Skip to main contentSkip to solution

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 The draft act was shelved, though it has not as yet been formally withdrawn.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 is 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 newly laid 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, formerly a Lecturer at Bonn, as the first Inspector General of Forests. The new department needed legislative backing to function effectively, and in the following year, 1865, the first forest act was passed. . . .

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

Solution

✅ Correct Option: 2

The correct answer is option 2. This is a NOT question, so the correct answer is the option that does NOT apply to both acts. The passage never states that either the 1878 Act or the 1982 draft act resulted in large-scale deforestation. Deforestation is described as a problem that preceded and motivated these legislative efforts — paragraph 4 attributes it to railway expansion beginning around 1853, and paragraph 1 notes that forest officials justified the 1982 draft as necessary "to stop the continuing deforestation." Causing deforestation is therefore not a feature common to the two acts.

Option 1 is wrong as a choice for NOT (it matches both acts). Paragraph 1 describes the "raging controversy" over the 1982 draft, and paragraph 4 states the 1878 Act "was passed only after a bitter and prolonged debate within the colonial bureaucracy." Both acts clearly sparked controversy among stakeholders.

Option 3 is wrong as a choice for NOT (it matches both acts). Paragraph 3 explicitly notes that critics demanded "abandoning the principle of state monopoly over forest land," a principle embedded in both the 1878 Act and the 1982 draft, which sought to strengthen the forest bureaucracy's already extensive powers.

Option 4 is wrong as a choice for NOT (it matches both acts). Paragraph 2 states that the 1982 draft "was closely modelled on its predecessor, the Forest Act of 1878," which itself rested on colonial-era usurpation of ownership rights. Both acts therefore reflect a colonial mindset.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question