Mindyard | Instructions [3 - 6 ] The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question. In 1982, a raging controversy broke out over a forest act drafted by the Government of India. This act sought to strengthen the already extensive powers enjoyed by the forest bureaucracy in controlling the extraction, disposal and sale of forest produce. It also gave forest officials greater powers to strictly regulate the entry of any person into reserved forest areas. While forest officials justified the act on the grounds that it was necessary to stop the continuing deforestation, it was bitterly opposed by representatives of grassroots organisations, who argued that it was a major violation of the rights of peasants and tribals living in and around forest areas. . . . The debate over the draft forest act fuelled a larger controversy over the orientation of state forest policy. It was pointed out, for example, that the draft act was closely modelled on its predecessor, the Forest Act of 1878. The earlier Act rested on a usurpation of rights of ownership by the colonial state which had little precedent in precolonial history. It was further argued that the system of forestry introduced by the British—and continued, with little modification, after 1947 — emphasised revenue generation and commercial exploitation, while its policing orientation excluded villagers who had the most longstanding claim on forest resources. Critics called for a complete overhaul of forest administration, pressing the government to formulate policy and legislation more appropriate to present needs. . . . That debate is not over yet. The draft act was shelved, though it has not as yet been formally withdrawn. Meanwhile, the 1878 Act (as modified by an amendment in 1927) continues to be in operation. In response to its critics, the government has made some important changes in forest policy, e.g., no longer treating forests as a source of revenue, and stopping ecologically hazardous practices such as the clearfelling of natural forests. At the same time, it has shown little inclination to meet the major demand of the critics of forest policy—namely, abandoning the principle of state monopoly over forest land by handing over areas of degraded forests to individuals and communities for afforestation. . . . [The] 1878 Forest Act itself was passed only after a bitter and prolonged debate within the colonial bureaucracy, in which protagonists put forward arguments strikingly similar to those being advanced today. As is well known, the Indian Forest Department owes its origin to the requirements of railway companies. The early years of the expansion of the railway network, c. 1853 onwards, led to tremendous deforestation in peninsular India owing to the railway's requirements of fuelwood and construction timber. Huge quantities of durable timbers were also needed for use as sleepers across the newly laid tracks. Inexperienced in forestry, the British called in German experts to commence systematic forest management. The Indian Forest Department was started in 1864, with Dietrich Brandis, formerly a Lecturer at Bonn, as the first Inspector General of Forests. The new department needed legislative backing to function effectively, and in the following year, 1865, the first forest act was passed. . . . 4. All of the following, if true, would weaken the narrative presented in the passage EXCEPT that: certain tribal groups in India are responsible for climate change because their sustenance has historically depended on mass scale deforestation., before British rule, peasants and tribal groups were denied access to forest resources by Indian rulers and their administrations., the timber requirement for railway works in nineteenth century India was met through import from China, in exchange for spices., nineteenth century German forestry experts were infamous for violating the rights of indigenous communities that lived in forest regions.

Instructions [3 - 6 ]

The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question. In 1982, a raging controversy broke out over a forest act drafted by the Government of India. This act sought to strengthen the already extensive powers enjoyed by the forest bureaucracy in controlling the extraction, disposal and sale of forest produce. It also gave forest officials greater powers to strictly regulate the entry of any person into reserved forest areas. While forest officials justified the act on the grounds that it was necessary to stop the continuing deforestation, it was bitterly opposed by representatives of grassroots organisations, who argued that it was a major violation of the rights of peasants and tribals living in and around forest areas. . . .

The debate over the draft forest act fuelled a larger controversy over the orientation of state forest policy. It was pointed out, for example, that the draft act was closely modelled on its predecessor, the Forest Act of 1878. The earlier Act rested on a usurpation of rights of ownership by the colonial state which had little precedent in precolonial history. It was further argued that the system of forestry introduced by the British—and continued, with little modification, after 1947 — emphasised revenue generation and commercial exploitation, while its policing orientation excluded villagers who had the most longstanding claim on forest resources. Critics called for a complete overhaul of forest administration, pressing the government to formulate policy and legislation more appropriate to present needs. . . . That debate is not over yet. The draft act was shelved, though it has not as yet been formally withdrawn. Meanwhile, the 1878 Act (as modified by an amendment in 1927) continues to be in operation. In response to its critics, the government has made some important changes in forest policy, e.g., no longer treating forests as a source of revenue, and stopping ecologically hazardous practices such as the clearfelling of natural forests. At the same time, it has shown little inclination to meet the major demand of the critics of forest policy—namely, abandoning the principle of state monopoly over forest land by handing over areas of degraded forests to individuals and communities for afforestation. . . . [The] 1878 Forest Act itself was passed only after a bitter and prolonged debate within the colonial bureaucracy, in which protagonists put forward arguments strikingly similar to those being advanced today. As is well known, the Indian Forest Department owes its origin to the requirements of railway companies. The early years of the expansion of the railway network, c. 1853 onwards, led to tremendous deforestation in peninsular India owing to the railway's requirements of fuelwood and construction timber. Huge quantities of durable timbers were also needed for use as sleepers across the newly laid tracks. Inexperienced in forestry, the British called in German experts to commence systematic forest management. The Indian Forest Department was started in 1864, with Dietrich Brandis, formerly a Lecturer at Bonn, as the first Inspector General of Forests. The new department needed legislative backing to function effectively, and in the following year, 1865, the first forest act was passed. . . .

4. All of the following, if true, would weaken the narrative presented in the passage EXCEPT that:

Options

certain tribal groups in India are responsible for climate change because their sustenance has historically depended on mass scale deforestation.

before British rule, peasants and tribal groups were denied access to forest resources by Indian rulers and their administrations.

the timber requirement for railway works in nineteenth century India was met through import from China, in exchange for spices.

nineteenth century German forestry experts were infamous for violating the rights of indigenous communities that lived in forest regions.

Correct Answer :

Option D

nineteenth century German forestry experts were infamous for violating the rights of indigenous communities that lived in forest regions.

Solution :

The correct answer is: nineteenth century German forestry experts were infamous for violating the rights of indigenous communities that lived in forest regions.

To determine which option does NOT weaken the narrative presented in the passage, we need to first understand the author's main arguments. The passage argues that the forest acts (like the draft act of 1982 and its predecessor, the 1878 Act) were essentially tools for the state to monopolize forest resources. These acts emphasized commercial exploitation and revenue generation while wrongfully excluding peasants and tribal communities from lands they historically had rights to. The passage also notes that this system was initially set up by the British with the help of German forestry experts to serve colonial interests, such as railway expansion.

The question asks us to identify the statement that would not weaken this narrative. Let us evaluate the options:

If it were true that certain tribal groups in India are responsible for climate change because their sustenance has historically depended on mass scale deforestation, it would weaken the author's narrative. It would lend credibility to the forest officials' justification that state control is necessary to stop deforestation, rather than it just being an excuse to exploit resources and marginalize innocent communities.

If it were true that before British rule, peasants and tribal groups were denied access to forest resources by Indian rulers and their administrations, it would directly contradict the passage. The author explicitly claims that the colonial state's usurpation of ownership rights "had little precedent in precolonial history."

If it were true that the timber requirement for railway works in nineteenth century India was met through import from China, in exchange for spices, it would undermine another key historical claim in the passage. The text states that railway expansion "led to tremendous deforestation in peninsular India owing to the railway's requirements of fuelwood and construction timber."

However, if it were true that nineteenth century German forestry experts were infamous for violating the rights of indigenous communities that lived in forest regions, this would actually support and strengthen the author's narrative. The passage mentions that the British brought in German experts to establish the Indian Forest Department, which then pushed for legislation (the forest acts) that marginalized local villagers. If these experts were already known for violating indigenous rights, it perfectly aligns with the argument that the resulting forest management system was oppressive to the local peasants and tribals. Therefore, this statement does not weaken the narrative at all.

Get 3 Months FREE trial

Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.

Unlock Our Free Library

You may also like

Study Material

Clat 2019 UG Question Paper with Solution

Clat 2018 UG Question Paper with Solution

Mock Tests

Clat 2019 UG

Clat 2018 UG

Ask AI Tutor