The Literary Landscape: How Ancient Marathi Texts Prove Savannas are Natural Ecosystems

News Context

A study published in the journal People and Nature by researchers from Michigan State University and IISER Pune reveals that the tree-grass savannas of Western Maharashtra are at least 750 years old. By analyzing 28 georeferenced excerpts from medieval Marathi literature—including hagiographies, poems, and oral traditions—the study debunks the myth that these open landscapes are the result of modern forest degradation or colonial timber extraction.

1. Challenging the “Degraded Forest” Narrative

• Colonial Misconception: For decades, forest departments influenced by British-era forestry viewed open-canopy grasslands as “wastelands” or “degraded” versions of dense forests that had lost their trees.
• Ancient Antiquity: The research proves that these ecosystems have persisted in their current form since at least the 13th century, long before the Industrial Revolution or large-scale colonial deforestation.
• Conservation Shift: The study calls for a radical shift in conservation policy: instead of “afforesting” these areas with saplings, they should be protected as unique, ancient savanna biodiversity hotspots.

2. Literature as an Ecological Time Machine

• The Corpus of Study: Researchers mined 28 historical texts, including the Ādiparva (16th-century poem), biographies, and dhanagarī-ovīs (oral verses performed by pastoralists).
• Botanical Fingerprinting: These texts mention 62 plant species, of which 27 are definitive “savanna indicators” like thorny trees and specific wild grasses.
• Consistency over Centuries: The flora described in 500-year-old Marathi texts matches the vegetation found in those exact georeferenced locations today, showing remarkable ecological stability.

3. Decoding the “Language of the Land”

• The Vana vs. Anūpa Distinction: In Marathi and Sanskrit, vana (forest) and jāgala (jungle) historically referred to wild, dry, and open tracts, not necessarily dense rainforests.
• Misunderstood Terms: What medieval writers called “terrifying forests” or “scrub jungles” were actually savanna scrublands. These were contrasted with anūpa, which denoted wetter marshes and closed-canopy forests.
• Reclaiming Meaning: By understanding the medieval context of these words, researchers can avoid modern misinterpretations that “romanticize” the past as a time of wall-to-wall dense forest.

4. Botanical Evidence in Medieval Verse

• Thorny Indicators: Texts frequently mention hivara (Vachellia leucophloea), khaira (Senegalia catechu), and bābhūḷa (Vachellia nilotica)—trees that are physically adapted to dry, open savannas.
• Grass Diversity: The mention of Pavanyā (Sehima nervosum) grass in 16th-century texts highlights an environment with high light availability, which is impossible under a closed forest canopy.
• Functional Traits: The species cited possess savanna adaptations such as thick bark, spines, and “resprouting” abilities, shaped by centuries of fire and animal grazing.

5. The Role of Pastoral Economies

• Baramati’s History: A passage from the Ādiparva describes cow herders settling near Baramati for its abundant grass and water from the Nira River, despite the land being “full of thorny trees.”
• The Dhanagar Heritage: The dhanagarī-ovīs of pastoral communities evoke a landscape designed for grazing, where open-canopy savannas were vital for the survival of cattle and sheep.
• Sacred Flora: Founding myths of Shinganapur and Vir link the sprouting of savanna-specific trees like the taraī (Capparis divaricata) to sacred omens, weaving the ecosystem into the local spiritual fabric.

6. Fine-Leaf vs. Broadleaf Savannas

• Climatic Banding: The study identifies two distinct savanna types: “Fine-leaf” (in zones with <1000mm rainfall) and “Broadleaf” (in zones with >700mm rainfall).
• The Overlap Zone: Western Maharashtra sits in a transition zone (700–1000mm) where both savanna types co-occur, creating a complex ecological mosaic.
• Rainfall Resilience: These ecosystems are perfectly synchronized with seasonal droughts, unlike dense forests which would struggle to survive in the region’s semi-arid rainfall patterns.

7. Triangulation with Material Evidence

• Archaeological Support: The study’s literary findings are supported by Chalcolithic pottery (c. 1500 BCE) featuring “blackbuck” motifs—a species that lives exclusively in open grasslands.
• Hero Stones (Virgal): Hundreds of medieval hero stones in the region commemorate “cattle raids,” proving that a pastoral-savanna economy was the dominant socio-political force.
• Faunal Remains: Ancient bones recovered from the region belong to grazers typical of dry and wet savannas, providing a biological baseline that matches the literary records.

8. Archival and Colonial Records

• Hunting Logs: Records from the British era list bird and animal species dominated by savanna-dwelling creatures, contradicting the idea that the land was “empty” or “degraded.”
• Revenue Maps: Colonial revenue records noted extensive “pasture commons” and “hay meadows” (Gairan), indicating that the open nature of the land was a recognized resource.
• Visual Records: Archival paintings and early photographs from the 19th century depict sparsely wooded uplands with continuous grass cover, identical to the current landscape.

9. Implications for Modern Conservation

• The Peril of Afforestation: Government programs like the Green India Mission often target savannas for “tree planting” to increase “forest cover,” which can actually destroy the ancient grass-based biodiversity.
• Protecting Grazing Rights: Since these savannas were historically managed by pastoralists, modern conservation must integrate local livelihoods rather than excluding them.
• Biodiversity Hotspots: Savannas host unique species (like the Great Indian Bustard or specialized grasses) that cannot survive in “artificial” dense forests created by plantation drives.

10. Summary: Redefining Maharashtra’s Ecological Identity

Green for Trees, Gray for Grass: The Afforestation Policy Conflict in Maharashtra

News Context

Recent ecological studies in western Maharashtra highlight a systemic conflict: while global and national policies push for massive tree planting to mitigate climate change, these “afforestation” drives often occur on Open Natural Ecosystems (ONEs)—savannas and grasslands. Researchers from ATREE and the Grasslands Trust warn that treating these ancient landscapes as “wastelands” for plantation drives leads to native biodiversity loss and disrupts the livelihoods of the Dhangar pastoralists.

1. The “Wasteland” Classification Bias

• The Colonial Legacy: Since 1894, Indian forest policy has largely categorized non-forested lands as “wastelands” or “degraded forests.” This classification persists today in the Wasteland Atlas of India, which includes grasslands and savannas.
• The “Blank” Space Problem: On government maps, savannas are often viewed as “empty” spaces that need to be “filled” with trees to meet national forest cover targets (33% of total land area).
• Policy Misreading: By labeling these productive ecosystems as “degraded,” the state justifies replacing native grasses with dense tree plantations, fundamentally altering the landscape’s 750-year-old character.

2. The Green India Mission (GIM) Impact

• Carbon Sequestration Targets: GIM aims to increase forest/tree cover by 5 million hectares and improve the quality of another 5 million hectares.
• Grassland Vulnerability: A significant portion of these targets is met by planting trees in “open degraded forests” and “scrublands,” which are often ecologically healthy savannas.
• Unintended Consequences: Field studies show that converting savannas to tree plantations can reduce native plant cover from 49% to just 27%, as the shade from tree canopies kills sun-loving native grasses.

3. The CAMPA Fund Paradox

• Compensatory Afforestation: The CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority) receives thousands of crores from industries that divert forest land. This money must be spent on “creating new forests.”
• Land Scarcity: Since fertile land is needed for food, CAMPA projects often end up on “Gairan” (village common grazing lands) or rocky savannas, where tree survival is low but ecological damage to the existing grassland is high.
• Recent Positive Shift: In a promising turn, some CAMPA funds in Solapur have recently been redirected toward grassland restoration (planting native Dicanthium and Cenchrus grasses) instead of trees.

4. Hydrological Risks of “Over-Planting”

• Water Demand: Trees have much higher evapotranspiration rates than grasses. Planting dense forests in semi-arid zones (700–1000mm rainfall) can actually deplete groundwater levels.
• Stream Flow Reduction: Studies in similar Indian landscapes (like the Shola-grasslands) show that exotic tree plantations can reduce stream outflows and dry up local water sources that villages depend on.
• Soil Moisture Balance: Deep-rooted native grasses are better at facilitating groundwater recharge in rocky savanna terrains compared to non-native monoculture plantations.

5. Biodiversity Loss: The Silent Extinction

• Specialist Species: Grassland-dependent fauna, such as the Great Indian Bustard, Lesser Florican, and Indian Wolf, cannot survive in dense plantations.
• Invasive Species Introduction: Afforestation often inadvertently introduces invasive species like Prosopis juliflora or Gliricidia, which take over the landscape and suppress native biodiversity.
• Lost Endemics: Indian savannas contain at least 206 endemic plants. Dense tree planting creates a “canopy closure” that prevents these light-demanding species from growing.

6. Disruption of Pastoral Livelihoods

• The Dhangar Community: Thousands of pastoralists in Maharashtra rely on these “old-growth savannas” for livestock forage.
• Forage Loss: When a grassland is “afforested,” it is usually fenced off, and the grass is replaced by non-palatable tree species, directly hitting the rural economy.
• The “Fire and Grazing” Cycle: Traditional herders maintained savannas through controlled fire and grazing. Modern forest policy often criminalizes these practices, viewing them as “harmful” to trees.

7. Carbon Sequestration: Above vs. Below Ground

• The Tree Myth: While trees store carbon in their biomass (trunks/leaves), this carbon is vulnerable to fire and pests.
• The Grassland Reality: Savannas store a massive amount of carbon underground in their deep, fibrous root systems.
• Stability: Grassland soil carbon is more stable and resilient to drought and fire, making it a “reliable” long-term carbon sink in a warming climate.

8. Recent Success: The Solapur Restoration Model

• Beyond Tree-Planting: In the Malshiras forest range of Solapur, the Forest Department moved away from trees to restore degraded grasslands using native perennial grasses.
• Soil Carbon Gains: Research found that Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) increased by 50% after just 3 years of grass-based restoration compared to untreated sites.
• Livelihood Integration: This model provides sustainable fodder for local cattle while sequestering carbon, proving a “win-win” for people and the planet.

9. The Need for an “Open Natural Ecosystem” (ONE) Policy

• Legal Recognition: Ecologists are calling for a dedicated policy that recognizes ONEs as distinct from “forests” or “wastelands.”
• Landscape-Based Targets: Rather than a blanket 33% “tree cover” goal, targets should be based on the natural potential of the landscape (e.g., 50% grassland, 20% scrub, 30% forest).
• Ending the “Trenching” Practice: Common afforestation techniques like digging deep trenches (CCTs) often destroy the underground tubers of ancient savanna plants that take decades to recover.

10. Summary of the Policy Conflict