write a short note on the forest ownership on colonial rule
Answers
n the case of Forest Management, the history of deconcentration parallels the deconcentration noticed in the case of general administration but with some significant variation. For example, in India, around 1927, the forest management, so long a central matter, was transferred as a part of the revenue department to become a provincial subject. Soon the forest section became independent of the revenue department. The forest organization since then consisted of a Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF) located at the provincial headquarters, his deputies called Conservators of Forests, at regional levels. The next layer of Divisional Forest Officers usually at the district headquarters and his deputies Forest Rangers at the block levels. The set-up is almost similar to the general administration but with some basic differences. The most important variation is that deconcentration in forestry never went down to the village cluster level as it did in general administration and in legislative wings. Sometimes, a forest guard was entrusted with an independent responsibility of a small forest block but the forest guard was simply a watch and ward man and had no proper authority in any other forest duties. The most important variation however was that the forest department had always taken the stand of doing away with the private or communal ownership of land containing the forest in contrast to general administration which has championed the cause of private agriculture. In other words, in spite of an apparent deconcentration, the forest management continued to be a centralized system, which was mainly the result of state coercion. The local revolts were not powerful enough to confront or force a change of the policy of coercion.
The logic presented behind this centralization in forestry have been many. First, it was believed that the forest is a national resource which should therefore be utilized for the nation/state. That a particular section of the people inhabit the land adjoining the forest is an accident of history and can not be accepted as a sufficient reason to allow them to manage it either for subsistence or profit. The analogy presented is that of mining. Coal, gold, petroleum etc. belongs to the state which exploits it, no matter where they are found. Forests can not be an exception. Secondly, forests have effects that transcends the local environs. The local people will manage a resource keeping in mind its own local interests which may have disastrous effects on the outside areas. For example, the local interests may like to use it for fuelwood production while the particular forest may be a storehouse of biodiversity. Similarly, the people may use a forest area for grazing when it may be required to be protected from all uses being a catchment of a dam reservoir. Thirdly, the colonials and later the national government wanted the forest areas to be a source of revenue. For example, teak was extensively exploited by the British colonial government for ship construction, sal and pine in India for railway sleepers and so on. The revenue earned by the Indonesian government annually is second to the money earned by the country from petroleum, which is the largest money earner. In parts of India, the forest contracts, such as that of biri pata (leaves of Diospyros melanoxylon), earns so much revenue that it is often used by the people involved in this business as a leverage for political power. Fourthly, some forests were earmarked by the government or the rulers with the sole purpose of using them for hunting and rest for the royalty and the colonial officials. Fifthly, the control of such large forest areas provided political power to the centre. And last but not the least, the government thought wrongly, an idea still held by many, that the local people are ignorant of forests, their indigenous forest management unsustainable and unscientific. Thus the forest management should continue to pursue a policy of centralization. Only in the recent past, a number of initiatives in several countries have been taken more as an adjunct to the main policy of centralization. These initiatives however are certainly significant departures from centralization worth separate discussion.
hope it helps you
mark me as brainliest