Mixing science with practice on the job
It must be stated upfront that serving forest officers and
officials cannot be expected to build careers as forest scientists, because
that would be a full-time undertaking which may not be feasible along with the
demands of the regular job. They can, perhaps, bring to bear a scientific
approach to forestry, but this will probably be conditioned by their background
which will be, by and large, in the physical and biological sciences, rather
than the humanities.
There are, of course, individuals who have come from the
Forestry and Agriculture colleges who may have a deeper idea of the applications of disciplines like genetics,
physiology, soil science, etc. to their new profession, and many do go through
specialized courses in the Wildlife Institute during the early part of their
careers. Some do consciously go out and take up social science courses,
especially forest economics (which used
to be the only subject offered to foresters in the Commonwealth Scholarships).
Because these Commonwealth courses (MSc or PhD) are pursued in either UK or Canada ,
it becomes difficult for many of them to undertake very deep field studies in India .
Sociology and Political Science may have been taken up by some for their Civil
Services exams (IAS, IPS and Central Services), and Public Policy is a favourite
of those taking up post-graduate courses in the Indian Institutes of Management
(IIMs). Each of these categories will have slightly different possibilities,
different needs and will require a different strategy to develop them into
forest scientists.
Later in their careers, those foresters who have PhD or
higher diplomas in specialized fields like economics or genetics do get
involved in technical jobs that may call for using their specialized knowledge
and training. But this is not a planned strategy or a predictable eventuality;
it is often a matter of chance. Most of the time, individual members of the
service are sent to positions that are vacant at a particular point in time. At
the initial stages, there is a sense that they should be posted to the field,
which is the forest divisions; but because these are coveted posts, young entrants
to the cadre used to find themselves in relatively off-stream positions like working
plans, silvicultural research, forest corporations, or other special duty positions.
In theory, it might appear that their science background could be particularly
appropriate in such positions; and no doubt some especially capable officers do
take advantage of these positions to initiate research projects and collect
basic data. However, the nature of the department does not allow much leeway in
exercising one’s own initiative in choosing things to investigate, so certain
qualifications may become irrelevant in the particular situation: a wildlife
degree doesn’t get much use in, say, the
genetics wing, and so on. Since forest officers have to be ready to take up all
sorts of fresh disciplines at short notice, they develop the art of picking up
the baton and running along the laid-down paths. Individual research projects,
such as would result in highly original contributions, are generally put on the
back burner, and usually forgotten after a few years of rattling around the
department jobs.
Making scientists of foresters
There are a couple of reasons why mainstream academics
think so little of foresters as scientists. One is that the studies the
foresters may take up, and the papers they may write, are of a highly applied
nature: the response of seedlings to fertilizers, the growth of plantations,
the relative performance of different species or varieties, timber properties
of different species, and so on. Examples of some of the best in-house research
of this type in my experience: the trials carried out by the research wing of
Mysore Paper Mills (Karnataka) on varieties and provenances of pulpwood
species; the genetic improvement work done at the Institute of Forest Genetics,
Coimbatore (an ICFRE Institute); the clonal propagation and farm forestry
developed by industries like ITC (Bhadrachalam, Andhra Pradesh), WIMCO (in
northwestern India, the same area that had been adjudged a failure by Saxena 1994
on the basis of his PhD thesis), and
others. But basic ecology of forests, succession, effect of climate change, and
such ‘interesting’ fields are not very successful, although the Forest Research
Institute (FRI), Dehradun did have a number of long-term ‘preservation plots’
all over the country to monitor growth and mortality of tree species. Such basic
research is very long-term and painstaking, so that even mainstream academic
departments have found it difficult to make much of a mark in them; even the
Centre for Ecological Sciences (CES), at the prestigious Indian Institute of
Science (IISc) Bangalore, is better known for Professor Gadgil’s polemical work
on forest history and policy, especially the books written in collaboration
with Ramachandra Guha, rather than ecological succession or regeneration
studies (as would be expected from its name). From the forest service’s
viewpoint, moreover, it was mainly the hostility to the forest department that
characterized the work of Gadgil and other leading ecologists, and thus made
this of limited utility in the application of science to field forestry (see
Guha, 2006, for an interesting account of the ecological critique; and
Shyamsunder and Parameshwarappa, 2014, for the forester’s account of these
battles).
The difference between academics in institutes, and
government employees, is that the former can freely express opinions even
critical of the government, whereas the latter (forest service members or
scientists) cannot do so by the dictates of their service rules. However, what
the latter lose in freedom, they gain in access to field situations, because
they are (at least in principle) supported by the administrative network in the
field. Most academics, on the other hand, do not go back to the field after the
first intense effort during their own Ph.D. projects; subsequently, they tend
to re-process and circulate the material collected from that initial
experience, and any fresh field information comes in mainly from their own Ph.D.
students (if they are lucky and competent enough to become research guides), or
of course from secondary sources like departmental reports, working plans, etc.
This leaves many academics out-of-date with recent
developments in the field (especially where forestry is concerned, as not much
information comes into the public media), and moreover leads to incessant
repetition of the same old statements, which makes the department indifferent
to their advice. What is more, the conclusions they have drawn from that first
research project, based usually on a small sample or a singular situation, is
extended willy-nilly to the whole country, supported by information from old
documents or stray encounters on the roadside (anecdotal information). In effect,
they are known for their polemical, critical, policy-oriented, expansive works
rather than narrowly ‘scientific’ ones. The problem with this genre, and
generally with the social sciences is, unfortunately, that almost anything can
be written and it will prove right some of the time (but usually mistaken in
the long run, like the body of communist literature).
Because of the restricted scope and weak popular interest in
most of the foresters’ work, none of them have attained the international
acclaim that writers like Gadgil and Guha have. Those foresters who do try to
make an entry into this more ‘glamorous’ type of writing (based on social-political
aspects) soon find that the major publishing outlets are as insular as any
professional body (including the foresters!). At any period, it seems that
journals and academics like to encourage only the current flavor of writing.
Nowadays, for example, you would have to write about any subject only with a
slant to climate change, and even here you would have to support the ruling
approach that there is a win-win strategy of encouraging carbon fixation by
financial incentives through market mechanisms: nobody needs to sacrifice
anything, everybody is better off. But the field forester is skeptical about
such magic fixes, and in India at least, it may not be sensible to expect any
great contribution from the global bodies as we are already taking a number of
actions and our economy is now too big to tug at the donors’ purse strings any
more (see my article on REDD+, in the EPW, Dilip Kumar 2014b). During the 1960s
and 1970s, it was all about financial efficiency, business models and
progressive maximum yields; then in the 1980s international bodies turned to
social forestry and farm forestry; the 1990s was the decade of participatory
approaches, when joint forest management (JFM) got much support; but after a
decade or so of pushing each of these magic formulae, interest waned as a new
flavor of the season emerged from the desks of western intellectuals and social
scientists[1].
The current millennium started with the conviction that
forests have to be handed over to the community, hence the international
support for empowerment (in India
the result has been various rights-based legislations, like the Forest Rights
Act 2006). Any writing has to be slanted in this direction to evoke interest
among editors. But it is anybody’s guess how long this topic will last; there
are already rumblings (and among social environmentalists, grumblings) that
attention will soon shift to international financial arrangements and market
mechanisms for carbon sequestration and trading of carbon credits as proposed
under REDD+ and the climate change agreements, with the accompanying danger
that local communities will be coerced or inveigled into relinquishing their
hard-won rights to title and use[2].
There have been a few forest officers (many of them who
actually came from the pre-IFS provincial services) who have attained
reasonable levels of eminence on the basis of their writings, as well as their body of work in the field and their willingness to be embroiled in
controversies. If names are required, we may mention those of Kailash Sankhala,
V.B.Saharia, S.R.Chowdhari[3], and of course S.K.Seth, whom we know mainly for
revising H.G.Champion’s Forest Types of India which is a sort of benchmark for
Indian foresters[4].In this context, it has to
be said that even scientists in the FRI Dehradun (before it became the
quasi-autonomous ICFRE) attained what can be termed a status of eminence at
least in their fields; again, if names are to be quoted, we can think of the
geneticist Kedarnath, timber scientists Shekar and Purushottam, entomologists
and pathologists like Sen Sharma and Pratap Singh, botanist Sahni, and Ramachandra Guha’s own father,
Ramdas Guha (a south Indian despite the Bengali-sounding surname) who studied
all the tree species of India for their pulping qualities[5].The
colonial Europeans who dedicated their lives to studying and publishing are not
cited here, as it was probably a character of another era, but they have left
behind authoritative treatises on basic subjects like botany and entomology
that are still consulted.
It is my understanding that in the initial decades
after independence, the FRI scientists considered themselves an integral part
of the forest establishment, and because of their own unquestioned competence
and erudition, attained these levels of recognition in their fields. In more
recent decades, a number of forest officers have striven to match their
professional attainments with academic and literary efforts, but none of them
can be said to have attained a status of eminence, perhaps because of the more
egalitarian temper of the times or their lack of true erudition. Their output
is more in the nature of what someone (Sharad Lele, if I am not mistaken)
characterizes as ‘semi-academic’ work (and a mea culpa is in order here). The situation has been somewhat scathingly
described by Guha (2012) in the following words:
"Indian foresters published their papers in house journals,
which did not follow the accepted scientific system of impartial, blind, and
external refereeing. As a consequence, in a hundred (and more) years of forestry research under state auspices, no
single serving Indian forester has made any kind of name or impact in the international community of
scientists." (Guha, 2012, p.5)
A possible reason that contemporary foresters and forest
scientists have failed to achieve recognition is perhaps the failure of the
forest research institutions to put out their publications in the marketplace.
They do not necessarily have to be published by Oxford
or Cambridge to
get put on the stock lists of internet vendors and on the shelves of bookshops;
it may be enough to send them to the sellers on a commission. As it is, one has
to write to the institutes concerned, and wait for a reply, a far cry from the
web-based, one-click ordering experience which is the norm today. If the ICFRE
volumes on the revised forest types, or the other priced and unpriced volumes
could be put on the commercial sellers’ lists, there will at least be publicizing
of the titles, even if there are not much sales. One has to understand the
temperament of book lovers and bookshop browsers to achieve visibility, and
thus recognition.
Developing the scientific talent base in the forest service
If not a status of eminence and international fame, could
forest officers aspire to a reasonable level of recognition as scientists in
their own right, and moreover contribute to the scientific basis of forestry
(what may be termed the ‘scientification’ of forestry)? This was something that
considerably exercised the mind of the then minister at the MoEF, and a
conference of doctorates in the IFS was actually convened at FRI, Dehradun on
10 January 2010 to brainstorm on this possibility. As per the souvenir issued
by the FRI on behalf of the ministry (MoEF, 2010), some 120 IFS
doctorate-holders assembled, and were enlisted on four subject-matter groups.
This does not include the entire population of doctorates in the IFS, which is
estimated at closer to 150 (op. cit., final page), and there will be more if we
include the state forest services, persons who have recently retired, etc. This
can be vouched for personally, as many of my fellow-PhD scholars at Bangor are not on the
list.
Out of the 120 listed, only 14 are from the FRI Deemed University at Dehradun, which has been stridently
reviled in the scandal press after a critical report in April 2014 by the Comptroller
& Auditor-General (CAG) of India
(see http://www.tehelka.com/2015/01/tehelka-investigation-how-forest-officers-net-their-phds/
dated 7 February 2015). Of the rest, as many as 36 have their doctorates from
agricultural universities (mainly Indian Agricultural Research Institute) and a
few from veterinary universities. The remaining are distributed liberally among
all leading universities and institutes, like Aligarh MU, Banaras HU, Jawaharlal
NU, Allahabad U, and so on. Overseas institutes are represented by around 10
doctorates from the Universities of Wales (Bangor ,
Swansea ), Aberdeen ,
Oxford , Melbourne ,
Arizona , and Toronto . Hardly half a dozen of all the PhDs
can be stated to be totally irrelevant to forestry (mainly the veterinary
sciences and one from technology of semi-conductors), if one includes
agricultural and botanical studies within the fold of disciplines relevant to
forestry sciences.
Speaking of the overseas doctorates, many foresters who
stayed back in the host countries after their Commonwealth fellowships did rise
to positions of eminence, mainly in the field of forest economics, like J.C.Nautiyal
at the University of Toronto and later, Shashi Kant also at Toronto. The aura of eminence comes from
tutoring cohorts of students, supporting PhD scholars, and authoring solid
textbooks, rather than just presenting papers at conferences.
All this is just to say that, even discounting the degrees
from the FRI deemed university (if it is considered as an in-house facility run
by foresters for foresters, which is not entirely true as they also have a
number of non-IFS Ph.D. awardees and graduates of the other programmes as
well), there is a very solid base of potential experts, the majority from
forestry itself or from closely related and relevant fields of research in
agriculture, horticulture etc. Some of them have, indeed, managed to produce a
fair body of papers and books, and may be counted in the ranks of the
reasonably competent scientifically speaking, even if they have not attained
the fame of a Gadgil or a Guha. One reason for this may be that, frankly, the
caliber of these two as writers (especially Ramachandra Guha, who admits
himself that he is the more diligent publisher of the duo) is just too high for even the best in the IFS to
match.
The other reason, which of course may be criticized as
self-serving, is that they have not been given the proper opportunities to
exercise their technical specialization. The PhD is, in my understanding, just
the start of the process of honing the professional, and not the culmination,
as we are too prone to assume. The doctorate is like a basic qualification to
go forth and practice, but improvement and growth to a higher level of
achievement, even eminence, comes only out of long years of effort, the
proverbial 10,000 hours of application that sets apart the professional.
It may also call for a certain amount of mentoring and
sponsoring, as every successful person needs an approving audience. The
forester, unfortunately, rarely finds this either within the service (as stated
previously, such efforts to be better than the average are looked at suspiciously),
nor outside (where there is, understandably, a certain amount of jealousy at
the favoured position of the officers in relation to the general civilian who
feels frustrated because of lack of formal status in the administrative structure).
To produce foresters who are at the same time recognized by the world as experts,
the forest service would need to consciously provide the required opportunities
and a certain freedom lacking in the rigid hierarchical set-up, so that
promising individuals are enabled to find approval from independent
professional bodies outside the service.
Catching them young and the path to specialization
To carry out the mandate to create this type of expert in
the service, a scheme was devised to identify promising young IFS officers and
set them on the chosen specialization right after the initial training at the
Indira Gandhi National Forestry Academy (IGNFA) by sending them to a course at
a premier institute in India
for a year. The most popular specialization opted for in the initial years of
this programme from 2010-11 (called the Hari Singh award, after the IG Forests
who marshalled the reification of the IFS in 1968), was wildlife conservation,
at the Wildlife Institute of India at Dehradun. The selection of candidates is
done at the IGNFA during the two-year training (potential candidates are
supposed to be tagged at the initial entry based on their prior achievements,
interests or activities if any), and the officers selected (at around 10% of
the batch) are sent off for the specialized course without a break after their
training. It was also suggested that they should be given a special facility of
earning credits (without actually having to sit through the lectures) in
subjects in which they may have already become proficient (this being
especially relevant for those, like forestry graduates or post-graduates, who
already had degrees or diplomas in the respective subjects). The time saved
could (theoretically) be used for advanced work in their special field of
interest.
In a way, it was a bit of a miracle to have pulled off
this fellowship programme, as the states had to be brought on board and agree
to exempt them from the on-the-job training components, and also to foot the
bill for the period of specialized training. Apart from wildlife, other
disciplines which are covered include remote sensing and photogrammetry,
genetics, forest growth and economic modeling, biometrics and inventory, ecology,
climate change, environment, natural resources, botany, silviculture, etc.
This is not the whole of the story, because this initial
training only sets the officer on a path of specialization. The scheme calls
for subsequent mentoring and monitoring, giving the officer suitable postings
and responsibilities in the chosen field so that the officer is able to learn
and grow through practical experience. One of the crucial requirements for such
a scheme of professional development is that the officer should not get
alienated from the rank and file, and end up as a critic who rails at the
department from the outside (or a glorified ‘jholawala’, as the brief-case
carrying officials like to call the sling-bag toting social activist).
Equally, the specialist officers should avoid falling into
the trap of viewing all situations with the narrow field of view dictated by
the specialization concerned; just because they have a PhD in a discipline does
not mean that every decision must be under the control of that discipline. The
case of forest economics comes immediately to mind: if every decision is
subordinated to the iron criterion of financial efficiency, the end result
could well be extremely unsatisfactory from the points of view of long-term
sustainability (Dilip Kumar, 1992)[6]. In
wildlife conservation, to take another field, field officers are usually
unhappy with what appears to them as inordinately intrusive methods advocated
in the name of furthering scientific knowledge, such as tranquilizing and
collaring wild animals (even Sankhala, that doyen of wildlife conservationists,
had his reservations to such intrusive methods, now recorded in a posthumous
publication, Sankhala 2008, p.151). Therefore,
specialists’ advice is to be taken as just one of many inputs, and the specialists
(officers or scientists) concerned should not feel slighted or suppressed if
everything is not done as per their opinions. To attain this broad approach and
appreciation, they have to also spend some time doing the routine jobs, facing
the challenges and frustrations of the normal officer, so that they acquire a
proper appreciation of the people on the ground working ‘in the trenches’,
and of the practical aspects of the situation and not just a theoretical or
ideological posture and the accompanying jargon.
The chosen officers have, moreover, to possess a stronger
than average self-motivation that drives them to strive hard to keep up their
learning, keeping records of systematic observations over long periods, reading
assiduously, and taking every opportunity to write papers for national and
international conferences, developing scripts over long time spans for books
and reports, and so on. All this has to be done without compromising on their
core responsibilities on whatever position they are assigned to; this calls for
liberal burning of the midnight oil and foregoing some of the comforts of life.
But the department has to provide a matching support to keep this motivation
from flagging. Firstly, there has to be a positive feedback of approval from the seniors in the
service: the message that the extra effort is useful, relevant, and valued in
the department. In addition, the officers have to be materially supported to
produce good studies and reports, that will vie with the best coming from the
universities and institutes like the IISc. Support required would include
permission and grants for travel, laying out of field plots, engagement of
field assistants for continuous recording, establishing mentoring connections
with outside experts in India (and, importantly, abroad), and so on. This is
how today’s experts like Ullas Karanth (who was an engineer before he took to
wildlife) and others have developed their careers, and this internal and
external support would be necessary to develop experts of international
standing out of our young forest officers.
Support for middle-level foresters
For this sort of continuing support, the ministry proposals actually
envisaged two other programmes: one for the sort of in-service support outlined
above, which were proposed should be called the S.K.Seth award (one of the best-known heads of the Forest Research
Institute Dehradun, as mentioned earlier) for middle-level officers in the
process of developing their careers as experts; and another award for joining
higher degree courses abroad, to be named after C.R.Ranganathan (a former President of the FRI Dehradun, and a
scientist rather than a forest officer).
A memo dated 16 April 2010 from the
ministry to the IGNFA is available at the link http://www.ignfa.gov.in/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=QC40zv%2fLT0k%3d&tabid=37&mid=646&language=en-US, which gives the outline of all three
programmes, but apparently only the Hari Singh scheme (for probationers at the
IGNFA) has been brought into operation so far. The other two programmes have
not been initiated at the same time as the Hari Singh awards, probably because
officials at the ministry did not want to set in motion too many such schemes,
and preferred to wait and see whether there is the expected level of
seriousness and commitment expected in the officers who are ear-marked for a
specialist career, and whether the state forest departments are able to support
them with appropriate postings and so on. Of course, the initial batches of Hari Singh fellows still
have a few years to go before they enter the middle career stage, although it could
be thought appropriate to extend the benefits of the other schemes (for
mid-career officers) to the seniors already in the service who may have been
benefited by opportunities to prepare and publish papers, articles, and
reports, attend conferences, etc. The MoEF note ends with the hope that the
“officers groomed through these programmes of fellowships
coupled with mentoring or placement with eminent specialists the world over,
will produce a pool of outstanding talent and expertise in the Service, with a
broad outlook, in-depth knowledge of the field of specialization, world wide
exposure coupled with experience of the ground reality in the Indian context.
.. the target will be to develop a pool of specialists of around 10% of the IFS
over a period of 10-15 years. It is expected that the officers will anchor
themselves sufficiently in their field of specialization to even become strong
contenders to occupy positions in multi-lateral organizations like the UNDP,
FAO, IUCN, International NGOs like WWF etc. Ultimately they will the torch
bearers for the cause of forestry and natural resources conservation in the
country as well as at the global level.” (MoEF memo dated 16 April 2010).
Mention may be made of a third proposal, called the Dietrich Brandis award, to support very
senior and retired members of the
forest service to record their experiences and leave behind their memoires for
the future. Indeed the impetus for this proposal came from the advice of the
Vice-President of India, Hamid Ansari, in May 2009, at the launch of former
Chief Secretary T.S.R.Subramanian’s book GovernMint
in India—An Inside View, that civil servants are too reticent to write
about their experiences of governance and statecraft (see http://www.babusofindia.com/2009/05/civil-servants-as-species-are.html),
and again at the launch ceremony of a book In
Service of India Abroad by retired bureaucrat and former Governor of
Arunachal Pradesh, R.D. Pradhan, on 10 January 2012, that
“… there is a disinclination amongst civil servants to
write about their experiences. I feel it is a net national loss because
knowledge has to be transmitted, experiences have to be shared and therefore
hidebound as we are to the OSA [Official
Secrets Act] … there is room for a lot more being made public… there is room
for a little bitof experimentation. The experience has to be recorded”
(Vice-President Ansari, 10 January 2012, quoted in Indian Express /ENS).
The Brandis award was proposed to cover costs of a
fellowship, research assistance, secretarial support, travel, books and other
equipment, etc., much like the senior fellowships afforded by the national
research councils like the Indian Council for Social Sciences Research (ICSSR)
or the Institute
of Advanced Studies
At any rate, if forest officers in substantial numbers are
to go the extra mile in contributing to the knowledge base based on their vast
and deep experience, some such schemes of facilitation and motivation at
different levels will have to be developed as a conscious, planned, and broadly
participative, programme.
This article, as all others on this site, is the
intellectual property of the author, P.J.Dilip Kumar (IFS, Retired). You are
welcome to reproduce it with due acknowledgement. Suggested citation is as
follows:
[1] Nandini Sundar, in her
chapter in the Rights and Resources volume (Sundar, 2012: p.17-18) has
inadvertently stumbled on this ‘10-year itch’: “Within a decade, the excitement
around JFM gave way to two other processes…” (the running Godavarman case at
the Supreme Court, and the FRA 2006). In my view, the fault is not in JFM or
any historic transformation, but simply that international attention, academic
or donors’, rarely persists for more than a decade on one method or topic. See
my blogpost http://forestmatters.blogspot.com/2016/02/34-institutionalising-change-western.html,
fn 6; a pdf version is available at https://www.academia.edu/21490696/Forest_Landscape_Restoration_in_India_Antecedents_experience_and_prognoses
[2] Some of this has been
explored further in my blogpost,
http://forestmatters.blogspot.com/2016/02/35-green-india-mission-gim-carbon.html;
a pdf version of the entire article is available at https://www.academia.edu/21490696/Forest_Landscape_Restoration_in_India_Antecedents_experience_and_prognoses
[3] Of Khairi the tigress
fame, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saroj_Raj_Choudhury
[4] This was revisited
recently and a new volume published in 2013 by ICFRE (http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/dehradun/forest-types-of-india-revisited-released.html),
but in keeping with contemporary democratic norms, perhaps it will never come
to be associated with any individuals’ names; eminence is based on many
factors!
[5] References are not being
given to their works, as that is not relevant to the topic on hand. Also, there
are a number of other names that could be added; omissions may kindly be
pardoned and taken as understood.
[6] The inadequacy of the
financial criterion is explored in the blog series ending with http://forestmatters.blogspot.com/2015/02/13-applying-economic-analysis-to.html,
and a pdf of the full article is at https://www.academia.edu/11136437/Applying_Economics_to_Sustained_Yield_Forestry_Why_foresters_dont_listen_to_social_scientists
References
Dilip Kumar, P. J. 1992. Economic analysis and the question
of sustained yield in forestry. Presented at the National Seminar on “The
Economics of the Sustainable Use of Forest Resources”, 2-4 April 1990,
organised by Centre for Science & Environment, New Delhi . Published in the Proceedings of
the seminar (Anil Agarwal, Editor, 1992: The Price of Forests).Dilip Kumar, P.J. 2014. Managing India Bangalore
Dilip Kumar, P.J. 2014. Managing India Bangalore
Dilip Kumar, P.J. 2014b. Climate Change, Forest
Carbon Sequestration and REDD-Plus. The Context of India . Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. XLIX, No.22, May 24, 2014, p.22-25.
www.academia.edu/11102870/...
Government of India .
2010. Doctorate-IFS Network. Published by Director, Forest Research Institute,
Dehradun, for Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi .
Guha, Ramachandra.
2006. How Much Should a Person Consume.
Environmentalism in India
and the United States University of California
Guha,
Ramachandra. 2012. The Past and Future of Indian Forestry. Chapter I in Deeper Roots of Historical Injustice: Trends
and Challenges in the Forests of India Washington ,
D.C.
IGNFA. 2012. Shaping a Forester. 75Years of Excellence.
Indira Gandhi National
Forest Academy
Khan, Jamshed and
Sushant Pathak. 2015. Tehelka Investigation: How Forest
Rights and
Resources Initiative. 2012. Deeper Roots
of Historical Injustice: Trends and Challenges in the Forests of India.Washington,
D.C. Available at www.rightsandresources.org/documents/files/doc_5589.pdf
Sankhala,
Kailash. 2008. Sankhala’s India
Sarin, Madhu. 2014.
Undoing Historical Injustice: Reclaiming Citizenship Rights And Democratic
Forest Governance through the Forest Rights
Act. Chapter 3, in Lele and Menon (Eds.), 2014.
Shyamsunder, S.
and S.Parameshwarappa. 2014. Forest
Conservation Concerns in India
Sundar, Nandini.
Violent Social Conflicts in India ’s
Forests. Society, State and the Market. Chapter 2 in Deeper Roots of Historical Injustice: Trends and Challenges in the
Forests of India Washington , D.C.
