Media Focus : See How this Indian Paper manipulate the facts and lies to the public:

Go for the Chinese Translation of this report.

The Shahtoosh Wars

Hindustan Times
December 26, 1999

Is the campaign against Shahtoosh shawls part of an international trade war? And what exactly does the Law say? Anita Kanungo uncovers a murky tale of conflict and deceit.

It was every well-dressed Delhi lady's worst nightmare. On November 29, as a charity auction was being conducted at the Park Hotel, the dreaded police finally struck. Among the items on auction was an antique shawl with a shahtoosh border. Its provenance was no secret. The auction's organisers had listed the shawl in their catalogue and its owner

Jagdish Mittal had openly attested to its antiquity. So, there was widespread shock and astonishment when a band of plainclothesmen who described themselves as wildlife officials descended on The Park, confiscated the shawl and took Mittal into custody. Also arrested was art historian Neville Tuli who had curated the items on auction. Both men spent the night in custody before finally being set free on bail.

The arrests shocked much of Delhi society. There had been numberings before - trade in shahtoosh was said to be illegal and reports had appeared about raids on shawl-wallahs, but nobody had believed that an antique dealer would be arrested at a charity auction. Worse still, nobody knew quite what the law was. Is trading in shahtoosh illegal, or is mere possession also a crime? When did shahtoosh shawls become illegal given that most Indian politicians and their wives have always cheerfully reported them? And, more to the point: what do you do with the shawls you already possess? Do you register them? And if so, how and with whom?

An extensive investigation by The Hindustan Times has revealed that there are no easy answers to these questions. Even those who are actively involved in the anti-shahtoosh movement are not always familiar with the legal status. Nor can anybody explain why, when the only law under which shahtoosh-owners can be prosecuted dates back to 1977, the authorities have taken over 20 years to suddenly wake up. And as for registration, that's all very well in theory. The truth is that actually nobody knows whether you can, in fact, get a license for your shawl or even, how to register it.

Beneath the legal tangle lies a murkier tale of greed, conspiracy and international commercial warfare. Despite the best efforts of NGOs, the shahtoosh trade is not illegal in the only part of India where the shawls are woven - Jammu and Kashmir. And, if the Kashmir government is to be believed, it is not likely to be made illegal either. Moreover, Kashmiri shawl merchants alleged a conspiracy to work against the state's interests. And an influential section of the Indian establishment - including former environment minister Kamal Nath who studied the subject when he was in office - says it is not entirely convinced by the anti-shahtoosh arguments.

In fact, suggest some experts, much of the anti-shahtoosh material comes from China, which is currently dominating the world market for pashmina. Could the Chinese be keen to discredit Kashmiri shahtoosh because of the threat it poses to their pashmina, currently the trendiest fabric in the world?

The shahtoosh story is hundreds of years old. Legend has it that Napoleon presented a shawl to Josephine who loved it so much that she ordered 400 more. While the basic shahtoosh is unimpressive to the naked eye with its mouse-brown colour, its value lies in its feel. As soft as a baby's skin, it can be passed through a ring (hence the name 'ring shawl') and is said to be so warm that shahtoosh-lore has it that if you wrap an egg in the shawl, it will hatch.

Predictably, the reputation of the shawl has made it an extremely desirable commodity all over the world. In India, shahtooshes form part of the trousseaus of wealthy north Indian brides. Abroad, they are the fashion accessory favoured by royalty and movie stars. One Japanese designer once distributed shahtoosh shawls as Christmas gifts to influential fashion editors. While global prices vary, the shawls cost between Rs 20,000 (for a lady's shawl) to Rs 60,000 (for a man's shawl) in India.

Shahtoosh-lore has correctly identified the chiru, or Tibetan antelope, as the source of the wool that goes into the shawl. What has remained the subject of dispute is how this wool is gathered. The traditional view was that the chiru would shed its wool on bushes and trees and that this would be gathered and woven into shawls. A more credible theory was that shepherds in Tibet, where the chiru is found, would shear the wool of the animal rather as lambs are sheared.

This view was challenged in 1992 when George Schaller, a wildlife expert, claimed that the chiru was actually shot and then fleeced. Schaller's claim shattered the certainties of the shahtoosh industry because the chiru had been included as a protected animal in Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife Act in 1977. But nobody had bothered about the shahtoosh because it had been treated as wool, which could be taken from a living animal, rather than a fleece that came from a dead animal. Wildlife activists used Schaller's conclusions (published in National Geographic) to launch first, a save-the-chiru campaign, and then, an anti-shahtoosh drive.

Says Belinda Wright of the Wildlife Protection Society of India, "The chiru is trapped and then shot. It is a wild animal living in extreme conditions, there is no way it can be caught and sheared."

According to environmentalists, more evidence has come to light since Schaller's original research to suggest that poachers are killing the chiru for its wool. For instance, the Chinese government has published a white paper which claims that 20,000 chiru are poached each year. The Chinese claim that the chiru population was around one million at the turn of the century, but has now dwindled to only 70,000. Says Manoj Mishra of the World Wildlife Fund-Traffic India, "There is overwhelming evidence that three or four chiru are killed to make each shawl." Environmentalists approvingly quote the Chinese government's claim that the only reason for chiru poaching is to smuggle the wool into India so that it can be made into shawls.

The contrary view is expressed by the shahtoosh industry. A representative of the Kashmiri Traders' Welfare Association disputes the claim that the chiru has to be killed for its wool. "Do you think we would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?" he asks.

The traders are openly leery of the environmentalists' figures. Their calculations are straightforward. If it takes four chiru to make one shawl, and there are only 70,000 chirus left in the world, then there are only about 15,000 shawls left to be made. If this were so, then the shahtoosh would be an extremely rare commodity. In fact, the supply of wool has increased over the last five years and prices have actually gone down - in real terms, adjusted for inflation.

When Kamal Nath was textiles minister, he was approached by environmentalists who pushed for action against the shahtoosh industry. Recalls Nath, "I convened a meeting of the traders to discuss the issue. They came up with some arguments that completely stumped me." One of them related to the increase in supply of chiru wool. "If the chiru was nearly extinct, then why were prices going down? I decided to constitute a fact-finding committee which made an aerial survey of the area."

The ministry's survey found no evidence of chiru poaching, which appeared to strengthen the traders' arguments. Not so, said the environmentalists, the ministry's surveyors had only seen the chiru herds that had crossed over the Indian border. They had no authority to check out the situation on the Chinese side of the border where the poaching actually took place. Says Nath, nevertheless, "It is not as simple as the environmentalists are making out. There is some missing link somewhere."

The Kashmiri authorities are clear what this link is. They believe it is a plot to destroy the shahtoosh industry, one area in which the Kashmiris have exclusive expertise. Says Wajahat Habibullah of the Kashmir state government, "The shawl industry is our third largest industry. It is one that Kashmiris can ill-afford to lose."

The China angle

According to the shahtoosh trade, Kashmir is suffering because of a Chinese plot to control the world pashmina trade. They say that when pashmina was available in 1994 for Rs 700-800 per kilo, the Chinese traders bought up all the wool. Having cornered the supply, they then raised the price. The following year, the same pashmina was offered at Rs 7,000 per kilo. The shahtoosh industry recognises that pashmina woven in China is smoother than Indian pashmina because the Chinese blend it with silk on power looms, while the Indian fabric is handwoven.

The only threat to the Chinese stranglehold on the world pashmina trade is shahtoosh, which is far smoother than the Chinese silk pashmina. The Chinese do not have the expertise to weave it by hand but could possibly blend it with silk and pashmina to create a new fabric that could take the world by storm. But the only way to create an exclusive market for this product is to finish off the Kashmiri shahtoosh industry. Hence, the current anti-shahtoosh campaign.

Conceding that this sounds paranoid, Kashmir government officials point out that with the exception of Schaller's original report, much of the information about chiru poaching comes from the Chinese government. Why, they ask, should we believe the Chinese when it is clear they have a commercial interest.

Says Omar Abdullah, the Union minister of state for commerce, "We have found no evidence of poaching on the Indian side. If there is poaching on the Chinese side, then why should our people be punished for it?"

Adds another senior official, "If the Chinese are so concerned about poaching on their side, then they should stop it. Why should the Indian government be made to arrest traders and destroy their livelihood to protect a Chinese antelope? Don't forget that access to Tibet is rigidly controlled, so we have very little independent verification of the Chinese figures. Moreover, there are such rigid restrictions about movement in Tibet, that it strains credulity to believe that poachers can move freely across the border without the Chinese being able to do anything to stop them."

Regardless of whether one agrees with the Kashmir government's perspective, what is indisputable is that the law against fabrics made from the chiru does not apply to Jammu and Kashmir because the state government has refused to ratify it. Nor is it likely to change its mind, if Omar Abdullah and Wajahat Habibullah are to be believed.

This means that anybody who has bought a shawl in Srinagar - or claims that he has - is in possession of an entirely legal shahtoosh. Some environmentalists say this does not matter; if you wear the shawl in Delhi, then you're breaking the law. This view is hard to sustain and most lawyers doubt that it would stand up in court.

But what of people who have bought their shawls in the rest of India? Some environmentalists take a rather extreme view. They say that according to the Indian Wildlife Act, which was passed in 1977, anyone in possession of an 'animal good' (believed at the time to refer to tiger skins and the like but now used to include shahtoosh) had 60 days to register it with the chief wildlife warden, who would then issue a certificate of ownership. As nobody realised in 1977 that a shahtoosh was an animal good, not a single shahtoosh was registered. This has led to a bizarre situation in which environmentalists claim that every single shahtoosh shawl is illegal.

More bizarre, they have even been able to persuade gullible politicians that this interpretation is valid. For instance, Sheila Dixit has declared that Delhi will be a shahtoosh-free zone. Clearly, it has not occurred to the chief minister that until a few weeks ago, her own party president often wore shahtoosh shawls. Nor, for all its high-minded trendy rhetoric has the Delhi government bothered to explain what owners of shahtoosh shawls should do. Wildlife authorities say there is now no provision to register them because the 60-day deadline expired in 1977 itself. So, assuming that Mrs Dixit knew what she was saying when she made her lofty declaration, all they can do at 10 Janpath is to burn every shawl that Sonia Gandhi has inherited from Indira Gandhi, Jawaharlal and Motilal Nehru.

The deeper you go into the shahtoosh controversy, the more you realise that nothing is as it seems. There are two broad positions. The first is the environmentalist position that shahtoosh shawls should be banned if the chiru is to be saved. The second is the Kashmiri position that the chiru is in no danger and that the whole thing is a Chinese commercial conspiracy.

Regardless of which view you accept, there is no doubt that there are thousands of people who are caught in the middle. These are people who either inherited or bought shahtoosh shawls in good faith and are now terrified by suggestions that they could be arrested for possessing them.

One obvious solution - if you accept the environmentalists' case - would be for the government to declare that anyone who possessed such a shawl had a year to register it with an appropriate authority. Once the year was over, wildlife authorities could crack down on traders or those who supported the trade.

It is symptomatic of this controversy that nobody has bothered to consider any solutions. Instead, waves of conflicting information buffet anyone interested in the issue, and a fear psychosis is encouraged by ignorant politicians.

December 26, 1999

What the law says

If it takes four chirus to make one shawl, and there are only 70,000 chirus left in the world, then there are only about 15,000 shawls left to be made

On October 5, 1977, the Tibetan antelope or chiru was listed in Article 36 A of Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife Act 1972, which awards the animal the highest degree of protection.

Shahtoosh is woven from chiru wool and is, therefore, defined as an "animal article" under the Indian Wildlife Act. The possession of an animal article is illegal.

A shawl purchased before 1977 would be legal provided it had been registered with the Chief Wildlife Warden of the state. When the animal was included in Schedule I, owners of shahtoosh shawls were expected to register within 60 days. But at that stage nobody realised that shahtoosh shawls had to be registered. So, no shawls were registered.

The only way shahtoosh shawls can now be registered is for the state government to issue a notification asking citizens to do so. If such a notification is issued then the person wishing to register has to file an application and provide documentation to prove to the Chief Wildlife Warden that the shawl was bought before 1977. Otherwise, it is liable to be confiscated, and a minimum fine of Rs 5,000 can be imposed. He or she can also be imprisoned for between one to six years.

Because no shawl has been registered technically anybody who owns a shahtoosh can be jailed. But the shawls are legal in Jammu and Kashmir because the state has refused to extend the Indian Wildlife Act to the state. Kashmir has its own wildlife act, in which chiru is listed in schedule 2 and therefore trade in shahtoosh is legal.

January 4, 2000

Editorial

Focus on shahtoosh

Few of us, in this day and age, will dispute that all endangered species deserve some measure of legal protection. But equally, we must be sure that the species in question is genuinely endangered, that the protection offered will actually benefit the animal and not serve some other end, and that the curb must be imposed on the basis of total transparency and in a sensible manner.

The problem with the current campaign against shahtoosh shawls is that none of these conditions has been met. One, there is some dispute as to whether the animal - whose wool is used to make the shawl - is really in danger.

The government of Jammu and Kashmir claims that if their number was really going down, then it is not possible for the supply of shahtoosh wool to actually increase at a time when the prices have fallen. Two: there is also disagreement over the claims that it is necessary to kill the chiru to shear its wool.

The shahtoosh trade denies that claim; environmentalists insist that it is valid.

The traders say that as the chiru is native to China and that the Chinese do not have the expertise to weave its wool, they are determined to cripple the Kashmiri trade.

They claim that most of the evidence of poaching comes from the Chinese, who have a vested interest in keeping shahtoosh out of the foreign market where their pashmina currently holds sway.

Why, they ask, should the Indian courts be manipulated to protect China's commercial interests? The law must be imposed in a fair and transparent manner. The authorities use the 1977 Wildlife Act as a legal basis. But the fact is that when the Act was passed, nobody believed that it covered chiru wool because no one thought that it was necessary to kill the chiru to secure its wool.

Consequently, not a single shawl was registered with the authorities. Only in the late 1990s did the authorities decide to accept the Chinese claim and to prosecute traders and weavers.