The Dutch laws on forests :
(i) Restricted villager's access to forests.
(ii) Now wood could only be cut for specified purposes like making river boats or constructing houses from only specific forests under supervision.
(iii) Villagers were punished for grazing cattle in young stands or for transporting wood without a permit or travelling on forest roads with cattle or horse carts.
(iv) The dutch first imposed rents on land being cultivated in the forest
(v) Later they exampted some villages from these rents if they worked collectivity to provide free labour and buffaloes for cutting and transporting timber.

(i) Respect for non-violence and civil disobedience.
(ii) Peaceful living
(iii) Rightists
(iv) Love and respect for nature
(v) Dignity of labour
(vi) Fight for justice and against exploitation.

People in forests used bamboo to make fences and also for making baskets and umbrellas.

(i) Forest Act was enacted in 1865.
(ii) It was amended twice, once in 1878 and then in 1927.
(iii) The Act of 1878 divided forests into (a) Reserved, (b) Protected and (c) Village forests.

The system taught at the Imperial Research Institute of Dehradun was called 'Scientific forestry'. Many people now including ecologists feel that this system is not scientific at all.

The causes of deforestation in India during colonial rule were:
(i) Increase in population, leading to growth in demand for food. This led to the extension of land under cultivation at the expense of forests.
(b) The colonial government thought that forests were unproductive because they brought in no revenue. They encouraged the clearing of forests for cultivation to increase their revenue.
(ii) The British encouraged the production of commercial crops like jute, sugar, coffee. The demand for these crops increased in the 19th century. Peasants cleared forests to increase cultivation and their profits.
(iii) Demand for timber increased due to the expansion of railways. Forest wood was needed to make sleepers hold the tracks together and as fuel for locomotives.
(iv) By the early 19th century, oak forests in England were disappearing. This created a problem of timber supply for building ships for the Royal Navy. Teak and sal forests were mercilessly cut in India to meet the demands of the Royal Navy.
(v) Large areas of forests were also cleared to make way for plantation crops. E.g., rubber.

The colonial managers of Bastar were the British, while those of Java were the Dutch.
Similarities
(a) In both cases, forests came to be owned by the state.
(b) They restricted villagers from practicing shifting cultivation.
(c) They enacted laws to allow themselves to exploit forest trees for timber, to build ships and railways, to protect and further their imperial interests.
(d) Both enacted forest laws to restrict villager's access to forests, grazing, etc.
(e) 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.
(g) Both introduced exploitative policies to get the support of the locals. The British introduced 'Forest villages'. Under this, some villages were allowed to stay on in the reserved forests on the condition that they would work free for the forest department and would help in cutting and transporting trees and protecting the forests from fire.
(g)In Java, the Dutch introduced the Blandongdiensten system. Under this, the villages were exempted from rent if they would work collectively to provide free labour and animals for cutting and transporting timber.
(h) Policies of management in both cases resulted in the enforcement of alien concepts of private property, taxes and penetration of forest societies by outsiders.
(i) 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.

we can conserve forests by:
(i) Conserving forests rather than cutting them down for timber. Need rather than greed should be our guiding principle.
(ii) Instead of ousting forest people we should involve people who live near forests.
Example: In India e.g. Mizoram, Kerala many dense forests have survived only because villagers protected them as sacred grooves.
Examples: Some villagers have been patrolling their own forests, with each household taking instead of leaving it to forest guards.
(iii) By using alternate materials to meet our needs for wood e.g. mouldable plastic to make furniture, doors and tables.