1. Discuss how the changes in forest management in the colonial period affected the following groups of people:

i. Shifting cultivators

ii. Nomadic and pastoralist communities

iii. Firms trading in timber/forest produce

iv. Plantation owners

v. Kings/British officials engaged in shikar (hunting)

Explanation

i. European colonists believed shifting cultivation to be detrimental to the continued survival of forests. Additionally, it impeded the practise of industrial timber forestry. There was always a possibility that wildfires would get out of hand and destroy all the valuable wood. The colonial government forbade shifting cultivation as a result, taking these things into consideration. A lot of these cultivators suffered financial setbacks as a result, and the majority were also forced to leave their homes in the wilderness.

ii. Communities of nomads and pastoralists: Communities of nomads and pastoralists from the region of Madras such as the Korava, Karacha, and Yerukula lost their means of subsistence. They were made to labour in factories, mines, and farms under government control after being labelled as "criminal tribes" by the British government.

iii. Companies that trade in wood and forestry products: The British granted European lumber trading company’s exclusive rights to trade in wood and forest products in specific regions. Laws prohibited area residents from hunting and grazing.

iv. Plantation owners: To meet the need for these products in Europe, large tracts of virgin ecosystems were cleared to create room for tea, coffee, and rubber farms. Land was provided at a low cost to plantation proprietors, who were predominately of European descent. They were contained, free of any vegetation, and served in tea or coffee.

v. Hunting by kings or British authorities was prohibited by the forest laws, which also eliminated the livelihood options for forest dwellers. The forest dwellers engaged in hunting as a means of subsistence prior to the adoption of these rules. They were prohibited from shooting after they were put into effect. Instead, hunting developed into a sport where the two monarchs and British officials hunted large wildlife in great numbers, pushing some species almost to extinction.


2. What are the similarities between colonial management of the forests in Bastar and in Java?

Explanation:

While the Dutch managed the forests in Java, the British were in charge of managing the forests in Bastar, India.

i. The Dutch needed wood to build railroad sleepers, exactly as the British did.

ii.  The colonial authorities of both the Dutch and British countries passed their own versions of the forest laws, which granted them complete authority over the forests and eliminated the forest dwellers' traditional rights.

iii. On the basis that they posed a threat to the survival of forests, shifting cultivation was outlawed by both the Netherlands and the British.

iv. Bastar's villagers were given permission to live in the woods as long as they gave the forest service unpaid labour. When the communities in Java gave the forest department free labour, the Dutch exempted them from paying taxes.

3. Between 1880 and 1920 forests cover in the Indian subcontinent declined by 9.7 million hectares, from 108.6 million hectares to 98.9 million hectares. Discuss the role of the following factors in this decline:

i. Railways

ii. Shipbuilding

iii. Agricultural expansion

iv. Commercial farming

v. Tea/Coffee plantations

vi. Adivasi’s and other peasants users

Explanation:

i. Railways: Railways were a valuable resource that were crucial to sustaining trade through the movement of goods as well as the colonial hegemony through the movement of troops. The sleepers for the railroad tracks required to be laid with wood. The sleepers kept the rails from disintegrating. From 1760 and 2000 beds were needed for every kilometre of railroad track. Large areas of forest were thus cleared in order to provide the necessary materials for the railroads.

ii. Shipbuilding: Ships in the early nineteenth century were constructed of wood before the industrial revolution. With its enormous number of naval fleets, the Royal Navy helped Britain keep its colonial possessions. But huge swaths of England's oak woodlands were cleared in order to preserve them.

The Royal Navy faced a logistical challenge as a result because maintaining and building new ships needed a steady supply of timber. By clearing its colonies' woods, it was quickly fixed. As a consequence, vast tracts of forests vanished, with some areas experiencing almost total deforestation.

iii. Agricultural Expansion: The need for food increased along with the populace. In order to create room for new agricultural tracts, forests were cleared. The colonial officials thought clearing the forests would increase food production. Additionally, woods were already regarded as being unproductive, so there was little reluctance to clear-cut them in large quantities. Between 1880 and 1920, agricultural acreage increased by 6.7 million hectares. It is fair to say that agricultural expansions were the primary cause of deforestation.

iv. Forests have a variety of both vegetation and fauna. Because commercial farming only employs one particular type of tree, based on the kind of plantation, numerous kinds of plants disappeared in the process as they were cut down to make room for it.

v. Large tracts of forest land were sold by colonial officials to primarily European plantation companies in order to satisfy the increasing need for tea and coffee. After that, these companies cleared the forest to create room for coffee and tea plantations. Many hectares of vegetation were lost as a consequence.

vi. Indians and Other Peasant Communities: Other peasant groups as well as Adivasi’s engaged in shifting agriculture. It entailed clearing out a portion of the forest and setting the tree roots on fire. The burnt patch was then seeded, and after the monsoon months, the seeds were collected. The same procedure was carried out in another place when fertility in that region started to decline. As a result, there were fewer possibilities of forests growing back due to a loss in soil fertility, along with some forest tracts being lost.

4. Why are forests affected by wars?

Explanation:

Wars have an impact on forests because they are important strategic tools. Buildings, security positions and army camps on the battlefield are all made of wood because it is simple to keep them and to take them down if it becomes necessary to move them. The scorched earth strategy is also implemented if it appears that enemy forces will seize control of the forests. 

Regarding resource and region denial, this is done. When Japanese forces invaded the Dutch territory in the nation of Indonesia during the Second World War, this was the situation. Huge tracts of woodland were burned by the Dutch to keep the Japanese from capturing them. But once they did, the Japanese immediately began carelessly exploiting the wood forests to meet their own wartime needs. The surrounding ecology would suffer greatly from this practise for many years to come.