From the late eighteenth century western scientists had begun to explore the links between deforestation,
desiccation and drought. The rapid clearance of forests, due to agricultural colonization and industrial development, contributed
to accelerated soil erosion, decline in rainfall, scarcity of wood products and the steep rise in their prices. Foresters
led the scientific movement which was held together by a set of beliefs that was remarkably invariant across the continents
and across the different sectors (like forest, soil, water, wildlife and fisheries management) in which it was applied. Scientific
conservation was an ideology of doom and resurrection, predicting that agricultural and industrial expansion would destroy
the environment unless replaced forthwith by more rational and far-seeing forms of resource use. The apocalyptic and redemptive
ideology did not hark back to an imagined past but looked to reshape the present with the aid of reason and science. The profit
motive was incompatible with conservation because individuals and corporations were notoriously short-sighted. The state had
to assume the responsibility of managing resources such as forests and water.
A restriction was first imposed on the felling of teak less than 21 inches in girth on the basis of the report
of a Commission was set up in South India in 1800 to assess the availability of teak in the Malabar forests.
The Government declared the right to levy a royalty on teak and prohibit the unauthorized felling of teak
on the basis of the assessment of forest resources and proprietary rights in forests by the Forest Committee constituted in
The first Conservator of forests, Captain Watson, was appointed in 1806 to organize production of
teak and other timber for the navy. But the post was abolished in 1823.
The first teak plantation was established in 1842 in Nilambur by Conolly the Collector of Malabar.
Kumri, or shifting cultivation, blamed for accentuating deforestation, soil exhaustion and low agricultural
productivity was banned in Coorg (1848) and Belgaum (1856).
A ‘Charter of Indian Forests’ was issued by Lord Dalhousie in 1855 outlining the objectives
and principles of forest conservancy. It was based on the report of McLelland, then Superintendent of Forests, Burma.
The first regular conservator of forests was Leghorn, a medical officer, appointed in 1856 in the
The British then turned to and adopted the German model of scientific and systematized forestry. The
ascendancy of German forest science was a consequence of the quantitative methods developed there to estimate growing stock
and yield - from a simplistic area-based approach to a complex but more reliable yield-based system that assessed volume and
weight of trees of different ages, growth patterns, soil and moisture conditions and provided fairly accurate yield tables.
The model had previously been successfully adopted by France, Prussia and Bavaria also. The objective was to optimize the
foresters’ effort of assessing and harvesting the forests and annuitizing the yield of the forest so that a steady output
of timber is possible over the years without wasteful labour.
Dietrich Brandis, a German, was appointed as Inspector General of Forests to set up and administer
the Forest Department. He tried to initiate a system of conservation and management of Indian forests through reservation
of forests and progressive withdrawal of proprietary rights. He also initiated measures to set up trained forest officers
throughout India. He later authored the most important reference book for Indian foresters "Indian Forestry". Two more Germans,
Wilhelm Schlich and Bertold von Ribbentrop followed him. So the Indian Forest Department was guided by Germans for half a
The All-India based Forest Department was created in 1864 to ensure a steady supply of timber for
railway construction. The Forest Department came to own one-fifth of the land in the subcontinent and became one of the largest
forestry enterprises in the world.
The first countrywide legislative step towards the rule of property for forests in British India was
taken in 1865 by the institution of the Forest Act of 1865. Local state governments were empowered to draft their own
rules to enforce the Act. It provided for only a limited degree of state intrusion and control. The 1865 act was hurriedly
drafted and passed to establish the claims of the state over forests required for railway supplies, subject to the proviso
that existing rights would not be abridged.
Almost immediately there began a search for a more stringent and inclusive piece of legislation. State control
was considered but there was no unanimity of opinion among officials about the extent of state control that should be introduced
- Baden Powell led the group that recommended extensive government control; Thomas Munro was strident voice among those who
recommended minimal control ; other officials including Dietrich Brandis, the Inspector General of Forests preferred limited
state intervention to monopoly by state or a completely free market.
The Forest Act of 1878 was designed to remove defects and inadequacies of the Act of 1865. The Act
focussed on removing the ambiguity about the "absolute property right of the state" because villagers ahd become accustomed
to graze cattle and cut wood wherever they wished, even in states where the state retained absolute proprietorship. It provided
for the constitution of reserved and protected forests. It provided more extensive powers for officials. It did not yet apply
to Madras, Coorg, Burma, Bihar and Hissar (in Punjab). The Madras government resisted until the passage of a separate Forest
Act in 1882. Separate Acts were also passed in Burma (1881) and Berar (1882).
A more absolute nature of property (as a hierarchy of user rights) was applied than in the past : Grazing,
illegal tree-felling and cultivation, and forest fires were curbed to enhance reproduction of valuable species. In some areas
in Punjab even access was regulated. No rights could be acquired in reserved forests unless explicitly ceded by the Provincial
Government under the Act. In protected forests rights were recorded but not settled. (In permanently settled areas like Bengal
and Benares, the Zamindar owned the wastelands. In ryotwari areas like Madras the government owned all the wasteland).
A forest school was established at Dehra Dun in 1878.
A Provincial Forest Service was set up in 1891 to recruit and develop a cadre of forest officers.
But from the outset the Government of India appeared to have been mindful of the need to reconcile the requirements
of sound forest management with the traditional rights of the rural people and their changing needs. The British were fully
conscious of the seeds of future conflicts with tribals and villagers as a consequence of bringing forests under public administration.
The Government of India Resolution No.22F dated 19-10-1894 redefined and reiterated the central objectives
of forest policy.
The needs of scientific forestry were to be subordinated to the preservation of existing rights and customs
of tribals and the promotion of their well being.
Forests were classified into four categories: (i) forests whose preservation was essential on climatic or
physical grounds; (ii) forests which provided valuable timber for commercial purposes; (iii) minor forests; and (iv) pasture
Forests on hill slopes were considered to be in the first category because they were necessary to preserve
to prevent erosion on the hills and the consequent destruction of soils below.
Needs of local people were to be satisfied at concessional rates, if not free, from the second category of
forests of valuable commercial timber like teak, sal and deodar.
Minor forests of inferior timber were to be managed mainly in the interests of the local population preserving
the wood and grass from destruction. All considerations of revenue were to be secondary.
The principles enunciated for the grant of privileges to local people in minor forests would apply mutadis
mutandis to pasture lands because it was found that local people had acquired maximum usage rights in these.
Forest areas were to be relinquished if there was an effective demand for cultivation, provided (i) the cultivation
was permanent and not shifting, (ii) forests were not being honeycombed with patches of cultivated land, and (iii) cultivation
was not encroaching on the minimum forest requirements of the country.
Forest administration after 1894 continued to reduce the customary rights of the local people because (i)
forest regulations were extended over ever widening areas of forests (ii) there was a bias in favour of conservation and against
the interests of the local population, and (iii) compulsions were imposed by the five year plans for the maximization of revenue.
The Indian Forest Act of 1927 classified the forests in three categories: (i) Reserved Forests; (ii)
Protected Forests; and (iii) Village Forests.
Reserved forests consisted of compact and valuable areas well connected to towns for sustained exploitation.
Total state control was safeguarded by a permanent settlement, which extinguished, transferred or limited private rights.
The administration of reserved forests was contingent upon imperial interests like the railways and the two world wars.
Protected forests carried rights that were recorded but not settled. There were detailed provisions for the
reservation of particular tree species and for the closing of the forests to grazing and firewood collection when required.
Protected forests were gradually converted to reserved forests because of increased demand for wood. [1878 - 14000 square
miles of state forests; 1890 - 56000 sq mi of Reserved Forests (RF) & 20000 sq mi of Protected Forests (PF); 1900 - 81400
sq mi of RF & 3300 sq mi of PF].
The Village Forests option was not exercised by the government over mosts parts of India.
Forest Settlement Officers were appointed to adjudicate on rights and privileges claimed by people in reserved
The Government would pass final orders permitting or prohibiting shifting cultivation on the basis of inquiries
and recommendation of the Forest Settlement Officers.
There was a constant search for markets for the multiple species of India’s tropical forests because
the Forest Department had to generate an adequate revenue as per the cardinal principle of imperial policy that the administrative
machinery had to be self-sufficient