Abstract
Changing fire regimes amidst the planetary ecological crisis demand a rethinking of human-fire relationships. This rethinking has led to growing calls for moving away from anti-fire strategies and recognising the necessity of living with fire. Focusing on the Uttarakhand Himalaya, this study examines how approaches that align with ‘living with fire’ shape and intervene in the management of commons. It analyses three distinct burning practices: prescribed burning by the state, traditional burning in commons, and burning in enclosures by a subset of community members. Adopting a relational approach, this study explores how these practices foster collective futures, perpetuate exclusions, or uphold colonial logic. Data collection involved participant observation, participatory methods, and interviews with community members and forest department staff. The findings reveal that while these burning practices overlap in their physical characteristics, such as intensity and timing, they differ significantly in the relations they emerge from and the multispecies worlds they co-create. Traditional burning is central to managing commons in the region and is underpinned by relations of care, reciprocity, and responsibility. In contrast, state-led prescribed burning and enclosure-based practices reinforce exclusionary dynamics and undermine collective action. The study cautions against an uncritical adoption of ‘living with fire’ and emphasises the importance of foregrounding relational difference. Convivial human-fire relations must be understood in terms of their role in fostering social justice and collective action, grounded in relations of care and responsibility.