PIP: A microstudy of sustainable resource use titled, Management Arrangements of the Chaprote Forest and their Implications for Sustainable Development, is analyzed and critiqued. There are 3 major areas of comment: 1) contextual literature, 2) methodology, 3) substance. Because the subject of this paper relies on both social forestry and common property literature, it is necessary to put the paper in the proper context within the literature. This paper ignored the literature on common property and thus the issues of common property and open access have been confused. The paper cities a communal council several centuries ago; however, there is no evidence presented as part of the study to support this claim. The only source that is known would be villager recall, which is not acceptable. Within the techniques of ethnohistorical research, the necessary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim about the council. The authors asserts that a modern Islahi Committee should be based upon the organizational basis of the old communal council. Since the council itself is mere conjecture, it provides a poor foundation to build the committee upon.