).

2.10 Development activities in the Changthang

The government has attempted many activities designed to increase the livelihood of the

nomads and according to both nomads and government officials, the average age of the

people has increased. The nomads have been given medicines and health care in addition to

subsidised food and rations. The Medical Department of Ladakh had a medical aid centre

(MAC) in the Samad village that was located at Thukje, the headquarters for Samad people in

the Tso Kar Basin. Two nurses stayed at the MAC for a period of five years. According to the

nurses, they had good communication with the nomads and they also kept records of

migration, households and diseases in the community.

The government was providing the nomads with teachers that followed them on the seasonal

movements. The teacher had a tent that functioned as a classroom, and the children were

provided with books and pens. The “school” was for small children at a basic level. From

about seven years of age, the families could send the children to permanent boarding schools

that were located outside Samad.

The Tibetan refugees (TR’s) received free education for all of their children from non-

governmental organisations and from the Dalai Lama, including hostel room and board,

uniforms, books and medical treatments. In 2003, the TR`s had 4 boarding schools in Ladakh,

where 8-9 local children would also get permission to participate every year. After finishing

the 10th class in Ladakh, the students have the possibility to studying in Dharamsala7 up to

12th class. The Tibetan refugees received free medical treatment from the government-in-

exile, in addition to free treatment from the local medical department.

During hard winters, both the local nomads and the refugees received subsidised fodder from

the sheep husbandry department. The Tibetan refugees said that they kept the surplus of

fodder from the autumn, as emergency for hard winters.

7 Dharamsala is the seat of the Government in exile of Tibet where also Dalai Lama is living.

18

There have been a number of development activities in the Changthang over the years, and

the nomads have been sponsored with tents, goggles, blankets, and stoves in addition to food

and fodder resources. Present development activities and on-going projects will be discussed

in chapter 8.

2.11 Summary

The nomads of Samad have experienced a number of externally driven influences that have

affected their traditional way of living during the last forty years. The border dispute between

India and China in 1962 caused an influx of Tibetan refugees and loss of winter grazing areas,

which lead to increased pressure on the rangeland in the Indian Changthang. The nomads that

had been more or less isolated in the remote Changthang were suddenly exposed to the

outside world by a military presence that built roads through the nomadic rangeland and

brought in cheap supplies from outside. The government invested in improvement of

infrastructure and a number of development activities were initiated. The nomads that for ages

had been surviving on self-subsistence and trade of livestock products were introduced to a

market economy and heavy reliance upon external resources after the Sino-Indian conflict in

the early 1960`s.

The government is interested in the exclusive pashmina that is produced in the area, and the

SHD is active in implementing various development activities to increase the production and

to reduce the livestock mortality. Conservationists are interested in protection of the region

due to the abundance of wild animals that is living there and travel agencies want to increase

the tourist industry for economic benefit.

19

Chapter 3: The Study Area.

3.1 The Study Area

The study took place in Samad on the western part of the Indian Changthang plateau, in

eastern Ladakh. The Changthang region forms the western extension of the Tibetan plateau

and lies mostly above 4,500 m. The study area lies approximately between 33°10’ to 33°30’

N and 77°55’ to 78°20’ E. Most of the area is flat with extensive sandy plains, surrounded by

rolling mountains. The Indian Changthang consists of two administrative blocks8, Durbook

and Nyoma, with a total of 23 villages: 5 in Durbook and 18 in Nyoma. Nyoma block

includes three nomadic communities: Samad, Korzok and Kharnak, which use a large

rangeland called Rupshu- Kharnak. The three groups use neighbouring grazing land, with

boundaries that divides them from each other. This study deals with the Samad people and the

use of the rangelands, as a part of a larger project9 that deals with conservation of wildlife in

the Tso Kar Basin that is used for winter grazing by the Samad people. The summer

rangelands of Samad were scattered in an area called Skyangchuthang, just west of Tso Kar

Basin, along the Leh-Manali Highway. Samad can be reached from Leh by the Leh- Manali

highway, by passing the Taklangla pass on 5200 meters until the snow covers the road. This

route takes approximately 5-6 hours. Another road from Leh is following the Indus River and

is passing Nyoma Bridge, and takes 8-9 hours driving. This road is open for a longer period,

due to lower passes.

3.1.1 The Tso Kar Basin

The lakes on the high altitude plateau are formed into huge basins with no outlet, into which

the snowmelt streams settle into great brackish lakes. The freshwater inlets to some of these

lakes and the neighbouring wetlands are the breeding grounds for rare and interesting bird

species. The Tso Kar Basin is located at an altitude of 4,600 m and it consists of two lakes

(Fig. 3.1), with Tso Kar, the largest lake, consisting of brackish water and the smaller

Stasafuk, a freshwater lake. Stasafuk Lake is fed by two perennial streams and the lake itself

drains into the Tso Kar Lake. Tso Kar Lake also gets drainage from most of the basin.

8 India is divided into blocks. The block is the unit of development. 9 University of Tromsø(UiTø) and Wildlife Institute of India cooperation project for conservation of the Tso kar Basin.

20

(Thsangspa, 2000). There have been confusion regarding the name “Tso Kar” which people

mostly referred to as the name of the lake, but according to Sabharwal10 , the original name of

the lake was Rigul Tso and Tso Kar means the land between the two lakes. In this paper I will

refer to the lake by the name Tso Kar Lake and to the catchment as the Tso Kar Basin.

Figure 3.1. Satellite photo of Samad in the western part of the Changthang, with Tso Kar Lake and Stasafuk Lake.

Figure 3.2. The Tso Kar Basin in the summer. The nomads of Samad used the rangeland in the basin as winter grazing for the livestock. The summer rangeland was located on the south side of the basin, behind the closest mountain ridges on the picture. The Tso Kar Basin is characterized by cold and long winters with heavy snowfall, and the

availability of grass during this period is the limiting factor for the nomads with their

livestock and the wild animals that are dependent upon grass for surviving.

10 In personal interview in December 2003, Leh.

21

3.1.2 The Skyangchuthang area

The grazing land of Skyangchuthang stretches from the Taklangla pass in north to pang in

South, on both sides of the Leh- Manali Highway. The nomads were using the summer

rangeland from June to November. In some of the grazing sites and settlements, the nomads

experienced lack of water and they had to walk long distances to get water from rivers.

3.2 Climate

The climate in the Changthang is very cold and harsh during winter. It is windy and the

snowfall could be enough to close the area from the outside. Due to the high altitude and the

rarefied air, there was a high degree of radiation in Ladakh and there is a local saying;

” Only in Ladakh can a person who has his head in the sun and his feet in the shadow endure

both sunstroke and frostbite at the same time” (Ladakh book of records, 2000).

There are wide variations in temperature, but in general the summer is short and mild and the

winter is long and bitter. The cold weather begins in September/ October and lasts till May.

The warmest months are June and July and the coldest are usually the months from January to

March.

There is little precipitation, which gives Ladakh its characteristically barren landscape. The

summer rainfall is irregular and is dependent upon the Indian monsoon over the Himalayas

and about 2/3 of the precipitation is winter snowfall. Leh gets little snowfall, but the snowfall

in the Changthang can be heavy and the temperature can fall to minus 40- 45 º C (Thsangspa,

2000).

3.3 Flora and fauna

The Changthang has a wide variety of flora and fauna in spite of the cold climate. The

Changthang is the home of threatened and protected wildlife that are protected under the

Jammu and Kashmir Wildlife (protection) Act. The mammalian fauna in the study area

consists mainly of ungulates, rodents and carnivores. The avifauna includes birds of prey,

finches, plovers, larks, geese, grebes, pigeons, snow cocks, partridges, gulls, ducks and black-

necked crane. Species that can be observed in the area includes the kiang (Equus kiang),

which can be observed either in flocks or single, Tibetan argali (Ovis ammon hodgsoni), blue

22

sheep, Himalayan marmot (Marmota bobak), Tibetan woolly hare (Lepus oiostulus) and pika

(Ochotona spp.). Other species includes Royle`s vole (Alticola roylei) and avifauna including

the starling, red billed chough, raven, doves, horned lark, hawks, falcons, robin accentor,

great rose finch, pipits, snow finch, bearded vulture, golden eagle, and Tibetan sand grouse

(PRA report).

Wild predators in the area include the Tibetan wolf (Canis lupus chanko) and snow leopard

(Uncia uncia), although there is a better chance of finding the snow leopard in other areas of

Ladakh, where it is a great threat to the livestock of the local people (Snow Leopard

Conservancy, SLC). There are also foxes and lynxes in the Changthang.

The flora of Ladakh has much in common with that of Tibet, Afghanistan, Kashmir valley,

Turkistan and parts of central Asia. The alpine, desert and oasitic elements are the

representative features of the flora of Ladakh. The vegetation of the area consists of marsh

meadows, scrub formations and desert steppe (Thsangspa, 2000).

23

Chapter 4: Methodology

4.1 Locality and Timeframe

Information was gathered in Samad over a period of 10 weeks, comprised of three weeks in

November-December 2002 in the Tso Kar Basin where the nomads of Samad had their winter

rangeland and 7 weeks in June-August 2003 in the summer rangeland in the Skyangchuthang

area close to the Leh-Manali highway.

Approximately five weeks were spent in Leh town interviewing local people and government

officials and participating in an international conference held by the International Center for

Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) regarding the rangelands of the Changthang in

December 200211.

4.2 Gathering of Information

The aim of the study was to understand the present use of the rangeland in light of the

changes that have occurred during the last fifty years. A short period before entering the field

was spent in Leh to interview government officials to gather information about the activities

in the Changthang, to interview travel agents regarding tourism and trekking activities in the

area and to interview NGO`s regarding development activities in the area.

A translator was hired from a travel agency in Leh for translating Chanskat, the language

spoken by the nomads, into English. Chanskat is a dialect of the Ladakhi language with

similarities with the Tibetan language.

The methods that were used in the field to gather information about the use of the rangelands

were a combination of observation, participation and semi-structured interviews (Fig. 4.1).

“Participant observation” is a useful tool where the researcher is trying to integrate into the

nomadic community by observing and participate in the activities. The method is a tool to let

24

11 The conference had participants from ICIMOD, the Government, Non-Government Organisations, local Chang-pas and researchers from WWI/UiTø.

the nomads be confident with the researcher, for sharing of information and exchange of ideas

and discussion of livelihoods. The method requires that the researcher stay in the field for an

extended period, so that the people get confident with the researcher.

“Semi- structured interviews” are based on a checklist with open-ended questions. The

interviews are partly structured and mostly unstructured depending on the responses of the

person or group with whom the interview takes place. The interviews are conducted in an

informal manner in a relaxed setting and they start with an initiative taken by the researcher

followed by discussions between the local people and the researcher. The interviews give the

researcher the flexibility of adding more questions to the discussion.

Information was gathered by living with the nomads, participating and observing the daily life

as well as interviewing and discussing things with them. Nomads from the two other nomadic

communities; Korzok and Kharnak were also interviewed regarding historical grazing

patterns and agents of change.

Table 4.1. Ojectives and methods used in the study of the nomads of Samad.

Objective Method

Identify the present use of the pastures Identify the historical grazing patterns

Identify recent changes that have affected the traditional pastoralism

Participant observation

Observe the nomads and the herding practices as well as participating in the daily life

Observations

Semi-structured interviews

Interview the nomads about: - social organisation - production system - conflicts - management of livestock - grazing patterns - risk

Interview elderly people from Samad, Kharnak and Khorzok

Interview local people , Tibetan refugees, Government officials and members of local NGO`s.

Maps Go through the pastures with a shepherd and translator to draw map over the grazing areas with all the settlements. Discuss the maps with groups of shepherds. Use of satellite photos and trekking maps

Draw maps over the historical grazing pattern

Governmental records and secondary data (literature)

Consult annual reports from sheep husbandry department to get an overview of the activities in the area.

Literature and reports from the area.

Look for historical changes in the nomad population and in the livestock composition and population size.

25

The whole community of Samad, which consisted of 60 households, was interviewed

regarding population of people and livestock. The information was crosschecked by

information from Jammu and Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department (SHD), as well as with

information gathered by the local headman and from interviews done for me by a local

shepherd. Government officials from SHD were collecting data on the number and

composition of livestock each spring, to gather information for their activities in the field and

for vaccinations of the livestock. The local headman for the Samad people and the headman

for the refugees had lists of the total livestock in the community. Each household gave the

headmen information regarding livestock number in the household, for deciding the village

tax. The seasonal and spatial movement patterns of the nomads were identified by discussions

with the shepherds and participation in some of the movements. One herder also marked the

pastures on a satellite photo. This herder accompanied me throughout the whole grazing unit

of Samad to map the grazing sites.

Information regarding the historical grazing patterns of the nomads of Rupshu was gathered

from interviews of old people from Samad, Korzok and Kharnak.

The traditional use of the rangelands was discussed with the nomads in relation to the present

use of the resources and the changes that have occurred the last forty years. Changes that have

affected the traditional pastoralism and the use of the natural resources were discussed with

the nomads as well as with government officials, members of non-government organisations

(NGOs) and local people from Leh. Information was also gathered by studying secondary

data, such as government records and reports from the study region.

26

Part two: results and discussion

Chapter 5: The nomads of Samad: social organisation and pastoral production

system.

5.1 Samad

The nomadic groups of the Changthang are politically distinct with traditional grazing rights

and well-defined boundaries (Phuntsog, 2002). Individuals exercise no specific rights on any

parts of the grazing area, but the nomads have certain regulations for the use of the area. The

rangeland of Samad is technically owned by the state and considered as a common property

with open access (Sabharwal, 1996). The government levied a nominal grazing tax in earlier

years but the revenue is not strictly collected anymore.

As mentioned in the chapter 2, the nomad of Samad divided from Korzok in the 1950’s and

initiated a new grazing unit inside the “old” Rupshu area. The nomads of Samad acted as an

independent unit, but maintained their traditional relationship with the nomads of Korzok by

marital alliances, economic exchanges and ceremonial visits. The monastery of Korzok acts

as a major cohesive force and the nomads meet annually at the Korzok Monastery for

religious celebrations (Sabharwal, 1996). The herders from Samad changed their winter

movements in the early 1960’s due to the Indo-China war in 1962, and the winter movements

was changed from the Tibetan border into the Tso Kar basin in Samad.

5.2 Human – and Livestock Population

The community of Samad consists of a group of local Changpas in addition to a group of

Tibetan refugees that has shared the rangeland with the locals since the 1960’s. According to

interviews made during the winter of 2002 and the summer of 2003 with individuals from all

of the households, there were 22 families of Tibetan refugees with approximately 150

members and 60 families with 300 members of local people in Samad (Table 5.1).

27

Table 5.1. Numbers of Tibetan refugees, local nomads and livestock in Samad in 2003. People Sheep Goats Horses YaksChangpas 60 families

(ca. 300 persons) 4427 (9 329 w/ lambs)

5901 (9619 w/ kids)

150 250

Tibetan refugees 22 families (ca.150 persons)

1000 sheep 4500 76 370

The numbers of households and people could vary throughout the year due to migration and

seasonal settlement in Leh or Choclamsar. Most of the families had one or more children in

school outside the Changthang, in addition to one son or daughter in the monastery.

The local headman, Goba, of Samad had a list of information regarding livestock number.

The list functioned as a system to determine the wealth of a family and to make an account for

the tax that each family had to pay to the village and the monastery each year. The list showed

a total number of livestock, with 1 yak = 5 sheep or goat. The Goba was very sceptical to

handing over the list of this information, but after long discussion with the shepherds, they

decided to give us the information. They shepherds said that they were worried about what

kind of purposes the list would be used for:

“There are so many activities out here and so many questions; we don’t know what will

happen to us.”

Government officials from the Jammu and Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department (SHD)

gathered information about the livestock populations in the Changthang every year with the

aim of reducing animal mortality. They needed information about stocking rates to determine

the population size, sex and age ratios, and evidence of possible diseases, for disease

prevention actions and for analysing the possible changes that occur in the communities.

Interviews were made during the field trips regarding the population size of both humans and

livestock. There was a substantial difference between the numbers of livestock that were

gathered through interviews and the numbers that were gathered by the SHD officials and

from the list of the local headman, Goba, (Table 5.2).

28

Table 5.2. Number of sheep and goats owned by the Changpas and the Tibetan refugees. Group of nomads:

Source: Number of sheep:

Number of goats:

Total number of livestock in Samad:

Local nomads Sheep husbandry 4427 9329 (w/ lambs)

5901 9619 (w/ kids)

10328 18958 w/ kids and lambs

Local nomads The local headman

10 227, with 1 yak= 5 goats. Excl. kids and lambs.

Local nomads Interviews 2052 2854 4906 excl. kids and lambs

Tibetan refuges The local headman of the refugees

5234

The total number of livestock reported, excluding kids and lambs, through our interviews with

all of the households of Samad was 4906 sheep and goats, which was approximately half of

the population according to the numbers given by both the Goba and the SHD (Table 5.2).

The SHD had the highest number of livestock. The SHD had gathered information on the

population including and excluding kids and lambs as well as on sex ratio (Appendix 1).

Government officials from SHD said that the numbers they had gathered on the livestock

population were too low, because when they went to the field with vaccinations for the

livestock number that had been stated, the number of vaccinations did not cover the whole

population. The SHD gathered information on livestock populations both by counting and

making interviews and the officials thought the herders were afraid of giving the right number

for fear of increased government tax. The officials said that the tax was more or less nothing

and that the nomads were making problems for themselves by not telling the truth that

resulted in too few vaccinations.

The highest number of livestock in Samad including the livestock of the Tibetan refugees was

24,182 sheep and goats in 2003 after adding the number given by SHD for the local nomads

and the information from The Tibetan Goba for the TR`s (Table 5.2). This number includes

the kids and lambs only for the local nomads, not for the TR`s. If the kids and lambs were

excluded, the total number of livestock was 15 562, which was according to the nomads, the

way they normally counted. The kids and lambs were not included due to the high mortality.

The SHD, on the other hand, includes all age group in their counting. The information and the

high variation indicate that the nomads are worried about their situation and their future in the

29

Changthang. They were afraid that the government would make restrictions on the number of

livestock and increase their taxes. The nomads themselves felt that they were poor and due to

the reduction in livestock population per household that had occurred during the last year,

they could not afford a further decrease.

The livestock population size and herd composition have been more or less stable since 1987,

according to the SHD, but there has been a change in proportion from substantially more

sheep to slightly more goats. This change is probably a result of the demand for pashmina in

the market.

Table 5.3. Livestock numbers for the local Changpas for the year of 1987-89, 1997-98 and 2003. (Source: Jammu & Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department). 1987-88 1988-89 1997-98 2003

Sheep 9405 9305 10 608 9329

Goat 7055 6993 8516 9619

The high proportion of goats is even more marked in the communities of Korzok and

Kharnak. According to government records, the goat population in Kharnak was 11 651

compared to a sheep population of 4377 in 2003. In the same year, the goat population in

Korzok was 30 875 and the sheep population 26 588 (Attachment 2). These numbers do not

include the livestock of the Tibetan refugees that shared the pastures with both Kharnak and

Korzok.

5.3 Social organisation

The social organisation of the nomads is based on flexibility that is related to the movements

of the herds in the marginal environment. Changes have occurred and the nomadic

organisation is increasingly changing due to interaction with the outside world: political

systems, infrastructure, market forces and development activities.

30

Figure 5.1. Nomads of the Changthang. Traditional yak tent and women dressed in the traditional clothes with

warm blankets with sheepskin on the inner side. ( Photo: Trine Sand Andreassen)

The nomadic way of living have included herd management strategies that the nomads have

adapted over centuries due to the harsh environment:

“With pastoralism comes herd management. Herding is the day- to- day work with a herd. It

concerns the relationship between the herd and pasture as directed to the welfare of the

animals and, if necessary, to the exclusion of the comfort of the herders themselves”. (Paine,

1994)

5.3.1 Community organisation

The Goba

Both the local nomads and the refugees had a Goba, which functioned as a headman of the

village. The local Chang-pas selected one Goba each year to carry out village activities. The

men selected three persons, and one of them was chosen to be the Goba by throwing dice. In

addition, one person was selected to be his assistant. The Goba had the final word regarding

the movements, where and when to go, after discussions with the adult men in the village.

The Goba had to carry out activities in Leh, including cooperation with the different

government departments and make requests for medicine and food support. One government

official said that the Goba often requested the departments for barley for fodder, while the

official claimed that the nomads used this barley for making alcohol.

31

The Goba also had the responsibility for enforcing rules on restricted grazing areas. The daily

fines were 1 rupee per sheep/goat and 20 rupees per yak/ dimo. If any livestock grazed on

these pastures, the owner had to pay a fine to the village. For example, in December 2002

yaks were often observed at Thaksum, a grazing area behind Thukje monastery that was

restricted and only horses were allowed to graze. The owners claimed that the yaks pulled

themselves out of their ties during the night. The nomads had a community meeting in

December 2002 and 9 persons were charged with illegal grazing at Thaksum. The village

community made the fine half after pleas from the shepherds that were fined.

The Monastery (Gonpa/Gompa)

The Samad people have their own monastery that is located in Thukje, with two monks. This

monastery is a branch of the Korzok monastery. The nomads of Samad are supposed to send

one out of three sons to the monastery, if the monastery demands it. According to the nomads,

this rule is not as strict as in the past. Recent changes has affected the nomads perceptions

towards the

Future of their children and many families prefer to send their children to school rather than to

the monastery. In August\ September the nomads held a 45-day prayer ceremony in

Nourchen. The nomads pay a fee every year to the monastery; and they also provide the

monks with food. The monks are responsible for maintaining the monastery, cooperate with

the Korzok monastery as well as take part in all the monastery activities in Korzok (festivals,

prayers, etc).

The main duty for the monks is to carry out prayer ceremonies

for the nomads and participate in funerals and festivals. The

local people take care of the livestock belonging to the

monastery throughout the year. A monk that was interviewed

said that the religious life in the monastery could be lonely.

He said that the education system had collapsed after the

Chinese occupied Tibet and Dalai Lama was sent in exile.

He felt that he was neither a good monk nor a good shepherd.

The monastery still has strong influence over the nomads in

terms of their political, social, cultural and economic pursuits

(Sabharwal, 1996). An old woman said that religious feelings

Figure 5.2. Young monk in a monastery.

had been eroded due to the modern times and the people’s perceptions had changed. She said

that people are more egoistic than in the past and many hunger for material things rather than

32

the well being of the community. She also said that people drink and fight more due to

jealousy.

Community and monastery taxes

The nomads of Samad pay taxes to the village and to the monastery once per year. The

monastery tax is paid in August during the prayer ceremony and in 2003 it was 1 rupee per

animal, 5 rupees per yak, 10 rupees per family member and 50 rupees per tent. The village

also had to pay a small amount of tax to the government. In the winter, two persons from each

household of local nomads counted the livestock of the Tibetan refugees. The TR`s had to pay

a small tax to the locals for use of the rangeland. The refugees had to pay 50 paise per

sheep\goat and 150 paise per yak. The TRs were allowed to keep 30 animals per person. The

tax that the refugees paid to the locals was less than the tax the locals paid to the village and

the monastery. The money that was collected from the TR`s was used for village expenses

and to the monastery expenses. The local nomads said that the reason behind the restrictions

was due to problem of overgrazing and low quality of pastures in Tso Kar in the winter. The

Tibetan refugees said that they felt discriminated and that the local nomads were jealous.

Village responsibilities

One representative was chosen in the community to be responsible for yak herding for six

months. The Tibetan refugees and the locals shared the responsibilities for herding yaks. The

yaks were left in valleys and higher mountain areas, but in the winter months, a shepherd had

to stay with them due to a higher risk of predation by wolf.

There were approximately 115-120 horses in Samad. The nomads selected one shepherd,

which had the responsibility for the horses. The shepherd had no responsibility if the horses

got lost or if a wolf killed them. The horses were usually left alone in the mountains. If the

nomads needed them, they had to bring them down from the mountains themselves. In the

winter, the horse grazier went out with the horses in the morning, stayed with them

throughout the day and then took them back to the corral in the afternoon. Two families gave

one female adult sheep or goat to the horse grazier. Families possessing more than 2 horses

had to provide food grains to the graziers in addition to a sheep/goat.

33

5.3.2 Household organisation

The nomads lived in tents throughout the year and the children stayed together with their

parents until they reached the age of marriage. Even after marriage some couples stayed in his

parents’ tent, or in a separate tent for sleeping. The tent functioned as bedroom, dining room

and kitchen with a local stove in the centre. The tent was filled up with homemade carpets

woven of yak and sheep wool in beautiful colours, which was used to sit and sleep on. There

were blankets for keeping warm during night, kerosene stoves and kitchen equipment from

the market, cassette players and light that was driven by a solar panel. In the inner part of the

tent there were candles and religious items for the prayers.

Each household shared the workload that included herding, cooking, handicraft, bringing

water and fuel, combing of pashmina and wool, milking, shopping in Leh and village duties.

Every family member was included in the livestock herding. Old men and women usually

stayed in the camp. The women prepared food, did the washing, milking, weaving and

looking after kids and lambs that were left in the camp, in addition to looking after the small

children. The women also herded the livestock, while the men were in the camp. This often

happened during the time of pashmina combing in July, which was done by the men. Children

from about 9 years age also attended to the herding. Each family had their own responsibility

for the sheep and goats, but small families helped each other and shared the workload. Some

families that had migrated to Leh kept a few animals with family members in Samad. From

2003 the nomads decided in a community meeting that it would not be allowed to keep

livestock for others any longer. In 2003 approximately 16 families had sheep and goats in

Samad, while living in Leh or Choclamsar. They paid 25 Rupees per goat or sheep, and they

got milk, wool and meat in return. The local nomads felt that this was more like a burden and

due to the hard winters and shortage of grass, the community decided to prohibit the keeping

of livestock for emigrants. At the same time, the Tibetan refugees did not change this rule and

they had no restrictions for keeping livestock for the migrants. During the summer of 2003,

approximately five TR families kept livestock for the local Changpa migrants.

34

5.3.3 Seasonal work

The workload and the type of work changed throughout the year (Table 5.4). The men of

Samad considered the summer months of July-August as the most busy period due to

pashmina combing and cutting of wool, while the late winter period from February to April

was considered as the hardest time due to the heavy snowfall and starvation. In May, the

nomads prepared for the summer camping by

leaving the winter tents and other winter

equipment at their headquarters at Thukje. The

Tibetan refugees left their equipment at

Nuruchen. The nomads moved their herds to the

summer rangeland at Skyangchuthang in June

2003. The summer was a busy time with

milking, pashmina combing and cutting of wool.

The women were working with the dairy

products; making cheese and curd out of the milk

in addition to handicraft. The men were taking

care of the wool and the pashmina.

Figure 5.3. A nomad woman milking a dimo. Samad 2003. August and September was the time for prayers and religious ceremony and the men had to do

all the arrangements. Most of the nomads, including the Tibetan refugees stayed together in

one settlement and the head lama of Korzok monastery came together with monks to give

religious teaching. The autumn months included long movements and in November the

nomads moved back to the Tso Kar Basin to their winter settlements.

December was a busy time with slaughtering of livestock for own subsistence and for sale to

the market. It was also the time for celebration of the Tibetan New Year, which required

preparation for four days of feasting. The lambing period started in December, while the

kidding took place in February. The nomads celebrated the Tibetan New year at the beginning

of December. The Tibetan New Year was actually two months later, but due to an old

tradition the nomads celebrated the New Year two months in advance. Stories say that in the

old days, the king of Ladakh went to battle with the king of Skardu in December in what is

today Pakistan-controlled territory. The king decided to celebrate the Tibetan New Year two

months in advance, because they did not know what the result of the battle would be. They

35

thought that celebration of this festival in advance brought them good luck, so it became a

tradition.

Table 5.4. Seasonal work and activities in Samad January Lambing February Kidding March April

High risk and uncertainties. Snowfall, cold and blizzards. Hard work.

May Movement to summer rangeland. June Milking sheep. July Milking sheep and goat.

Pashmina combing. Wool cutting. Religious festival in Korzok monastery.

August Milking sheep. 45 days of prayers. Wool cutting.

September October

Long movements

November Movement to winter rangeland. December Slaughtering.

Tibetan new year, Losar. Five days of celebration.

5.3.4 Daily routines

The daily routines differed throughout the season. The most important task was to bring the

animals out in the field and to be sure that all of them came back safely. The length of the

daily movements varied from day to day, but usually the herders went out in the morning at 7

am and returned in the afternoon. The women woke up early in the morning to prepare butter

tea for the shepherds. The shepherd brought tea and food for the day in the field, while the

others ate in the tent during the day. While the shepherd was herding, the women were

working with handicrafts and the men were making ropes.

During the summer the women got up at about 6 am to prepare butter tea for the shepherds

and they were milking the sheep and goats before the shepherd went to the field. The herder

returned at approximately 7 pm and the nomads separated sheep and goats from the herd

according to age. The reason was to keep the old kids and lambs from the mothers to so that

they could not drink milk from her. The kids were selected from the herd in the evening and

36

tied up, so that they will not mix up with other herds. Small kids and lambs were tied to

prevent their disappearing and female sheep and goats were tied for being milked by the

women. All of the family members took part in the selection by running around in a circle to

keep the stock together and collecting one animal after another. The children played with the

animals while running after them.

In the winter the women got up a little bit later, at approximately 7am and the herders

returned from the fields at 5pm when the sun went down. The sun could be very warm during

the winter and in December; the nomads were sitting in the corral where it was warm with

layers of goat and sheep dung and doing handicraft. The women were cleaning the corrals,

drying dung for fuel in the corral, gathering wool and working with the lambs and kids during

day time. The animals were gathered together in corrals during night time to keep warm. In

the evening, the nomads went up in the hills and collected dung from yaks and plant roots that

they used for fuel.

5.4 Pastoral production system

5.4.1 Livestock and livestock products

The nomads of Samad raised sheep, goats, yaks and horses. The pastoral production system is

a multiple output system, with outcomes like milk, meat, wool, skin, dung, fuel and

transportation. The nomads harvested the livestock products for their own consumption and

for sale to the market. In addition, the nomads bought food rations and other items from the

market. Until recently there had been no irrigation land and no agriculture. The livestock had

been the main and the only source of income for the nomads. Nowadays the nomads buy

barley, wheat, rice, vegetables and foodstuffs from Leh. They also buy clothes, utensils and

luxuries (cassettes, batteries) from the market. In addition they buy subsidised fodder and

grass from the Jammu and Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department (SHD).

Sheep

The nomads of Samad reared the Changluk sheep, which is famous for its warm wool. The

nomads used this wool only for making clothes for themselves and only small amounts were

sold. According to the nomads, there was little demand for wool from this area in the market.

The sheep gave milk for about three months, from June to August.

37

Goat

The famous Changra goat is also reared in the

Changthang and the pashmina from these goats was the

main source of income for the nomads. In addition, this

goat gave much milk during the summer, mainly in July.

Pashmina production per goat annually is 500-600

grams and in 2003 one kilogram of pashmina was priced

to 1200 Indian rupees. The prices for the pashmina

fluctuated with the demand from the market. In 1994-

95, the price was 1500 Indian rupees per kilo, while it

dropped to 700 rupees in 1997-98 (Richard, 1999). The

nomads tended to keep the pashmina until they needed

the money desperately and that were often the time

when the Kashmiri traders showed up. Figure 5.4. A nomad woman with Changra goats. (Photo: Trine Sand Andreassen)

Yak

In addition to sheep and goats, the nomads also kept yaks. Yak refers to the male of the

species Bos grunniens, while the female is called dimo. The yaks and dimos were used as

beasts of burden, by carrying heavy loads between the settlements. The yak is about 5 ft at the

shoulder and it weights about 500 kilogram. It is a large animal with long shaggy hair; usually

black. They are adapted for the high altitude and the cold climate and cannot withstand the

warm climate in the deep valleys. Yak is found from approximately 4300 meters to 5000

meters (Tshangspa, 2000). This ox is a close relative to the domestic cattle with which it

interbreeds. The yak is a gentle animal and it can easily manoeuvre itself along rocky terrain

and find the way back to the campsites. The animal was also used for milk, wool, and meat in

addition to carrying the loads. The dimo was the most important animal regarding dairy

products since she gave milk throughout the year. The products were mostly for self-

sufficiency and only few families sold these products. The nomads said that one dimo gives

approximately 111 litres of milk annually. Three litres of milk gives 250 grams of butter but

nowadays the nomads said that they buy a lot of butter from the stores in Leh. They said that

many conditions has to be considered for making butter, some of them are weather conditions,

38

wealth, pasture, fertility of the females; only one calf every second year and the feed for the

livestock. Yak dung is also an important product, used for fuel in an area where firewood is

not available.

“Female yaks usually have their first calf when they are four years old and have only one calf

every other year, although the yak cow is still milked in the second summer. Where forage

conditions are better, yaks will calve every year. Male yaks are usually slaughtered for meat

at four years of age. “(Miller, 1998)

Yaks and dimos were slaughtered only when it was necessary, when the nomads needed the

meat and when the animals were old. Dried dung of the animals was the main source of fuel

for the stoves in the tents. The wool from the yaks was only used for domestic purposes.

There were two types; khullu that was of fine quality and was used for making ropes and local

blankets and sitpa, which was rougher and used for making tents and ropes.

Horses

Every household had one or more horses, which were important for the nomads for transport

between the settlements, to other villages and to the monasteries in Thukje and Korzok. The

nomads were very proud of their horses and they said that they had to be stall fed for nine

months, with approximately 2 kilograms of fodder per horse per day. In addition they had to

be watched all the time due to predation by wolf. The horses were also considered as a

symbol of wealth.

Dogs

The families had at least one dog to protect the livestock from wolves. The dogs lay outside

the tents and it seemed like they had a marked territory to protect. Very often the dogs

attacked people that entered the territory, even nomads from the neighbouring tents. The

nomads were used to the behaviour of the dogs and they usually threw a stone at them, but

still many of the nomads had scars from dog bites. If the families had problems with the dogs,

they sold or gave them to the army. Some of the dogs also killed kids and lambs in addition to

eating of the dried cheese that the women had left outside the tent during summer. The dogs

were also helping the shepherd of herding the livestock.

39

5.4.2 Slaughtering

The nomads mainly slaughter animals during the start of the winter. The animals were healthy

after grazing the whole summer and autumn. And it was said that it was better to slaughter

when the animals were healthy after fattening up in the summer and the autumn and before

the hard winter starts. The nomads slaughtered before losar, as a tradition as well as for meat

during the festival. In the old days the nomads’ slaughtered animals only for their own

subsistence, they slaughtered themselves or they hired a butcher from other villages.

Nowadays they also sell meat to the market, mostly sheep and goats and, only occasionally

yak. Some families said that they wanted to sell a few sheep and goat to the market, but other

families with a larger stock sold their animals so cheap to the Kashmiri butchers that the less

wealthy families could not afford to sell any of their animals at the low price. The nomads

sold the meat mostly in December, but also whenever there was demand for cash. Sheep and

goats were slaughtered in higher numbers than cattle, since they reproduce more rapidly in

addition to having a lower economic value. Two families often went together during winter

and slaughtered one yak, which they shared. According to the nomads, meat was more

important in the winter since milk was scarce in winter. The nomads also consumed meat in

the summer, but in a much lower quantity than in the winter. They only ate a small amount of

dried meat that they have stored from the winter if there was anything left, in addition to meat

from livestock that have to be killed due to disease and weakness. As an example, five

families shared one yak that fell down from a cliff in august 2003, in exchange for a small

amount of cash to the owner.

During the summer, the nomads got milk from the goats, sheep and yaks, while only the yak

gives milk in the winter. The summer was the time for making dairy products like curd,

cheese and soups of milk. Kashmiri butchers visited the nomadic villages a few times a year

to buy livestock.

5.4.3 Household economy

According to the local nomads the average annual income was 30 000-40 000 rupees and the

average number of livestock was 170-200. The richest families earned about 100 000 Rupees

40

and they had more than 400 livestock. A poor family had an income of 9 000-10 000 rupees

and less than 70 livestock. The income from the different animals is shown in Appendix I.

The nomads said that it was difficult to know how many sheep, goat and yaks they were

selling, for it varied from year to year. Factors determining the sale were number of livestock

the families owned, their need for meat and cash and the demand from the market. One

nomad we interviewed said that he sold sometimes 15 and sometimes 20 sheep and goats. The

market and demand for yak meat was not so good, so they mainly sell sheep and goat.

Sometimes individual persons came to Samad for buying livestock, but not often. For self-

sufficiency, one yak could be enough for 2-4 families. Since many of the nomads send their

kids to schools in Leh and Nyoma, they had a shortage of labour. Sometimes the families

hired extra labour to herd their livestock. They hired labour from other families in the same

village or from other villages like Kharnak or Korzok. The richest families hired labour from

Korzok.

The sources of income were mainly made from sale of pashmina and meat to the market. In

addition a few shepherds got a part time job in the government or in the army.

Expenditures included:

1. Rations: rice, barley, wheat flour, sugar, vegetables, dal, etc.

2. Schooling, education

3. Clothes, tents, equipment and shoes

4. Fodder for winter. If the weather was very bad and there was lots of snow, they would

feed each sheep and goat 100 g fodder daily.

5. Health care: medicines and medical expenses

6. Veterinary care

7. Buying livestock

8. Luxuries like e.g. cassette players, batteries and soap

9. Extra labour

10. Tax to village, monastery and government

The nomads said that the need for cash was increasing. In the last years the government had

sponsored them with fodder and services and government officials informed that the nomads

had to pay 898 rupees per quintal of fodder and if the weather was very bad, they would be

subsidized with 50%. These sums apparently vary from year to year dependent upon the

41

economy of the government and the amount that the government has decided to use on

development in the Changthang.

The government food and supply department had a cooperative in Thukje during the winter,

were the nomads could buy rations. Two shepherds worked for the cooperative, selling rations

like wheat flour, dal, sugar and rice that was heavy to carry and difficult to bring on the bus

from Leh. The rations were stored in a local house and the time for selling was in December

and during the winter when few people travelled to Leh.

5.5 Summary

Social organisation and the pastoral production system are based on a flexible system that is

related to the variable environment. The pastoralists are totally dependent upon the livestock

for survival and therefore also upon the natural resources. The nomads rear sheep, goats and

yaks for filling the requirement of their own needs and to optimise the use of the available

resources. Due to demand for pashmina from the market, the nomads have increased the

number of goats in favour of sheep, even if their own preference has been sheep due to taste

of the meat and better survival during winter. Due to a reduction in size of the herds, the

nomads said that a heavy winter could be catastrophic for the small herds and they could end

up with fewer animals than was the minimum for survival.

42

Chapter 6: Rationale for mobility; flexibility and risk avoidance

6.1 Introduction

The natural environment of the Changthang is characterized by uncertainty due to patchiness

and variability of the natural resources. At first sight the area looks like a dry mountain desert

with no grass at all, but the area provides resources to a number of nomads with their

livestock, and to wild animals. The Changthang plateau in India is also known as the “cold

desert” with strong winds that blow across the rangeland and cold winters with temperature

that falls below 40 degree of frost. The herders that are living in this area have adapted certain

strategies to survive the extreme climate on the semi-arid plateau where agriculture has not

been possible:

“Nomadic pastoralism has been described as one of the great advances in the evolution of

human civilisation. It is an adaptation by human groups to grassland areas of the world

where extensive livestock production is more supportive of human culture than cultivated

agriculture.” (Miller and Schaller, 1998)

The pastoralists move their herds over large areas to exploit the seasonal availability of

resources and also to avoid risk and uncertainties like cold winters, blizzards and diseases.

The Changpas have developed a flexible way of living in relation to movements of the herds.

Social organisation, production system and management of the herds are all based on

flexibility to avoid or reduce the uncertainty and the effect of natural hazards. A blizzard can

wipe out large proportion of the livestock population, which is essential for a nomadic family

to survive. According to government officials, a calamity killed almost 80 % of the livestock

in the Changthang in 1988 and the nomads used a long time of recovering after the disaster.

The nomads are totally dependent upon their livestock for surviving; the livestock in turn is

dependent upon the natural resources like grass and water for survival. A Tibetan saying

referred to by Khazanov (1983):

“Without grass there is no livestock, without livestock no food”

43

Livestock has been the only source of income for the nomads and it has been essential for the

nomads to manage the herds in relation to the sustainability of the natural resources.

Traditionally, the nomads were self-sufficient and the livestock were providing them with

milk, meat and wool. Nowadays changes have taken place in the nomadic economy and the

traditional barter system has changed into market economy, with sale of meat and pashmina

and purchase of agricultural supplies, clothes and equipment. Without the livestock, the

nomads could not be able to survive on the high altitude plateau. For managing the herds the

nomads have adapted a number of methods for utilizing the natural resources in addition to

avoid risks and disasters that are frequent in the Changthang.

The following part of this chapter will deal with the rationale for movements, for a better

understanding of why mobility is important in the marginal environment of Samad.

6.2 Environmental risk and uncertainty

The nomads of Samad characterize their life in the Changthang as very hard due to the

extreme winters. They said that the cold winters and the high mortality of livestock in the

winter were the main reasons for migrating to Leh and other urban areas. The families had to

move continuously to avoid overgrazing and to take their herds to fresh rangeland. In addition

they had to manage their herds in a way to avoid mortality due to winter coldness and

diseases. According to the nomads, the major cause of animal mortality was the winter with

starvation and cold, followed by diseases and predation.

6.2.1 Resource variability

The main reason for the spatial and seasonal movements made by the livestock herders was

the seasonal and spatial variability of the resources. The nomads moved their herds to a new

area after finishing the present one. The grazing unit was divided into many grazing areas that

were used at certain times throughout the year. The herders had names for all the valleys,

mountains and places and each area was carefully managed by grazing restrictions to avoid

overgrazing. As mentioned in chapter 2, the nomads of Samad have experienced a number of

changes that have had major impact on the movement pattern as well as on the population

44

growth. In the past, the population was much smaller and the rangeland was larger.

Nowadays, the nomads have to move the increasing population of livestock on a smaller

rangeland, and they have to make more shifts of settlements than in the past, to avoid

overgrazing. The families have to keep smaller stocks due to the increased number of

households. The daily movements also have to be shorter and better planned today than in the

past when the nomads could move their herds on large areas.

The nomads claimed that the population of kiangs was increasing and that they competed with

the livestock for grass. Herders thought that Tibetan officials chased kiangs over the border to

reduce the problems of overgrazing. According to the nomads, the kiangs were a major

problem in the Tso Kar Basin and they argued that they were eating grass throughout day and

night. Still, the nomads said that the kiangs had always been a part of the ecosystem and it

was nothing they could do about it. The Changpas do not hunt and they did not do anything

about the problem. It was mentioned by a government officer that the herders had tried to

complain to the government regarding the kiangs to get some kind of compensation for the

loss of grass. Some herders said that the kiangs were not a major problem and certainly not a

new one, but they heard from outsiders that compensation had been given other places.

Water accessibility is also a limiting factor in Samad. Some of the grazing areas have no

water sources and the nomads have to travel long distances to gather water from the rivers.

The government has build a water pump in Thukje at the headquarter. During the winter, the

nomads can melt snow for cooking.

6.2.2 Blizzard and heavy winter

The Changpas experience a high variability in the weather conditions and the winters were

known as very cold and windy with heavy snowfall and blizzards. The area is closed to the

outside world for periods of the winter due to the high amount of snow that closes the passes

that surround the area, and the only way out is by foot or horseback. The winters in the

Changthang can be extremely cold and the temperature often falls below minus 40 degrees

during the coldest period of February-April. The nomads said that they had predictions about

the winter, but they never knew for sure how it would be. A nomadic woman told us:

“ If the kiangs have newborns in the summer, the winter will be mild”

45

The winters could be long and cold with heavy snowfall but also mild with less snow.

According to the nomads, high snowfall and low temperature was the main problem, but too

warm winters would lead to less snow melting in the mountains and problems of drought

during the following summer. The nomads said many animals died during the winter due to

cold and stravation. Heavy snowfall and blizzards could cover the grasslands and many

animals often starved to death, due to the difficulties of finding grass. According to

Government officials from the Jammu and Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department (SHD), the

nomads lose about 25% of their livestock, mainly kids and lambs, during the peak of the

winter season.

Birth of lambs takes place in December, while the kidding takes place in February, when the

weather is so severe that the mortality of the newborns from hypothermia would be high if the

herdsmen did not dry and shelter them (Schaller, 1998). Still, during the coldest period of the

winter the nomads lost a high proportion of their animals, mainly kids and lambs due to their

weakness. The small ones were dependent upon milk from their mothers and, according to the

nomads; the mother could be too weak to give milk due to scarcity of fodder and grass.

The women also kept the small kids and lambs in the tents to keep them warm, as well as that

they were feeding them with leftovers from chang that is very nutritious. The government has

tried to convince the nomads to delay the birth of kids and lamb to late spring to reduce the

mortality in the winter but according to the nomads, they would rather sacrifice the kids and

lambs in favour of a stronger dam in early winter. If the birth time were delayed to April, the

dam would be pregnant during the heavy winter season and be weak through a period of

starvation (Richard, ICIMOD, 2000). The nomads said that the forage availability was highest

in August, and delaying the breeding by two months would coincide with fall migration and it

would be more difficult to control a high number of kids and lamb during the movements.

During the heaviest winter months, the nomads used pastures that they called “emergency

pastures”. The tents were scattered between four settlements and during the daytime the

herders brought the livestock deep into the valleys and high up in the mountains. The nomads

brought the herds to the emergency pastures when the other pastures were finished or covered

by snow. The pastures consisted of valleys and mountains that were sloping southwards with

less snow the higher up they went. During this period, the shepherds split the herds into

46

smaller units. Stronger animals were taken to pastures higher up than weaker ones. Therefore,

the workload and the need of more shepherds increased in this period.

The nomads build corrals for the livestock and during heavy winters, they put a roof of plastic

on it to protect the animals against the cold and the snow. The sheep and goats were pushed

closely together in the corral to keep each other warm and the nomads said that they preferred

a higher number of sheep in their herds because their wool kept the smaller changra goats

warm.

Harvesting of wild grasses for the winter stocking was not permitted as the households with

more manpower collect more grass compared to others with less manpower. Twenty years

ago, the nomads harvested grass for stocking, but the exercise proved detrimental, as tall

grasses were harvested and nothing was found above the snow cover during the succeeding

winter. The people believed that the Guardian Gods were not happy with their actions.

During the coldest period, the nomads used tents, or “rebos”, that are made out of yak wool.

These tents were the traditional ones and the nomads said that they were much warmer then

the tents they had been sponsored with from the Tibetan “in exile” government12. The yak

tents were heavier, but according to the herders, of much better quality for the cold winters.

The nomads used many layers of traditional clothes during the winter that was made out of wool. Some of the people, especially men and children used clothes from the market (Fig. 6.1).

Figure 6.1. Wife, husband and son in a household of seven family members in Samad.

Some animals were slaughtered in December for the celebration of losar, for rations

throughout the winter and for sale to market. Some animals were also slaughtered later in the

47

12 The Tibetan Government “in exile” is located in Daramsala, India leaded by the Tibetan Dalai Lama.

season, but the nomads preferred to hire a Kashmiri butcher to slaughter the animals due to

their Buddhist belief that loathes killing of animals.

6.2.3 Livestock diseases

Livestock diseases were according to government officials from Jammu & Kashmir Sheep

Husbandry Department (SHD) a major problem in Changthang (Table 6.1). According to

government officials, there were a number of diseases that attacked the livestock. Many

animals, especially small kids and lambs died during winter due to starvation and cold and

one common disease was diarrhoea. The officials did not know the reason for the diseases,

but one explanation could be import of infected livestock to the army in Ladakh from other

parts of India. The officials said that after a heavy winter, there could be calamities of

diseases that killed a large amount of animals, including wild animals

In the winter of 2002/ 2003, a disease called “de Pestis de Petits Ruminants” (PPR) infected

thousands of sheep and goats in the Changthang. The government closed the area, and the

disease did not reach Samad, but The Tibetan refugees of Rongo lost 52% of their livestock.

This disease also attacked wild animals that were found dead by the nomads in the area. The

SHD vaccinated 40 000 animals for this infection in 2002/2003.

Table 6.1. Diseases that affect livestock in the Changthang. (Source: Jammu and Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department) Disease: Vaccination:

Brucilliosis No

Skin disease Yes

“De Pestis de Petits Ruminants” (PPR) Yes

Foot and Mouth disease ( FMD) Yes

Coccidiosis; diarrhoea in kids and lambs Yes

Mouth lesions in kids and lambs Unsure

Clostridial diseases: attacks sheep, goats and

cattle. Diarrhoea and following death.

Yes. Have 6 different diarrhoea vaccinations

48

According to the SHD many livestock usually died after weakness of diarrhoea. The SHD put

much effort into livestock development and they gave vaccinations and medicines to the

animals. In addition, they taught the nomads about livestock health. Based on interviews with

the nomads, the fifty families that were interviewed lost 581 goats, 187 sheep, 870 kids and

425 lambs (Table.6.2, Appendix I). The same families owned 2470 sheep, 2522 goats, 363

kids, and 540 lambs in the following summer. The result shows that out of a total of 7958

animals, they lost 2063 during the winter, which is approximately 26%. This number is

extremely high, and the results are questionable. One reason to the high number may be

wrong or incomplete information given in the interviews. Results from interviews of nomads

and from government officials regarding the same is issue was varying. According to

interviews of the nomads, the results shows that the mortality of goats was almost three times

higher than that of sheep and the mortality of kids were almost twice as high as the mortality

of lambs (Table 6.2). According to the nomads, the winter of 2003 was long and cold but not

unusual in any way.

Table 6.2. Livestock mortality reported during the winter of 2002-2003. Information based on interviews of the nomads. Number of

animals at the start of winter

Number of animals in the summer 2003

Mortality % Mortality

Sheep 2657 2470 187 7 % Goats 3103 2522 581 19 % Kids 1233 363 870 70 % Lambs 965 540 425 44 %

6.2.4 Predation

The main predator in the Changthang was the wolf, which killed a high number of sheep,

goats, yaks and horses. The nomads had dogs to protect the livestock during nighttime, but

still wolves attack the herd. At least one shepherd slept outside the tent during the night to

protect the livestock. The yaks were left alone in valleys during summer, but in the winter one

shepherd was there to protect them against wolves.

49

6.3 Risk Aversion Strategies

Traditional ways of avoiding risk in pastoral communities in arid and variable climates have

been strategies like having a large herd to survive loss of livestock during bad years, diverse

herd composition to serve the subsistence needs of the nomads and to utilize the diversity of

the natural resources and rotation and movements of the livestock to exploit the seasonal

variable resources. Having a flexible social organisation and production system have been

important factors for reducing. The traditional strategies for avoiding risk on the high plateau

are in a process of change due to development activities and market economy.

“Practises of animal selection, grazing rotation (mobility) and risk have in recent years been

modified and conditions continue to change.” (Goldstein and Beall1990)

6.3.1 Livestock Mobility

Pastoralism, social organisation and use of the rangeland is all based on mobility in relation to

pasture resources and flexibility in relation to sudden environmental changes that is usual in

marginal grazing areas. Spatial flexibility has been an important method for making optimum

use of the available resources and case studies suggest that pasture degradation is associated

with the loss of mobility in pastoral systems (Humphrey and Sneath, 1999). Moving the herds

over large rangelands has been the major strategy for the nomadic pastoralists of the

Changthang, thereby the term “nomads”, which refers to movements.

Pastoral systems are designed around the movement factors such as past use, snowfall and

rainfall, growth stage of the grass, and the condition of animals. Tibetan nomads do not move

randomly across the landscape, their movements are well prescribed by complex social

organizations and are highly regulated. (Miller, 2000:83-109)

The Changpas of Ladakh move their herds continuously to utilize the available area in their

grazing unit. According to Niamir-Fuller (1999), mobility is an adaptation by the nomads for

utilizing the available resources in a sustainable way. She writes that livestock mobility is

important for:

• Use of resources that are temporally and spatially available in the ecosystem, and to a

large degree unpredictable

50

Access to under-utilized pastures distant from settlements. •

•

•

•

•

•

Provision of fodder to livestock at minimal labour and economic cost.

Lower the risk of vulnerability for diseases outbreaks, droughts, snowstorms etc.

Dyson and Hudson (1980) note that movements are also determined by:

Political factors like boundaries, property rights and government tax.

Economic factors that include the presence of markets.

Affective factors like people’s values and perceptions of themselves and their use of

the rangeland.

The nomads of Samad followed traditional spatial routes that were demarcated by unwritten

laws. The grazing unit bordered the nomadic communities of Kharnak and Korzok. Samad

people divided their unit between summer and winter movements. The Tso Kar Basin was

used for winter grazing due to less snow than in the Skyangchuthang area. Chapter 7 will

discuss the present movement pattern of the nomads of Samad.

6.3.2 Opportunistic Stocking Strategy

The nomads traditionally followed an opportunistic stocking strategy that accumulated

livestock numbers that exceeded subsistence during good years so they could be assured of

enough livestock surviving for re-establishing after bad years (Sandford, 1982 in Niamir-

Fuller, 1999). The opportunistic stocking strategy requires that rangeland use patterns adapt to

herd size.

The maximum size of a stock depends upon a number of factors, like pasture availability,

number of households, the length of daily movements, distance between water sources,

manpower and the combination of breeds (Niamir, 1999). The maximum size of the stock,

pasture availability and number of households are related to the sustainability of the

rangeland. The pastoralists have to manage the total stock of the community in a way to avoid

overgrazing and the problem known as “tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968). Tragedy of

the commons is a situation where individuals or units increase their stock, without thinking

about the total population of the community and the carrying capacity of the resources. In

situations where many individuals or units behave in this manner, the commons or e.g the

rangeland will be overgrazed. According to the nomads, they were not experiencing problems

51

of overgrazing in the past, due to the large rangeland and the relatively small livestock

population. The rangeland could support an increase in the livestock population during good

years. However, today the rangeland is much smaller and the livestock population is

comparatively much larger. The result has been that the herders could not keep as large

populations as in the past, due to reduction in pasture availability. The nomads of Samad

complained that the Tibetan refugees owned too many livestock in relation to the conditions

of the rangeland, and therefore the locals had restrictions for the numbers of livestock the

Tibetan refugees could own. A continuous increase in number of livestock would reduce the

quality of the rangeland.

“The most important problem noted by Barth and many other scholars is of the balance

between availability of natural resources (fodder and water), number of livestock and

population size” (Khazanov, 1983)

According to SHD records and the nomads themselves, the number of livestock had increased

during the last years as well as the number of households. In the past, both the human and the

livestock population were smaller. At the time when the nomads of Rupshu used Skagjung,

Samad and Korzok consisted of 80 households (Chaudhuri, 2000) compared with 2003 when

only Samad consist of 82 households. The causes behind this increase are discussed in chapter

2. The information indicates that the changes have caused an increase in total livestock

number and a reduction of grazing territory. The nomads explained that each household had

smaller herds than in the past, to manage the smaller rangeland. And even if they had reduced

the stocks, the total livestock population increased due to the increasing human population.

The nomads complained that the winter rangeland at Tso Kar could not sustain an increase in

livestock number due to overgrazing. They also claimed that the number of kiangs had

increased during the last years and they were eating grass day and night throughout the year at

Tso Kar.

“The number of animals which can practically graze together depends on a complex

combination of ecological factors connected with environment, weather conditions in the

given year and even in every season of the given year, epizootic circumstances, species-

composition of herds, biological particularities, and the age-and sex structure of herds etc.,

and also on socio- economic factors such as the number of livestock at the disposal of each

separate household, size of the available workforce, type of grazing and utilization of

52

animals, etc, and finally, even on cultural traditions and professional skills. Since the

majority of these factors are changeable, both within the whole of nomadic society and even

within separate families and households, the maximum size of herds is no stable criterion….”

(Khazanov, 1983: 29).

Increasing the herds during good years was possible in the past due to the large rangeland.

This strategy has according to the nomads changed to a certain degree. They still increase the

stocks during good years to survive the bad years, but the size of the stocks is not as large as

in the past. The nomads said that they did not have enough manpower to increase the herds,

due to the fact that large herds required much work for herding, milking and combing. In

2003, some families were very poor and they owned only a few animals (Appendix I).

Starvation and diseases could eliminate the whole basis of existence for these families.

Combination of breeds influenced the size of the stock in the fact that inbreeding may be a

problem in herds without inputs from outside. The sheep husbandry department has informed

the nomads about inbreeding, and in 2003 the SHD exchanged bucks between Korzok, Samad

and Kharnak by giving the nomads cash for participating in the programme.

“The maximum size of a stock relates upon the technique of effective management, and the

minimum size upon the subsistence minimum” (Khazanov, 1983)

Barth (1961) writes:

“unless techniques for storage of fodder are developed, absolute population size is limited

by the carrying capacity of the pastures in the least productive period of the year”.

The government of Jammu and Kashmir is eager to support the nomads in increasing the

pashmina production. The government wishes to reduce livestock mortality by subsidizing

fodder for the winter, giving vaccination to the livestock, reducing inbreeding, and building

fodder farms. The development programmes from the government will be discussed in

chapter 8.

53

6.3.3 Herd Diversification

Herd diversification is a strategy for meeting the subsistence needs of the nomads and also for

better utilization of the fodder resources on the pastures. A diverse mix of livestock also

reduced the risk of external shocks as for example snowstorms and diseases, because different

species have different demands for resources (Niamir-Fuller, 1999). Other factors that

influence the composition of livestock include the different demands for grass by the various

livestock species.

Miller (1998) writes:

“Tibetan nomadic pastoral production systems vary widely across the Tibetan plateau.

Nomads usually raise a mix of different animal species. Each has its own specific

characteristics and adaptations to the environment, and raising yaks, sheep, goats, and

horses together maximizes the use of rangeland vegetation. Different species graze on

different plants and, when herded together on the same range, make more efficient use of

rangeland vegetation than a single species. Different animals also have varied uses and

provide diversified products for home consumption or sale. Maintaining diverse herd

compositions is also a strategy employed by nomads to minimize the risk of losses from

disease or harsh winters, since a mix of different species provide some insurance that not all

animals will be lost and herds can be rebuilt again.”

According to Miller (1998), development planners and administrators often view the

traditional pastoral practises as archaic and the herd structure is seen as irrational and

uneconomic. Many officials said that the large herds with heavy livestock losses and

overgrazing of rangeland are due to the traditional pastoralism.

According to Dahl and Hjorth (1976), sheep are selective grazers, but goats survive on thorny

bushes in addition to grass, which means that goats will more easily find food during heavy

snowfall. Further, the goats’ spread more wide on pastures, and the flock does not split up

very easily. Sheep on the other side can easily get lost and wander on their own and then

become an easy prey of predators. Goats need full attention but the work is easy, sheep

tending is labour intensive (Swift in Dahl and Hjorth, 1976). Goats tend to be less trouble to

handle and give 50-100% more milk (Khazanov, 1994).

54

“The goats are well adapted to both cold and warm conditions, as well as they can travel

longer distances than sheep. They do not like moist conditions, but are better adapted as

desert animals than sheep”. (Dahl and Hjorth, 1976:251)

Both cattle and sheep are grass eaters, but cattle tend to thrive better on high grass pastures

and they are therefore taken to higher areas. Yaks can be left alone in the valleys and they are

easy to handle compared to sheep and goats that need much attention. But due to the

economic value of sheep and goats, the nomads prefer a higher proportion of sheep and goat

rather than of yaks. The sheep and goats can restock much faster than the yaks and are

therefore essential for the nomads in this extreme environment for building up the herd after a

heavy winter with high livestock mortality.

Yaks are essential for carrying the loads during movements between campsites. The nomads

said that they have less yaks than in the past due to less need, as the length of movement has

been reduced. When they moved to Skagjung, they needed more animals to carry their loads

since the distance was longer and the household consisted of more people. The milk from the

dimos was also very important for the nomads during the winter while the sheep and goats do

not give any milk.

According to the nomads they used to have more sheep than goats in the stock, and one of the

main reasons was that sheep was better adapted to the cold than goats and they kept the goats

warm in the corral during nighttime. Another reason was the preference of sheep meat by the

nomads. The composition of the stock has changed due to demand of pashmina from the

market. Pashmina was the main source of income and the motive power for increasing goat

population. The government was also trying to enhance the process of pashmina production,

but the nomads wished to maintain a relative high population of sheep due to the winter

mortality.

6.4 Influences on Decision-Making

The number of livestock that die from natural causes is unpredictable and may vary from year

to year. The households always have to account for loss due to risk and decisions regarding

slaughtering for own subsistence and sale to the market must be carefully considered in

relation to this. If a family owns a few animals and slaughter a large proportion in need of

55

cash or much meat for the winter, the decision to slaughter can be detrimental and lead to

erosion of the existence base in case of calamities and diseases (Næss, 2003). The household

always had to account for losses during winter and assure that they could survive the risks by

managing the stocks in a sustainable way. Management strategies and decisions include herd

composition, mix of species, choices of where and when to graze, to go for water and salt,

herding and protecting and dealing with diseases, division of tasks and also intricate and

extend social gatherings (Chambers, 1997:168). Chambers writes that pastoral decision-

making is a matter of “intensely concentrated judgement” in a highly unpredictable

environment that is riddled with risks where a number of trade-offs, choices and gambles

have to be made. Pastoralists and livestock herders have long term strategies with long-term

breeding strategies that are adapted to the environment as well as factors including market and

labour (Chambers, 1997).

“ When a major change takes place in the desired herd composition, it can take many years of

investment with little return before a new balance of breeding and productive stock is

developed locally or stimulated from other areas” (Patrick Robinson 1993: 148. In Chambers,

1997).

More recently the nomads have received incentives from the government such as fodder and

veterinary care in addition to improvement of the infrastructure, which are factors that are

improving the livelihood of the nomads in addition to reducing the animal mortality.13

Miller writes:

“Heavy snowfalls, such as those of last winter, should be viewed as natural events of the

Tibetan plateau environment, not as disasters. In fact, snowstorms probably serve a very

important natural regulatory mechanism in the grazing land ecosystem. Periodic heavy falls

reduce the number of livestock and wild ungulates grazing on the rangelands, thereby

enabling the grasses to recover. Unlike severe droughts in semi-arid pastoral areas, heavy

snowfalls do not negatively affect the vegetation. In fact, heavy snowfalls can actually lead to

improved grass growth the following spring due to increased water infiltration into the soil.

So, rather than disasters, heavy snowfalls should be seen as a part of the ecology of the

13 Information is given by the Jammu and Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department and the Samad people.

56

Tibetan landscape. Nomads survived severe snowstorms in the past, when there were no PLA

trucks to transport relief supplies, and they will survive winters in the future as well.”

6.5 Summary

The main cause for moving the herds is the search for natural resources like grass and water

for survival. The nomads have to be on the move with their herds to avoid overgrazing in

addition to avoid risks and uncertainties like natural hazards, diseases and blizzards. The

traditional pastoral strategies have in recent years been exposed to a set of external factors,

outlined in chapter 2 and to be discussed in chapter 8. The movement pattern has been

reduced due to political factors, the livestock population has increased, new breeding

strategies have been introduced and a number of external resources have been provided by the

government.

57

Chapter 7: Grazing Patterns in Samad

7.1 Introduction

The grazing pattern of the nomads of Rupshu changed drastically in the early 1960’s due to

the political situation between India and China. The Rupshu nomads left large grazing lands,

near the Tibetan border behind, due impacts of the border dispute (Chapter 2). The Rupshu

kingdom was split at that time, and the nomads of Samad restricted their winter movements to

the Tso Kar Basin. The basin was earlier used in parts of the summer in addition to disputed

use by Kharnak nomads in the winter. The Kharnak nomads were now forced back to the

Kharnak valley due to the traditional grazing rights of the Samad people in the catchment of

the Tso Kar Basin. The change in movement pattern resulted in reduction in size of rangeland

in addition to increased human and livestock population caused by influx of Tibetan refugees.

While reducing the grazing area the seasonal migration pattern had to change into shorter

movements and the local nomads had to divide themselves into smaller units and shift

settlement more often, which is more burdensome and exhausting, especially for the women

(Chaudhuri, 2000). Presently, the nomads shift 8- 15 times depending upon the environment

(Chaudhuri, 2000). According to the herders, they now had to move more often due to the

increased livestock population and the decreased rangeland area; each grazing area would be

grazed down faster and they had to move to new areas. In the old days, when the rangeland

was larger and overall there were fewer animals, the nomads let the animals graze without

putting so much effort into moving them to new areas since there was plenty of grass.

While using Skagjung, the livestock could be fattened up for six months and as mentioned in

Chapter 2 and a family was able to keep 500-1000 livestock. The changes has resulted in

smaller and poorer families, and a rich household owns 300-400 animals. The nomads said

the the reduction in animals per household was due to shortage of grass in the Tso Kar Basin

during winter. The increased human and livestock population led to increased pressure on the

grazing land and the nomads had to adjust the size of the herd to the new circumstances.

Another reason that was mentioned was shortage of labour due to the abandonment of

polyandric marriages.The nomads said that each family had fewer animals after changing

58

from polyandry into nuclear, smaller families. Smaller households resulted in less manpower

and the workload per person increased.

The nomads said that the winters at Tso Kar are very hard and that they lose large numbers of

livestock every winter due to cold and snow. The basin is not used during the summer, as the

nomads save the pastures for the winter season. The movement pattern and the use of the

rangeland in Samad is, according to the nomads, managed for optimal use of the available

resources. The nomads said that they cannot increase the herds and that they have to manage

the rangeland in a way to avoid overgrazing. The people today are dependent upon external

fodder resources in addition to health and veterinary care to survive the cold winters, with

heavy snowfall and snow that covers the grass.

The nomads receive subsidised fodder from the government in addition to veterinary care.

Still, they could lose a large number of livestock during the worst part of the season.

According to the nomads, there were no kinds of emergency relief during very heavy winters.

The roads are closed and it is not possible to enter the area. The grazing areas are carefully

managed to avoid overgrazing and the nomads said that the nature had its own limits if the

livestock population increased. The herders said that the area could not sustain a further

increase in livestock population and they claimed that the reason for the restrictions on the

Tibetan Refugees regarding number of livestock was due to shortage of grass in the winter.

The nomads shifted camps often and the community split into many small groups when the

environment required it.

This chapter deals with the present migration and grazing pattern of the nomads of Samad for

understanding the importance of mobility in relation to use of the natural resources in the

harsh environment. The following information was gathered through observation and

interviews in the grazing unit of Samad.

7.2 The grazing unit of Samad

The Samad grazing unit consists of a rangeland that stretches from the Taklangla pass in the

east to Pang and Polokonga in the west. Samad is located between the neighbouring nomadic

communities of Kharnak in the west and Korzok in the east (Fig. 2.2). The people of Samad

have relatives in both Korzok and Kharnak and they often visited each other and participated

59

in common religious ceremonies.The boundaries were clearly demarcated and the herders

were not allowed to graze livestock in each other’s grazing units. All of the three communities

also included Tibetan refugees that shared the rangelands.The summer movements of Samad

herders were located close to the Leh-Manali highway in an area called Skyangchuthang,

while the winter movements took place in the Tso Kar basin, just east of Skyangchuthang (Fig

7.1).

Winter movements: 1. Pankanugu 2. Thukje 3. Nabokhar 4. Stasafuk/ Nyangjungrak 5. Togra, Zomolong, Nigur, Zirgul Rigultang

Summer movements:

7. Rockchen, Rockchung, Chubsang

8. Rina 9. Nyorchung 10. Nyorchen 11.Togosiru 12. Mangzul 13. Dipling, Zee 14 Zara

Figure 7.1 The grazing unit of Samad. The numbers indicates the major grazing areas/campsites in Samad , with names of these sites shown in the boxes at the right side of the map.

60

7.3 Movement pattern

The movement pattern for Samad herders consists of fixed spatial movements and flexible

temporal movements. Fixed spatial movements means that the general areas used for grazing

are the same every year, while flexible temporal movements means that the time for each

movement may change in relation to environmental circumstances. The nomads moved with

their livestock throughout the year, with relatively short distances between the various

temporary campsites. The spatial and temporal movement pattern in 2003-2004, according to

the herders that were interviewed, is illustrated in Fig. 7.2.

Figure 7.2. Seasonal and spatial grazing pattern of Samad. (Map: J.L. Fox and W. Hagalia)

The quality of the pastures and water availability were two of the most important factors that

determined when to break up the camp and move to the next. Other factors that influence

61

temporal movements can include disease outbreak, localized droughts, market location,

festivals and social gatherings (Niamir-Fuller, 1999). Moving from one settlement to another

was decided a couple of days in advance due to these factors. The Goba of Samad decided the

time for breaking up the camp and moving to the next site after discussion with the other men

in the village. The whole community moved with their herds and tents, with a maximum of

two months at each settlement. All of the Changpa households had a small stone structured

house at Thukje in the Tso Kar Basin for storage of food and equipment, but apart from this,

the nomads had to carry all of their equipment between the camps, including tent, stove, food,

clothes, carpets, household items, and cassette players. When moving the camp, the nomads

got up early in the morning, at approximately 5 am, to pack their equipment and organise the

animals for the movement. The yaks and dimos carried the equipment, including the tent and

stoves, as well as small kids and lambs. Sometimes the nomads rode on the yaks in addition to

the horses. The movements usually took three to five hours of walking. If the next planned

settlement was located far away, they would rest for a night or two on the way. The nomads

settled on different grazing areas and the size of the camps varied due to the quality of the

pasture and the water availability.

The Samad community can also be divided into three groups regarding movement pattern.

1) Families that grazed livestock belonging to the Thukje Monastery, in addition to their

own livestock Families were chosen for this responsibility on a rotational basis and it was said

that they were sent to campsites with better grazing.

2) Families that grazed their own livestock

3) The Tibetan refugees.

These three groups used the same, different, as well as overlapping grazing areas, also

depending upon the quality of the pastures and the availability of water. Table 1 shows the

names of the settlement.

62

Table 7.1. Campsites of the nomads of Samad. Some campsites were only used by Tibetan refugees (TR) or by the herders responsible for the monastery’s livestock (Gonpa) Settlements Jan Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.Stasafuk Nyangjungrak

X X X

Rigul, Chorgog, Tasar (TR)

X X

Togra, Nigur, Zigur,Zomolong

X X X

Thukje X X X Skamjung X Rockchen, Rockchung X X Chubsang X Rina X Norchen (TR) X Togosiru (Gonpa) X X Norchung X Dipling X Zee (Gonpa) X Zara X Panka nugu X X Napokhar (Dipra,Kiam,Sawarak,Rhupra)

X

Napokhar TR (Gatkarpo,Chukpo- nyinra,Patsa tak tak)

X

Most of the year the Tibetan refugees stayed in separate camps, usually located in close

walking distance to the Samad people. As Chapter 5A indicated, it is claimed that there is a

conflict between the two groups that, according to the nomads themselves, is caused by the

high number of livestock owned by the Tibetans. Due to shortage of grass, mainly during the

winter, the Tibetans grazed their livestock in different areas than the locals. According to the

nomads, the families that were selected to take care of the livestock belonging to the Gonpa

were supposed to be given the better pastures.

7.3.1 Winter Movements in the Tso Kar Basin

The nomads of Samad arrived on the winter rangeland with their herds in November in 2002.

The animals had been fattened up throughout the summer and autumn and the nomads hoped

63

that the animals would survive the cold winter. Old and weak animals were slaughtered and

sold in December, while the rest had to be strong and healthy to survive the winter. The

rangeland in the basin was divided into different grazing areas that were used in different

periods. The nomads reached Tso Kar Basin at Pankanugu in November after approximately

five months in Skyangchuthang and Dibling. Some of the families settled at Pankanugu, while

some moved directly to Thukje. The Tibetan refugees camped at Pankanugu, about 1 km west

of the locals. The winter grazing areas are shown in Figs. 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 and in

Appendix 2.

Figure 7.3. Satellite photo of the Tso Kar Basin. The Changpas of Samad have their winter pastures and settlements around the basin. Rigultang is used by the Tibetan refugees.

The local nomads moved between 4 different grazing areas in the Tso Kar Basin during the

winter. The first sites were Pankanugu and Thukje, the second site at different camps in

Napokhar and the third in Stasafuk and Nyangjungrak. The forth movement went to the east

of the basin, which the nomads called the emergency area, consisting of sites called Togra,

Nigur, Zirgul and Zomolong, and was used during the worst period with heavy snowfall.

Afterwards the nomads went back to Stasafuk and Nyangjungrak for a few days before

moving to Thukje to leave equipment used in the winter and to prepare for the summer

movements in Skyangchuthang.

64

Table 7.2.Winter settlements of the local Changpas and the Tibetan refugees in the winter 2003. Time Local Changpas Tibetan refugees November-December and May Thukje and Pankanugu Pankanugu End of December Napokhar Napokhar January-February and April Stasafuk and Nyangjunrak Rigultang and Chorgok February-April Togra, Nigur, Zirgul and

Zomolong Zomolong

During the winter season from November to May, the nomads had various campsites around

the basin. The headquarters of the Samad people was located at Thukje, while the Tibetan

refugees had their headquarters at Nuruchen. At these sites, they had stone-structured houses

for storage of food. The houses that belonged to the TR`s at Nuruchen were small, while the

houses at Thukje were big enough for the family to live in. There were about 70 stone-

structured houses in Thukje. All the local families of Samad have at least one house, which

they used for storage of food and equipment throughout the year. The Jammu and Kashmir

Sheep Husbandry Department and the Medical Department had one building each at Thukje.

In addition, in Thukje there were two buildings that were used as storage sites for fodder and

one community building. There were also two stone structured Ladakhi toilets and a few

moveable toilets scattered around in the campsite. Some of the local Samad people stayed in

their house during November-December, while the rest of the community and the TR`s

preferred to stay in the rebos (tents) throughout the year. The traditional rebos were made out

of yak wool, or khullu. These tents were used by most of the nomads in the winter when it is

cold and there is strong wind. During the summer they preferred to use a more lightweight

tent that had been provided by an organisation of the Dalai Lama. Inside the tents, they had a

stove, or chulla, with a pipe that went through a hole in the roof of the tent. The women had

fire on the chulla most of the day. They used dried yak dung and plant roots for fuel since no

wood was available. They also used kerosene that they had bought from the market in Leh.

The women made butter tea throughout the day.

November- December

At the end of November, the nomads moved their herds from Rockchen towards Pankanugu

and Thukje. During December, the local nomads stayed at both Pankanugu and Thukje, but in

65

the old days, only the nomads that kept livestock for the monastery stayed at Thukje.

According to the nomads, these rules are not followed any longer. Approximately 2/3 of the

Samad nomads stayed in houses and tents in Thukje, the rest stayed in Pankanugu. The

Tibetan refugees had their camping site a little west of the local nomads at Pankanugu. The

nomads used the rangeland at Pankanugu and Thukje before losar (Tibetan New Year), and

after losar they moved towards Napokhar with their livestock. In November the nomads also

took their animals to pastures at Rockchen and Chubchang for 10-12 days. The male yaks

were taken to the Shimbuk valley for grazing while the dimos were grazed in the wetlands of

the basin, in Spang and Thukje areas.

In 2002 the nomads celebrated losar, the Tibetan New Year, for four days starting from the 5th

of December. At this time, the nomads slaughtered sheep, goats and/or a yak for the feast.

They were eating, drinking and partying for four days, although shepherds still herded the

livestock during this feast. Only two old women stayed in their houses in Thukje throughout

the year, in addition to two monks that stayed in the Gonpa. Thukje had a water pump that

was funded by the watershed development programme and implemented by the Sheep

Husbandry Department three years ago, in addition to a natural spring in the wetland.

The nomads had restrictions for the grazing areas, and the Thangmar area behind the Gonpa

was restricted and only allowed for horses from the period after losar until they left for

Napokhar in late December, a total of 2-3 weeks. Before losar, the horses grazed in the spang

wetland area.

End of December

After Losar, at the end of December, the nomads used the pastures in the Napokhar area.

Some of the nomads preferred to stay at their settlement at Thukje, but they were not allowed

to use the areas at Thukje, so they had to take their animals to Napokhar, which was used for

20-25 days. The Napokhar site was a large flat terrain with surrounding mountains and

valleys that was used for grazing the livestock. Napokhar means `blue sheep area` and blue

sheep, Tibetan argali and a significant number of kiangs could be observed in this area. There

were no water sources in Napokhar so the nomads had to either melt snow or bring water

from Thukje or Shimbuk valley. According to the nomads, Napokhar had eight campsites

where the nomads stayed in tents with the livestock gathered together in corrals. The

66

settlements were called Dipra, Kiam, Sawarak, Rhupra, Nyamlung, Gatkarpo, Chukponyinra

and Patsa tak tak, with the Tibetan refugees using mainly the three last ones.

January

The local nomads went either to Stasafuk or Nyangjungrak by walking from Napokhar to

Thukje and then crossing the basin in between Tso Kar and Stasafuk Lake. Both of these sites

are located on the shore of Stasafuk Lake and the nomads had a few stone structured houses

and corrals at these campsites. The government was also in process of building a house for

their fieldwork. According to the nomads Stasafuk means `grass for horse` and Nyangjungrak

means `ducks live there`.

On the way from Napokhar to Stasafuk, the local nomads stayed 2-3 nights at Thukje and

used all the pastures at Thangmar, behind Thukje monastery. The shepherds took their horses

to the Stasafuk area before the livestock. Usually the nomads stayed at Stasafuk and

Nyangjungrak for three months but the nomads said that it was very dependent upon the

weather. Approximately 2/3 of the Samad families stayed at Stasafuk in houses and rebos,

while the rest stayed in at Nyangjungrak on the east side of Stasafuk Lake. The area around

the Stasafuk Lake is warm and it has a river with drainage from the mountains, which runs

through Nuruchen and into this freshwater lake. The nomads used all the pastures in the

wetland, as well as the mountain hills towards Rang in the east and Nuruchen in south. Rang

was an area that bordered to Samad that was used in the summer by a group of Tibetan

refugee nomads from Sumdo that was apart of the grazing unit of Korzok. At the same time,

the nomads from Korzok used another area that also bordered Samad’s, that was called

Rajungkaru. There has been some conflict regarding this pasture (Fig.7.2) with the TR`s from

Sumdo/ Korzok. The TR`s are allowed to use the pastures on the east side of the river that

runs through this pasture (the river is the boundary line) in the summer, but sometimes they

used the other side that belongs to Samad. According to the nomads of Samad, they can take a

few goats from the TR`s as compensation for the use of their grazing area, but they also said

that this rule is not generally adhered to.

The nomads said that they preferred to stay at Stasafuk in the cold winter as long as they

could, but when the snowfall was high, they had to move northwards, to what they call the

emergency pastures. Sheep and goat reproduction took place in February, and they lost many

67

kids and lambs, as well as sheep and goats this winter due to starvation and skin disease,

exacerbated by the heavy snowfall.

February-March (severe winter conditions)

During the most severe part of the winter, often with significant snowfall, both the local

nomads and the TR`s moved to the area on the northeast side of the basin, which they called

the emergency area. At this time, the tents were scattered over four campsites; Togra,

Zomolong, Nigur and Zirgul. During the daytime the herders brought the livestock deep into

the valleys and up in the mountains to find grass that was not covered by snow. The areas

were located on the south side of the mountains where less snow was lying on the mountain

slopes and ridges, so the herders had to climb high up in the mountains during heavy winters

to find grass for the livestock. The nomads moved to these pastures only when the snow was

too deep and the grass was covered by snow in the Stasafuk area. A few nomads, mostly

women and children, stayed in Stasafuk during this period. The management of the livestock

was important at this time of the year due to high mortality of livestock caused by starvation

and cold (Chapter 5B). The nomads put the livestock into corrals with plastic roofs during the

nighttime, to protect the animals from the cold, snow and wind. The animals were pushed

together in the corral and in this way the animals kept each other warm. Small kids and lambs

were fed leftovers from barley, which is very nutritious. The women said that they feed them

as if they were their own babies.

The shepherds split the herds into small groups during this period and the workload of

shepherds increases in this season. Strong and healthy animals were taken to pastures higher

up in the mountains than the weaker ones. There are many small kids and lambs in this period

due to the kidding and lambing that took place in December-February, and according to the

Sheep Husbandry Department, approximately 25% of the livestock population dies in this

period because of the cold, lack of fodder, predation and a number of diseases in the winter.

During the year of 1998, for example, it was claimed by the nomads that 80 % of all the

livestock in Samad died due to heavy winter and calamities.

The winter of 2002-2003 was a hard winter with lots of snowfall and shepherds used the

emergency pastures in February, March and April. At the end of April they went back to

Stasafuk for one month, before going to Thukje in May.

68

April-May

When the winter was loosening its grip, and the snow was smelting, the nomads moved back

to Stasafuk and Nyangjungrak for 20-30 days. The TR`s moved to Rigulthang.

May-June

The nomads went back to Thukje in May and stayed until the 11th of June 2003. They used all

the pastures at Thukje and at Napokhar. At this time, they left their winter equipment at

Thukje and stored it in their houses and got ready for the summer season. The TR`s went to

Napokhar from Rigulthang.

7.3.2 Summer movements in the Skyangchuthang area

The summer movements are considered as the time when the nomads were using the

rangeland at Skyangchuthang during the 5th to the 8th Tibetan months, which was from June

to November. The nomads said that Skyangchutang meant ”kiangs drink water”. The summer

rangeland is south and west of the Tso Kar Basin, divided from Tso Kar by a mountain ridge.

The grazing areas lie close to the Leh-Manali highway and the campsites are scattered on both

sides of the highway, with nomads crossing the road with their livestock on their daily

herding routes. The nomads could take the bus or hitch hike with trucks when going to the

market in Leh or to Choglamsar where many families had family members that had left

Changthang for work or school. The summer was according to the nomads a good time with

no problems of grazing resources. They said that they experienced problems with water if the

winter had been mild and some of the camps had no water at all. The livestock was fattened

up throughout the summer season, kids and lambs grew up, pashmina and wool was extracted

from the goats and sheep and the nomads could go to the market to buy food rations and to

visit family members. The summer was also the time for making dairy products like yoghurt,

butter and cheese from the milk of the sheep, goats and the dimos.

The nomads brought their animals to Tso Kar twice in the summer for salting in the marsh

meadows on a shortcut from Rockchen to Tso Kar over the mountain ridge. These summer

movements are outlined in Fig. 7.1, 7.2 and Table 7.2.

69

June

The nomads started their summer movements by moving from the Tso Kar Basin to the

Skyangchuthang area close to the highway in June in 2003. The nomads were scattered at

settlements at Rockchen, Rockchung, Chubsang and Mangzul. Most these campsites could be

seen from the highway, on both sides, although Rockchung is hidden a bit deeper inside the

valley, and difficult to see. The campsite at Mangzul was located close to the highway and the

nomad’s dogs often ran after the cars that were passing. Mangzul did not have any water

source and nomads were observed next to the highway with empty bottles requesting water

from people in passing vehicles.

July

In July, the nine families that kept livestock for the Gonpa stayed at Togosiru, which was the

last settlement on the way to Pang. The largest settlement was located at Rina on the north

side of the highway with approximately 37 families. The TR`s and five local families stayed

at Norchen on the west side of the highway. All of the settlements had streams running down

from the mountains.

August

During this month, the Gonpa families stayed at Togosiru while all the others, including the

TR`s, stayed at Norchung for 45 days of prayers. The nine families that looked after the

livestock of the Gonpa stayed at Togosiru, but visited Norchung for the prayers. There was a

tent for the prayers in the large campsite and monks were brought in from Korzok. This

month was a time of social gathering, where the nomads stayed together, drank chang and

enjoyed each other’s company.

September – October

The next campsite was located at Dipling, which was two days of travelling from Norchung.

The nomads stayed in the Dipling valley and at Zee (where the nine families stayed), which

was located at the bottom of the Taklangla pass.

October – November

The campsite for this period was located at Zara, which could not be seen from the highway.

The Zara summer pasture belonged to the Samad people, but the nomads of Kharnak also

70

exercised grazing rights for a few days before the summer solstice as per an agreement made

by the government in Leh.

November

In November the nomads moved back to Norchen and Norchung for a few days before going

to Pankanugu and Thukje.

7.3.3 Movements of the Yaks

While settled at different campsites, and while the yaks were not needed for carrying loads,

they were left alone in deep valleys. According to the nomads, the yaks stayed together in

groups and survived without shepherds. There would always be a risk of predation and, but

according to the shepherds, the risk of predation is higher during the winters in Tso Kar,

where there are a higher number of wolves. During winter, the herders were sharing

responsibility of herding the yaks on rotation. The yaks could easily find the way back to the

nomads. Table 7.3 shows the seasonal grazing areas for the yaks.

Table 7.3. Grazing areas used by yaks in 2003. Time: Name of valley: June-July Thaksum khongthang while the nomads were in Rockchen and

Rockchung August The yaks should be in Pirze, north of Togosiru in this period, but the

Korzok nomads moved them to Sirdumchen while taking their own yaks to Pirze. Pirze is a common pasture for Korzok and Samad, but according to the herders they had small conflict about the grazing rights in this period.

September-October Dipling November-December Shimbuk (Pankanugu) January-February Sirdumchen February-April Taktharo (behind zirgul )

71

7.5 Summary

The local nomads and the Tibetan refugees in Samad use rangeland in the Tso Kar Basin

during winter and in Skyangchuthang during summer. The nomads shifted campsites often

and according to the herders, the winter season was the limiting factor for them. The basin

was used from late November to late May, while Skyanchuthang was used from June to

November. February to April was the worst period, and the nomads could lose a large

proportion of the livestock population. The nomads were flexible in the timing of moving to

next campsite and grazing area, dependent upon the environment, while the spatial movement

pattern was more fixed. They saved an “emergency area” for the hardest time, when most of

the rangeland was covered by snow. At this time the herders brought the animals high up in

the mountains to find grass. During summer, the rangeland was located close to the highway

and the nomads could easily get to Leh and other places by buses and trucks.

72

Chapter 8: Changes in resource use; development

8.1 Introduction

The Changthang region in India has been exposed to a number of changes with major

consequences for the nomads that are rearing livestock on the high plateau during the last

forty years. The nomads experienced drastic changes in the traditional rangeland use and the

new situation has led to pressure on the available grazing land. The first drastic changes

occurred after the border dispute between India and China and the conflict initiated a new

époque for the nomads. The nomadic use of the rangeland has been affected by:

• Influx of Tibetan refugees with thousands of livestock.

• Loss of a large winter rangeland at Skagjung.

• Military activity and construction of Leh-Manali highway.

• The end of the salt extraction from Tibet, and the end of the salt trade.

• Change into market economy from self-subsistence.

• Increased human-wildlife conflict?

• Abandonment of polyandry

• Tourism

These exogenous agents of change occurred over a short time, and with the loss of the

Skagjung winter rangeland and influx of refugees, the nomads had to adapt to a new situation

with less flexibility. At the same time, the household economy changed from self- subsistence

into a market economy, which had major impact on the traditional pastoralism. Until this

time, the nomads had been surviving in the mountains with little interaction with the outside

world. In the wake of the border dispute, the remote area was suddenly exposed to a high

military activity and construction of roads that made it possible for people to travel to the

area. The road opened up for new possibilities and the government started to show great

interest in the area.

73

8.2 Pressure on the rangeland

One of the major changes that occurred in Samad was the change in pasture availability. The

Changpas experienced both a reduction in the size of rangeland and both increased human and

livestock populations. At the same time, the quality of the Samad grazing area decreased due

to the more severe winters in the Tso Kar Basin, the new winter rangeland. In the past, some

of the nomads of Rupshu had used the basin for some periods of the summer and by the

nomads of Kharnak during the winter. The nomads of Samad had previously stayed in the

basin for a short period of the winter for celebration of Losar before they went to Skagjung in

mid-December. The nomads of Kharnak had been entering the basin illegally during heavy

winters in spite of the grazing restrictions, due to the very heavy snowfall in the Kharnak

valley. According to historical information, it appears that the basin has been used for limited

grazing for a long time and even if the nomads of Samad were using areas at Skagjung in the

winter, the Kharnak people had used the basin in severe winters. In any case, the grazing

pressure in the basin clearly increased, with its selection as the new wintering area for the

Samad herds. The community of Samad was larger than the community of Kharnak to begin

with, and the population increased with approximately 25% with the influx of refugees.

According to both nomads and government officials, the resource availability in the Tso Kar

Basin during winter was a problem. Since both the livestock and the human population had

increased, the nomads said that the families could not keep as large herds as in the old days.

The rangeland in the basin could not provide resources for a further increase in livestock

population due to the heavy winters. In the past, the nomads could keep much larger herds

due to the large rangeland and after heavy winters with big losses of livestock, they could

recover during good years, a pattern typical in pastoral areas (Niamir-Fuller, 1998). Today the

families are much poorer due to the changes that had occurred and the families had much

smaller herds than in the past. The family structure had changed due to the abandonment of

polyandry, with families experiencing shortages of labour, so they could not manage a large

herd any more.

According to the nomads, natural hazards and diseases have a much larger impact on the

households nowadays than in the past. In the past when e.g. a herder had 400 sheep and goats,

he could easily recover after a loss of 20 animals. Nowadays, if a family that owns 40 sheep

and goats loses 20 animals, they may have difficulty recovering. The loss could lead to

starvation for the whole family.

74

“Environmental hazards affect all households equally and it will therefore have greater effect

on poor households …“(Næss, 2003)

Due to the reduced movement pattern and the pressure on the rangeland, the nomads had to be

more careful with management of the natural resources as well as with decision- making

regarding aversion of risk. The spatial movements as well as the seasonal and daily

movements have to be carefully planned, to avoid overgrazing. Therefore, the local nomads

had restrictions on the number of livestock the Tibetan refugees were allowed to keep.

Reduction in rangeland and increased pressure on the grazing areas led to more movements

and shift of settlements to avoid overgrazing and for optimal utilization of the grazing areas.

The households had to shift camping sites more often, which included more work and a busier

life. In the past, the area was large and the population was comparatively small, so the

families could stay longer at one place without worries regarding overgrazing.

8.3 Consequenses of the Leh- Manali Highway

The closure of the border between India and China had other impacts on the Changpas than

pressure on the rangeland of Samad, it was also the initiation of the market economy for the

Changpas, with the highway that traversed the rangeland (Ahmed, 2000). The government of

India built the Leh-Manali highway due to the border dispute. The border disputes with both

China and Pakistan required a large number of soldiers, weapons, and rations. At the end of

the war, the road was opened to the public and the army provided the local people with cheap

food rations in exchange of cash. There was no reason for the nomads to travel long distances

for trading while the food was now available nearby for a much cheaper price.

The construction of the road led to many changes for the nomads. First, the nomads that had

been living in the remote areas were now exposed to the outside world at an explosive speed.

Second, the traditional pastoralism experienced major socio-economic changes; the salt trade

ended and the self-subsistence changed into market economy. This change also affected the

food habits of the nomads. Rice, which earlier was a luxury, was now available from Punjab

and other agricultural areas of India for a cheap price. The nomads could easily travel to the

market by the highway. Third, the government showed increased interest for the vast

Changthang, including the lucrative pashmina wool trade.

75

8.4 Present development in the Changthang

The change from subsistence and barter trade into a market economy influenced the life of the

nomads to a high degree. The old barter system gradually disappeared with the inputs from

the government and the demand from the market. The nomads had to sell either pashmina or

meat to the market to get cash for buying rations and necessary equipment and they started to

become dependent upon the market and inputs from the government to survive.

Many organisations, in and outside Ladakh, have shown great interest in the Changthang

plateau, its wilderness, environment, ecology and the nomadic life. There were a number of

International Non-Government Organisations (NGO`s), Non-Government Organisations

(NGO`s) and Government Organisations (GO`s) with ongoing projects in the Changthang.

Development activity has been high; however, no institution had any overview of these

activities. The nomads themselves were saying that they were confused about all the activities

and the number of interviews they had to take part in, and they did not know which of these

activities would have any consequences for them.

The government provided the nomads with medical care, education for the children and

attempts to reduce livestock mortality. There have been various projects and funding in the

Changthang during the last years. The nomads are getting dependent upon some of the

equipment and resources they have been given for free or highly subsidised. An example was

the new stove, smokeless chulla that the nomads received from an NGO, the “Leh Nutrition

Project”. The new stove was different from the stoves they used in the old days. The

smokeless chulla had a pipe that went through an opening in the roof of the tent and it

removed the smoke from the tent. The health of the nomads improved after removing the

smoke from the tents and their eyes were not suffering by becoming dry and sore (Chaudhuri,

2000). The stoves broke down after some years and the nomads had to use their own money

to buy new ones.

8.4.1 Health facilities

The nomads receive free medical care from the Medical Department office that is located at

Thukje. The Department hired two nurses that were committed to work in the field for three

years. The nurses reported that the most common problems were stomach problems,

diarrhoea, nausea, constipation, toothache and eye problems. If the nomads were seriously

76

wounded, or if the nurses could not provide them with the right medicines, they were sent to

the hospital in Leh. The nomads could get lifts by trucks, buses, government officials, and

locals from Leh or sometimes with tourists. The nomads felt it like a problem that the medical

personnel stayed at Thukje throughout the year, instead of following them on their

movements. In the summer, it took too much time to go to Thukje if someone got seriously

sick, and then it was easier to travel directly to Leh with the buses that were passing on the

highway. The transport to Leh was more difficult in the winter when the pass was closed and

there were no trucks or busses. The people of Samad had no communication with the outside

world rather than with some people that travelled to Thukje. The nomads could travel by

horseback to the nearest centralised place and then get a lift with army vehicles.

Various sources confirmed that the life expectancy had increased during the last years and the

nomads ranked the medical department as one of the most important institutions

(Phuntsog, 2002). The medical personnel now report that they was requested by the medical

department to follow the nomadic movements, but they were not used to live like nomads and

one of nurses had a small baby and she preferred to stay at Thukje. The medical personnel are

highly appreciated by the nomads, and during winter, the nomads often visited the medical

personnel at Thukje. The nomads also often asked about medicines from people that passed

by. They were always happy to get medicines and bandages. The Tibetan refugees have

medical staffs that visit them occasionally, and they can use the services from the Indian

government and the medical services at Thukje. According to the local nomads, the Tibetan

refugees had a much better medical support then the locals.

8.4.2 Educational facilities

The government provided the nomads with schools and teachers. There were government

schools at various places outside Samad, where the children had to stay in hostels. The

government also provided the nomads with teachers in the field that travelled with them, but

this system was not maintained well. Even if the children followed the teaching, they were

seldom capable of reading and writing well. The teachers were posted in the field against

their wish, because of shortage of jobs. Very often, they left their jobs, and the children were

without teachers. According to the nomads, this often happened in the winter, when it was

getting cold. The nomads said that they had bad experience and the teachers did not stay for

very long, due to the coldness. If the children start on a centralised school, after participating

77

on the nomadic schools, they have to start from lower kindergarden. Another problem with

the nomadic school was that the nomads seldom stayed in one large group, but were scattered

within 1-4 kilometres distance. If the children wanted to participate in the school, they had to

stay with another family, if their campsite was located in another camp than the school tent.

Some of the children were small and much attached to their mothers, and they preferred to

stay at home. It seemed that the children were willing to learn and they enjoyed being in

school.

The permanent government schools in Ladakh also had a bad reputation and people from the

Changthang and other places preferred to send their children to private schools, especially if

the parents were rich or if they got sponsors from outside. Others sent their children to

government school in Nyoma. Both the local children and the children of the TR`s had the

possibility of education in government schools. However, unfortunately these schools are

known to have low educational standard due to bureaucracy. Ladakh has a high level of

unemployment, and many young educated people see a job in the school sector as the only

possibility. Many people wanted to work in the government, due to benefits from the state.

Teachers were usually stationed far away from their homes, like in the Changthang.

The nomads were very much aware of the importance of education for their children, and it

had a high priority. If they got the possibility of sending their children to school they

preferred to do so, even if they had a shortage of labour. They often asked people from

outside: tourists, researchers and others, if they could sponsor their children. Even if the

families were imposed to send one boy to the monastery, many families prioritized education.

If the monastery demanded a son, some nomads said that if they sent him to school rather than

to the monastery, they would have to pay a fine as well as being in conflict with the monks. It

is a bad thing to do, according the old tradition, but the nomads were thinking about the future

of their children.

8.4.3 Pashmina development programmes

The trade and sale of pashmina had been going on for centuries in Ladakh, but the

international pashmina market boomed in the 1980’s and the nomads earned a high amount of

cash from the exclusive wool even if they were underpaid due to the low price from the

Kashmiri middlemen. The government started to show an increased interest in the pashmina

78

production and they made many attempts to increase the goat numbers. The local people of

Samad did not follow the idea of the government, claiming that they had neither winter forage

nor labour to increase the stock.

The Jammu and Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department (SHD) has built a fodder farm at

Nuruchen, behind Stasafuk Lake, with the aim of providing the nomads with fodder for hard

winters. The idea of the government was that the nomads should learn how to manage the

crop themselves, and to save the fodder for heavy winters. Until now, the department has

employed labour from outside, with only one shepherd from Samad participating. Last year

one Kashmiri worker died due to the high altitude. The nomads, especially the men, were not

interested to work at Nuruchen due to pashmina combing at the same period in the summer.

The nomads were proud of their life as a pastoralist, and they were sceptical to a change in

their way of living. They felt independent and they were sceptical to include agriculture into

their nomadic lifestyle. The nomads themselves wanted to follow their traditional way of

living and they did not want and did not have the time to work on the fodder crop. They said

that they had always survived without these external inputs of fodder. One shepherd said that

they lose livestock during winter, but that is a natural way of balancing the livestock number.

They had always survived without external inputs. It would be difficult for the nomads to

work at the fodder crop at the same time as moving their livestock and shifting of settlements.

Government officials from the SHD complained that the nomads did not want to work on the

fodder crop and they said that the herders run away from their responsibilities. An official

said that sometimes when the nomads were hired to work for the government and employed

for doing field jobs, they moved to the city, and no longer cared for the fieldwork. According

to the official, the department did not have the power to fire him from his job; it had to be

taken care of by the District Council.

One family was interviewed regarding the fodder crop at Nuruchen. This family exercised

polyandry where the wife was married to two brothers and they had four children together.

One daughter was working in her aunt’s restaurant in Leh. She had weak hips and she was not

strong enough to work as a herder in the Changthang. Two of their sons were sent to school,

one in Nyoma and one in Choglamsar while the third boy was only seven years old and

staying with the family. The oldest husband was working for the SHD at Nuruchen while the

other one was working part time for the army when the oldest one had free time from the

79

work for SHD. The husbands were quite happy about the situation, but the wife complained

that the oldest husband was working too much for the SHD and the workload was too much

for her and the other husband. The family planned to move to Choglamsar in three to four

years, where they had gotten a small plot of land from the government. The shepherd that

was working for the SHD said that no one wanted to work at the fodder farm. He tried to get

help from other nomads, but only his own family members helped him. He also said that the

work at Nuruchen was badly organized. Sometimes when he went to the fodder crop to meet

workers from Leh, they had not arrived and there was no message for him, and he had to

return to his settlement that could be hours away. Communication between Leh and the

Changthang was difficult, but sometimes messages were sent with government officials that

were visiting the field.

The government wanted to increase the livelihood of the nomads and to decrease the livestock

mortality in the winter, and with a small input of fodder from an agricultural land, they could

save it for the hardest winter. The department did not have enough capital to run the fodder

farm on its own, so if the nomads did not meet their requirement of working at the farm and

take over the management, the farm would be closed down (Phuntsog, 2002). The

government had supported the nomads for six years with fodder, which was given in the early

winter (November). According to the nomads, it was usually finished in late winter. The

herders said that it was difficult to save the fodder when they did not know how the winter

would be. There were no emergency forage resources for crisis and natural hazards. The

nomads could ride to other villages for fodder, but during crisis, it could be difficult to get out

of the area, and there could be shortages of fodder other places as well. The Jammu and

Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department subsidised the Samad people with livestock fodder for

use in the winter, which they stored at Thukje. But according to the nomads, this fodder

would usually be finished before the worst part of the winter season; for they said that it was

difficult to predict the winter conditions and to save fodder. The nomads bought food and

rations in the market in Leh for winter storage.

The Jammu and Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department was very active in the Changthang

region, in all the nomadic communities. They were well funded from different sources, such

as the Central Government of India and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir in addition to

other Departments. It is clear that the development of pashmina production in Changthang is

of high priority for the politicians and the economy of Ladakh. Moreover, the community of

80

Ladakh is now investing in a pashmina dehairing machine for increasing the income of the

region by not being dependent upon sending the pashmina to Kashnmir. The pashmina is an

important source of income for Ladakh and the products from Korzok, Kharnak and Samad

are the most exclusive due to the cold and harsh environment the goats are reared in.

Two of the projects that were going on in the Changthang in 2003 were:

“Integrated sheep and wool development project for Nyoma block” •

•

- Livestock health and breeding coverage

“ Boarder Area Development Project” 5 year project

- Establishment of mini-farms

- 50 female goats available at subsidized rate

- Improvement of the livelihood of the nomads

- 5 bucks will be provided to each community, free of cost

- Feed stores

- Mobile veterinary dispensaries

The SHD had also implemented construction of irrigation canals, sheep and goat sheds and

horse stables. In addition, they have provided the nomads with dipping vats, lambing and

kidding sheds, pashmina kits, vet kits to paramedics and improved iron combs. Government

officials were also teaching the herders about the latest animal breeding techniques,

management, and health control.

The government activities in Samad were affecting the traditional herd management strategies

including the traditional strategies for aversion of risk. One of the old strategies was keeping a

diverse herd composition. The nomads of Samad preferred to keep a larger proportion of

sheep due to the sheeps’ better survival in the winter, while the government is trying to

influence the nomads to keep a larger stock of goats due to the economic benefits of

pashmina. The nomads themselves said that they would not make more money on pashmina if

the animals died during winter.

According to government officials, inputs of fodder and veterinary care could keep the

population stable. Then again, the perception of the herders was that a stable population could

only be maintained by continuous inputs from the government and they would be totally

81

dependent upon the outside world and the government for their survival. If the responsible

department would have low funding one year, or if there were other reasons for decreased

inputs to the nomads, the nomads would suffer even more from external shocks like diseases

or snowstorms if they were dependent upon feeding their animals and if they had a large stock

of goats. The nomads preferred to be independent and to manage the livestock as they were

used to.

Barth (1961) writes:

“Unless techniques for storage of fodder are developed, absolute population size is limited by

the carrying capacity of the pastures in the least productive period of the year”

There is an academic on-going debate on impacts of external inputs like vaccinations and

veterinary care to reduce livestock mortality in pastoral areas (Niamir-Fuller, 1998). The

traditional management of the livestock has been adapted to the uncertainty in the areas they

live and a change in this trend towards reduced mortality, agricultural activities and loss of

mobility may lead to overgrazing in certain areas as well as dependence upon these external

inputs. Even if the government claims that the nomads should manage the fodder crop

themselves, the nomads will still be dependent upon fodder inputs and veterinary care. If the

government activities in the Changthang end, due to other priorities, the “new” system may

collapse. The nomads are also dependent upon the market for selling their products and if the

demand for pashmina and meat decreases, they need to have “emergency- strategies” so that

they can survive on self-subsistence without getting in debt by borrowing money. The more

dependent the nomads become of the market resources, the more they lose the flexibility they

are used to as well as their independence. The nomads said that they do not know what is

happening and that they were worried about their future.

8.4.4 Wildlife conservation

The increasing pressure on the rangeland at Tso Kar Basin has according to wildlife

conservationists, been a factor for increased human-wildlife conflict in the area. Part of the

Changthang region has been declared as a wildlife sanctuary, due to the variety of wild

animals, including several internationally endangered species. The area attracts researchers

82

and wildlife conservationists from all over the world due to the unique ecology and

abundance of wildlife. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) was working on a project on

black-necked cranes in the Tso Kar Basin during the summer of 2003.

The Samad people did not know much about the wildlife conservation in the area. They could

observe researchers coming and going and they said that many researchers were interviewing

them. The nomads said that they did not experience any major problems due to the wildlife.

They said that the wild animals had always been a part of the nature and the problems they

faced were not new. The problems were predation by wolf and the grazing of kiangs. Some of

the herders claimed that the population of kiangs had increased and since the grazing unit had

been smaller, they experienced some problems during the winter. According to the nomads,

the kiangs grazed the best pastures and finished the grass, so that the livestock would starve.

The nomads said that they could not do anything about this problem. A couple of years ago,

the nomads requested the government about compensation of loss of resources because the

kiangs had grazed their pastures. Some nomads claimed that kiangs arrived from Tibet

because Tibetans had driven them over the border.

The nomads said that it was good to live in harmony with the wildlife, and a strict Buddhist

belief loathes the killing of animals. The nomads were slaughtering livestock for survival, but

they did not hunt or kill wildlife, even if this may have happened in the past. Today, all

hunting of wildlife is forbidden, although some sources indicated that hunting occurred some

years ago. The nomads said that the population of kiangs had increased very much this year,

and they were grazing in the Tso Kar Basin throughout the year.

8.5 Tourism

Tourism has turned out to be the main source of income for Ladakh after the region opened

up in 1974. In Leh town tourist offices and trekking companies are everywhere. Kashmiris

and Punjabis have entered the town to sell their products and commodities and beggars travel

from Bihar and other poor areas to make a living on the tourism in the Leh.

The Changthang was a restricted area until 1994 when part of it opened up for foreigners. The

Jammu and Kashmir government maintains restrictions for tourism to certain areas, and

tourists have to register in Leh and apply for travelling permits to the Changthang. Some

83

border areas are still closed and illegal to enter. Tourist groups that go to the Changthang are

primarily either trekking in groups with guides and pack animals or going by jeep for

sightseeing, often to Tso Moriri Lake in Korzok.

According to the nomads, they had little or no interaction with the tourists that traversed the

rangeland. The tourists stayed mostly by themselves, in groups with guides and horses. There

were no specific complaints about the tourism other than the grazing by pack animals in the

rangeland and refuse dumping in the area. The nomads collected a small encampment fee on

different sites in the Tso Kar Basin. They were not happy about the camping in the Tso Kar

Basin where the packhorses were grazing. Some tourists visited the nomads’ camps and took

pictures of the nomads. Some of the nomadic women that were interviewed regarding tourism

said that the tourists did not lead to any problems, but they felt sorry that they could not

communicate with them in any language.

Helena Nordberg-Hodge (1996) writes about the disastrous changes that have occurred in

Ladakh during the last years. She writes that the rapid development and the changes that have

occurred due to the tourism are destroying the culture and the traditional life, altering the

behaviour of the people and their perceptions due to influences from outside. The increased

tourism had changed the remote area with only a few visitors and no kind of tele-

communication to a busy place with cyber cafés and telephones in every corner of the town.

Even if this kind of development has not reached the Changthang and probably will not, the

nomads often visited Leh and the children were very curious about the `new world`. Tourists

that were visiting the Changthang also affected the nomads with their fancy clothes, high-tech

equipment, and cameras. The foreigners brought small gifts like pens and sweets for the

children, which caused expectations and requests from the children when foreigners were

visiting the camps. The children had learned to say “chocolate” and “pens” in English. The

high numbers of tourists in Leh and in the Changthang are influencing the local people and

especially the children. The local people are poor compared to the tourists and they have

never been outside of Ladakh. The local people have dressed in traditional clothes made by

themselves or by local tailors. This habit is changing and the locals are more and more

dressing in imported clothes. In the Changthang, a few nomads were still using the traditional

clothes and woollen shoes, but almost all children were wearing imported clothes and shoes.

There are a number of organisations involved in development activities in Ladakh and the

Changthang, with the aim of maintaining the traditional culture of Ladakh. “The International

84

Association for Ladakh studies” (IALS) is one example of an institutions that are trying to

keep yearly international colloquiums in Ladakh regarding research in Ladakh and to collect

data from research that has been done in the area (Osmaston and Tsering, 1997). In spite of a

high development activity in Ladakh, there is a lack of cooperation and communication

between many of the institutions and organizations involved. There is a need of a

collaboration between these groups for a better understanding of the research that has been

done from the different disciplines, to simplify further research and to avoid overlapping data

gathering and not at least to work towards a common goal.

8.6 Migration into centralized areas

The development that has taken place in Ladakh has introduced the nomads to a “new world”.

The nomads felt that they were living a hard life due to the cold and the remoteness in the

Changthang. Many of the nomads that were interviewed said that they preferred a life in the

town rather than living in tents. According to the women, the cold winters with strong winds

and high amounts of snow was a main reason for wanting to leave the Changthang. They felt

that the life during the winter was too exhausting and hard and they envied the life of their

relatives in Leh. The impression was that the nomads enjoyed living in the wilderness and that

they loved their animals and the nature, but the winter was the main problem for them. Some

families were very poor and they were struggling in the winter. The people looked at family

members and friends that had migrated to Leh as lucky and especially the women from

Samad said that they would prefer to live in the city. Still, there are also many stories about

nomads moving to Leh without getting jobs and that they missed the life in the Changthang.

People from Leh claimed that the nomads were unfit to work with agriculture and that it was

difficult for them to find a job. As mentioned earlier, even the local people of Leh with

education had problems of finding jobs and much of the work was only seasonal due to the

tourism.

According to the nomads, the main reason for migration was to improve the living standard

and to escape from the cold. One nomad said that there were three types of migrants:

1. Rich people: The migration of these people is most successful, because they are well

off. They sell their animals or keep them with their relatives. The village community only

allows them to keep animals in the Changthang for two years due to restrictions regarding

85

taxes and traditional village duties. These rules changed in 2004 and it is now not allowed to

keep animals for others.

2.

3.

Poor people: They own only a few livestock, which they sell or keep with relatives. If

they do not get a job, they come back to the Changthang. They have to make a request to the

community to return, with the provision of the local beer, chang.

Seasonal migration: a) escape from the cold winters, b) to get education for their

children, c) to get medical treatment. In the case family members are migrating, not the whole

family.

Many women were complaining that it was very cold during winter and the work was too

hard. They wanted to move to Leh, to settle in a warm house and work with weaving or

restaurant. They said that they did not have to move so often in the past, the winters were not

so cold and they had more livestock.

According to the nomads, government officials and others (Goodall, 2001), out- migration

seems to have affected the community of Kharnak to a much higher degree than in Korzok

and Samad (Fig. 8.1).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

year of migration

Kharnak

Samad

Korzok

Figure 8.1. Number of people migrating from Kharnak, Samad and Korzok from the 1960`s until the 1990`s. (Goodall, 2001)

86

Goodall writes:

“ In response to the question: ‘why did you move away?’ the three most commonly cited

reasons were first, because of animal losses due to snowfall, second, due to the physical

problems caused by the extreme cold and third, to join friends or family who had previously

moved. These responses emphasise two important aspects of the migration. First, the large

number of ‘distress’ movers, and second, the role of ‘chain migration’ “(Goodall, 2001)

Individuals may be affected by each other and the risks faced by each individual migrant

decreases with the increased number of migrants (Goodall, 2001). Even though, increased

migration into towns will reduce the possibility of getting jobs. Another reason for higher out-

migration from Kharnak could be the change in winter rangeland after the Indo-China war:

“the border areas once provided rich grazing for the communities of Samad and Korzok,

who were forced to alter their migration patterns, find alternative pastures and decrease herd

sizes. The Kharnak-pa had to make comparatively minor adjustments to their migration cycle,

more to accommodate the changes of the Samad-pa. Although much work is needed to fully

investigate the role of resource changes, this brief discussion tends to negate the involvement

of resource limitations in explaining the high level of out-migration from Kharnak (Goodall,

2001).

The nomads of Kharnak had to leave the winter rangeland at Tso Kar due to the border

dispute and the return of the herders from Samad. In addition, they had to increase their

population with 12 families of refugees with their livestock in the Kharnak valley. According

to numbers from J& K Sheep Husbandry Department, ¾ of the herds in Kharnak consist of

goats compared to Samad where the herd consist of more or less 50% of each (Appendix I).

There has been a very high amount of out-migration from Kharnak to Leh, and in 2000 it was

found that 100 nomads out of a population of 300 were settled in the outskirts of Leh

(Goodall, 2000). According to the results from Goodall (2001) and this study, it seems that

the nomads from Kharnak experienced heavier winters than in Samad and therefore had a

lower quality of rangeland and worse resource availability. The nomads from Kharnak were

illegally using Tso Kar during winters in the past, most likely because the pastures there were

better.

87

Government records show that the nomads from Kharnak have a much higher proportion of

goats in their stocks than in Samad and Korzok, which may be a cause for higher mortality

and a factor contributing to out-migration. The rate of mortality in Kharnak has not been

investigated in relation to the cause of migration, an interesting question in terms of avoiding

the same speed of out-migration from Samad. If the high number of goats and a consequent

higher mortality was one of the causes behind a poor economy, it could possible be avoided in

the two other communities.

8.7 Local Chang-pas versus Tibetan refugees

As discussed in previous chapters, the nomads of Samad have shared the pastures with

Tibetan refugees for the last forty years. The local nomads said that the reason that they

included the refugees in their community was that they felt sorry for the refugees, people with

a common religion, and due to request to do so from the Dalai Lama. The Changpas had

earlier used pastures on the border and extracted salt from lakes in Tibet and it was natural for

them to include the refugees that escaped from the “Chinese occupation of Tibet” to their

community. However, the Tibetan refugees (TR’s) had a dream of returning to Tibet and

therefore there had only been a few cases of intermarriage. The local Changpas did not want

to send their children to Tibet and the refugees did not want their children to live in India.

In any case, the locals and the refugee’s e argue about the use of the rangeland. The TR’s said

that they felt discriminated against by the locals due to the restrictions on the livestock

number and the tax. It was only in Samad where the Tibetan refugees have to pay tax to the

local community, for these restrictions existed in neither Kharnak nor Korzok. The local

nomads said that the reason was shortage of grass in the Tso Kar Basin in the winter and the

main problem between the two groups was the high number of livestock that the TR’s kept.

The locals said that the TR`s bought livestock from the nomads in Kharnak and that they sold

them to the market with high profit. The local people and people from Leh also claimed that

the TR’s were smuggling products from the threatened chiru, goods, and pashmina from

China, especially in the winter season, when they could travel on the ice on the river. People

from Leh said that the TR’s are good businessmen and that they manage their livestock very

well. The representative for the welfare of the TR`s, interviewed in Choglamsar, thought that

the reason was good management and he claimed that the TR’s went out for herding earlier in

the morning to get higher up in the mountains to reach better grazing areas and that they came

back later in the evening.

88

A refugee claimed in an interview that they only have enough animals for subsistence and

they do not have enough animals to sell due to the restrictions by the Changpas. He also said

that they did not have access to the market. Regarding movements, the TR`s said that they

are not allowed to move where they want. A shepherd said that TR’s are not allowed to go to

Stasafuk, so they go to Tsomolong and Rigul. They are not allowed to go to Thukje and once

they tried to build houses there, but they were forbidden. One shepherd said that they usually

herd together with the TR`s near Thukje, but due to less rain the TR`s stayed at Rigul this

year.

The Goba and the villagers of Samad decided at a community meeting in the summer of 2003,

that the TR`s should take part in 25% of the village activities. Since they had shared the

rangeland with the locals for more than forty years, the locals felt that the refugees should

participate and take part in the workload that was required in the community.

During the first field trip for this study, the nomads from both of the groups claimed that there

were conflicts among them. These perceptions changed drastically during the second field

trip, where the persons that were interviewed said that there were no conflicts at all. The local

Chang-pas said that they should live in peace with the TR`s, and if not, something bad would

happen to them. The nomads are very religious and they felt that bad behaviour and thinking

would harm them later and affect their karma.

8.8 The Tso Kar Basin as a social pressure area

The Tso Kar Basin is the winter rangeland for the local Changpas and the refugees and the

area is limiting the herders in increasing their stocks due to shortage of grass and heavy

winters. At the same time, the area is providing a high number of kiangs with grass

throughout the year. The locals and the refuges are arguing regarding the movement pattern

and the number of livestock. The locals are not allowing the refugees to move where they

want and they have restrictions regarding size of the herds.

The J& K Sheep Husbandry Department (SHD) wants to increase the goat population in

Changthang, to increase profits from pashmina. The J& K Wildlife Department on the other

side is worried about the grazing pressure from the livestock. The J & K Wildlife Department

89

has proposed the area as a national park. At present time, the nomads are not affected by any

restrictions or wildlife department activities. Nobody knows what will happen in the future.

However, the herders are affected by a number of activities from the SHD in terms of

livestock management. The SHD is implementing programs that the nomads have to

participate in, e.g., vaccinations for reducing livestock mortality. Until now, the nomads have

been sceptical towards major changes, like changing herd composition, participating in

farming and exchange of male goats and sheep among the nomadic communities to avoid in-

breeding. The herders were proud of their nomadic lifestyle, and they were not interested in

changing parts of their living into farming.

8.9 Summary The nomads of Samad have experienced major changes in their lives during the last forty

years. The major changes occurred in wake of the Sino- Indian border dispute, which was a

directly cause to loss of rangeland, influx of refugees and high military activity in the region.

The exogenous factors resulted in pressure on the rangeland, poorer families,

commercialization, and major socio-economic changes that affected the traditional herd

management and the use of the rangelands. The nomads are getting dependent upon the

outside world; the market for selling livestock products and the government for external

inputs. The Samad people are worried about their future. Many chose to leave their life as

livestock herders in search of a better life in the city and most of the families were sending at

least one child for school and hoping that he/she would get a different future than as a herder

in the Changthang.

90

Chapter 9: Summary

The nomads of the Changthang are experiencing major changes in the traditional way of

living. The livelihood that has been based on flexibility in relation to movement of livestock

for utilizing the changing resources is in a process of change. Flexibility, movements, and risk

aversion have been the most important strategies for adaptation to the changing environment

in the Changthang. The quality of the pastures changes due to patchiness of resources and

environmental factors like weather conditions and water availability, which entail the nomads

to move the livestock frequently to avoid overgrazing. Changing the traditional management

strategies without understanding the complexity of the nomadic system can have serious

impact on livelihood of the nomads, the natural resources and on the wildlife.

The changes that have occurred in Changthang have affected movement pattern, social

organization, production system and the perceptions of the nomads of their lives as livestock

herders. The Sino- Indian border dispute, closure of the border and influx of a high number of

Tibetan refugees with thousands of livestock caused pressure on the rangeland in Samad. The

Samad people included the refugees for sharing the rangelands, and the situation brought the

nomads to reduce their number of livestock, and to increase number of shifts between

settlements. These changes were necessary to manage the rangeland and to avoid overgrazing.

Pressure on the rangeland and hard winters with high loss of livestock, are factors that are

present in the current situation in Samad. The nomads have received support from external

agencies; local non government organizations, government organizations and internationally

non government organizations for development of infra structure, improvement of livelihood

and for reducing the high livestock mortality. However, development activities and changes

are removing the nomads from the traditional way of living. Dependence upon the outside

world is increasing and the flexibility and independence that have characterized the nomadic

life in the Changthang are disappearing. Almost all nomadic families were sending at least

one child for school outside the Changthang. In many occasions, the families preferred school

rather than monastery, even if the child was demanded as a monk. Many nomads also choose

to find jobs outside the Changthang, either permanent or as a part time job and many wanted

to leave the life as livestock herders due to the hard life.

91

The changes have caused major impacts on the nomads’ perceptions on their own lives. The

free and independent life has been led into commercialization and dependence upon market

economy and inputs from the government. Many of the traditional herd management

strategies have been exchanged with new strategies implemented by the Jammu & Kashmir

Sheep Husbandry Department; new breeds are introduced, the herd composition have

changed, medicines and vaccinations are introduced and fodder inputs are given during

winter. Even if many of these activities reduce the livestock mortality, it is beyond the

traditional knowledge of the nomads.Jammu & Kashmir government has provided the nomads

with external resources and development activities to improve their livelihood and to reduce

the livestock mortality. The government is interested in the economic benefit from the

pashmina production in the area, and has therefore interfered in the management of the

livestock. The nomads themselves are not interested in changing the traditional system; still

many changes are taking place.

“There is growing testimony that many aspects of traditional Tibetan nomadic pastoralism

are sensible, economically efficacious, and sustainable strategies for livestock production in

an environment too harsh for crop cultivation. As Coughenour (1991) noted for other semi-

arid areas, nomadic pastoralism, once it is better understood, often proves to be a rational,

efficient, and sustainable system for utilizing rangeland resources” (Miller, 1998)

There have been done much research on pastoral development, and results shows that

changing the traditional system can have detrimental effect both on the livelihood of the

nomads and on the sustainability of the natural resources (Nimair-Fuller, 1999). All aspects

within pastoralism should be understood before interacting and trying to change parts of the

management system. The nomads have survived for ages in the harsh environment, due to the

strategies they adopted long ago. The nomads have a flexible lifestyle, due to the variable

environment. They have moved with their livestock, adopted strategies for aversion of risk

and uncertainty, because it has been the only possibility for surviving and feeding the

livestock.

“The growing appreciation for the complexity and ecological and economic efficacy of

Tibetan nomadic pastoralism is encouraging. It provides hope that the vast wealth of

knowledge that nomads possess will be better appreciated and understood in designing more

92

appropriate development interventions for pastoral areas. It also purveys prospects that the

nomads will be listened to and involved in the planning and implementation of pastoral

development programs in the future. Innovative, participatory development paradigms that

actively involve nomads in the development process also suggest new possibilities for and

fresh approaches to working with Tibetan nomads. Development programs for Tibetan

rangelands must involve the nomads themselves in the initial design of interventions.

Nomads’ needs and desires must be heard and the vast body of indigenous knowledge nomads

possess must be put to use when designing new projects. An important message for pastoral

policy-makers and planners is the need for active participation by the nomads in all aspects

of the development process and for empowered nomads to manage their own development.”

(Miller 1998)

Recent research shows that in some parts of the Changthang a large proportion of nomads are

leaving their traditional lives in hope of a better life in centralized urban areas (Chaudhuri,

2000; Goodall, 2001). Migration may not be a solution for the nomads, due to high

unemployment in Ladakh. The high development activity and the different interests by the

number of organisations working in Samad, makes it difficult to determine the future of the

nomads. The nomads themselves said that they do not know what the future will bring and

they often said:

“ what happen, happens”

The nomads said that they are living for today, not for tomorrow. Nobody knows what the

future will bring. This way of thinking may be the best way of being happy, with no worries.

The perceptions and way of thinking may also lead the nomadic pastoralists into unforeseen

difficulties and major impacts led by policy makers and development activities. The nomads

should be included in activities that affect their lives, and their opinions should be included in

the decision- making. However, most of the nomads have lived their entire life as shepherds

and they have no experience with the theories and approaches used by the researchers. Thus,

the traditional pastoralism have to be understood, for understanding the importance of the

strategies that have been used for ages. If the traditional pastoralism, with all of its complex

aspects, is not maintained and learned through the generations, the traditions may be lost

forever.

93

The many development projects in the Changthang should be mapped, and there is a need for

cooperation between the different agencies and the nomads themselves, for making a

management plan for the area, for co-existence of people and wildlife and for a sustainable

management of the natural resources.

94

References Ahmed, M. 1996. We are Warp and Weft: Nomadic Pastoralism and the Tradition of Weaving in Rupshu (Eastern Ladakh). Oxford University: Faculty of Anthropology and Geography, Michaelmas. Ahmed, M. 1997. The salt trade: Rupshu's Annual Trek to Tso Kar. Recent research on Ladakh, vol. 8: 32-48. Barfield, T. 1993. The nomadic alternative. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, Prentice Hall. Bedunah, D. J. & Harris R. B. 2002. Past, Present & Future: Rangelands in China Rangelands 24(4): 17-22. Chambers, R. 2000. 3rd Ed. Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. ITDG Publishing. Chaudhuri, A. 2000. Change in Changthang: to stay or to leave? Economic and political weekly, January 8: 52-58. Chaudhuri, A. Year unknown. Poverty and Development among the Changpas. Article Dahl, G. & Hjort, A. 1976. Having herds: Pastoral Growth and Household Economy. Department of Social Anthropology, University of Stockholm. Dyson – Hudson, R & Dyson- Hudson, N. 1980. Nomadic Pastoralism. Annual Review of Anthropology 9: 15-61. Ehlers, E & Kreuzmann, H. 2000. High mountain pastoralism in Pakistan. Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart. Fox, J. L., Nurbu, C. & Chundawat, R. S. 1991. The Mountain Ungulates of Ladakh, India. Biological Conservation 58:167-190. Fox, J. L., Nurbu, C., Bhatt, S., Chandola, A. 1994. Wildlife conservation and land-use changes in the Trans-Himalayan. Mountain Research and Development 14 (1): 39-60. Fox, J. L., Mathiesen, P., Yangzom, D., Næss, W. M., Binrong, X. 2004. Modern wildlife conservation initiatives and the pastoralist/ hunter nomads of north western Tibet. Rangifer. Special Issue 15: 17-27. Fratkin, E. 1997. Pastoralism ; Governance and Development issues. Annual report Anthropology 26: 235-61.

95

Goldstein, M. C; Beall, C. M; Cincotta, R. P. 1989. Traditional nomadic pastoralism and ecological conservation on Tibet’s northern plateau. National geographic research 6(2): 139-156. Goldstein, M. C. & Beall, C. M. 1990. Nomads of Western Tibet: The survival of a way of life. Berkeley: U. of California Press.

Goldstein, M. C. 1991. Change and continuity in nomadic pastoralism on the western Tibetan plateau. Nomadic Peoples 28: 105-23.

Goodall, S. K. 2000. From plateau pastures to urban fringe: sedentarisation of nomadic pastoralists in Ladakh, (Jammu & Kashmir state), India. PhD dissertation, University of Adelaide, Australia. Goodall, S. K. 2001. sedentarization: change and adaptation among the nomadic ommunities of Rupshu- Kharnak. Paper presented on the 10th colloquium of the International Association of Ladakh Studies, Oxford, UK, 7-10 September 2001. Goodall, S. K. 2004. Rural-to-urban Migration and Urbanization in Leh, Ladakh: a Case Study of Three Nomadic Pastoral Communities . Mountain Research and Development 24 (3): 218-225. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248. Humphrey, C & Sneath., D. 1999. The end of nomadism? Society, State and the Environment in Inner Asia. Duke University Press, Durham. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu ( ICIMOD). http://www.icimod.org/publications/profiles/rangeland.htm January 2002. Regional Rangeland Programme. Publication No. 5 January 1999. Rangelands and Livestock as a Niche Opportunity for Ladakh. Sectoral Report in Vulumn II: “Development strategies for Agriculture and Related Sectors in Ladakh” submitted to Leh Autonomous Hill Council by ICIMOD. Jammu and Kashmir Sheep Husbandry Department, Leh. 2002. Annual report for 2001-2002. Jina, S. P. 1999. Changing face of Ladakh Himalaya. OM publications, Faridabad, India. Khazanov, A. 1994. 2nd Ed. Nomads and the outside world. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison Mallon, D.P. 1990. Status and Conservation of large mammals in Ladakh. Biological Conservation 56: 101-119. Margolis, E. S. 2000. War at the top of the world: the struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir and Tibet. Routledge, New York.

96

Miller, D. J. & Bedunah, D.J. 1993. Rangeland Resources of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas. ICIMOD publication. Miller, D. J. & Schaller, G. B. 1996. Rangelands of the Chang Thang wildlife reserve in Tibet. Rangelands 18(3): 91-96. Miller, D. J. & Schaller, G. B. 1997. Conservation threats to the Changthang Wildlife reserve. Ambio 26 (3): 185-186. Miller, D. J. & Schaller, G. B. 1998. Fields of grass. Portraits of the pastoral landscape and nomads of the Tibetan Plateau and Himalayas. ICIMOD publication. Miller, D. J. 1998. Fields of Grass: Portraits of the Pastoral Landscape and Nomads of the Tibetan Plateau and Himalayas. Kathmandu: ICIMOD. Miller, D. J. 1998. Tibetan pastoralism: Hard times on the plateau. Chinabrief 1(2): 17-22. Miller, D. J. 1998. Tibetan Pastoralism: Hard Times on the Plateau. TSIN Miller, D. J. 1999. Nomads of the Tibetan Plateau Rangelands in Western China Part Two: Pastoral Production Practices. Rangelands. 21(1): 16-19. Miller, D. J. 1999. Nomads of the Tibetan Plateau Rangelands in Western China -- Part Three: Pastoral Development and Future Challenges. Rangelands 21(2): 17-20. Miller, D. J. 2000. Tough Times for Tibetan nomads in Western China: Snowstorms, settling down, fences and the demise of traditional nomadic pastoralism. Nomadic Peoples. 4(1): 83-109. Miller, D. J. 2001. Poverty among Tibetan Nomads in Western China: Profiles of Poverty and Strategies for Poverty Reduction. Paper Prepared for the Tibet Development Symposium: Brandeis University. May 4-6. Miller, D. J. 2002. The Importance of China's Nomads. Rangelands. 24(1): 22-24. Miller, D. J. In press. Snowstorms, Restocking, and Settling Nomads on the Tibetan Plateau in Western China. In "Restocking: Current Perspectives", C. Heffernan, ed. England: Reading University. Miller, D. J. Home on the Range: The Demise of Tibetan Nomadic Pastoralism? Manuscript. http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanNomads/books.htm Mishra, C. 2001. High altitude survival. Conflicts between pastoralism and wildlife in the Trans- Himalaya. Doctoral thesis. Wageningen Univesity, the Netherlands. Niamir- Fuller, M. 1999. Managing mobility in African rangelands. FAO and the Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics. Næss, M. W. 2003. Living with risk and uncertainty: The Case of the Nomadic Pastoralists in the Aru Basin. Ms Thesis. University of Tromsø, Norway.

97

Norberg, H. H. 1991. Ancient future: Learning from Ladakh. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. Osmaston, H. & Tsering, N. 1997. Recent research on Ladakh 6. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Delhi. Paine, R. 1994. Herds of the tundra: A portrait of Saami reindeer pastoralism. Washington : Smithsonian Institution Press; London. Phuntsog,T. 2002. Implementation of Phase 1 Activity plan for regional Rangeland Programme for Ladakh, India. Report compiled for international Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu. Richard, C. 1999. Rangelands and Livestock as a Niche Opportunity for Ladakh. In Sectoral report in vol II: “Development strategies for agriculture and related sectors in Ladakh” submitted to Leh Autonomous Hill Council by ICIMOD. January 1999. Ridgeway, R. 2003. 275 miles on foot through the remote Chang Tang. National Geographic, March 2003: 106-125. Rizvi, J. 1996. Ladakh: Crossroads of High Asia. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Rizvi, J. 1997. The Trade in Pashm and Its Impact on Ladakhs History. Recent research on Ladakh 8. Rugumayo, C. R. 2000. Can Pastoralism and Conservation co-exist in Africa? Lecture prepared for the Doctoral Exam 19th of June 2000. Sabarwhal, A. 1996. Changpas, the nomads of Rupshu: a study of ecology, economy and exchange. M.Phil. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Sagwal, S. S. 1991. Ladakh, Ecology and Environment. S.B. Nangia for Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi. Schaller, G. B. 1998. Wildlife on the Tibetan Steppe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Scoones, I., ed. 1995. Living with Uncertainty- new directions in pastoral development. IT publications, London. Singh, H. 1996. Ladakh- environment, socio-economic set-up and the problems and prospects of development Background paper prepared for ICIMOD, Nepal. Centre for the study of regional development. Jawaharlal Nehru University, India. Thsangspa, T. L. 2000. Ladakh book of records: a general knowledge book of Ladakh. Lay Publication.Jayyed Press, Ballimaran, Delhi

98

Appendix 1: Livestock number and composition

54 of 59 household of Samad were interviewed regarding: nr and sex composition of the people in the family, nr. of sheep, goat, yak\ dimo and horse, nr. Of animals sold, killed, slaughtered and kept for others. The last colonna shows total of livestock, when 1 yak is counted as 5 sheep or goats, for some families. Some of the names given by the Goba, is different from the names we have got from our SSI. I have taken the names that are equal into our table.

Nr.

Name

Sheep KidsGoat Lambs Dimo Yak Youngyak

Horse Sold Slaughtered Killed Kept forothers

Total when 1 Yak is 5 sheep

1.Tashi Palgais

4:mother, father, son, wife

20 10 2 1 1 2 goat 9 goat 6 sheep 10 kids 6 lambs

248

2.Tsering Namgpal

7:5 male and 2 female:mother, father, 3 sons, 1 daughter, I daughter in law, 2 brothers

100 120 10 12 4 10 3 6 goat 3 goat, 4 sheep,

7 goat 4 sheep 15 kids, 10 lamb

3.Tashi Paldan

6:2female, 4 male: father, mother, brother, 3 sons

20 50 7 10 5 10 2 8goat,2 sheep

3 goat, 1 sheep

10 goat, 4 sheep,11 kids, 4 lambs

20 goats

4.Tsering Namgpal

7:2 male and 5 female:father, brother, mother, 4 daughter

25 15 2 7 8 5 2 18goat, 5 sheep

4 sheep, 1 goat, 1 yak

8 goat, 6 sheep, 5 kids, 5 lamb.

99

5.Gurmat Dorjey

4:male 2, female 2. wife

30 50 10 9 4 13 3 6 goat 3 goat,2 sheep,1 yak

15 goat, 3 sheep,6 kids, 5 lamb

154

6.Lundup Gyatso

9: male 3, female 6. mother, wife,4 daughter,2 sons

40 75 15 7 7 15 2 7 goat,4 sheep

6 goat, 1 sheep, 1 yak

15 goat, 8 sheep, 13 kids, 7 lambs

15 goats 271

7.Rigzin Sanphel

Polyandry. 10: male 9 female 1. 4 brothers (2 munks), 4 sons

35 50 3 1 10 15 4 30goat, 30 sheep

4 yak, 4 goat 3 goat, 3 sheep, 5 kids

8.Nawang Tsondu

5: 3 male, 2 female 2 sons, 1 daughter

40 50 5 10 3 6 2 10goat, 5 sheep

3 goat, 1 sheep

20 goat, 10 sheep, 15 kids, 5 lamb

20 goats 127

9.Skarma Tundup (Goba 2003)

4.male 3, female 1.2 sons

70 20 15 20 9 1 2 9 goat,20 sheep

3 goat, 2 sheep

15 goat, 6 sheep, 8 kids, 5 lambs

382

10.Tsering Namgyal

4: 2 male, 2 femaledaughter and son

10 15 3 1 5 goat,7 sheep

1 sheep 3 goat, 7 kids, 1 lamb

11.Tsering Paljor

8: 6 male and 2 female. 5 sons and 1 daughter

80 30 6 10 5 9 2 8 goat,7 sheep

3 goat, 2 sheep, 1 yak

15 goat, 8 sheep, 20 kids, 12 lambs

12.Nawang Namgyal

6: 4 male, 2 female. 3 sons, 1 daughter

30 25 8 10 2 4 2 7 goat,10 sheep

3 goat, 2 sheep

10 goat, 5 sheep, 15 kids, 13 lambs

83

13.Skarma Raftau

7: 3Male and 4 female. 2 sons and 3 daughter

120 90 15 20 3 20 2 10goat,15 sheep

2 goat, 1 sheep, 1 yak

15 goat, 30 kids, 20 lambs

50 goat 299

100

14.Tashi Rinchen

6: 3 male and 3 female. 1son, 1 daughter.

40 30 3 3 6 9 2 3 1 yak 7 kids,5lambs

144

15.Gurmet Dorje

4: 2 male, 2 female. Son and daughter in law.

40 60 10 12 6 7 2 3 10goat,7 sheep

7 goat,3 sheep,1 yak

10 goat,7 sheep

16.Tsering Cholden

6: 4 male and 2 female. 2 sons and 1 daughter in law and 1 daughter

50 55 8 6 7 3 1 7goat,8 sheep

1 yak 10 goat,30 kid,20 lamb,1 horse

139

17.Skarma Tundup

7. 5 male and 2 female

100 100 10 15 25 10 2 2 5 goat,1 yak 20 goat,15 sheep,60 kids,40 lambs

435

18.Tsering Youngfal

6: 2 male and 4 female

5 15 3 2 2 5 1 2 2 goat, 1sheep

1 Goat,3 kids,2 lamb

142

19.Dawa Yourgail

5:1 male, 4 female. 3 daughters

140 150 15 20 9 7 2 15 goat,4sheep,1 yak

3o goat,15 sheep,40 kids,35 lambs

15 sheep and goat

376

20.Rinchen Targais

4: 2 male, 2 female

30 50 6 3 5 1 1 2 2 goat,1 yak 6 goat,2 sheep,15 kids,10 lambs

21.ishey Dorjey

5: 2 male, 3 female. 2 daughter, 1 son

60 30 20 21 2 7 goat,3sheep,1 yak

144

22.Skarma Takdol

6: 1 male, 4 female.1 son, 3 daughter

50 110 15 10 4 15 3 10goat,5 sheep

1 yak 20 goat,5 sheep,25 kid,10 lamb

289

23. Tsering Putit

3: 3 female. 1 daughter

30 20 3 9 4 5 2 1 goat,1sheep,half yak

10 goat,10 kids,8 lamb

101

24. Tsering Palkit

4: 2 male, 2 female.son, daughter in leh

50 12 7 8 2 1 1 1 6 sheep 3 sheep 2

25.Tondup Palgor

6: 3 male, 3 female.

70 25 5 6 5 1 1 1 3goat,5 sheep

1 goat, 1 sheep

5 goat,4 sheep,20 kids,5 lambs

77

26. Tsering Gyalsan

6: 4 male, 2 female

35 100 5 10 15 4 2 2 10 goat 2 goat,1yak 15 goat,4 sheep,30 kids,5 lambs

3sheep,2 goat

27. Urgan Tsering

3 :1 male,2 female. 1 daughter

10 11 1 5 2 1 1 5 goat 1 goat,2 sheep

10 goat,5 sheep,10 kid,3 lamb

61

28.Namgyal Tundup

5:3 male,2 female. 2 sons,1 daughter

40 50 7 15 4 1 3 1 10goat,10 sheep

2 goat,half yak

20 goat,10 sheep,15 kid,15 lamb

29.Konchuk Kapool

6:2 male,4 female. 3 daughter,1 son

50 90 14 16 3 8 goat 5 goat,1 yak 5 goat,3 sheep,30 kid,10 lamb

30. Skarma Thargais

6:3 male,3 female.2 sons,2 daughter

40 80 10 3 5 5 5 3 10goat,5 sheep

1 goat,1 sheep.1 yak

10 goat,60 kids,6 lambs

254

31. Skarma Tsoksak

4:2 male,2 female:1 son, 1 daughter

20 40 11 6 3 8 goat 1 goat, 1 sheep

13 goat,20 kids,5 lambs

80

32.Phuntsok Tashi

10: 6 male,4 female.5 sons,3 daughter

70 100 10 15 10 3 10 2 4 goat,7 sheep

3 goat,1 sheep,1 yak

10 goat,4 sheep,20 kids,6 lamb

3 goat, 4 sheep 348 or 177

33.Tsewang Tashi

1 40 50 10 8 1 3 2 2 goat, 1 yak 15 goats,15 kids,6 lambs

103

102

34.Sonam (W)angchuk

3: 2 male, 1 female. 2 brothers

30 35 5 13 5 7 3 1 1 goat, 1 yak 15 goat,7 sheep,9 kids,5 lambs

108

35.Tsetau Tundup

7: 4 male,3 female.3 sons, 2 daughter

100 60 10 30 10 8 4 2 8 goat 3 goat,1 yak 30 goat,30 kids,10 lambs

285

36.Chamba Kunkap

4:3 male,1 female.2 sons

65 60 2 17 7 2 1 2 4 sheep 3 goat,1sheep

33 goat,3 sheep,10 kids,15 lambs

7 sheep

37.Sonam Targais

5:3 male,2 female.2 sons,1 daughter

56 135 12 16 8 5 3 2 25goats

4 goats,1 yak

25 goats,13 sheep,55 kids,13 lambs

232

38.Skarma Samstan

7: 4 male,3 female. Polyandry: 2 brothers, 1 wife. 3 sons, 1 daughter. All kids in leh and nyoma

215 sheep and goat

17 15 20 yak incl.dimo

4 25sheep and goat

4 goat, 1 yak 3 goat 40 sheep and goat for monastery.5 for lama,14 for family in leh.

144 ishey 235

39.Djingmeds father

6:4male, 2 female. 3 sons, 1 daughter.( 1 shepherd, 2 sons in school.)

40 10 10 8 10incl.yak

2 2 1 goat, 1 yak 30 animals,20 kids and lambs

15 goat and 1 yak for brother

40Urgen Dorje

6:2 male, 4 female. 1 son, 1 daughter, daughter in law,grand daughter

250 sheep and goat

5 7 3 10sheep

10 lamb,25 kids

25 sheep and goat

2 goat, 1 yak

103

41.Tsering Cholden

6:3 male,3 female. 2 sons, 2 daughter

100 sheep and goat

2 10 9 13 1 1 horse,20sheep and goat,20 kids and lambs.2 yak

14 goat kept for family members for 5-6 years

42. Tashit Palgais

4:1 male, 2 female. 2 daughter

100 sheep and goat

10 25 4 9 1 30sheep and goat

7 sheep and goat

15 sheep,20 goat,20 lamb,30 kids

43. Tsering Phuntsog

7:4 male,3 female. 5 kids

30 40 15 15 5 10 1 20goat,10 sheep.

6 goat,half dimo

15 goat,20 sheep,15 lamb,30 kids. 1 horse

44.Padma Wangyal

5:3 male,2 female:three kids

15 10 4 4 1 5goat,4 sheep

4 sheep and goat

5 goat,4 sheep,7 kids,4 lambs

45

45.Skarma Rangdol

7.3 male,4 female. 5 kids.2 sons,3 daughter

10 20 3 3 3incl.yak

1 3 goat 1 goat 5 goat,4 sheep,10 kids,3 lamb

74

46.Nawang Tarchen

7:6 male,1 female.2 fathers.4 sons

70 60 15 20 11incl.yak

5 6goat,4 sheep

1 yak,1 sheep

10 goat,5 sheep,20 kids,1 dimo,11 lambs

47.Tashi Tundup

3: 1 male,2 female.1 daughter

40 40 5 10 1 2 2 5goat,10 sheep

1 yak,3 goat,2 sheep

15 goat,10 sheep,20 kids,10 lambs

15 goat and sheep for family members

115

48.Tsering Tundup

7:5 male,2 female.3 sons, 1 daughter

60 80 10 15 15 incl.yak

3 2 12sheep and goat

1 yak,3 sheep,1 goat

13 goat,5 sheep, 40 kids,7 lambs

Gompas goat:45

104

49.Sonam Tashi

6: 2 male,4 female.

70 40 3 9 14incl.yak

1 7goat,2 sheep

Half yak,1 goat.5 goats donated to gompa

6 goat,3 sheep,8 kids,5 lambs,2 yaks

50.Nawang Skalzang

5:3 male,2 female. 1 daughter, 2 sons

50 60 17 15 3 2 1 2 8 goat 3 goat 2 goat,3 sheep,6 kids,5 lambs

50 goats for the lama

51.Skarma Otzer

1 7 13 1 goat 3 goat,6 sheep,6 kids,5 lambs

52.Samstan Dorjey

2. 1 male, 1 female

15 30 7 4 2 2goat 6 goat,4 sheep,5 kids,3 lambs

53.Chemat Angmo

6: 2 female, 4 male. ( I daughter in leh,1 lama,1 son in leh)

50 50 6 10 8incl.yak

2 15goats and sheep

4 goat 20 goat,10 sheep,15 kids,9 lamb

54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. total 288 people 2052 2854

105

Number and composition of livestock in Nyoma block for 2002-2003. Source: Department of Sheep Husbandry Department

Caprinae (goat) Ovine (sheep) Adult Hogget Kids Adult Hogget lambs

Name of the centre

Bucks Male female Male Female Male Female Total Rams Male Female Male Female Male Female totalSec Nidder 65 220 610 315 352 196 295 2053 82 215 432 282 227 122 198 1558Sec Anlay 240 2470 3620 610 650 590 780 8960 190 1350 2140 350 402 440 470 5342Sec Koyul 115 2620 5787 1164 1402 1670 1677 14435 82 1107 1610 540 562 655 873 5449Sec Chumathang 115 910 4910 510 990 810 920 9165 130 190 1295 205 380 270 510 2980Fac Rongo 62 1020 1745 465 494 191 241 4218 41 576 920 281 282 157 184 2441Sec Korzok 235 3805 13260 2837 3220 3698 3820 30875 192 4182 11120 2105 2188 3301 3500 26588 Ldc Hemya 85 1475 2016 420 741 401 497 5635 64 381 432 175 188 104 125 1467Sec Kharnak 132 2564 3302 981 1780 1240 1652 11651 59 959 1132 317 620 575 715 4377 Isd Samad 84 2392 3425 901 1257 684 876 9619 55 1522 2790 1210 1417 1080 1195 9329 Sub-unit Nyoma 85 570 1190 386 407 287 276 3201 78 564 755 282 269 188 244 2380Fac Tsaga 62 1437 1802 542 499 301 280 4923 41 462 497 180 142 121 116 1559Fac Mud 94 781 1522 851 896 522 735 5401 45 334 492 287 367 119 142 1786Sec Liktsey 30 540 914 197 231 264 212 2388 20 85 184 41 39 52 62 483total 1404 20804 44103 10179 12919 10854 12261 112524 1079 11987 23800 6255 7083 7184 8354 65742Total sheep and goat

178 266

106

Appendix 2: Pastures and Settlements in Samad during winter in the Tso Kar Basin The Tso Kar Basin. The numbers indicates settlements and pastures used by the nomads during winter. Name of settlements and pastures at Napokar ( Napokar means blue sheep area) 1 Dhipra(S) ( 10- 15 families ) means shadow 2 Dhakrakarpo 3 Kyaim(S) (15- 16 families) means warm place 4 Sawarak(S) (5-6 families) 5 Namlung 6 Rhupra(S) (11-12 families) 7 Gatkarpo(S)TR ; old settlement that none use anymore 8 Lungmar chanmo

107

9 Lungmar chun 10 Chukpo nyinra(S)TR.(5-6 families) 11 Patsa taak taak(S)TR 12 Dhikpa nakgyat 13 Thazang 14 Dago kaita 15 Tsamur(S) 21 Nyinda buk Yak: male yak still at shimbuk Name of pastures at Pankanugu: 16 Shimbuk 17 Hopkong(pass behind pankanugu) 18 Panganugu(S) Spang 19 Thaat lay(S)TR 20 Thaktot siru(S)TR Name of pastures at Thukje: 10 Thangmar (behind monastery) 11 Laak tsang 12 Gyamso sala 13 Thukje(S) From polokongka la 1 Chomochumgor 2 Harchan 3 Harchung 4 Thakthavo(S) 5 Sirgur(S) 6 Pilung 7 Dhakgur(S) 8 Zomolung(S) 9 Nigur(S) Another one it is starting from left of nyangjungrak, 1 Rhinmo numa 2 Rang Pastures around stasafuk lake: Starting from nyangjungrak to rigulthang..

108

1 Nyangjungrak(s) 2 Tsak tsak valley 3 Chumgo valley 4 Gara lay buk 5 Stasafuk (S) 6 Chongbuk 7 Nakyol 8 Chorgog(S) TR 9 Nuruchen 10 rangyudung 11Gunsashisa 12 Nakpo punsun 13 Horlam Kongka 14 Kongdang 15 Thaksum 16 Tasar (S, TR) 17 Gangsup 18 Rigul (S,TR) 19 Tuchadar 20 Rigulthang

109