Sacred and Scarred, The Tension Between Religious Tourism and Ecological Conservation in India
As Pilgrimage Footfalls Grow and Commercialisation Deepens, Policymakers Grapple with the Challenge of Protecting Forests Without Offending Faith
India’s religious geography is inseparable from its ecological one. This is not a recent phenomenon but a truth woven into the fabric of the subcontinent for millennia. Across the country, sacred groves, shrines, caves, and pilgrimage routes are located within or adjacent to protected areas, often in the most ecologically sensitive habitats. For centuries, belief systems served as unwritten regulatory frameworks, helping to govern access and behaviour, enabling a form of coexistence between humans and nature that sustained both.
Today, however, that ancient equilibrium is under unprecedented strain. Rising visitor numbers, the growing commercialisation of pilgrimage routes, and the relentless expansion of infrastructure are placing pressures on forest ecosystems that they cannot absorb. What were once seasonal, community-embedded rituals have become forms of mass tourism, bringing with them roads, hotels, waste, and all the other accoutrements of modern travel. The challenge before policymakers now is how this intersection between faith and conservation can be governed without undermining ecological integrity or the rights of forest-dwelling communities.
Recent reporting in The Hindu on the deliberations of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) regarding religious structures inside sanctuaries has brought this long-standing tension into sharp focus. The immediate case involved a proposal to expand a religious establishment in a sanctuary in Gujarat. Though initially approved, citing the existence of the “establishment of the temples, prior to the settlement of forest rights in the region,” it was later withdrawn over concerns that it would be the first instance of protected areas being diverted for a religious institution—potentially setting a precedent for similar demands across the country.
The Environment Minister, who chairs the SCNBWL, noted that many sacred caves and religious sites within forests are mentioned in religious texts, and suggested the formulation of a Standard Operating Procedure for proposals involving religious institutions. This is a sensible step, but it raises as many questions as it answers.
The Legal Framework: What Is Permitted and What Is Not
Under India’s legal framework, any construction or expansion on forest land after 1980 is generally treated as encroachment under the Forest (Conservation) Act. This is not a technicality; it is a fundamental protection for the nation’s forests. The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and National Tiger Conservation Authority norms permit only limited, carefully justified interventions, primarily to manage existing pressures or mitigate ecological conflict.
The logic behind these restrictions is sound. Unregulated construction fragments habitats, increases human-wildlife conflict, and weakens protected areas. A temple here, a rest house there, a road to connect them—each individually may seem minor, but cumulatively they carve up landscapes that need to remain intact if wildlife is to survive. Tigers, elephants, leopards, and countless other species require corridors to move, feed, and breed. Break those corridors with human infrastructure, and the consequences are inevitable: more conflict, more deaths, more extinctions.
Yet the legal framework also recognises that conservation cannot be pursued in a cultural or social vacuum. India is home to thousands of sacred natural sites, many of which are living landscapes stewarded by local communities. Sacred groves function as biodiversity refuges precisely because belief systems have, for generations, restricted extraction and disturbance. These are not sites where religion is imposed on nature; they are sites where religion has protected nature.
The Rights Dimension
The Forest Rights Act, 2006, adds a critical legal dimension to this discussion. The Act mandates the recognition of the rights of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. Any diversion, restriction, or regulation affecting traditional access or practices must be preceded by rights recognition. Ignoring this requirement risks marginalising communities that have long protected these forests.
This is not merely a procedural formality. Forest-dwelling communities have been the de facto custodians of India’s forests for centuries. Their knowledge of local ecosystems, their sustainable practices, and their cultural connections to the land are resources that cannot be replicated by state agencies. When their rights are ignored, they are not just wronged; the forests themselves lose their most effective guardians.
The Gujarat case illustrates the complexity. The proposal cited the existence of temples prior to the settlement of forest rights—suggesting that religious use predated formal legal recognition. But prior existence does not automatically justify expansion. A small shrine that has coexisted with the forest for centuries is very different from a large complex with guesthouses, parking lots, and commercial establishments. The principle of “no expansion” recognises this distinction.
The No-Expansion Principle
Policy analysts Sanjana Nair and M. Soubadra Devy of the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) recommend a clear no-expansion principle: there should be no new constructions or enlargement of existing structures within core forest areas. This is not hostility to religion; it is ecological realism.
Core forest areas are the heart of protected areas. They are where wildlife finds refuge, where breeding populations are sustained, where ecosystems function with minimal human interference. Allowing expansion within these areas—even for religious purposes—opens the door to incremental encroachment that eventually destroys the very values the protected area was created to preserve.
The concern about precedent is not hypothetical. If one religious structure is permitted to expand, others will demand the same treatment. Temples, mosques, churches, gurudwaras—all have claims to sites within forests, some genuine, some less so. Adjudicating these claims case by case, without a clear principle, would overwhelm the system and gradually erode protections.
The Middle Ground
A blanket ban on religious activity inside forests would be neither constitutionally defensible nor culturally sensitive. Millions of devotees undertake pilgrimages to sacred sites that happen to be located in forests. Their faith is genuine, their traditions ancient, and their connection to these places profound. To simply declare that no religious activity may occur would be to ignore reality and invite resistance.
At the same time, allowing new constructions or expansion under the guise of faith would set a dangerous precedent. The challenge lies in navigating this middle ground with clarity and care.
The Environment Minister’s suggestion of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is a step in the right direction. An SOP could establish clear criteria for evaluating proposals involving religious institutions: What is the historical basis for the claim? Is the site genuinely sacred, or is the religious label being used to bypass environmental regulations? What would be the ecological impact of the proposed activity? Have the rights of forest-dwelling communities been recognised and respected? Are there alternative sites or approaches that would satisfy religious needs while reducing ecological harm?
Such an SOP would not eliminate controversy, but it would provide a transparent framework for decision-making. It would make clear that decisions are based on principles, not ad hoc calculations. And it would help build trust among all stakeholders—religious communities, conservationists, forest dwellers, and government agencies.
The Guidelines for Tiger Reserves
In 2023, ATREE, in collaboration with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), published a set of guidelines on religious tourism within tiger reserves. These guidelines offer a useful model for thinking about the broader challenge.
The guidelines recognise that tiger reserves are among India’s most strictly protected areas, yet they also acknowledge that religious sites exist within them. Rather than pretending these sites do not exist or demanding their removal, the guidelines propose a framework for managing them sustainably. They emphasise the importance of limiting visitor numbers, controlling infrastructure development, and ensuring that local communities benefit from tourism rather than being displaced by it.
These principles could be extended to other protected areas. The core insight is that the presence of religious sites need not be incompatible with conservation, provided that expansion is controlled and that the primary purpose of the protected area—wildlife conservation—remains paramount.
The Way Forward
The tension between religious tourism and ecological conservation will not be resolved by a single policy or a single judgment. It is an ongoing challenge that will require continuous attention, adaptive management, and good-faith engagement among all parties.
Several principles should guide this effort.
First, recognition of rights. The Forest Rights Act is not an obstacle to be circumvented but a foundation to be built upon. Communities that have lived in and protected forests for generations must have their rights recognised and their voices heard.
Second, the no-expansion principle. Core forest areas should be off-limits to new construction. Existing structures may remain, but they should not grow. This is not punitive; it is protective.
Third, transparent processes. Decisions about religious sites in forests should be made through clear, public procedures, not backroom deals. The proposed SOP should be developed with input from all stakeholders and made available for public comment.
Fourth, ecological limits. Carrying capacities should be established for religious sites within protected areas. When visitor numbers exceed these limits, access should be restricted. This may be unpopular, but it is necessary.
Fifth, benefit sharing. When religious tourism generates revenue, a portion should flow to local communities and to conservation efforts. This creates positive incentives for sustainable management.
India’s religious geography and its ecological geography are inseparable. That is a fact, not a choice. The question is whether we can govern this intersection in ways that respect both faith and forests. The answer will determine not only the fate of wildlife but also the character of our democracy—a democracy that must accommodate diverse beliefs while protecting the natural heritage that belongs to all.
Q&A: Unpacking Religious Tourism and Ecological Conservation
Q1: What is the fundamental tension between religious tourism and ecological conservation in India?
A: India’s religious geography is deeply intertwined with its ecological one—sacred groves, shrines, caves, and pilgrimage routes are often located within or adjacent to protected areas. For centuries, belief systems helped regulate access and enabled coexistence with nature. However, rising visitor numbers and commercialisation of pilgrimage routes are now placing unprecedented pressure on fragile forest ecosystems. The challenge is to govern this intersection without undermining ecological integrity or the rights of forest-dwelling communities.
Q2: What recent case brought this issue into focus, and what concerns did it raise?
A: A proposal to expand a religious establishment in a sanctuary in Gujarat was initially approved but later withdrawn. The approval cited existence of temples prior to settlement of forest rights. However, concerns arose that this would be the first instance of protected areas being diverted for a religious institution, potentially setting a precedent for similar demands across the country. The Environment Minister suggested formulating a Standard Operating Procedure for such proposals.
Q3: What is the “no-expansion principle” recommended by policy experts?
A: Policy analysts recommend a clear no-expansion principle: no new constructions or enlargement of existing structures within core forest areas. Core forest areas are the heart of protected areas where wildlife finds refuge and ecosystems function with minimal human interference. Allowing expansion—even for religious purposes—could lead to incremental encroachment that destroys conservation values. This principle recognises that a small shrine that coexisted with forest for centuries is different from a large complex with guesthouses and commercial establishments.
Q4: How does the Forest Rights Act, 2006, relate to this issue?
A: The Forest Rights Act mandates recognition of the rights of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. Any diversion, restriction, or regulation affecting traditional access or practices must be preceded by rights recognition. Ignoring this requirement risks marginalising communities that have long protected these forests. Forest-dwelling communities have been de facto custodians for centuries, and their knowledge and sustainable practices are essential for conservation.
Q5: What guidelines exist for managing religious tourism in protected areas?
A: In 2023, ATREE and WWF published guidelines on religious tourism within tiger reserves. They emphasise limiting visitor numbers, controlling infrastructure development, and ensuring local communities benefit from tourism rather than being displaced. These principles could extend to other protected areas. The core insight is that religious sites need not be incompatible with conservation provided expansion is controlled and wildlife conservation remains paramount.
