The Forest of Symbols Embodied in the Tholung Sacred Landscape of North Sikkim, India Vibha Arora Abstract: The paper explores the forest of symbols and the cultural politics embodied in the Tholung sacred landscape of North Sikkim, India. Representations of the Lepchas as the guardians of the sacred grove are gaining ground in the contemporary context of their cultural revival and regional ethnopolitics. To nuance these perspectives, this study furthers the socio-ecological debate on conservation, socio-religious fencing, and the mediating role of state. Sacred groves and landscapes are often perceived as an example of indigenous forest management practices and the antithesis of the sanctuary rationally managed by the forest department of the government. I emphasise that conservation is a latent consequence while the idea of a sacred site preserves the forest and keeps it inviolate. I argue that Tholung constitutes the nerve centre of Lepcha life, their identity, and embodies the nationalist practices of the former Kingdom of Sikkim. As a sanctified site, Tholung legitimised the authority of the Namgyal dynasty that ruled Sikkim until its incorporation into India in 1975. I explain how rituals performed by the Lepchas regenerate the human body, the land, the ancestral connections of the Lepchas, and their indigenous identity. The community, the forest and the state are conjoined in the locus of the sacred grove as it legitimises the power of the state and sustains the ethnic-nationalism of the Lepchas in the region. Keywords: community conservation, sacred groves, landscape, indigenous people, environmentalism, ethnicity, indigenous knowledge, anthropology, Sikkim, Himalayas Vibha Arora, Independent Researcher, 105 Nilgiri Apartments, Alaknanda, New Delhi 110 019, India. Address for Correspondence Vibha Arora, 105 Nilgiri Apartments, Alaknanda, New Delhi 110 019, India. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Conservation and Society, Pages 55–83 Volume 4, No. 1, March 2006 Copyright: © Vibha Arora 2006. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and distribution of the article, provided the original work is cited. 56 / Vibha Arora INTRODUCTION THE CONSERVATION of biodiversity and the search for sustainable development provide the impetus for examining the role of indigenous institutions and traditional ecological knowledge as evident in practices such as sacred groves. Many scholars acknowledge the role of culture and religion in determining attitudes and behaviour towards the environment (Dwivedi and Tiwari 1987; Banwari 1992; Gottleib 1997). Others analyse the government’s commitment to conserving the environment through social forestry programmes and reviving community conservation practices such as sacred groves1 (Gadgil 1975; Gadgil and Guha 1995; Rangarajan 1996; Kothari et al. 1998; Ramakrishnan et al. 1998). Sacred groves are often perceived as examples of folk-conservationist strategies. Forest officials regard them to be an antithesis of the government-protected reserve forest and the wildlife sanctuary, which is rationally managed by the forest department according to scientific forestry principles.2 I argue that environmental conservation in the sacred groves is a latent consequence and not the manifest reason explaining the origin, perpetuation and existence of sacred groves.3 While engaging with these socio-ecological debates on indigenous conservation and sacred groves, I emphasize that the sacred groves of Sikkim affirm the ethnic-nationalist sentiment of the Lepchas, materially represent their indigenous identities, and articulate their interests in the context of ethnic competition over scarce resources. Any state conservation strategy aiming at reviving or reconstructing sacred groves to fence the forest needs to understand the religious and politico-economic aspects materially represented by the sacred grove. In this article, I explain the forest of symbols and the cultural politics embodied in the Tholung sacred landscape of the Lepchas in Sikkim.4 Scholars emphasize that ‘a natural space always appears as a cultural landscape, because it is culturally constructed’ (Seeland 1997: 1). A landscape embodies peoples’ experiences, social memory and their practices (Bourdieu 1990). For social anthropologists, the landscape mediates between the cultural and the political processes by becoming their material expression and the locus of social actions (Hirsch and O'Hanlon 1995; Stewart and Strathern 2003). The embodiment of knowledge, identity, and authority in sacred landscapes such as sacred groves is not unique to Sikkim but common in the Himalayan region and South Asia (Arora 2004). As a sacred space, Tholung is not simply a sacred forest adjacent to a Buddhist temple that serves as a museum preserving the forest and its wild-life (the environment), numerous rare Buddhist scriptures (sacred knowledge), the personal effects of Sikkim’s patron saint (material artefacts), the reliquaries of Lhatsun and the Chos-rgyal5 (sacred remains of their ancestors and religious saints), since it periodically becomes the locus of Lepcha regeneration (social and agricultural) rituals. Historically, the sacred groves of Kabi6 and Tholung legitimised the rule of the Namgyal dynasty in the former Sacred landscapes in Sikkim / 57 Buddhist kingdom of Sikkim and today these sites affirm the authority of the democratically elected state government of Sikkim in India. The link between the tribal, the local, the rural community and the influence of the wider polity on their beliefs, social practices, livelihood strategies and the environment is explicit in the Tholung sacred grove of North Sikkim. The community, the forest and the state are conjoined in the locus of the sacred grove as it legitimises the power of the state and sustains the ethnic-nationalism of the Lepchas in the region. The sacred landscapes and sacred groves of the Lepchas and the Bhutias reinforce their assertions of being indigenous and maintain their ethnic boundaries with the Nepali majority. The current cultural revival among the Lepchas valorises their identity as forest-dwellers, affirms their indigeneity, and transforms them into primordial environmentalists of the eastern Himalayas. I am guided by the premise that the idea of a forest separated from the people is an illusion ‘since it denies the unalienable relation of nature to man’ (Rangarajan 1996: 70). I will contend that I am wary of any simplistic argument perceiving the tribal and the peasant as the encroacher and the poacher or the guardian of the sacred grove.7 The idea of innate environmental identities of women, the tribal and the peasant or their harmonious relationship with the environment is not sustainable empirically. The way in which groups perceive their self-interest and relate to the environment is critically shaped by socio-economic processes and political developments occurring at the state, regional and national levels.8 I concur with scholars cautioning against any tendency to romanticise the tribals, the locals and the rural as environmental agents/subjects since such arguments ignore the local roots of wider political processes, and the varying livelihood strategies and the self- interests of these communities (Baviskar 1995; Agarwal 2005a; Rangarajan 2006). Environmental subjectivity is contingent and influenced by the wider structures of political control although groups may cognise their relationship with the environ- ment (Agarwal 2005a, 2005b).9 Livelihood and identity politics influence conser- vation strategies. I begin by discussing the socio-ecological debates on conserva- tion, socio-religious fencing and the mediating role of state. These wider debates situate the cultural politics materialised and ceremonialised in sacred groves, thereby highlighting their role in ethnic movements. In the next section, I briefly discuss the ethnographic context of Sikkim and profile the Lepchas of Sikkim and the Darjeeling Hills of West Bengal. It emphasizes the critical role played by Lepcha cosmologies in providing a framework for the emergence of their political consciousness. The third section discusses the location, the origin, the ethnic basis of the management, and the strong religious beliefs associated with the Tholung sacred landscape. By discussing the socio-religious fencing of Tholung, I emphasize that conservation is a latent consequence while the idea of a sacred site is what per- petuates the sanctity and inviolate character of the forest. In the subsequent section, I discuss the rituals uniquely associated with the Tholung sacred landscape that legi- 58 / Vibha Arora timised kingship, nationalised the sacred treasures, and continue to rejuvenate the community and the land. Then I argue that sacred landscapes such as Tholung encompass plural meanings of the forest and reflect the changes in the wider society. Representations of the Lepchas as the guardians of the sacred grove are gaining ground in the current context of their cultural revival in the regional ethnopolitics. Such a politicisation of indigenous knowledge and sacred landscapes is discernible among the Australian Aborigines with their Dreamings and in development contexts such as implementation of hydel projects in Sikkim (India) and Canada. Ideas of indigenous conservation cannot be divorced from the context of peoples’ material practices, their ethnic aspirations and relations with the state. Any state policy aiming to revive community conservation needs to recognise the cultural politics materially expressed and ritualised in the sacred grove. The Debate: From Sacred Species and Sacred Groves to (Sacred) Landscapes ‘…these community-based living repositories provide an important contribution to the conservation of biological diversity, complementing the more recent approaches to protected area management, based on scientific knowledge, and promoted by conservation groups and government agencies. Examples of what can be called local, or vernacular conservation, can be observed at different scales and levels including the protection of sacred species, sacred groves and sacred landscapes.’ (Ramakrishnan 1998: 438). During the nineteen eighties, a key ingredient of the environmental conservation debate was the role played by cultural values and world-views in determining both attitudes and behaviour towards the environment (White 1967; Hargrove 1986; Dwivedi and Tiwari 1987; Park 1994; Gottleib 1997).10 To an extent, those debates were influenced by a critique of modernity that perpetuated a romanticised perception of the tribal, the aborigine and the peasant as the custodian of the forest and the steward of the land. Theological debates on the role of Christianity in promoting an exploitative attitude towards nature and the cosmological wisdom encoded by Hinduism, Buddhism and folk religions encouraged the perception of the tribals and the peasants as the guardians of the sacred grove (Sinha 1979; Dwivedi and Tiwari 1987; Shiva 1987; Skolimowski 1991; Banwari 1992). Ethno- graphic studies explaining natural resource conflict and analysing environmental movements such as Chipko, Narmada Bachao Andolan and the fish workers’ movement underscore the necessity of relating ‘peoples’ perception of nature’ with their livelihood practices as are evident in struggles over resources in the develop- ment context (Guha 1989; Omvedt 1993; Gadgil and Guha 1995; Baviskar 1995). Sacred landscapes in Sikkim / 59 Contemporary discourses transcend the ‘nature–culture’ dichotomy in treating ‘nature’ as being not merely a resource with use values or representing an arena of economic competition and political conflict by emphasising its symbolic value for representing identities and articulating interests at both the local and the regional levels.11 Hence I argue that it is the capacity of cultured nature as expressed in the space of a sacred grove that provides a framework for political action enabling the Lepchas to subvert dominant ideologies that earlier stigmatised and dehumanised them as primitive forest-dwellers: reinventing Lepcha-ness in the sacred grove. Questions of ecology and equity continue to be paramount but the cultural produc- tion of nature and the symbolic use of nature in ethnic and social movements are acknowledged by both scholars and activists (Omvedt 1993; Gadgil and Guha 1995; Baviskar 2003; Arora 2004). The recent shift indicated the maturing of social ecological discourses and the recognition of alternative knowledge systems among the indigenous communities along with the recognition of the need to harness modern science to restore ecological balance since ‘our common future lies in sustainable development’ (Saberwal and Rangarajan 2003). In the twenty-first century, the earlier battles over nature and conservation among the forest department, forest-dwellers, wildlife and the urban constituency are not only unresolved but have intensified at the local, regional and national levels (Saberwal and Rangarajan 2003). The conservationists admit the impossibility of having a forest without the forest-dweller, but argue that if the surviving forests including the pristine areas are not protected from further encroachment and deve- lopment activities, then the battle over nature is already lost in India. On the other hand, the environmentalists, cultural ecologists and anthropologists emphasise the necessity of decentralising environmental governance by involving locals and tri- bals and making them partners of conservation with the forest department and the government. The ‘guns and fences’ approach has undermined conservation itself by creating arenas of conflict when the forest-dependent and forest-dweller communi- ties were forcibly evicted or denied their usufruct rights. The recognition and legi- timisation of the forest-dwellers rights in the forest will transform them into stake- holders and ensure their participation in conservation. Mander forcefully argues that decentralisation in conservation is desirable, but it cannot mean the abdication of state responsibility towards conservation. What is needed is an alteration of the role of the state as one of a facilitator of decentralised community action (Mander 2000). Ultimately, conservation strategies have to respond to local contexts and mobilise local cultural perceptions of nature by taking account of their appropriation, the use and the abuse of nature. The appropriateness of community-based conservation will depend on five factors: nature of community participation, objectives of conserva- tion, incentives for conservation, community structures, historical and cultural link- ages of the adopted conservation strategies (Kothari et al. 1996; Singh et al. 2000). Any policy aiming to harness or revive community-conservation practices will need 60 / Vibha Arora to address five interrelated questions: Who is the local community and what are the livelihood needs? What are their local practices and indigenous knowledge? What is the current relevance of their local environmental knowledge? Who is to conserve what and for whom? Who are the other stakeholders in this landscape? The contemporary need is to decentralise governance and creatively make conservation participatory and protect the forest from the poacher by involving the forest-dweller and forest-dependent communities. It is the dynamics of this state, conservation and society debate that has renewed interest in community-conservation strategies such as sacred groves and guided the formulation of the Scheduled Tribe (Recognition of Forest Dwellers’ Rights) Bill 2005. As a socio-religious practice, sacred groves are forests dedicated by local communities to their ancestral spirits or deities. The general definition of a sacred grove is that it ranges from a clump of trees12 to a patch of forest allowing various levels of interference and resource use. These sacred groves may consist of multi- species, multi-tier primary forest or a clump of trees and the wild life therein. Both ecologists and social anthropologists distinguish the phenomenon of religious forests and sacred groves from nature worship of certain ‘keystone’ plant and animal species that are both ecologically and socially significant13 (Gadgil 1975; Jain 1981; Gadgil and Subhashchandran 1992; Freeman 1994; Ramakrishnan et al. 1998). It is stated that the sacred groves are protected by local communities, usually through customary taboos and sanctions that have cultural and ecological implications (Malhotra et al. 2001). Freeman (1994) based on his studies of kavus (sacred groves of Kerala) defines them to be a piece of garden or forest, but culturally what defines them is their dedication to the use of some specific deities. As an institution, the idea of sacred groves is associated with specific rules, belief systems, organisation and management by a certain community or group in a set of otherwise contingent and variable forms the grove may take. Currently, there is immense concern with respect to the decline of sacred groves in India, which is attributed to many factors such as sanskritisation leading to the construction of temples inside the groves, the devaluation of indigenous knowledge, bureaucratic apathy, implementation of development projects, poverty, urbanisation, population increase which are aggravating resource-conflicts, etc. (Roy Burman 1995, 1997; Khurana 1998; Kothari et al. 1998; Ramakrishnan et al. 1998). In sharp contrast to other parts of India, the idea of sacred landscapes is gaining importance in Sikkim and the Darjeeling Hills in the context of cultural revivalism and ethnic nationalism. My study of Tholung sacred grove contends that the existence of temples and their associated rituals may heighten the sacrality of the sacred grove and not undermine their sanctity and existence. I found the earlier definitions and explanations of sacred groves inadequate for my research, hence my preference for using ‘landscape’ over ‘grove’, as this grasps the variable forms that a sacred grove may take by including temples or shrines and sacred water bodies such as lakes, Sacred landscapes in Sikkim / 61 waterfalls and springs. Increasingly sacred groves are being perceived as political institutions suffering from the politics of an economic logic (Down to Earth 2003). Further, I am not restricted by the ecologist’s conception of landscape that while incorporating humans as an integral component of the ecosystem reduce ‘sacred landscape’ to be a set of inter-connected systems (Ramakrishnan et al. 1998: xv, 445–446). The ecologists underplay or completely ignore the role of power and competing discourses in framing environmental discourses while their analysis disregards the inequities of control and the stratification present in the community. Nevertheless, I found the ecologists’ proposition regarding ‘limited human perturbations’ to be ethnographically valid and it can serve as a useful tool for formulating any policy of conservation and sustainable land-management (Ramakrishnan et al. 1998: 445–448). The idea of sacred grove has been often mistaken to imply the exclusion of humans from the landscape. Voluntary or forced exclusion may lead to severe con- flicts over resources between groups in a situation of resource scarcity in multi- ethnic contexts (Kothari et al. 1998). There cannot be a sacred grove or a forest without the forest-dweller and his beliefs and practices. The sacred groves are extremely humanised landscapes. Neither is the state an exogenous entity nor distinct from and located at a distance from the forest, the forest-dwellers and the forest-dependent communities. My study of the Tholung contends that the sacred landscape performs a critical function in legitimating temporal authority while the analysis of the Rathongchu movement indicates their transformation into faultlines (Arora 2003, 2004, 2006a). Ideas of sacredness evoke powerful emotions and their capacity to mobilise people cannot be underrated. Sacred groves can become spaces for expressing discontent and dissent with the state in India (see Hembram 1988). The debate on environmental conservation due to the socio-religious fencing of the forest/landscape, and the political roles and cultural meanings of the sacred grove have yielded a rich literature that I have grouped into three strands for analytical reasons. The contestations and overlaps among these three perspectives cannot be ignored as these have shaped state conservation strategies. First, ecologists and environmentalists argue that sacred groves epitomise tradi- tional community conservationist practices and encode traditional environmental knowledge (Gadgil 1975; Vartak and Gadgil 1990; Gadgil and Subhashchandran 1992; Ramakrishnan 1996, 1998; Ramakrishnan et al. 1998). Social ecologists such as Guha (1989) argue that the peoples’ dependence on forest resources was institutionalised through a variety of social and cultural mechanisms such as sacred groves. Religion, folklore and tradition formed a protective ring around the forest to conserve it. Secondly, Indologists and Buddhist philosophers emphasise that they represent the transmission of ecological wisdom of indigenous religions, Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. They contrast these cosmologies to the Judaeo-Christian 62 / Vibha Arora tradition emphasizing man’s mastery over nature14 (White 1967; Dwivedi and Tiwari 1987; Banwari 1992; Gottleib 1997; Tucker and Williams 1997). These textual interpretations completely ignore peoples’ situated practices and their contingent continual struggle to secure their livelihood. These indologists are severely critiqued as their environmental ideology has limited practical relevance and is ethnographically unsustainable (Tomalin 2004). On the whole, both the ecologists and indologists romanticised the idea of sacred groves and the symbiotic link between the forest-dweller or the tribal and their forest. It is doubtful that sacred groves were established or are primarily oriented towards conservation or the preservation of the forest and its wild life. These two perspectives largely ignore the politic-economic conflict in control and use of resources between competing groups in the context of economic development (Freeman 1994; Arora 2004; Tomalin 2004). Thirdly, social anthropologists and ethno-historians argue that sacred groves indicate the group’s perception and attitudes to the environment while simultane- ously affirming their identity. These studies emphasise their critical role in edifi- cing ethnic and regional identities (Apffel-Marglin and Mishra 1990; Xaxa 1991; Roy Burman 1997). The eminent anthropologist, Verrier Elwin pioneered the study of sacred groves in India. His ethnographies on the Maria, Muria, Bondo, Baiga and the Pradhan tribals discuss their rituals and the role of the sacred shrine in the forest or the sacred forest towards maintaining tribal identity, conserving the forest and gendering roles (Elwin 1943, 1946, 1947, 1950, 1986 reprint). In a study of sacred groves in Maharashtra, Roy Burman (1997) emphasises political-economic legiti- mation of resource use over their conservation functions. In another study in Orissa, sacred groves are perceived to be the locus of the regeneration of the body, the land and the peasant community (Apffel-Marglin and Mishra 1990; Apffel-Marglin 1998). Rituals performed in these sacred groves periodically rejuvenate the com- munity, the land, and their interconnections with the gods and protective deities ensuring their well-being (Gold and Gujar 1989; Apffel-Marglin and Mishra 1990; Xaxa 1991; Fernandes 1993; Freeman 1994; Rodgers 1994; Roy Burman 1995, 1997; Apffel-Marglin 1998; Kalam 1998). These studies indicate that there is great variability in the veneration of aspects of the environment, the performance of rituals and religious beliefs associated with sacred groves. What is undeniable is that sacred groves are political entities affirming identity and legitimating control over resource-use among social groups. In fact, during the eighties, in areas of Ranchi and Jamshedpur in Bihar sacred groves (sarna) became rallying points for mobilising people under the rubric of sarna dharma to pressurise the government to modify its forest policies (Hembram 1988). The Mundas of Bihar mobilised them- selves to save the forested areas and protest against the Koel-Karo project by poin- ting to the existence of their sacred groves in the project area (Mitra and Pal 1994). Gadgil and Guha (1995) stress the ecological basis of ethnic conflict in India and my research on Sikkim demonstrates the critical function performed by sacred land- Sacred landscapes in Sikkim / 63 scapes including sacred groves in mobilising ethnic-nationalist sentiments and structuring ethnic conflict in the Himalayan region (Arora 2004, 2006a). According to a WWF study, there are 56 sacred groves in Sikkim and many of these are attached to Buddhist monasteries.15 I argue that these sacred groves do not represent primordial environmental wisdom. Traditional environmental conservation practices cannot be presumed per se, as they could be a latent consequence of certain cultural practices whose manifest purpose may be entirely different. This is evident in my research of the Tholung sacred landscape wherein the sacred landscape reflects the power dynamics in a multi-ethnic society and the former nation of Sikkim and the ethnopolitics of contemporary Sikkim. The Ethnographic Context of Sikkim and the Lepchas Sikkim is the former Buddhist kingdom, which was ruled by the Namgyal dynasty until its incorporation into India in 1975.16 The Chinese annexation of Tibet in 1959, the Sino-Indian war on Sikkim’s border in 1962–63, the democratic aspirations of the population agitating against the oppressive rule of Sikkim’s feudal oligarchy, and the breakdown of internal law and order are cited as reasons for holding the 1975 referendum that culminated in the inclusion of Sikkim in India in 1975. Ethnically Sikkim is a Himalayan melting pot comprising 22 Indo-Tibetan and Indo-Aryan linguistic groups. These diverse ethnic groups are classified into three broad categories: the Lepchas, the Bhutias and the Nepalis.17 The population of Sikkim is predominantly Hindu 68 per cent), and the Buddhists comprise a large majority (27 per cent), while the Christians comprise a small component of the population (3 per cent) and Muslims in insignificant numbers (Lama 2001: 7). Out of this total population of half a million persons (540493) about 20.6 per cent are Scheduled Tribes18 while the Scheduled Castes (exclusively of Nepali origin) comprise about 5 per cent of the population (Census of India 2001). The major ethnic boundary is between the indigenous minority comprising the Lepcha-Bhutia groups19 and the migrant Nepali groups who constitute the numerical and political majority of Sikkim. The Lepchas and the Bhutias constituted the ruling elites during the rule of the Namgyal dynasty who are marginalised by the socio- economic and political mobility of the Nepalis in democratic Sikkim. Ethnic competition over resource entitlements is intense which is aggravating ethnic tensions in Sikkim. The boundaries between the indigenous Lepcha–Bhutia and the perceived Nepali migrant are being reinforced by religious differences and affirmed by their differing attitudes towards the landscape (Arora 2004, 2006b). The state government is faced with the challenging task of balancing the aspirations of these diverse ethnic groups while implementing development projects and modernising Sikkim’s economy.20 64 / Vibha Arora The state of Sikkim has an Ecclesiastical Minister and a Department responsible for managing approximately 83 Buddhist monasteries and a large number of village temples, and preserving Sikkim’s Buddhist cultural heritage.21 Additionally, it is unique in having a legislative assembly seat reserved for a Buddhist monk and a non-Buddhist or non-Sikkimese cannot contest elections for this seat (Arora 2006d). In the former Kingdom of Sikkim once ruled by the Namgyal dynasty, the lamas and the shamans played a central role in legitimising the authority of the Chos- rgyal. Admittedly, democratic governance since 1975 has undermined the political role and dominance of the religious functionaries (the lamas and the shamans) yet not completely displaced their political influence. Under the special provisions of Article 371f of the Indian Constitution, the Buddhist lamas (the sangha) elect a member of the Sikkim legislative assembly. To a large extent, the contemporary significance of Sikkim’s sacred groves is explained by these unique cultural and po- litical factors. These unique aspects do not undermine the comparative significance of Tholung sacred grove in furthering contemporary debates on conservation, state and society. The Lepchas are defined as the autochthones of Sikkim and the Darjeeling Hills.22 Currently they are concentrated in the Lepcha reserve of North Sikkim, and scattered in other parts of Sikkim, the Darjeeling Hills of West Bengal, Illam district of Nepal and in parts of west Bhutan. Linguistically they belong to the Tibeto- Burman group and they have their own distinctive language, script and literature. The Lepchas use patrilineal descent to determine corporate membership and inheritance but rely on matrilineal descent to strengthen their alliances and networks of support. They practise monogamy, polygyny and polyandry forms of marriage although residence is usually patrilocal. Traditionally they were hunters and gatherers and practised shifting cultivation. Currently they are predominantly agriculturists (rice and cardamom cultivation) although many are employed in government service and the Indian army. Today the Lepchas are sub-divided by religious affiliation into followers of Buddhism, Shamanism and Christianity.23 In the fourteenth century, the majority of the Lepchas became Buddhists after the migration and settlement of the Bhutias into Sikkim. However, the majority continue to practise Shamanism24 (which is their indigenous religion) along with Buddhism. Among the Lepchas, the shaman or the mun is an exorciser and singing priest who performs rituals and sacrifice for the entire community. The mun mediates between the human, supernatural and the natural world. The lama and the shaman do not contradict each other but co-exist as religious specialists25 due to a division of labour in their roles towards the individual, the family, the community and the polity. The local spirits are appeased and offered sacrifices by the shaman while the lama offers prayers to the Buddhist divinities and propitiates the protective deities of the land. In the nineteenth century, a Lepcha minority was converted into Christianity after the arrival of Christian