Forest Society and Colonialism
Q56. What were the consequences of the Bastar Rebellion?
Ans. Consequences of the Bastar Rebellion were:
- Bazaars were looted, the houses of officials and traders, schools and police stations were burnt and robbed, and grain redistributed.
- Most of those who were attacked were in some way associated with the colonial state and its oppressive laws.
- Work on reservation was temporarily suspended, and the area to be reserved was reduced to roughly half of that planned before 1910.
Q57. Who was Dietrich Brandis?
What was his contribution to forest management of India?
Who was Dietrich Brandis? Explain his achievement in India.
Ans. Dietrich Brandis was a German expert who was invited to give advice on the matters of forest management. He was made the first Inspector General of Forests in India.
- Brandis set up the Indian Forest Service in 1864 and helped formulate the Indian Forest Act of 1865.
- The Imperial Forest Research Institute was set up at Dehradun in 1906. The system they taught here was called scientific forestry.
Q58. How did Samin challenge the Dutch?
Ans. Around 1890, Surontiko Samin of Randublatung village, a teak forest village, began questioning state ownership of the forest. He argued that the state had not created the wind, water, earth and wood, so it could not own it. Soon a widespread movement developed. Amongst those who helped organise it were Samin’s sons-in-law. By 1907, 3,000 families were following his ideas. Some of the Saminists protested by lying down on their land when the Dutch came to survey it, while others refused to pay taxes or fines or perform labour.
Q59. What was the impact of regulation of trade in forest products by the British government in India?
In what ways did the British regulate forest trade?
Ans. The British government gave many large European trading firms the sole right to trade in the forest products of particular areas. Grazing and hunting by local people were restricted. In the process, many pastoralist and nomadic communities like the Korava, Karacha and Yerukula of the Madras
Presidency lost their livelihoods. Some of them began to be called criminal tribes, and were forced to work instead in factories, mines and plantations, under government supervision.
Q60. Explain the provision of forest act passed by Dutch.
Mention the provision of forest act passed by Dutch.
What were the provisions of the Forest Act passed by the Dutch?
Ans. The provision of forest act passed by Dutch were as follows:
- It restricted villagers’ access to forests.
- Wood could only be cut for specified purposes like making river boats or constructing houses, and only from specific forests under close supervision.
- Villagers were punished for grazing cattle in young stands, transporting wood without a permit, or travelling on forest roads with horse carts or cattle.
Q61. Why did the government ban shifting cultivation? What was the result?
Why did European decided to ban shifting cultivation?
Why did the colonial government decide to ban shifting cultivation?
Ans. European foresters regarded this practice as harmful for the forests. They felt that land which was used for cultivation every few years could not grow trees for railway timber. When a forest was burnt, there was the added danger of the flames spreading and burning valuable timber. Shifting cultivation also made it harder for the government to calculate taxes. Therefore, the government decided to ban shifting cultivation.
As a result, many communities were forcibly displaced from their homes in the forests. Some had to change occupations, while some resisted through large and small rebellions.
Q62. What was the practice of shifting cultivation? Why did European foresters want to unfollow it?
What is shifting cultivation? Why did European foresters regard this practice as harmful for forests?
Ans. In shifting cultivation, parts of the forest are cut and burnt in rotation. Seeds are sown in the ashes after the first monsoon rains, and the crop is harvested by October-November. Such plots are cultivated for a couple of years and then left fallow for 12 to 18 years for the forest to grow back.
European foresters regarded this practice as harmful for the forests. They felt that land which was used for cultivation every few years could not grow trees for railway timber. When a forest was burnt, there was the added danger of the flames spreading and burning valuable timber. Shifting cultivation also made it harder for the government to calculate taxes.