Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary

A REPORT ON THE WORKSHOP:

KAILADEVI WILDLIFE SANCTUARY : PROSPECTS FOR CONSERVATION

Introduction

A two day workshop on the Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary was organised by the Indian Institute of Public administration (IIPA), New Delhi and the Society for Sustainable Development (SSD), Karauli, on 6-7th December, 1996 at the Mathura Dharamshala, Kailadevi.

The 674 sq.km. Kailadevi Sanctuary is part of the buffer zone of the Ranthambhor Tiger Reserve, one of India's 21 tiger reserves. The Sanctuary is characterised by not only its wildlife (though considerably depleted due to many reasons), but also by several settlements of predominantly pastoral people. These communities have taken significant steps in the last few years to regenerate and protect the forests around them. However, several internal and external pressures continue to affect the Sanctuary. Though the level of conflicts between the local communities and the Forest Department, managing the Sanctuary, is not as great as in many other protected areas of India, nevertheless there are serious issues of livelihood security and illegal activities which need to be tackled.

The Workshop was organised as a part of IIPA's Project `Towards Participatory Management of Protected Areas', and was a culmination of our field research at Kailadevi Sanctuary over the last several months. The objective of this Project is to research the possibilities of people's participation in the management and conservation of Protected Areas, and to initiate a dialogue towards the same. The Project is sponsored by the Society for Promotion of Wasteland Development (SPWD) and The Ford Foundation, New Delhi. The co-organising agency, SSD, has an ongoing programme of involvement with the villagers of the area, in the various issues facing them.

The main aim of the Workshop was to initiate a constructive dialogue between the various interest groups on issues that affect the conservation of the Sanctuary and consequently the livelihood requirements of the people residing in it. The participants included 60-70 villagers from about 20 villages, both in and around the Sanctuary; three NGOs (World Wide Fund for Nature-India, SSD, and IIPA); a few concerned individuals; a few retired forest officials; and a lone Forest Guard. A list of the participants is appended as Annexure 1. Unfortunately, the Forest Department (FD) officials, despite repeated assurance of their participation, failed to turn up at the Workshop. There is as yet no explanation for this rather regrettable behaviour. The absence of the FD, a crucial stakeholder, was considered highly disappointing, as it stymied the process of dialogue. Their behaviour drew much flak from the villagers, for whom it further reinforced the already existing high-handed image of the FD. Nevertheless, with significant contributions from the retired forest officials present, and the lone Forest Guard, the discussions were insightful and constructive. The villagers acknowledged that this was the first time that they were offered a common platform to discuss at length the various issues of livelihood and conservation with regard to the Sanctuary.

General Discussion

The discussions at the workshop were held in three phases. The first was an open session on all major issues, in which all participants took part. The second was at the level of working groups dwelling on three specific clusters of issues. The third was a concluding phase in which the results of the first two parts were consolidated, a resolution adopted, and follow-up decided. This report includes points raised in all the three phases of the discussions, clubbing common elements rather than following a strictly chronological order.

After the initial round of introductions of all participants, Ashish Kothari of IIPA spoke on the significance and objectives of the Workshop, and the Project on Participatory Management of Protected Areas. Citing examples from various parts of the country, he explained the importance of people's participation in the management and conservation of protected areas. The objective of the Workshop was to enable a dialogue between various 'stakeholders', that is, those who have an interest in the conservation and use of the forests and wildlife in the area, and in particular the local community and the FD. This would not only help reduce the misgivings the two have about each other's intention with regard to conservation of the Sanctuary, but also enable the two to gain from each others experiences and suggestions. Such an interaction, he said, was mandatory to initiate a process towards "participatory management", in which both conservation and livelihood security could be ensured through sharing of powers, functions, and responsibilities.

The next speaker, Arun Jindal of SSD, enumerated the role of NGOs in such efforts. According to him , the "third party", as he called the NGOs, are much needed mediators, facilitating and abetting the process of communication between the FD, the Administration and the local people. He felt that their role as information disseminators is also crucial. According to him, the NGOs could also be a critical support force, acting as a moral boost for people's initiatives vis-a-vis development and conservation policies and schemes.

Ramveer Singh of WWF-I, Khandar, lauded the people's efforts at conserving forests in Kailadevi, and cited similar examples from Khandar (near Ranthambhor National Park), where the WWF-I sponsored eco-development scheme is operational. He urged the people to work as a united force towards any commitment that they make. He also spoke on the force and importance of social sanctions, and of governance at the level of village panchayat. According to him, even though legal powers and sanctions are important, more important and effective are the village level social sanctions imposed by the FPCs.

Radheshyam Main, a village level worker of WWF-India, Khandar, reiterated the same issue by citing examples from Faria, Gopalpur and others (the villages surrounding the Ranthambor National Park).

Speaking on behalf of the FD , the Forest Guard Umed Singh, said that the FD highly appreciates and encourages the people's effort at conservation and also seeks their participation in a more concrete manner. These intentions are well reflected in the FD's ventures in terms of Van Suraksha Samitis (VSS), which are being encouraged in various villages. He cited the successful example of Rahar village. He said that given the current staff force, it is difficult for the FD to keep a check both on the internal as well as external pressures on the Sanctuary. The people, having taken on the onus of protecting the Sanctuary from internal threats, thus offer great relief to the FD. However, he felt that in order to avail of the benefits that the FD offers the people (compensation for livestock-lifting, etc.) the people should be more responsible, and make an effort to follow the prescribed methods more systematically, because without adequate paperwork no official action can take place.

Speaking on behalf of the villagers, Bharose Meena of Rahar stated that for the past 15 years, the people by taking conscious and deliberate measures had effectively protected and conserved the forest of the Sanctuary area. Speaking on the significance of the sanctuary, he said that they had gained and lost in equal measures from the Sanctuary. So far as the "gains" were concerned, he said that they were glad that owing to the declaration of the sanctuary, there had been a significant decline in the intrusion of outside livestock herds in their area, including that of the migratory Rabaries. This to a large extent has reduced the pressure that was exerted on their already limited resources. However, the greatest disadvantage of the Sanctuary's existence is the limitation it imposes on their agricultural activities. A considerable amount of arable land has been taken over by the FD, he alleged. Expanding agricultural activities in order to meet the needs of their increasing population is absolutely impossible unless they encroach on the forest land. Besides their livestock and crops are constantly under the threat of being attacked by the wild animals. While on one hand they had to put up with these disadvantages, they felt that inadequate efforts had been made to address some of their basic problems like shortage of water and fodder. In a nutshell, he felt that if the villagers are taking the onus of conservation of the Sanctuary, the FD and the concerned authorities should make provisions to take care of the livelihood requirements of the villagers.

The general discussion that followed, focused on the following three clusters of issues:

Issue No. I: Livelihood and Subsistence

In the general discussion on livelihood needs vis-a-vis conservation, the following issues were discussed:

  1. The availability and productivity of agricultural land;
  2. The availability of water;
  3. The availability of alternative sources of employment;
  4. The availability of effective communication means, like roads;
  5. The productivity of livestock;
The villagers were unequivocal about their need for more agricultural land. They said that since the productivity of the land is poor, it is imperative that they be allowed to cultivate more land. However they understood that procuring forest land for the same is impossible. Besides, the demand for more land was not viable from the conservation point of view. Since the population of the area is always on the rise, the need for more land is going to be never-ending. While not clear about how this would be tackled in the long run, the villagers offered an interesting way of resolving current land shortage: the exchange of uncultivable revenue land with that of arable forest land. According to the villagers, there are large stretches of arable land under the FD, which, because of having been cultivated earlier, have no forest cover. At the same time, each village apparently has a considerable stretch of wasteland, categorised as revenue land, which is of no use to them. Hence, they felt that instead of demanding for more land, it would be equally rewarding if an effective exchange could be brought about between the two. However, S.B.Singh, the retired Forest Ranger, expressed his apprehension with regard to this proposal. He felt that often the "arable" forest land is located almost at the center of relatively dense forest cover. Converting this area for agricultural activities would be a threat to the surrounding forest cover. With revenue land at such a strategic location, the forest cover becomes vulnerable to a lot of malpractices like timber felling. However, he agreed that the proposal needed serious consideration.

The second alternative suggested by the NGOs present, was to increase the productivity of the existing land area. Though well- received by the villagers, they pointed out the serious limitations of poor land quality, water scarcity, and lack of better variety of seeds and of agricultural expertise. Enhancing water availability could help significantly (see below). The common consensus arrived at was that such an alternative was possible only with external assistance, for which provisions should be made.

Related to land was the issue of crop-raiding by the wild animals. The villagers complained that every year about 20-50% of their crop is ruined by wild animals, for which they receive no compensation. However, since they realise that crop-raiding is inevitable if they are to live inside the Sanctuary, they asked for the practice of insuring their crops. Keeping guard on their crops on winter nights was injurious to their health, and required large-scale use of fuelwood to keep themselves warm. Hence adequate measures should be taken to ensure other possibilities of protecting their crop. One of the measures suggested was strong fencing/enclosure of their fields, and adequate compensation to be provided in the event of crop-raiding till such fences come up.

One the reasons submitted for maintaining a larger number of cattle heads was the poor quality of their livestock. Besides the number of cattle heads that fall prey to the wild animals has been increasing every year. The compensation offered by the FD is almost as good as not available because of the tedious procedures prescribed for making legitimate claims. As per the rules, instances of cattle-lifting have to be reported to the Forest Guard on duty, and a complaint be registered. Then, they have to be medically verified and authenticated. Often, Guards are unavailable immediately after such an event. In any case, in a place that lacks motorable roads or in many cases any accessible roads, procuring adequate medical verification becomes impossible. With these considerations in mind, participants suggested that the compensation claiming procedures be made more simple and operable at the level of FPCs. Other than that since the compensation offered falls far short of the actual economic loss, insuring the livestock could be a foolproof method. Adequate medical aid should also be provided for ensuring a healthy breed of livestock.

In the discussions on the scarcity of water, it became apparent that this is an overwhelming problem, and the root cause of many other problems related to both people's livelihood and conservation. Water is not adequate for cultivation, nor is it enough to meet the requirement of their livestock. One of the problems this has created is dependence on outside villages during summer (see below, khirkaris)

It was suggested that as a remedial measure the authorities should construct a greater number of small-scale water harnessing structures, including anicuts, borewells, check dams, ponds (talabs), and others. As an immediate measure in this direction, the entire area should to be resurveyed, and all the areas where such construction was possible should be demarcated. The availability of adequate land for such activities should be ensured by the FD, and the new sources of water should be available for use both for wildlife as well for the villagers for their livestock and agricultural activities. If need be, waterholes can be provided in the more interior regions for the wildlife alone. Some suggested the possibilities of harnessing the Chambal waters, but most felt that this was at present unrealistic.

As it emerged from the discussion, the biggest potential incentive to reduce people's dependence and pressure on the natural resources was the availability of alternative sources of employment opportunities. The discussions ranged from constructing big factories nearby, to encouraging small-scale handicraft industries. The necessary remedial measures to tackle their land and water crisis will take time to come into effect, so employment opportunities were looked upon as an immediate remedy as well as a means to tide over the interim period. The following were some of the alternatives deliberated upon:

  1. Employment as unskilled and semi-skilled labourers in factories. The villagers felt that setting up a factory at accessible distances could be a possible source of employment. However, most NGOs present explained that this would be unfeasible in the long- term, given current economic constraints and the potential environmental implications. They advised that one should try and think of possibilities that can be worked out within the existing infrastructure and resources within the village, and with some amount of external assistance.
  2. The villagers were not very responsive to the idea of encouraging local handicraft, as they feel that crafts like rope-making, designing quilt covers, pottery and other such activities, essentially undertaken to meet their household requirement, are very marginal to be able to generate any significant amount of income. Countering their point, researcher and social activist Sachin Sachdev gave the example of a place in Bikaner, where at the time of the worst famine that had struck that area, the people with external assistance took up shawl weaving, a household practice, on a commercial basis. This not only generated enough income to tide over the famine but is now a flourishing and prospering business at the level of local people. After much debate it was decided that if there is a possibility of handicraft industry in their area, then the villages should be given the required facilities, and adequately trained to handle them while building on traditional knowledge and skills.
  3. Temporary employment as wage labourers in the construction of roads and other such activities was also the other possibility discussed. S.B. Singh suggested that the contracts for such construction be given to the FPC instead of private contractors, on condition that they employ local people only. In addition, the commission that accrues to contractors could be retained by the FPC. On this point it was decided that it would be best to send proposals directly from the FPCs to the concerned authorities, and the sanctions be granted to the FPCs directly. This would avoid the possibility of bungling of funds etc. at the hands of the mediator, in this case the FD. Besides, whatever the outcome, the FPC becomes directly answerable. In the same fashion it was suggested that most development work within the Sanctuary should be channelized through the FPCs.
  4. The prospects of generating income from the mining activities were also dwelled upon. Mining inside the Sanctuary was ruled out by a large majority of participants, even though some of them did express an interest in restarting work on some of the abandoned mining sites subject to specific restrictions that would make them viable in terms of conservation. Mining in the areas surrounding the Sanctuary, however, was looked upon as highly lucrative, provided the stranglehold of private owners/contractors and other influential people, to whom they have been leased, could be relaxed. At present, the only income of the villagers from these mines is as wage labourers. Instead of this, they asked individual leases of the existing mining plots outside the Sanctuary be given to the villagers themselves.
  5. Since the people are predominantly pastoralists, setting up milk cooperatives was seen as a viable alternative. In fact one of the villages, Khijuro, already has such a cooperative functioning effectively. The reason why such cooperatives are not more prevalent, is due to the lack of `pucca' roads connecting the more remote villages to the main road.
  6. Due to the above and other reasons, the issue of construction of roads in the Sanctuary was felt to be important. According to the villagers the lack of motorable roads thwarts a number of employment opportunities. The villagers said that, apparently as per Government rules and sanctions, all Panchayats are to be connected by roads. However, the FD was not allowing this inside the Sanctuary. S.B. Singh clarified that the decision of allowing road construction within Sanctuary and forest areas was beyond their jurisdiction, and involved decisions by the PWD, the State Government, and the Central Government. Also, the FD's reservations regarding the construction of roads are based on the fact that often under the pretext of clearing the area for construction, contractors indulge in illegal felling. Apparently a number of incidences to this effect have occurred in the past.

    It was finally decided that proposals regarding the needs of roads should be put forth by the village panchayat. The FD on its part should remain open to such ideas and should act as facilitators on behalf of the villagers where-ever needed. According to S.B. Singh, there are negotiations going on between the State and Central Governments, for sanction to construct motorable roads at the village level, in the remote areas of Rajasthan.

    Issue No. II: Internal and External Pressures

    The discussions on the of Internal and External Pressures on the Sanctuaries focused on the following issues-

    1. Khirkaries or cattle camps;
    2. Illegal felling; and
    3. Migratory livestock herds.
    As perceived by the FD, cattle camps (khirkaris) of outside villages in the Sanctuary are a serious pressure on the area. These camps are held in and after the monsoons, as there is abundant fodder available. Outside cattle were categorised under the following 2 categories: cattle that come from about 15-20 kos away, and those that come from villages adjoining the Sanctuary.

    It is believed that these khirkaris are to a large extent aided by the inhabitants of the Sanctuary. The villagers did admit to allowing cattle of outside villages, primarily as a reciprocal gesture to villagers who harbour them when they have to go out of the Sanctuary in times of acute water/fodder scarcity. They thus felt that if adequate provisions could be made for water where they resided, then they would not need to go out, and in turn would not feel obliged to support outside khirkaris inside the Sanctuary.

    A lot of discussion was generated over this issue. Arun Jindal and Ramveer Singh urged the villagers to rethink the need for maintaining such a relationship of mutual dependence. They warned that this has already been cited as a precedence (in court) by the Rabaries and other external groups, to seek legitimacy for their grazing activities inside the area.

    Certain critical questions in this regard were brought to light. It was proposed that the actual extent of dependence be analysed in terms of the exact number of villages that undertake migration in the summers. It was felt that the dependence of the villages inside the Sanctuary was much less as compared to extent of pressure exerted by the outside cattle. It was suggested that if it was a question of just a few villages that were affected, then one should also look at the possibilities of whether it is possible to adjust them in some other area inside the Sanctuary. While the resident community may just depend on outsiders for water, the outsiders impinge on their fuelwood resources, fodder as well as water.

    Even though most villages felt that if adequate measures are taken to meet the needs of these villages, then they would definitely check the intrusion of outside cattle in their region, some of the villagers brought up the social implications of severing this relationship of mutual dependence. Attention was drawn to the fact that the relationship was not limited to material exchange alone. These neighbouring villages have also acted as a support force during crisis periods. For example, when the Rabaries' herds had barged into Rahar village, all these neighbouring villages (located outside the Sanctuary) had stood by their side and fought back. Thus one cannot just snap off these relations in total disregard for the social ramifications.

    On the issue of temporary cattle camps of the villages inside the Sanctuary, the villagers were steadfast about being allowed to maintain the already existing cattle camps. The idea of substituting cattle camps for any thing else is unthinkable by the villagers. However they agreed not to permit setting up of new cattle camps.

    The only issue on which the villagers were not ready to brook any compromise, was that of the grazing of the migratory herds. The common consensus was that not only should they not be allowed to enter the Sanctuary, but the region as a whole. When the neighbouring villages are impacted upon by the migratory herds, the affected villagers take refuge in the Sanctuary in order to avoid conflict with the Rabaries. They feel that issuing permits to these graziers is highly undesirable and unwarranted. If they have to share their depleting and inadequate resources then they should in turn be adequately compensated. According to S.B. Singh, the existing resource area is inadequate to meet the needs of both resident livestock and the migratory herds. The issuing of permits is being done on the basis of statistics obtained in surveys done long back. Since the last survey done, considerable area has been degraded by illegal encroachment, mining activities and revenue activities. It was made clear that while the villages are going to protest against the entry of the sheep and camel herds, they will have to think over a number of issues because questions are going to be raised about cattle of neighbouring area being allowed to graze inside the Sanctuary. Even the legality of allowing khirkaris is going to be questione d.

    On the issue of illegal felling, it was submitted that this practice has been effectively arrested by the existing FPCs. The greatest threat is posed not by the resident population, but by outsiders. In order to deal with this, the FPCs needed adequate legal empowerment (see below). The villagers, with the consent of the FPCs, should be allowed to extract timber for their personal use and to meet their household requirements.

    Issue No. III: Involving People in Conservation

    The issue of involving people in conservation cropped up at various stages through the entire course of discussion. Most of the points raised focused on the need for empowerment, and consequently participation of the FPCs, in the management and conservation of the Sanctuary at two levels:

    1. Empowerment of FPCs to stop illegal activities in the Sanctuary area and take to task the defaultors;
    2. Empowerment of FPCs to enable them to function effectively in their day-to day dealing in an independent, decentralised manner.
    While the FPCs felt confident about their ability to check and penalise village-level defaultors, the question as to how the FPCs should participate in or ensure the FD's action against other offenders, was discussed at length. It was alleged that currently, the FPCs, beyond handing over a defaultor to the FD, could do little about ensuring that the FD actually takes action.

    At this stage in the Workshop, in order to provoke responses on this issue from participants, Sachin Sachdev simulated a real life situation bringing face-to-face a defaultor, the FPC, and a Forest Ranger, all play acted by the villagers. The role play was effective in making the participants realise that the biggest drawback of the FPCs is the lack of legal power or recognition. It was because of this that on a number of occasions some people do not hesitate to flout the FPC's ruling. It is also because of fear of the legal implications that an offender attempts to bribe the forest officials, and not members of the local FPCs.

    It was thus submitted that the legal recognition of local FPC was of foremost importance. According to S.B. Singh, a legally empowered and recognised body could function as effectively as forest officials, on occasions where the latter are unavailable for prompt action. In this regard, FPCs should have the powers of a Ranger, felt the villagers. The other crucial step was to make it legally binding on the FD to take action against people who have been accosted by the FPCs, or against whom the FPC registers a complaint. Failing this, the concerned authority should be liable to legal action. It was also decided that all cases of illegal activities that are brought to light by the FPCs, the FD and the FPC should jointly arbitrate in order to ensure that deserved and appropriate action is taken. In cases settled by joint arbitration, the fines levied should be equally divided between the FD and the FPCs. This is, of course, over and above the fines levied by the FPCs in instances which they can handle on their own.

    Legal empowerment was also crucial to the participation of villagers in the other development activities in the Sanctuary and for staking claims to fulfill their other livelihood requirements. These include, as discussed earlier, channelising development schemes through FPCs, sanctioning and handling of grants by them for these activities, and enforcing restrictive measures (of conservation significance) in in the implementation of various development schemes handled by them. Empowerment of the FPC would also help in simplifying the procedures for claiming compensation in the cases of damage caused by wild animals. If a particular case is authenticated and certified by the FPC, then it should considered as valid proof for staking claims for compensation. However it was felt that legal empowerment would also warrant certain constitutional and structural changes in the formation of the FPCs. For this, it was recommended that the village-level FPC should be elected by the whole village, should be legally recognised and registered, and should consist of all caste/ethnic communities of the village.

    A considerable debate was generated over the question of women's participation in the FPCs. Some of the villagers were strictly against this idea, considering women unfit and illiterate to handle issues of such importance. There were arguments and counter-arguments amongst the villagers regarding the effectiveness of women as administrators. The contribution of women in their day-to-day existence was enumerated and the magnitude of it was acknowledged and appreciated. Ultimately, the people opposing the participation of women were outnumbered by those who were for the motion by a very large margin. However, even staunch supporters of such participation acknowledge that true involvement would be a gradual process, as it would require a break away from the strongly entrenched traditional norm of not allowing women to speak in a male gathering. As a beginning, it was decided that of every 5 members of a FPC, at least two should be women.

    Resolution, Protest Note, and Conclusion

    At the end of the final session on the last day, a resolution was passed encompassing the various issues discussed and making specific recommendations. This is appended as Annexure II.

    Prior to the end of the workshop, the insulting conduct of the FD was taken up for discussion. The villagers were ready to take to demonstration or at least call on the FD and register their protest in person. But after much debate it was decided that since this was the first occasion, the villagers would only send a protest letter to the Rajasthan Chief Minister (CM), and the NGOs present would ensure that this gets appropriate publicity. A copy of this letter (which has been sent to the CM, Rajasthan, senior forest officials of the state, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, and Project Tiger, New Delhi), is appended as Annexure III.

    As a follow-up action to the workshop, a meeting has been scheduled for the 30th of January, 1997. All the participants of this Workshop have pledged to come. In the letter to the CM, the villagers have urged that the FD be present for this meeting. This meeting would assess the responses of the concerned authorities to the various recommendations made at this Workshop, and the follow-up by NGOs. In this meeting, depending on the response from the various groups and villages, an agenda for future action could be drawn up.

    Participants strongly felt that such dialogues would provide an excellent opportunity to strengthen conservation and livelihood security in the area, provided the FD also participates in right ernest.

    Note: This report has been prepared by Priya D. Das with help from Ashish Kothari.

    Date: 2/1/1997

    Annexure II

    Kailadevi Sanctuary Prospects for Conservation

    Resolution

    We the Participants, of the Workshop, `Kailadevi Sanctuary- Prospects for Conservation held on the 6th-7th of December, 1996, who have come together in Kailadevi, Rajasthan pass the following resolutions arrived upon by common consensus.

    Since those of us reside in the Sanctuary are dependent on the forest resources for our sustenance and livelihood, we want to save the forests and the wildlife of the area, and have already made efforts in this direction. However, due to the lack of adequate authority/rights and resources, we are faced with serious problems with regard to our livelihood issues.

    Having discussed at length three major issues at the workshop, we have arrived at the following recommendations :

    Issue I. Livelihood and Means of Employment

    Due to the restrictions on resource use that came into effect following the declaration of the Sanctuary in 1983, and also because of the increase in population of the communities living inside the Sanctuary, the existing means of livelihood and employment are inadequate. Thus in order to reconcile the needs of conservation and our livelihood requirements, we propose the following-

    Issue II : External Pressures:

    There are certain external factors that exert a considerable pressure on the natural resources in the Sanctuary. These include cattle camps set up by villagers from outside the Sanctuary, migratory herds of sheep owned by the Rabaries, illegal felling of trees, and mining. In order to counter these pressures we propose the following:-

    Issue III : Peoples Participation in the Management of the Sanctuary

    We are willing to protect the forest and wildlife in every possible way, but are faced with certain difficulties in our attempts to do this. In order to overcome them we propose the following:-

    Note: This is a translation of a Hindi resolution signed by participants of the Workshop on Kailadevi Sanctuary: Prospects for Conservation, 6- 7th December, 1996, Kailadevi, Rajasthan. For further details , please contact (till May 1997): Priya Das/ Ashish Kothari, Indian Institute of Public Administration, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi 110 002. Tel: 011- 331 7309; Fax: 011-331 9954; Email: akothari@kv.unv.ernet.in.
    URL: http://www-int.stsci.edu/~yogesh/wildlife/kailadevi.shtml

    Last modified on: Tue Apr 5 15:40:44 2005