(i) Adivasis in India from medieval period traded in elephants and other goods like hides, horns, silk cocoon, ivory, bamboo, spices, fibers, grasses, gums and resins through nomadic communities like Banjaras.
(ii) With the coming of the British trade was completely regulated by the government.
(iii) The British Government gave many large European trading firms the sole right to trade in forest products.
(iv) Grazing and hunting by local people were restricted. Many pastoralists and nomadic tribes lost their livelihoods. Some of the them-began to be called 'Criminal Tribes' and were forced to work in factories, mines and on plantations under government supervision.
(v) New opportunities of work did not mean improved well-being of the people. E.g., Santhals and Oraons from Jharkhand were recruited to work on tea plantations. Their wages were low, conditions of work were bad and they were often not allowed to return to their villages.

The Indian Forest Service was set up in 1864 to introduce proper system to manage forests and train people in the science of conservation.

Dietrich Brandis was a German expert invited by the British for advice. He was the first Inspector General of forests in India.
His achievement in India was setting up the Indian Forest Service in 1864.

Dietrich Brandis was the First Inspector General of Forests in India.
(i) Proper system had to be introduced to manage the forests and people had to be trained in the science of conservation. Legal sanctions were needed for forest management.
(ii) Rules about the use of forest resources had to be formed
(iii) Felling of trees and grazing had to be restricted so that forests could be preserved for timber production.
(iv) Anybody who cut trees without following the system was to be punished.
(v) He set up the Indian Forest Service in 1864 and helped formulate the Indian Forest Act of 1865. In 1906 the Imperial Forest Research Institute was set up in Dehradun.

Forests around the railway tracks started disappearing (after 1860's) because:
(i) From 1860's railway network expanded rapidly and by 1890 about km 25,500 km of track had been laid.
(ii) As tracks spread, a large number of trees were felled to meet the demand for sleepers needed to hold the tracks together (approximately 1760 to 2000 sleepers were needed per mile)
(iii) The government gave out contracts to individuals to supply the required quantities.
(iv) Individual contractors began cutting trees indiscriminately.
(v) Moreover decided to take up an area for logging one of the first things they did was build wide roads so that trucks could enter to carry logs of wood. This also was a factor in disappearing of forests near railway tracks.

Forests around the railway tracks started disappearing (after 1860's) because:
(i) From 1860's railway network expanded rapidly and by 1890 about km 25,500 km of track had been laid.
(ii) As tracks spread, a large number of trees were felled to meet the demand for sleepers needed to hold the tracks together (approximately 1760 to 2000 sleepers were needed per mile)
(iii) The government gave out contracts to individuals to supply the required quantities.
(iv) Individual contractors began cutting trees indiscriminately.
(v) Moreover decided to take up an area for logging one of the first things they did was build wide roads so that trucks could enter to carry logs of wood. This also was a factor in disappearing of forests near railway tracks.

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 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 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.

Forests are affected by Wars. Both the World War I and the World War II had a major impact on forests.
(i) The defending armies hide themselves and their war materials under the cover of the thick forests to avoid detection. Enemy forces target forest areas to capture the opposing soldiers and war materials.
(ii) To meet war needs forests are cut indiscriminately. In India, wars led to the reckless cutting of forests to meet British war needs.
(iii) Fearing the capture of forest areas by the enemy, sometimes the government themselves cut down forests, destroy saw mills and bum huge piles of logs. Such a policy was followed by the Dutch in Java. In Java, the Dutch followed a 'scorched earth policy' to prevent logs of wood from falling into the hands of the advancing Japanese.
(iv) At times the occupying forces recklessly cut down trees for their own ends. During the World War II, after Java fell into Japanese hands, the Japanese exploited the forests for their ends.
(v) The forests during war times became a no man's land and are subject to abundant plunder and destruction. During the World War, I and the World War II many people who were hitherto excluded from forest areas tended to reoccupy their land. Still others, many local people, took advantage of the war situation and usurped forest lands and expanded cultivation.

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.

Changes in forest management in the colonial period resulted in severe hardships for the villagers across the country.
(i) Shifting cultivators:
(a) Loss of livelihood: Many forest communities depended on shifting cultivation for their livelihood. The banning of shifting cultivation resulted in the displacement of many communities from their homes in the forests. Many were reduced to the level of starvation.
(b) New occupations: Of the displaced many changed their occupation. Some took to trading in forest products or became labourers.
(c) Large and small rebellion: When the government banned shifting cultivation, people revolted against the decision of the government, e.g. Birsa Munda of Chhotanagpur (Jharkhand), Sita Ram Raju of Andhra Pradesh.
Penetration of outsiders: It led to penetration of tribal areas by outsiders from the plains. Changes enforced alien concepts of private property. Local people were henceforth forced to pay taxes.
(ii) Nomadic and pastoralist communities:
Grazing in forests was restricted by the colonists.
(a) Reduction in grazing lands: The various laws which were formulated had an adverse impact on nomadic and pastoral communities. Through various forest acts, some forests were declared 'Reserved'. Still, others were classified 'Protected'. In these, some customary grazing rights of past oralists were granted, but their movement was severely restricted.
(b) Livelihood: In the process, many nomadic and pastoral communities like Korava, Karachi and Yerukala of Madras Presidency lost their means of livelihood. Some were forced to take up occupations like working in factories/ plantations or mines as labourers.
(c) Rebellion: Others took to rebellion and were labelled as criminal tribes.
(d) Taxes: Pastoralists had to pay tax on every animal they grazed on pastures.
(e) Poor quality of pastures: Restrictions were imposed on pastoral movement, whereby the available grazing lands came to be continuously used. This led to decline in quality of pastures available and in turn created a shortage of fodder and reduction in animal stock.
(iii) Firms trading in timber and forest products:
(a) The new forest policy of the British ruined the prospects of several firms trading in timber and forest produce as restrictions were imposed on local firms.
(b) Trade was regulated by the government. Trading rights were largely controlled by European traders. They were vested with the sole right to trade in forest products and timber. These firms cleared large natural forests which had a
variety of trees and replaced them by one type of trees-sal or teak to meet the growing demand of Europeans as they were suitable for building ships and railway sleepers.
(c) The indiscriminate plunder of forest resources by European Traders led to deforestation and ecological disbalance.
(d) The Adivasi communities like Banjaras who were for generations in this occupation were displaced, reduced to starvation, or forced to work as labourers. Many joined the ranks of rebels.
(iv) Plantation owners:
(a) Changes in forest management favoured the plantation owners. Most of the plantation estates were owned by Europeans.
(b) They were given a free hand to destroy natural forests to make way for tea, coffee and rubber plantations to meet Europe's growing need for these commodities.
(c) Plantation owners contributed largely to deforestation in India.
(d) Their activities led to penetration of tribal areas by outsiders. They developed the alien concept of private property in forest society.
(e) The Indian traders and plantation workers were left at the mercy of the European plantation owners.
(v) Kings/British officials engaged in Shikar:
(a) Though the forest laws deprived the forest-dwellers the right to hunt, the Kings and British officials continued to engage in the big game.
(b) Hunting of wild animals was seen as a sport by the Indian rulers and a form of the civilising mission by the British officials.
(c) The British government encouraged the killing of animals. Big animals like tigers, wolves, leopards were seen as a threat to cultivation. Rewards were given for killing these large animals.
(d) The scale of hunting increased to such an extent that various species came near to becoming extinct.
(e) Later environmentalists and conservators realised many species needed to be protected not killed.

Disappearance of forests is referred to as deforestation.

The expansion of cultivation can be in one sense regarded as a sign of progress.
(i) Expansion helps increase food production
(ii) Increased food production not only helps feed population better but also to meet the demand of increasing population
(iii) Increased food production enables urbanization, whereby larger sections of a population can engage, is the service and tertiary sector leading to development.
(iv) However, expansion of cultivation at the expense of clearing of forests leading to deforestation is not a sign of progress.
(v) Deforestation leads to ecological disbalance, a feature which we in today's worlds are experiencing every day in our lives the world over.

Railways were important for the colonial government
(i) Trade: For movement of raw material from interiors of India to ports for export and for movement of English manufactured goods imported in India.
(ii) Troops: The British were a colonial power in India. Railways were vital for fast an easy transport of imperial troops and materials