Comprehension

In 1982, a raging controversy broke out over a forest act drafted by the Government of India. This act sought to strengthen the already extensive powers enjoyed by the forest bureaucracy in controlling the extraction, disposal and sale of forest produce. It also gave forest officials greater powers to strictly regulate the entry of any person into reserved forest areas. While forest officials justified the act on the grounds that it was necessary to stop the continuing deforestation, it was bitterly opposed by representatives of grassroots organisations, who argued that it was a major violation of the rights of peasants and tribals living in and around forest areas. . . . 
The debate over the draft forest act fuelled a larger controversy over the orientation of state forest policy. It was pointed out, for example, that the draft act was closely modelled on its predecessor, the Forest Act of 1878. The earlier Act rested on a usurpation of rights of ownership by the colonial state which had little precedent in precolonial history. It was further argued that the system of forestry introduced by the British—and continued, with little modification, after 1947—emphasised revenue generation and commercial exploitation, while its policing orientation excluded villagers who had the most longstanding claim on forest resources. Critics called for a complete overhaul of forest administration, pressing the government to formulate policy and legislation more appropriate to present needs. . . .
That debate is not over yet. The draft act was shelved, though it has not as yet been formally withdrawn. Meanwhile, the 1878 Act (as modified by an amendment in 1927) continues to be in operation. In response to its critics, the government has made some important changes in forest policy, e.g., no longer treating forests as a source of revenue, and stopping ecologically hazardous practices such as the clearfelling of natural forests. At the same time, it has shown little inclination to meet the major demand of the critics of forest policy—namely, abandoning the principle of state monopoly over forest land by handing over areas of degraded forests to individuals and communities for afforestation.
. . . [The] 1878 Forest Act itself was passed only after a bitter and prolonged debate within the colonial bureaucracy, in which protagonists put forward arguments strikingly similar to those being advanced today. As well known, the Indian Forest Department owes its origin to the requirements of railway companies. The early years of the expansion of the railway network, c. 1853 onwards, led to tremendous deforestation in peninsular India owing to the railway’s requirements of fuelwood and construction timber. Huge quantities of durable timbers were also needed for use as sleepers across the new railway tracks. Inexperienced in forestry, the British called in German experts to commence systematic forest management. The Indian Forest Department was started in 1864, with Dietrich Brandis, formally a Lecturer in Botany, as the first Inspector General of Forests. The early years of the forest department, even as it grew, continued to meet the railway needs for timber and wood. These systems first emerged as part of the needs of the expanding empire.

Question: 1

Which one of the following best encapsulates the reason for the “raging controversy” developing into a “larger controversy”?

Show Hint

The main cause of the larger controversy was the replication of colonial policies, particularly in forest control.
Updated On: Dec 5, 2025
  • The 1982 draft forest act further enabled the commercial exploitation of forest resources by the forest bureaucracy.
  • The 1982 draft forest act violated the rights of tribals and peasants who lived in and around forest areas.
  • The 1982 draft forest act replicated colonial measures of control and regulation of forest resources.
  • The 1982 draft forest act was unjustifiably defended by forest officials in the face of bitter opposition by grassroots organisations.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Passage.
The passage talks about the controversy surrounding the 1982 draft forest act and its replication of colonial-era forest control measures.
Step 2: Analysis of Options.
- (1) This option suggests exploitation, but it doesn't encapsulate the larger controversy mentioned in the passage.
- (2) While this is true, it does not address the main reason for the larger controversy.
- (3) Correct answer: The controversy arose because the draft act replicated colonial forest management strategies.
- (4) This option refers to the defense of the act, but the controversy is more about the act's alignment with colonial strategies.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

According to the passage, which one of the following reforms is yet to happen in India’s forest policies?

Show Hint

One of the key reforms that is yet to happen is involving local communities more actively in the management of forests.
Updated On: Dec 5, 2025
  • Involving local people in cultivating forests.
  • Recognising the significance of forests to ecology.
  • A ban on deforestation.
  • Recognising the state's claim to forest land use.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Passage.
The passage discusses reforms in India's forest policies and highlights the need for involving local communities in forest cultivation.
Step 2: Analysis of Options.
- (1) Correct answer: The passage points out that involving local people is a reform still needed in India's forest policies.
- (2) The significance of forests to ecology is already recognised in the passage.
- (3) A ban on deforestation is also addressed, but not as the primary missing reform.
- (4) The state's claim is already incorporated, as per the passage.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

According to the passage, which one of the following is not common to the 1878 Forest Act and the 1982 draft forest act?

Show Hint

Both the 1878 Act and the 1982 draft forest act share colonial-era mindsets, though they differ in their environmental impacts.
Updated On: Dec 5, 2025
  • Both resulted in large scale deforestation.
  • Both sparked controversy and debate among the various stakeholders.
  • Both sought to establish the state’s monopoly over forest resources.
  • Both reflect a colonial mindset.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Passage.
The passage compares the 1878 Forest Act and the 1982 draft forest act, highlighting their similarities and differences.
Step 2: Analysis of Options.
- (1) Correct answer: The passage mentions the acts’ similarities but does not suggest both resulted in deforestation.
- (2) Both acts sparked controversy.
- (3) Both acts aimed to establish state control over forest resources.
- (4) Both reflect colonial policies, according to the passage.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

All of the following, if true, would weaken the narrative presented in the passage EXCEPT that:

Show Hint

The narrative is primarily focused on the consequences of colonial forest policies, so information supporting this is consistent with the passage.
Updated On: Dec 5, 2025
  • Before British rule, peasants and tribal groups were denied access to forest resources by Indian rulers and their administrations.
  • Certain tribal groups in India are responsible for climate change because their sustenance has historically depended on mass scale deforestation.
  • The timber requirement for railway works in nineteenth century India was met through import from China, in exchange for spices.
  • Nineteenth century German forestry experts were infamous for violating the rights of indigenous communities that lived in forest regions.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Passage.
The passage discusses the historical context of forest policies and the rights of peasants and tribal groups in India.
Step 2: Analysis of Options.
- (1) would weaken the narrative as it suggests that the denial of access was also prevalent before British rule.
- (2) would weaken the argument by blaming tribal groups for climate change.
- (3) weakens the narrative by suggesting that deforestation was caused by imports, not local practices.
- (4) supports the narrative by showing the negative impact of colonial forestry practices.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions

Questions Asked in CAT exam

View More Questions