CAT 2025 Slot 3 VARC Question 23

Multiple choice (+3 / −1) · Reading Comprehension · History · Try it, then check the answer and solution below.

CAT 2025 Slot 3VARCReading Comprehension • HistoryModerate
Reading Comprehension Passage•~510 words
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 The draft act was shelved, though it has not as yet been formally withdrawn.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. . . .
All of the following, if true, would weaken the narrative presented in the passage EXCEPT that:
Answer and solution

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

Step-by-Step Explanation and Answer:
1. Passage Context & Central Idea: The passage discusses the Forest Act of 1878 and its impact on forest policies in India. It highlights how colonial policies, continued post-independence, focused on commercial exploitation and excluded local communities, leading to ongoing debates about forest rights and management.
2. Question Stem Analysis: The question asks which option would weaken the narrative except one. We need to identify the option that does not undermine the passage's argument about the Forest Act's negative impact on local communities.
3. Option-by-Option Elimination:
Option A: Suggests tribal groups are responsible for climate change due to deforestation. This shifts blame away from the government's policies, potentially weakening the narrative. However, it's a bit of a stretch and not directly tied to the passage's focus on policy.
Option B: States that pre-British rulers denied forest access. This weakens the argument by implying the issue isn't new, thus the Forest Act isn't the sole culprit.
Option C: Points out German experts violated indigenous rights. This supports the passage's argument, as the passage mentions these experts. It doesn't weaken the narrative; instead, it reinforces it.
Option D: Suggests timber was imported from China. This weakens the narrative by questioning the necessity of exploiting Indian forests for railway construction.
4. Final Answer Confirmation: The correct answer is the one that doesn't weaken the narrative. Option C supports the passage's argument about the problematic role of experts, making it the exception.
Correct Answer: C

Keep going

Related History questions