Network Past Issues

Sustainability of Jhum

Moirangthem Prakash1

At high altitudes of north-eastern region of India, tribal people practise mixed cropping and intensive cultivation on steep hill slopes by clearing patches of forest land in a very primitive way. They neither employ machines nor animals. Rather they use human labour as the key input. Women predominantly participate in activities like seed selection, planting, and weeding, while other activities such as clearing jungles and burning of the cut undergrowths are carried out by their counterparts. Both men and women participate in harvesting. They cultivate in a particular area for two to three years and then abandon it for 10–20 years to allow the natural forest to grow back and the soil to regain its fertility. Traditionally, a village community collectively owned and controlled the forest land and decided on such rotational cultivation patterns. This form of cultivation is popularly known as Jhum1 in the North-east and by various names such as ‘shifting cultivation’, ‘slash-and-burn agriculture’, ‘swidden’ or ‘rotational bush fallow agriculture’ in other parts of the country and the world. This practice is not simply a form of cultivation; rather it is a way of life for traditional tribal societies, which they have been practising from pre-historic times till today. In the recent past, Jhum cultivation has earned a bad name. Allegations have been made and measures have been taken up by state and central governments to restrict this practice, although they have met limited success. In the following section, we will see how Jhum has changed over the years and what has gone wrong with newer practices of Jhum.

In the past, when a balance was maintained between population and soil fertility as a result of a longer fallow cycle of 10–20 years, Jhum allowed multiple cropping of several crops. This had many advantages. It provided the local people a balanced diet and also offered some form of crop insurance to the Jhumias in the event of failure of some crops. It helped to conserve forests as the pattern observed a long fallow period followed by a short cropping phase.

Over the years, many tribal societies were forced to employ distorted versions of shifting agriculture. In land-scarce villages, for reasons such as population increase and consequent increase in demand for food, fallow period were reduced. Greater chunks of forest land were cleared to grow more food and were returned to the fallow plots much sooner than the traditional period of 10–20 years. The length of the fallow period- the period between two successive cropping phases—has shrunk to as little as even two to three years in some places. This has resulted in soil degradation, fall in yield, lower return, and reduction in green cover. It is this change in traditional practice, arising out of the changing conditions, that has given Jhum cultivation a bad name.
Worried by the disadvantages and ill-effects of the distorted version of shifting cultivation being followed currently, concerned state and central governments initiated programmes aimed at arresting and eradicating the practice in the North-east. Among the various programmes, mention may be made of Jhum Regulation, Jhum Control, and Soil Conservation, which were launched during the 5th and 9th Five Year Plans.
The measures under these programmes included: (a) resettlement of Jhum farmers by relocation of their villages and provision of alternative means of livelihood; (b) introduction of terrace cultivation; (c) diversification into horticulture, floriculture, and plantation crops; and (d) a complete change in the land tenure system in the hills whereby community-owned and community-operated holdings were replaced by individual holdings.
Initially, these programmes were based on the assumption that the introduction of cash crops would help to wean people away from Jhum. Jhumias were given planting material and financial help to switch over to cash crops. Thankfully, the farmers defeated the efforts of the government to switch over to cash crops. Had these measures succeeded, we would have witnessed unprecedented farmers’ suicides among the tribal people in the region. Food security is thus the most critical reason for the continuance of Jhum. Attempts to attract people to settled farming failed completely as the locals did not readily accept the new settlements given their close attachment to their traditional villages and way of life. Moreover, the switch to terrace cultivation or the use of bullocks for ploughing caused great technical difficulties for Jhum farmers.
Here we need to re-examine the bad reputation of Jhum cultivation. Unfortunately, Jhum is blamed for denuding forests in the region. On the contrary, forests are exploited for timber and the hills are flattened for extracting soil and stones. Experts and environmentalists are of strong opinion that Jhum is more environment-friendly and sustainable. Various studies have substantiated this claim and led to the conclusion that Jhum cultivation with longer cycles has many advantages over other agricultural systems practised in the hills.
Though shifting agriculture involves clearing patches of forest land, it nevertheless retains useful trees and plant varieties. Jhum farmers thus cultivate land for their livelihood while practising conservation and maintaining the ecological balance. Another advantage of Jhum farming is the maintenance of a high degree of species diversity. Farmers are known to plant up to 35– 40 species on individual plots, including seven-eight varieties of rice and alternate cereal crops. Mixed cropping creates a multi- layered canopy above and a root system below for efficient light capture and optimal nutrient use respectively.
To conclude, the emphasis should be on controlling distortions instead of controlling shifting agriculture itself. Alternative measures should be provided to meet the increasing demand for food while efforts are made to preserve the original form of cultivation. Finding an effective solution to the crisis of Jhum has become important, not only from the point of biodiversity conservation, but also from the point of agricultural productivity in the region. Consulting the community properly, obtaining their full consensus, and securing their active participation are essential for the success of any measure taken so that the same story of failure is not repeated in the future.

Academic Associate, Social Sciences, Institute of Rural Management, Anand
Emailid: prakash@irma.ac.in