CAT 2025 Slot 3 VARC RC Passage 3 Q17–Q20
A reading comprehension passage from the Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension (VARC) section of CAT 2025 Slot 3, with 4 questions (RC · Society, History & Politics). Answers are CAT's official key.
The passage
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 The draft act was shelved, though it has not as yet been formally withdrawn.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. . . .
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. . . .
Question 17
According to the passage, which one of the following reforms is yet to happen in India's forest policies?
- AA ban on deforestation.
- BRecognising the significance of forests to ecology.
- CInvolving local people in cultivating forests.
- DRecognising the state's claim to forest land use.
Answer: (C) Involving local people in cultivating forests. RC · Society, History & Politics MCQ
Solution
- The government has stopped treating forests as revenue sources and stopped clearfelling, but 'has shown little inclination' to hand degraded forests to individuals and communities for afforestation.
- So involving local people in cultivating forests has yet to happen: C.
- The state's claim (D) is already in force, ecological concern (B) has been partly acted on, and a total ban (A) is never mentioned.
Question 18
According to the passage, which one of the following is not common to the 1878 Forest Act and the 1982 draft forest act?
- ABoth resulted in large scale deforestation.
- BBoth sought to establish the state's monopoly over forest resources.
- CBoth reflect a colonial mindset.
- DBoth sparked controversy and debate among the various stakeholders.
Answer: (A) Both resulted in large scale deforestation. RC · Society, History & Politics MCQ
Solution
- Common to both acts: state monopoly and control (B), a colonial model (the draft was 'closely modelled' on the 1878 Act) (C), and bitter debate (D).
- Deforestation was caused by the railways' timber needs and was the stated reason for regulation, not a result of either act.
- So A is not common to them.
Question 19
Which one of the following best encapsulates the reason for the "raging controversy" developing into a "larger controversy"?
- AThe 1982 draft forest act was unjustifiably defended by forest officials in the face of bitter opposition by grassroots organisations.
- BThe 1982 draft forest act replicated colonial measures of control and regulation of forest resources.
- CThe 1982 draft forest act violated the rights of tribals and peasants who lived in and around forest areas.
- DThe 1982 draft forest act further enabled the commercial exploitation of forest resources by the forest bureaucracy.
Answer: (B) The 1982 draft forest act replicated colonial measures of control and regulation of forest resources. RC · Society, History & Politics MCQ
Solution
- The second paragraph says the debate grew into one over the whole orientation of forest policy because 'the draft act was closely modelled on its predecessor, the Forest Act of 1878', a colonial usurpation of rights.
- That points to B.
- C (violation of rights) was the cause of the original 'raging controversy', not of its widening into a larger one.
Question 20
All of the following, if true, would weaken the narrative presented in the passage EXCEPT that:
- Athe timber requirement for railway works in nineteenth century India was met through import from China, in exchange for spices.
- Bnineteenth century German forestry experts were infamous for violating the rights of indigenous communities that lived in forest regions.
- Cbefore British rule, peasants and tribal groups were denied access to forest resources by Indian rulers and their administrations.
- Dcertain tribal groups in India are responsible for climate change because their sustenance has historically depended on mass scale deforestation.
Answer: (B) nineteenth century German forestry experts were infamous for violating the rights of indigenous communities that lived in forest regions. RC · Society, History & Politics MCQ
Solution
- The narrative: the railways' timber demand caused deforestation and led to the Forest Department; the colonial state took ownership 'with little precedent in precolonial history'; and the policy excluded villagers with longstanding claims.
- A (timber was imported), C (precolonial rulers also denied access) and D (tribals caused deforestation) each undercut part of this.
- B (German experts violated indigenous rights) fits the account of exclusionary colonial forestry, so it does not weaken it.