what are the similarities between colonial management of the forests in Bastar and in Java
Answers
Answered by
5
Bastar and in Java?
The colonial managers of Bastar were the British, while those of Java were the Dutch.
There were however many similarities between both the colonial powers in forest management of the respective areas. In both cases forests came to be owned by the state.
They restricted villagers from practising shifting cultivation and their access to forests. They enacted laws to allow themselves to exploit forest trees for timber, to build ships and railways to protect and further their imperial interests.
Both were exploitative by nature, they displaced the local communities from their traditional means of livelihood, and exploited them to further their interests. Defaulters of forest laws were harassed, punished and fined.
The colonial managers of Bastar were the British, while those of Java were the Dutch.
There were however many similarities between both the colonial powers in forest management of the respective areas. In both cases forests came to be owned by the state.
They restricted villagers from practising shifting cultivation and their access to forests. They enacted laws to allow themselves to exploit forest trees for timber, to build ships and railways to protect and further their imperial interests.
Both were exploitative by nature, they displaced the local communities from their traditional means of livelihood, and exploited them to further their interests. Defaulters of forest laws were harassed, punished and fined.
vivek401:
welcome
Answered by
18
The colonial managers of Bastar were the British, while those of Java were the Dutch.
There were however many similarities between both the colonial powers in forest management of the respective areas. In booth cases forests came to be owned by the state.
They restricted villagers from practising shifting cultivation and their access to forests. They enacted laws to allow themselves to exploit forest trees for timber, to build ships and railways to protect and further their imperial interests.
Both were exploitative by nature, they displaced the local communities from their traditional means of livelihood, and exploited them to further their interests. Defaulters of forest laws were harassed, punished and fined.
Policies of management in both cases resulted in enforcement of alien concepts of private property, taxes and penetration of forest societies by outsiders. The atrocities of the managers led to increasing frustration among the forest communities, which found an outlet in rebellions. These rebellions though crushed with a heavy hand were not without results.
There were however many similarities between both the colonial powers in forest management of the respective areas. In booth cases forests came to be owned by the state.
They restricted villagers from practising shifting cultivation and their access to forests. They enacted laws to allow themselves to exploit forest trees for timber, to build ships and railways to protect and further their imperial interests.
Both were exploitative by nature, they displaced the local communities from their traditional means of livelihood, and exploited them to further their interests. Defaulters of forest laws were harassed, punished and fined.
Policies of management in both cases resulted in enforcement of alien concepts of private property, taxes and penetration of forest societies by outsiders. The atrocities of the managers led to increasing frustration among the forest communities, which found an outlet in rebellions. These rebellions though crushed with a heavy hand were not without results.
Similar questions