Each mile of railway track required between 1,760 and 2,000 sleepers. If one average sized tree yields 3 to 5 sleepers for a 3 metre wide broad gauge track, calculate approximately how many trees would have to be cut to lay one mile of track.
Answer
Given: Each mile of railway track requires between 1,760 and 2,000 sleepers.
One average-sized tree yields 3 to 5 sleepers for a 3-meter-wide broad gauge track.
To find the number of trees needed, we’ll consider both the minimum and maximum values:
Minimum Estimate:
If each mile requires 1,760 sleepers, and each tree yields 3 sleepers:
Number of trees needed = $\dfrac{1760}{3}$
Number of trees needed = 586.67 (approximately 587 trees)
Maximum Estimate:
If each mile requires 2,000 sleepers, and each tree yields 5 sleepers:
Number of trees needed = $\dfrac{2000}{5}$
Number of trees needed = 400 trees
Therefore, approximately 400 to 587 trees would need to be cut to lay one mile of track.
If you were the Government of India in 1862 and responsible for supplying the railways with sleepers and fuel on such a large scale, what were the steps you would have taken?
Answer
If I were in the government of India in 1962 and responsible for supplying the railways with sleepers and fuel on such a large scale, I would have taken the following steps:
- Balance economic development with environmental conservation by implementing reforestation programs to replenish timber resources. Planting more trees of similar species replacing the felled trees in order to maintain the forests and ecological balance.
- Develop waste-lands into forests.
- Find and encourage alternate sources like coal for steam engines and domestic use.
- Stop reckless cutting of trees by allowing a fixed maximum number of trees that can be fell monthly.
Children living around forest areas can often identify hundreds of species of trees and plants. How many species of trees can you name?
Answer
I can name a few common trees like Neem, Mango, Banyan, Peepal, Tamarind, Bamboo, Guava, Apple, Fig, Eucalyptus, Ashoka, Litchi, Sapota etc.
Have there been changes in forest areas where you live? Find out what these changes are and why they have happened.
Answer
I have seen a number of changes in forest areas around my locality. Some of them are as follows:
- Forest area has gradually decreased. Outer areas have been cleared for residential purpose.
- The tribes living inside the forest areas are gradually leaving their conventional occupation and shifting to the city area for education and jobs.
- Forest guards have been appointed by the Forest Department to check the illegal felling of trees.
- Forests now have lesser trees and lesser animals.
- The hunting of wild animals has been prohibited.
Write a dialogue between a colonial forester and an adivasi discussing the issue of hunting in the forest.
Answer
Colonial Forester : Good morning, my friend. I see you’ve been hunting in the forest again.
Adivasi : Good morning, sahib. Yes, I was out gathering food for my family.
Colonial Forester: I understand, but you must realize that the forest is not an endless resource. Our British overlords demand more and more timber for their ships and railways. If we continue hunting without restraint, the wildlife will disappear, and our way of life will suffer.
Adivasi: Sahib, we have lived here for generations. The forest provides for us, and we take only what we need. It’s not like those British officials who shoot animals for sport.
Colonial Forester: True, but we need to strike a balance. If we don’t regulate hunting, the forest ecosystem will collapse.
Adivasi: Sahib, I’ve seen the forest change. The big trees are disappearing, and the animals are scared. But it’s not us adivasis who are causing this. It’s the sahibs who cut down the trees for their factories and plantations.
Colonial Forester: You’re right. The British administration exploits the forest ruthlessly. But we must work together. Perhaps we can establish protected areas where hunting is restricted, allowing wildlife to recover. We can also promote sustainable practices like beekeeping and non-timber forest products.
Adivasi: You are right.
Discuss how the changes in forest management in the colonial period affected the following groups of people:
- Shifting cultivators
- Nomadic and pastoralist communities
- Firms trading in timber/forest produce
- Plantation owners
- Kings/British officials engaged in shikar (hunting)
Answer
Shifting cultivators — European foresters regarded this practice of shifting cultivation 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.
Nomadic and pastoralist communities — 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.
Firms trading in timber/forest produce — The British government gave many large European trading firms the sole right to trade in the forest products of particular areas. This practice significantly impacted various aspects of forest management and local communities. Some firms adapted by collaborating with colonial authorities, while others faced economic challenges due to increased bureaucracy, restrictions and heavy taxes.
Plantation owners — Plantation owners, especially those cultivating tea, coffee, rubber, and other cash crops, relied on forest land. The British encouraged large-scale plantations, often replacing natural forests. The colonial government took over the forests, and gave vast areas to European planters at cheap rates. These areas were enclosed and cleared of forests, and planted with tea or coffee. Plantation owners prospered economically, but at the expense of forest ecosystems and indigenous communities.
Kings/British officials engaged in shikar (hunting) — While the forest laws deprived people of their customary rights to hunt, hunting of big animals became a sport. In India, hunting of tigers and other animals had been part of the culture of the court and nobility for centuries. Many Mughal paintings show princes and emperors enjoying a hunt. But under colonial rule the scale of hunting increased to such an extent that various species became almost extinct. The British saw large animals as signs of a wild, primitive and savage society. They believed that by killing dangerous animals the British would civilise India.
What are the similarities between colonial management of the forests in Bastar and in Java?
Answer
Following were the similarities between colonial management of the forests in Bastar and in Java:
- Both Bastar and Java were under European colonial rule during the relevant historical period. Bastar was administered by the British, while Java was a Dutch colony.
- Forest laws were enacted in both regions to regulate forest resources. These laws aimed to control access, utilization, and exploitation of forests.
- Villagers were debarred from freely collecting forest produce, hunting, and practicing shifting cultivation.
- In Bastar, forest villages were kept to help cut the trees. In Java, Kalangs were approached to cut trees.
- In Bastar, the people of the Dhurwas of the Kanger forest, took the initiative and rebelled against the British power along with the help of other tribes. In Java, when the Dutch began to gain control over the forests in the eighteenth century, they tried to make the Kalangs work under them. In 1770, the Kalangs resisted by attacking a Dutch fort at Joana, but the uprising was suppressed.
Between 1880 and 1920, forest 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:
- Railways
- Shipbuilding
- Agricultural expansion
- Commercial farming
- Tea/Coffee plantations
- Adivasis and other peasant users
Answer
Railways — Railway required wood for sleepers and also for fuel. From the 1860s, the railway network expanded rapidly. By 1890, about 25,500 km of track had been laid. In 1946, the length of the tracks had increased to over 765,000 km. As the railway tracks spread through India, a larger and larger number of trees were felled. As early as the 1850s, in the Madras Presidency alone, 35,000 trees were being cut annually for sleepers. Forests around the railway tracks fast started disappearing.
Shipbuilding — Shipbuilding was crucial for colonial trade and the British military. As oak forests in England depleted, teams were sent to India to explore timber resources. A huge quantity of timber was exported from India for shipbuilding needs of British navy.
Agricultural expansion — The growing European population increased the demand for food. Peasants extended cultivation boundaries by clearing forests. Forests were cleared to make way for agricultural expansion. Forests were also cleared for the purpose of cash crops like tea, coffee, cotton and production of timber.
Commercial farming — Older forests with diverse tree species were no longer considered useful. These forests were cut down and replaced with “managed” forests for specific trade purposes. Commercial farming practices involved large-scale clearing of land.
Tea/Coffee plantations — The colonial government gave vast forest areas to European planters at cheap rates. These areas were cleared of forests and planted with tea and coffee. Large-scale tea and coffee plantations led to further loss of forests.
Adivasis and other peasant users — As Adivasis lived in forests, they utilised it and maintained it as well. They didn't over exploited the forests. But after their displacement, the forests went into hands of greedy firms who over exploited it and led to their decline.
Why are forests affected by wars?
Answer
The First World War and the Second World War had a major impact on forests. In India, working plans were abandoned at this time, and the forest department cut trees freely to meet British war needs. The British needed to strengthen their Navy, and timber was essential for building warships and other naval vessels. In Java, just before the Japanese occupied the region, the Dutch followed ‘a scorched earth’ policy, destroying sawmills, and burning huge piles of giant teak logs so that they would not fall into Japanese hands. The Japanese then exploited the forests recklessly for their own war industries, forcing forest villagers to cut down forests. Many villagers used this opportunity to expand cultivation in the forest. Therefore, the exigencies of war led to increased timber extraction and deforestation in India during wars. The need for resources to support military efforts had a lasting impact on the Indian subcontinent’s forests.