Chipko Movement

Chipko means “to cling to” or “to embrace” in Hindi, describing the tactic of placing one's body between a tree and those seeking to fell it. The movement emerged in the early 1970s in the Himalayan districts of what was then Uttar Pradesh, now Uttarakhand. The Dasholi Gram Swarajya Sangh (DGSS), a cooperative founded by Chandi Prasad Bhatt and other local activists, organized villagers to seek greater local control over forest resources and oppose commercial logging that competed with local needs. A major early protest occurred near Mandal in 1973, after a sporting-goods company received permission to fell ash trees while local people had been denied access to trees for agricultural tools.

Chipko consisted of locally organized campaigns rather than a centralized membership organization. In 1974, women in Reni village, including Gaura Devi, confronted loggers and protected trees from felling. The protest reflected the importance of nearby forests to rural households, including for fuel, fodder, and other everyday needs. Women played prominent roles in many actions, though the movement's local composition, aims, and participants differed across places and over time. It should not be reduced to a story of a single leader or a single protest.

The movement drew on nonviolent resistance associated with Gandhian satyagraha and paired direct action with meetings, marches, songs, and appeals to officials. Its participants emphasized the consequences of commercial forestry for local access, livelihoods, and the stability of Himalayan landscapes. Forest protection was therefore connected both to ecological concerns and to debates about who should benefit from forest resources. Historical accounts caution against assuming every participant shared identical motives or that all actions took the same form.

Chipko helped bring forest policy and community interests to public attention beyond the Himalayan region. After appeals by activist Sunderlal Bahuguna, India’s government imposed a 15-year ban on commercial felling in Himalayan forests of then Uttar Pradesh in 1980; similar restrictions were later applied elsewhere. The movement also inspired environmental campaigns in other parts of India and abroad. These outcomes did not resolve all tensions around forestry, local livelihoods, and state control, and they should not be mistaken for a permanent end to logging or forest disputes. Its legacy lies in demonstrating how locally rooted nonviolent action could shape wider public debate and policy.