In June this year, four endangered Kharai camels drowned in a coastal swamp near Jangi village, Kachchh, Gujarat. Soon after that, in July, 33 Kharai camels were caught in a sea tide off the coast of Jamnagar in Saurashtra, Gujarat; fortunately, they were rescued. Both these incidents were not random but the result of the progressive depletion of mangrove grazing areas that these camels usually depend on. Restrictions by the Gujarat Forest Department and the Border Security Force, as well as the illegal expansion of salt pans, have cornered camels and their herders, into extreme precarity. This is not just the case with mangroves. India’s commons, including forests, pastures, grasslands, and “barren wastelands”, have been steadily shrinking over the past few decades. Grasslands and scrublands, historically managed by pastoral communities, have been treated as “wastelands” or “degraded forests” by conservation law. Recent legislative changes such as amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, threats from developmental projects and afforestation projects such as compensatory afforestation (CAMPA), and a tightening legacy of fortress conservation have led to double dispossession for pastoralists – of both grazing access and legitimate existence. Pastoralism is broadly defined as livelihood practice dependent on livestock mobility across shared landscapes, practiced by approximately 10 to 12 million people across India. From the Himalayan regions to the southern coasts, approximately 70 pastoral communities in India rely on forest and grazing commons for sustenance. These areas include a range of tenurial categories including village commons; forest areas such as national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and tiger reserves, as well as privately held agricultural land. In March 2022, the United Nations General Assembly declared that 2026 would be the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP). This has prompted renewed focus on securing the rights of pastoralists around the world. In India, the Karnataka Traditional Migratory Shepherds (Welfare Measures and Protection against Atrocities) Act, 2025, and a national-level pastoral livestock census (which is yet to be released) in 2024-2025 have emerged to supplement the existing legal framework for the recognition of pastoralists’ rights – The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (known as the Forest Rights Act or FRA). Pastoralism and the FRAThe FRA was brought about to correct the historical injustices faced by forest-dwelling communities during the colonial and post-colonial periods. It provides for grazing and traditional seasonal resource access of pastoralist communities under Section 3(1)(d), recognising their mobile and semi-nomadic ways of life. The Gram Sabha (village assembly) is the central decision making authority and has both deliberative and executive powers under the Act. Under Section 3(1)(i) and Rule 4(1)(e), the Gram Sabha is a custodian empowered to protect, conserve, and regulate the use of their forest resources, including their traditional grazing areas, migration routes, and seasonal forest pastures. The inclusion of these provisions marks a radical shift from the state-controlled model of governance of forest commons to a community-led decentralised regime. Moreover, the Gram Sabha’s consent is mandated before any forest land diversion and relocation or resettlement activities in cases of development or conservation related projects, creating an alternative governance model where forest dwellers are not just “beneficiaries” but right holders and decision makers. This is one of the provisions through which the FRA empowers forest dwelling communities to manage and govern their forests and the resources within. Despite these forward-thinking statutory processes, the FRA remains a pipe dream marred with inefficacious implementation, bureaucratic delays, and litigation. A recent report by the UNDP suggests a “sunset clause” for ending recognition of rights, despite the Ministry of Tribal Affairs clarifying that the FRA does not prescribe any such time limit. Thus, even after nearly two decades since its promulgation, the FRA remains mired in debates that have hindered its full realisation.Legal invisibilityAt the institutional level, pastoralists remain absent from the committees responsible for making decisions under the FRA. Such committees are often dominated by Forest and Revenue officers and rarely include pastoral representatives, especially from non-Scheduled Tribe (ST) backgrounds. This lack of representation leads to most authorities incorrectly interpreting and simply equating “forest rights” with settled agriculture, residence, and resource use within traditional village boundaries characteristic of sedentary tribal communities, and not the seasonal use or migration practiced by pastoralists.Pastoral communities occupy a complex intersection of caste, tribe, and occupation, and so they fall out of the purview of the ST category in many states. Implementing officials are often under the impression that the FRA applies only to ST communities. This makes it difficult for communities such as the Van Gujjars in Uttarakhand, Rabaris and Raikas of Rajasthan and Gujarat, and Dhangars in Maharashtra – who are categorised as Other Backward Classes and qualify as other traditional forest dwellers (OTFDs) – to assert their rights under the FRA. Where officials acknowledge the inclusion of OTFDs in the Act, they demand proof of residence in the forest for over 75 years, despite the Ministry of Tribal Affairs’ clarification that OTFDs who are not necessarily residing inside the forest but who depend on the forest for their bona fide livelihood needs would be covered under the definition of ‘OTFDs’ under the Act. In areas where their rights overlap with settled agricultural communities, pastoralist claims are a point of contention. Titles for grazing rights are never showcased as examples of the successful use of the FRA, and in fact, in the few places where grazing titles have been recognised, the state authorities fail to include these in their monthly progress reports. The movement of pastoralist communities across jurisdictional boundaries of districts and even states further complicates the mapping for and recognition of their FRA claims. Even the Gram Sabha, central to FRA governance, poses a challenge for pastoralists as their movement across multiple villages or forest divisions complicates where and how they convene it. As per Rule 12 of the FRA, District-Level Committees are responsible for ensuring the facilitation of filing of claims by pastoralist communities and hence are the authority to address these concerns, however such claims are often overlooked by these committees.Restrictions on access to traditional resource areas and the need for FRAPastoralists are often viewed as “outsiders” or “encroachers” in forest areas, and their access to these areas is increasingly curtailed for conservation or development projects. For example, Van Gujjars across Uttarakhand have been facing decades of eviction threats and restrictions imposed by the state Forest Department despite having legitimate pre-independence land use records. Following the relocation of villages from Melghat Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra, it was observed that the livestock holding of members of the pastoralist Gavli community has reduced to 10% of their pre-relocation holding, which they lament is due to the lack of grazing land outside the forest. In Gujarat, the Maldharis of Kachchh are fenced out of pastures on account of growing renewable energy projects. Despite systemic exclusion and marginalisation, pastoral communities continue to contribute immensely to forest management and conservation efforts. Their knowledge of fodder cycles, traditional water sources, and animal breeding practices has shaped ecological resilience for generations. For example, the trampling of grass by Gojri Buffaloes on their everyday routes prevents its regrowth and the path thus acts as a barrier against forest fires in the summer season. Cattle herds also disperse native seeds and maintain grassland ecosystems that are vital to biodiversity. This relationship with the forest has a direct impact on pastoralists’ livelihood since it distinguishes pastoral products from others – for instance, it is commonly believed that the Van Gujjar community’s buffaloes produce better quality milk since they graze on forest vegetation.The FRA allows for the possibility of securing these traditional ecological management practices and strengthening the livelihoods linked to them. While claim filing and title recognition are important steps of the FRA process, the law also empowers forest dwelling communities to protect, regenerate, conserve, manage, and regulate access to their traditionally used forest resources. The Gram Sabha is the decision-making body in this regard, and a committee is formed under it to draft a Community Forest Resource (CFR) Management Plan and execute day-to-day activities involved in conserving these resources and ensuring equitable access to them. Importantly, under the Act, there is no requirement for the recognition of CFR titles for community stewardship over the community forest resources – traditional forest dwellers are empowered by virtue of being right holders and are thus entitled to manage their CFR areas. Emerging efforts Amidst such challenges, some encouraging developments have also begun to tale place across the country. At the national level, MoEFCC’s National Working Plan Code of 2023 directs inclusion and recording of all areas where rights have been recognised under the FRA, including local or customary systems of forest governance already in use by forest dwelling communities. In Gujarat, the Maldhari’s rights over the Banni grasslands were affirmed by an NGT directive. In Himachal Pradesh, an FRA calendar for the year 2025-2026 has been released by the chief minister, outlining the various activities under FRA to be undertaken in the state including the filing, processing, and recognition of CFR and grazing rights. CFR claims including grazing rights of three Panchayats in Kangra’s Chota Bhangal area, Himachal Pradesh, were also recognised recently.The success of the FRA’s pastoral application is dependent on whether the Gram Sabhas view mobility as belonging rather than absence and consequently are able to assert administrative decisions in support of such claims. Steps in this direction can be seen through the initiatives in Banni of Gujarat and Multhan of Himachal Pradesh where Gram Sabhas have asserted their powers under the FRA by organising independently and via federations, mapping resources, and filing collective claims. These initiatives indicate that the Act is the cornerstone for recognition of pastoralists’ access to commons and ensuring their future sustenance. Looking aheadTenurial security for pastoralists, therefore, hinges on the implementation of the robust framework of the FRA. What it currently lacks is political imagination and administrative will to extend it beyond a sedentary lens. To recognise these rights in their true sense, three broad strategies are essential: legal clarifications on mobility and shared use, capacity building of FRA authorities, and representation of pastoral communities within FRA committees. Once the conservation ethos and concerned implementing authorities move beyond viewing pastoralists as “encroachers” and recognise them as legitimate right holders contributing to ecological security, the fabric of community-led governance in India will be strengthened. Nausheen Akhtar is a lawyer and socio-legal researcher working on Indigenous land rights, forest governance, and grassroots implementation of the Forest Rights Act. Srishti Saxena is a socio-legal practitioner and researcher whose work has focused on environmental, forest, and tribal law, currently working towards the implementation of the Forest Rights Act for pastoral communities at the Centre for Pastoralism.This is the fourth article in a series exploring the challenges faced by Indian pastoralism. Read the first, second and third.