Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge
Vol. 3(1), January 2004, pp. 5-11
Conservation of biodiversity: Traditional approach
Priyadarsan Sensarma
8/P, Chandra Mondal Lane, Kolkata 700 026, India
Received 9 May 2003
Measures to conserve biodiversity have been taken in India since hoary past. Elements of
this aspect of traditional wisdom can be gathered through analytical studies of the ethnic
societies, which are less influenced by the modern civilization, and also by scrutinizing the
ancient texts written in Sanskrit, Pali, Tamil, etc. The Visnu Samhitā is one such scripture in
Sanskrit language. It appears that this work contains some direct instructions in connection with
conservation of the biodiversity. These commands are interspersed along with others in different
chapters. The same have been collected and recorded together under appropriate heads. The
same have been compared with similar information found in some other Sanskrit works with a
view to tracing the possible course of evolution of the traditional approach.
According to the text of the Visnu Samhitā, causing any harm to the plant(s) or animal(s) is
a sin. Even purloining of part(s)/product(s) of any of these living beings is a crime. The
sinner/criminal is liable to chastisement in this life and also after death. The punishments are of
diverse nature –– pecuniary, corporal, expiatory, and donation of specific article(s) to a
Brahmin. In this scripture there are some indirect instructions too, which can be gleaned by
analyzing the dietary regulations and the use of biodiversity in different religious rites. These,
however, have not been included in the present article.
Key Words : Traditional approach, Biodiversity, Conservation, Visnu Samhitā.
In modern times, biodiversity and its
conservation have assumed significant
importance as areas of study and
research. In India too, some efforts have
been made, during the last few decades,
to grasp diverse aspects of biodiversity as
also the problems and methods of the
conservation of the same. But very little
efforts have been made so far to study the
evolution of the traditional approach
towards biodiversity and the methods
adopted for the conservation of living
forms. It may be mentioned here that
proper application of traditional wisdom
helps considerably to solve the problems
of the present.
For comprehension of traditional
knowledge of science and the related
practices in India, the socio-religious
customs of the ethnic communities ––
less influenced by the process of
modernisation, and the instructions
contained in the texts, written in ancient
languages, viz., Pali, Sanskrit, Tamil, etc.
should be analyzed in the light of modern
science. While the diverse
ethnic
societies of different eco-regions of India
are being studied by many investigators,
6
INDIAN J TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, VOL 3, No. 1, JANUARY 2004
the texts written in Sanskrit have so far
received the attention of only a few
scholars like Majumdar1-5, Gode6,
Mehra7-10,
Karnick11,
Sensarma12-17,
18
19
Sarma , and Mehendale . The Sanskrit
literature is vast in extent and the texts are
categorised into various types according
to the specialities of their contents. Thus,
indifference to the scientific analysis of
Sanskrit texts would keep a big resource
of traditional knowledge untapped.
Sanskrit texts were written/compiled in
different periods and in various regions of
India. In view of the above, it is
considered that the texts belonging to
each category should be examined
separately, and after obtaining data from
the texts of one particular group, the same
may be arranged sequentially. Following
this principle, the Visnu Samhitā, a
Dharmaśāstra, was selected for the
present study.
couplets, simple sentences, and very short
sentences. Altogether there are 2,808
such expressions, and they are distributed
in 100 Chapters. Regarding the nature of
chapters in the Visnu-Samhitā, Bailey21
writes that while 85 chapters are clearly
Dharmaśāstric, 15 chapters are Purānic
in content. The text deals with many
topics belonging to the four broad groups,
considered characteristics of a Smrti text,
viz., Ācāra (Social and religious customs,
including those regarding edibles and
non-edibles), Prāyaścitta (methods of
expiation in connection with various
kinds of faults and sins), Vyavahāra
(legal aspects including the inheritance of
property), and Rājadharma (duties of a
king, including statecraft and defence).
Information and instructions regarding
origin, use, maintenance and conservation
of plants and animals are scattered in
these groups of topics.
Materials and Methods
The Dharmaśāstras are also known as
Smrti-Samhitās. The texts of this category
have been influencing sections of Indian
society from the hoary past to the present.
According to the Yājñavalkya Samhitā
(1.4
&
5)
there
are
twenty
Dharmaśāstras. The Visnu-Samhitā is
one such Dharmaśāstra and Visnu, a
sage, is considered to be its author.
The time of origin and provenance of
this Dharmaśāstra
are not yet
ascertained20. But as it has been
mentioned in the Yājñavalkya Samhitā
(c. Ist or 2nd Century AD) it can be said
that this texts is of earlier origin.
The language of Visnu-Samhitā is a
mixture of verses and prose, there are
The data relevant to the conservation of
biodiversity, presented in this article, are
scattered in different chapters of the
Bangabasi edition of Visnu-Samhitā,
edited by Tarkaratna22. The same have
been collected and recorded under the
following heads – (a) General
observations, (b) Plants, and (c) Animals.
Reference to the respective chapter and
verse/sentence has been given in
parenthesis along with each information.
The Sanskrit names of the plants and
animals, as mentioned in the text, have
been retained in this article, while in
possible cases the common English and
Latin equivalents of the same are
mentioned in brackets.
SENSARMA: CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY: TRADITIONAL APPROACH
Enumeration of Information
(a) General observations
(1) According to Visnu-Samhitā
(37.34) destruction of trees, shrubs,
twiners and monocarpous plants is a sin.
And the person, who commits this sin,
has to expitiate by performing either of
the following vratas –– cāndrāyana and
parāka, or has to perform gomedha Yajña
(37.35). It states again that destruction of
monocarpous plants, wild or cultivated, is
a sin. Such sinner has to attend on a cow
for a whole day and perform payovrata
(50.50).
(2) Violence to domestic or wild
animals is samkarikarana and it is a
sinful act. A sinner of this crime has to
atone either by subsisting only on jāvaka
for the period of one month or by
performing
krcchātikrcchra
vrata
(39.1 & 2).
(3) Killing any animal for nonreligious purpose is a sin; and for this sin
the depraved person will suffer in this life
and in the world beyond death. Further,
the sinner has to pass through the hell
(51.60).
(b) Plants
It appears that Visnu-Samhitā considers
injuring or destroying plant(s) and plantpart(s), damaging the crops and stealing
of plant part(s)/vegetal product(s), as
offence, and the scripture prescribes
punishment(s) for the offenders (Table 1
& 2). The fear of punishment acts as an
effective deterrent, and prevents the
greedy people from causing harm to
plants, plant-parts and stealing the same.
(c) Animals
Killing, harming and stealing animal(s)
are regarded as penal crimes by the text,
and it has suggested various punishments
for different offence (Table 3). The
Visnu-Samhitā
(5.118)
states
categorically that hitting the sex organ of
an animal is a punishable act.
Discussion and Conclusion
It
appears
that
like
many
Dharmaśāstras and other Sanskrit works
such as the Rāmāyana, Mahābhārata,
Arthaśāstra, Purānas etc. the VisnuSamhitā is also concerned with the
protection of plants, crops, domestic and
wild (terrestrial, aquatic and avian)
animals from the assaults of man. Though
the Samhitā consists of 100 chapters, only
few chapters, viz., chapter nos 5, 37, 39,
Table 1 –– Protection of Plants
Sl.No.
Nature of offence
1
Cutting one
(a) fruit laden tree
(b) blossomy tree
(c) twiner, climber or shrub
2
(d) herb or grass
Cutting a fruit laden tree, flowering
herb, shrub, twiner, climber.
7
Punishment prescribed
Punishment of first amercement (5.55)
Punishment of middle amercement (5.56)
The offender is to pay a fine of
Hundred kārsāpana (a coin or weight of different
values ; 5.57)
One kārsāpana (5.58)
Offender has to chant 100 Rks (50.48)
INDIAN J TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, VOL 3, No. 1, JANUARY 2004
8
Table 2––Protection of Crops
Sl.
No.
Nature of offence
Punishment Prescribed
1
Damaging crop in the field by domesticated
animals mentioned below:
Quantity of compensation to be paid to the
owner of the crop by the rearer /owner of the
offending animal :
(a) eight māsaka (equal to the weight of five
krsnala ; 5.139-140)
(b) same as above (5.141)
(a) mahisi (female buffalo : Bubalus bubalis)
2
(b) aśva (horse : Equus cabalus), ustra (camel :
Camelus dromedarius or C. bactrianus),
gardhabha (ass : Equus hemionus)
(c) go (cow : Bos indicus)
(d) aja (goat : Capra hircus), avika (sheep : Ovis
ammon or O. orientalis)
(e) if the offending animal sits on the crop-field
(thereby damaging some crops) after eating some
crops.
Stealing
(a) dhānya (paddy : Oryza sativa), śasya (crop)
(b) kārpāsa (cotton), sūtra (thread), guda (jaggery),
trna (grass), vaidala (utensil made of bamboo)
(c) gulma (shrub), valli (twiner), latā (climber),
parna (leaf), śāka (green vegetable), mula (root),
phala (fruit).
(c) four māsaka (5.142)
(d) two māsaka (5.143)
(e) the quantity of fine will be double of the
above rates (5.144).
Culprit is to pay
(a) eleven times of the quantity stolen (5.79-80)
(b) three times of the actual price of the stolen
article (5.83)
(c) five krsnala (equal to the weight of a berry
of Abrus precatorius; 5.85-86).
Table 3 –– Protection of Animals
Nature of offence
1
Killing
(a) gaja (elephant : Elephas maximus), or aśva
(horse : Equus cabalus), or ustra (camel :
Camelus dromedarius or C. bactrianus)
(b) any domestic animal
(c) wild animal
(d) bird or fish
(e) kita (worms, insect)
(f) any birds, aquatic animal, worm or insect
(g) go (cow : Bos indicus)
2
Killing
(a) any one of the following
śva (dog : Canis familiaris), godhā (iguana :
Varanus sp.), uluka (owl : Bubo bubo), kāka
(crow : corvus sp.), jhasa (fish)
Punishment prescribed
(a) one hand and one leg of the offender should
be cut off (gajāśvostragoghāti tvekakarapadāh
kāryāh; 5.48)
The offender is to pay a fine of :
(b) 100 kārsāpana, and the price of the slain
animal to its owner (5.50 & 51)
(c) 50 kārsāpana (5.52)
(d) 10 kārsāpana (5.53)
(e) 1 kārsāpana (5.54)
(f) The offender is to perform either taptakrcchra
vrata or krcchātikrcchra vrata (41. 1 – 5)
(g) (i) one hand and one leg of the offender
should be amputed (5.48) ;
(ii) the offender will be blinded (45.19);
(iii) the offender has to perform govrata (50.24).
(a) The offender should starve for three nights
(50.30 and 32)
(Contd.)
SENSARMA: CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY: TRADITIONAL APPROACH
Table 3 –– Protection of Animals⎯Contd.
Nature of offence
Punishment prescribed
(b) any unspecified animal
(b) the sinner is to subsist for three days by
drinking milk only (50.42)
(c) the offender is to eat only in night or he
should donate one māsa (approximately 17
grains) of silver (50.43 – 44)
(d) the offender has to fast (50.45)
(e) the sinner should donate some articles to a
Brahmin (50.47)
(f) the sinner should do prānāyāma (50.47)
(g) the offender has to perform the penance meant
for penance meant for killing a Śūdra (50.46)
(c) any unspecified bird
(d) any aquatic animal
(e) any unnamed bony animal (terrestrial ?)
(f) any boneless animal
(g) one thousand bony animals like krkalāsa
(garden lizard : Calotes versicolor) or a
cartload of boneless animals
3
4
Killing
(a) any one of the following :
hamsa (swan : Anser anser, A. indicus), baka
(cattle egret, heron : Ardea sp., or Bubulcus
ibis), balākā (common teal : Nettion crecca),
madgu (diver bird : Gavia sp.), cakravāka
(ruddy sheldrake : Tadorna ferrunginea),
śyena (falcon : Falco peregrinator), bhāsa
(white backed vulture : Gyps bengalensis),
śaśa (hare : Lepus nigricollis), vānara
(monkey : Macaca mullatta)
(b) sarpa (snake)
(c) varāha (boar : Sus scrofa)
(d) tittira (francoline partridge : Francolinus
sp.)
(e) śuka (parrot : Psittacula krameri)
(f) krauñca (crane or heron : Grus sp. or
Ardeola grayii)
(g) carnivorous animal
(h) non-carnivorous animal.
Killing
(a) gaja (elephant : Elephas maximus)
(b) turaga (horse : Equus cabalus)
(c) khara (donkey : Equus hemionus) or mesa
(sheep : Ovis ammon or O. orientalis)
(d) ustra (camel : Camelus dromedarius or C.
bactrianus)
(e) any of the following :
musaka (India mole rat: Bandicota
bengalensis), mārjāra (cat : Felis domestica),
nakula (mongoose : Herpestes auropunctatus
or H. edwarsii), manduka (frog : Rana sp., or
toad : Bufo sp.), dundubha (a non-venomous
water snake : Natrix piscator), ajagara
(python : Python molurus).
The offender has to give a Brahmin
(a) a cow (50.33)
(b) a spade made of iron (50.34)
(c) a pitcher full of ghee (50.36)
(d) one drona (equal to 1024 mustis) of tila
(sesame : Sesamum indicum ; 50.37)
(e) a two-year old calf (50.38)
(f) a three-year old calf (50.39)
(g) a milch cow (50.40)
(h) one vatsatari (heifer ; 50.41)
The offender has to donate (possibly to a Brahmin)
(a) five blue bulls (nilān vrsān) (50.25)
(b) a cloth (50.26)
(c) a one-year old bull (5.27 & 28)
(d) one krsnala of gold (50.29)
(e) the offender should donate an iron rod after
satisfying him with krsarānna – rice mixed with
sesame, it may have peas and some spices
(50.31); the offender himself will not eat anything
before feeding the desired guest.
9
10
INDIAN J TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, VOL 3, No. 1, JANUARY 2004
41, 45 and 50, contain the direct
instructions meant for protection of flora
and fauna; of course observation of
directives regarding diet and various
religious rites, stated in this text, also help
conservation of biodiversity from over
exploitation by man. The dietary and
religious biodiversities are, however,
beyond the scope of the present article.
The Visnu-Samhitā states, in general
terms, that causing harm to plants and
animals is a sin, and the offender will get
appropriate punishment. The punishments, suggested by this text, are of
various nature ⎯ pecuniary, corporal,
expiatory, and donation of articles to
Brahmin. In some cases different
punishments for the same crime have
been postulated in separate chapters, e.g.,
sl. No. 1(g) of Table 3.
The punishments, recommended in the
fifth chapter of the text are predominantly
financial in nature, though in one case
[Table 3, sl. No. 1(a)] the text
recommends corporal punishment. But
those stated in the later chapters, viz.
chapter nos. 41, 45, and 50, are basically
religious in character ; some of them even
invoke the fear of chastisement after
death. It may be stated here that the
instructions regarding the conservation of
biodiversity mentioned in the Kautiliya
Arthaśāstra (a text of c. 4th Century BC)
contain
provision
for
physical
punishment, while the directions in the
Manu Samhitā (a text compiled between
the 2nd Century BC and the 2nd Century
AD), Yājñavalkya Samhitā (a text
originated between 100 AD and 300 AD)
are of mixed character ⎯ financial and
religious. But according to the Śātātapa
Samhitā (a text supposed to be of earlier
origin than Yājñavalkya Samhitā) a sinner
of violating the vegetal/animal objects
has either to suffer from physical
deformity/disease in the next birth or to
pay a fine to a Brahmin to expiate for the
crime. Considering the above it may not
be wrong to state that the Visnu-Samhitā
exhibits a synthesis of the traditional
approaches as recorded in various
Sanskrit texts. It may be of interest to
note that the ethnic societies of India,
guided by their respective traditions, also
have some socio-religious customs which
help conservation of biodiversity.
On the basis of analytical studies of
texts, written in Sanskrit, and ethnic
societies, it may be said that traditionally
Indians have been treating the
biodiversity with respect and concern ;
and some secular and religious methods
of conservation of the same have been in
vogue since the ancient days. For proper
evaluation and utilization of the
traditional wisdom, the same should be
tested in the crucible of modern science.
Acknowledgement
The author is thankful to Dr. B.N.
Bhattacharyya, formerly Head of the
Department of Zoology, Bangabasi
College, Calcutta, for equipping the
author with the zoological equivalents of
the Sanskrit names of the animals.
References
1
2
3
Majumdar G P, Vanaspati, (Calcutta
University, Calcutta), 1927.
Majumdar G P, Upavana vinoda, (The Indian
Research Institute, Calcutta), 1935.
Majumdar G P, Some Aspects of Indian
Civilization (in Plant Perspective), (Author,
Calcutta), 1938-39.
SENSARMA: CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY: TRADITIONAL APPROACH
4
Majumdar G P, Genesis and Development of
Plant Sciences in Ancient India, Proc Of 13th
All India Oriental Conf Tech Sc, (1946) 97.
5
Majumdar G P, Botany in Ancient and
Medieval India, in : The Cultural Heritage of
India, Vol. VI : Science and Technology, (The
Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture,
Calcutta), 1986.
6
Gode P K, The Plant-lore of Ancient India,
Aryan Path, 18 (1947) 1.
7
Mehra K L, History of the use of Jujube
(Zizyphus sp.) in Ancient India, Indian J
Hort, 24 (1 & 2) (1967) 33.
8
Mehra K L, History and Ethnobotany of
Mustard in India, Adv Front Plant Sci, 19
(1967) 51.
9
Mehra K L, History of sesame in India and its
cultural
significance,
Vishveshvaranand
Indological Journal, 5 (1967) 93.
10 Mehra K L, History of Māsa-Pulse in India
and
its
cultural
significance,
Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, 8
(1970) 217.
11 Karnick C R, Ethnobotanical records of drug
plants described in Vālmeeki Rāmāyana and
their uses in Ayurvedic System of Medicine,
Quart J Crude Drug Res, 13 (1975) 143.
12 Sensarma P, Ethnobotanical investigation in
the Indian Purānas : V The Kūrma Purāna, J
Econ Taxon Bot, 5(3) (1984) 634.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
11
Sensarma P, Plants in the Indian Purānas: An
Ethnobotanical Investigation, (Naya Prokash,
Calcutta), 1989.
Sensarma P, The Sacred and Religious Plants
in the Tantrasārah, Ethnobotany, 7 (1 & 2)
(1995), 51.
Sensarma P, Plants and animals in Sadāśiva
Dhanurveda, J Asiatic Society, XL(1&2)
(1998) 83.
Sensarma P, Ethnobiological Information in
Kautiliya Arthaśāstra, (Naya Prokash,
Calcutta), 1998.
Sensarma P, Dietary Biodiversity in Manu
Samhitā , Indian J Hist Sci, 35(1) (2000) 27.
Sarma K V, Scientific texts in Sanskrit in aid
of Modern Science, Jñānāmrtam, (Prof. A.C.
Swami
Felicitation
Volume),
Utkal
University, Bhuvaneshwar), (1985) 92.
Mehendale M A, The Flora in the
Āranyakaparvan of the Mahābhārata, Annals
of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute,
LXVII (1987) 233.
Banerji S C, A Companion to Sanskrit
Literature, (2nd Edn.), (Motilal Banarsidass,
Delhi), 1989, 327 & 377.
Bailey G, On the Puranic Nature of Visnu
Smrti, J Oriental Institute, Vadodara,
XXXVII (1987) 21.
Tarkaratna P, Unavimśa Samhitā, (Bangabasi
Pustaka Vibhāga, Calcutta), 1316 (B.S.).