Aligning religious tourism with ecology

India’s religious geography is inseparable from its ecological one. Across the country, sacred groves, shrines, caves and pilgrimage routes are located within or adjacent to protected areas, often in ecologically sensitive habitats. For centuries, belief systems helped regulate access and behaviour, enabling coexistence with nature. Today, however, rising visitor numbers and the growing commercialisation of pilgrimage routes are placing unprecedented pressure on forest ecosystems. What were once seasonal, community-embedded rituals have become forms of mass tourism, bringing in infrastructure that fragile ecosystems cannot absorb. 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.

Major flashpoint

Recent reporting in The Hindu on 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existence of the “establishment of the temples, prior to the settlement of forest rights in the region”, it was later withdrawn over concerns that it would be the first instance of protected areas being diverted for a religious institution — potentially setting a precedent for similar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 restraint is well founded. Under India’s legal framework, any construction or expansion on forest land after 1980 is generally treated as encroachment under the Forest (Conservation) Act. 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. Unregulated construction fragments habitats, increases human-wildlife conflict, and weakens protected areas. 

The question of rights

Yet 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 restricted extraction and disturbance. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 adds a critical legal dimension. It 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.

A blanket ban on religious activity inside forests would therefore be neither constitutionally defensible nor culturally sensitive. 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.

In 2023, the Ashoka Trust for Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) in collaboration with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) published a set of guidelines on religious tourism within tiger reserves that offer a evidence-based pathway and a green pilgrimage model. Drawing on over 15 years of on-ground work in Kalakad-Mundanthurai, Ranthambhore and Corbett, these guidelines demonstrate that religious activities in protected areas are not incompatible with conservation, provided it is managed sustainably. 

A green pilgrimage model

A clear no-expansion principle is recommended — there should be no new constructions or enlargement of existing structures within core forest areas. At the same time, the guidelines allow for the recognition of long-standing sites that pre-date the notification of protected areas, subject to strict, impact-based regulation. It also includes caps on pilgrim numbers, restrictions on transport such as bans on night traffic, and robust controls on waste, water use, and sanitation. Equally important is governance. Multi-stakeholder mechanisms involving forest departments, temple authorities, local governments and communities, and conservation organisations should be encouraged. 

In pilot areas, where guidelines have been implemented, measures such as restricting private vehicles, managing waste through temple trusts, and engaging religious leaders have led to measurable reductions in roadkill, plastic pollution and water contamination, without denying access to worshippers or displacing forest-dependent communities. Such guidelines if taken up by the National Board for Wildlife would be beneficial. 

India’s strength lies in its ability to integrate ecological protection with cultural continuity. A principled approach would involve zero tolerance for new encroachments, rigorous case-by-case evaluation of existing sites, mandatory settlement of forest rights, and adoption of proven green pilgrimage management models backed by continuous monitoring.

Sanjana Nair, Policy analyst at the Centre for Policy Design, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE); M. Soubadra Devy, Senior fellow at Suri Sehgal Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, ATREE