What would be the consequences, if a tribe living in a forest move to a city?
Answers
Answer:
Forest Policy and Tribal Development
In 1974-1975, about 22 percent of India's total geographical area was covered by forests. This forest region, interspersed all over the country, consists of evergreen forests, deciduous forests, dry forests, alpine forests, riparian forests and tidal forests. Some of these forests are conspicuous for their dense growth. Besides the commercially valuable sal, teak, ironwood, sandalwood and shisam, these forests are rich in the growth of climbers (epiphyte) and various kinds of minor forest produce. While the forest-based industries have relief on the commercially valuable wood, the forest dwellers, a majority of whom are Scheduled Tribes, have depended on the minor forest produce for their subsistence.
According to the 1971 Census Report, a majority of the tribals lived in the countryside and relied mainly on agriculture. From an economic point of view, the tribes could be classified as semi-nomadic, the jhum cultivators and the settled cultivators, living completely on forest produce. Forests are the main source of subsistence for them. They collect their food from them; use the timber or bamboo to construct their houses; collect firewood for cooking and in winter to keep warm; use grass for fodder, brooms and mats; collect leaves for leaf plates; and use harre behra for dyeing and tanning. The forest regions are also inhabited by non-tribals, who depend on forests for fuel, fodder and so on.
This article will try to assess the nature and extent of forest dwellers' dependence on forests. To what extent does the forest policy implemented by different states and Union territories ensure that the basic needs of forest dwellers are met? How does the forest policy seek to improve the socioeconomic conditions of the forest dwellers?
Forest Policy
Before 1865, forest dwellers were completely free to exploit the forest wealth. Then, on 3 August 1865, the British rulers, on the basis of the report of the then-superintendent of forests in Burma, issued a memorandum providing guidelines restricting the rights of forest dwellers to conserve the forests. This was further modified in 1894. It stated that
The sole object with which State forests are administered is the public benefit. In some cases the public to be benefited is the whole body of tax payers; in others the people on the track within which the forest is situated; but in almost all cases the constitution and preservation of a forest involve, in greater or lesser degree, the regulation of rights and restriction of privileges of users in the forest areas which may have previously been enjoyed by the inhabitants of its immediate neighborhood. This regulation and restrictions are justified only when the advantage to be gained by the public is great and the cardinal principle to be observed is that the rights and privileges of individuals must be limited otherwise than for their own benefit, only in such degree as is absolutely necessary to secure that advantage.
In actual practice, however, all these pious declarations were set aside whenever they came in the way of British interests. For example, forests in Nagaland and the Terai were unscrupulously cut to meet the increasing demand of wood during both world wars. The National Forest Policy of the Government of India (1952) is an extension of this policy. This policy prescribed that the claims of communities near forests should not override the national interests, that in no event can the forest dwellers use the forest wealth at the cost of wider national interests, and that relinquishment of forest land for agriculture should be permitted only in very exceptional and essential cases. The old policy of relinquishing even valuable forests for permanent cultivation was discontinued and steps to use forest land for agricultural purposes were to be taken only after very serious consideration. To ensure the balanced use of land, a detailed land capability survey was suggested. Conservation of wildlife was to be regularized. The tribals were to be weaned away from shifting cultivation.
The concept of "national interest" has been applied in a narrow sense. A welfare state cannot have a basic contradiction between local and national interests. As the analysis that follows will show, in the implementation of the forest policy, "national interests" remained confined to augmenting revenue earnings from the forests. Whenever the interests of the local people or ecological considerations hampered possible revenue from forests, the forest department pushed them aside on the pretext of broader national interest.
Explanation:
HOPE IT HELPS U
PLZ MARK ME BRAINLY
its is and super answer but it can't use for me