The article presents a critique of the Cartesian-inspired practice of science and contrasts it with the traditional knowledge pertaining to the ecosystem which exists in the form of cultural practices rooted in the holistic framework integrating the world of animate and inanimate elements in the perspective of folk religious beliefs. The implications of the practice of ghandwa are explained in the light of a gene bank and human–wildlife conflict (HWC). The article argues for an intensive documentation of traditional knowledge and practices and its proper use in the programmes aimed at environmental conservation.
JoshiP.C. (1988). Traditional medical system in Central Himalayas. The Eastern Anthropologist, 41(1), 77–86.
2.
JoshiP.C. (2009). Culture and nature. World Focus, 357, 351–357.
3.
JoshiP.C., & SrivastavaV.K. (1989). Afforestation, development and religion: A case study from the Himalayas. Mainstream (Annual Number), 109(27), 109, 111–112, 151–152.
4.
KaranthK.U., & MadhusudanM.D. (2002). Mitigating human-wildlife conflicts in southern Asia. In TerborghJ., van SchaikC.P., RaoM. & DavenportL.C. (Eds), Making parks work: Identifying key factors to implementing parks in the tropics (pp. 250–264). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Island Press.
5.
LeopoldA. (1949). A sand county almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
MajumdarD.N. (1962). Himalayan polyandry (structure, functioning and cultural change): A field-study of Jaunsar-Bawar. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
7.
NaessA. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement: A summary. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy and Social Science, 16(1), 95–100.
8.
PachauriR.K. (2014). Editorial. TerraGreen, 7, 9.
9.
RangarajanM., & SaberwalV. (Eds). (2003). Battle over nature: The science and politics of conservation in India. New Delhi: Permanent Black.
