CAT 2025 Slot 3 VARC Question & Solution
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 The draft act was shelved, though it has not as yet been formally withdrawn.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. . . .
Question 1
Which one of the following best encapsulates the reason for the “raging controversy” developing into a “larger controversy”?
Solution:
Main Idea of the Passage
The passage explains why the controversy surrounding the 1982 draft Forest Act grew beyond criticism of a single policy. It shows that the debate expanded because the draft was seen as part of a long-standing and flawed historical framework, rather than an isolated legislative error.
The key reason the issue became “larger” was its clear continuity with colonial forest policy.
Explanation of the Correct Answer
Why Option (a) Is Correct
Option (a) best explains why the controversy widened because:
- The passage explicitly states that the 1982 draft act was closely modelled on the Forest Act of 1878
- This comparison shifted the debate from the specific provisions of the new act to the entire historical orientation of forest policy
- The 1878 Act is criticized for:
- Being based on a usurpation of ownership rights by the colonial state
- Prioritizing revenue generation and commercial exploitation
- Excluding villagers who had long-standing claims to forest resources
Since the 1982 draft followed this colonial framework, critics saw it as repeating the same logic of centralized control and exclusion, thereby enlarging the scope of the controversy.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
-
Option (b):
- Explains reasons for opposition to the act
- Does not explain why the controversy expanded into a broader historical debate
-
Option (c):
- Also addresses grounds for criticism
- Fails to show how the issue moved beyond the immediate policy to a structural critique
-
Option (d):
- Focuses mainly on commercial exploitation
- Is incomplete, as the passage stresses that the controversy was also about the continuation of colonial mechanisms in post-Independence policy
Final Answer
Correct Answer: Option (a)
Question 2
All of the following, if true, would weaken the narrative presented in the passage EXCEPT that:
Solution:
Main Idea of the Question
The question asks which option does NOT weaken the author’s argument about colonial forest policy.
The passage criticizes colonial forest administration for:
- Curtailing the rights of peasants and tribal communities
- Lacking precedent in precolonial India
- Emerging due to increased timber demand, especially from railways
- Imposing exploitative and exclusionary systems of control
Evaluation of the Options
Why Options (a), (b), and (c) Weaken the Passage
-
Option (a):
- Shifts responsibility for deforestation onto tribal communities
- This contradicts the passage, which presents peasants and tribals as victims of forest policy, not as causes of environmental damage
-
Option (b):
- Claims Indian rulers had already denied forest access before colonial rule
- This directly contradicts the passage’s assertion that the colonial takeover had “little precedent in precolonial history”
-
Option (c):
- Suggests timber was imported instead of sourced domestically
- This would undermine the passage’s explanation that railway expansion and timber demand led to the creation of the forest department
Why Option (d) Does NOT Weaken the Passage
Option (d) Supports the Argument
- Option (d) states that German forestry experts violated indigenous rights
- The passage already criticizes colonial forest administration for:
- Ignoring customary rights
- Marginalising forest-dwelling communities
- Evidence of rights violations by forestry experts would reinforce, not weaken, this critique
Instead of challenging the argument, option (d) strengthens the author’s case.
Final Answer
Correct Answer: Option (d)
Question 3
According to the passage, which one of the following is not common to the 1878 Forest Act and the 1982 draft forest act?
Solution:
Main Idea of the Question
The question asks for the feature that is NOT common to both the Forest Act of 1878 and the 1982 draft Forest Act, based on the passage. The passage compares the two to show how post-Independence forest policy continued many colonial assumptions and structures.
Explanation of the Correct Answer
Why Option (c) Is Correct
Option (c) is the feature not shared by both acts.
- The passage links large-scale deforestation to the nineteenth century, especially to the expansion of railways, which created heavy demand for timber and led to the 1878 Forest Act.
- In contrast, the 1982 draft act was officially presented as a measure to stop continuing deforestation, not as a cause of it.
- Therefore, while deforestation is associated with the historical context of the 1878 Act, it is not attributed to the 1982 draft act in the passage.
This makes option (c) the only feature that does not apply to both.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
-
Option (a):
- Both acts were surrounded by intense debate and controversy
- The 1878 Act followed a “bitter and prolonged debate”
- The 1982 draft act led to a “raging controversy”
-
Option (b):
- The 1982 draft act was criticized for being closely modelled on the 1878 Act
- Both were associated with a colonial-style usurpation of rights
-
Option (d):
- The passage explicitly states that the principle of state monopoly over forest land continued from the colonial period into post-Independence policy
- This applies to both acts
Final Answer
Feature Not Shared by Both Acts: Option (c)
Question 4
According to the passage, which one of the following reforms is yet to happen in India’s forest policies?
Solution:
Main Idea of the Passage
The passage discusses changes and continuities in India’s forest policy. While it acknowledges that some reforms have already taken place—especially in recognizing ecological concerns—it also highlights what has not yet changed. In particular, the passage stresses the government’s continued reluctance to involve local communities in forest management and cultivation.
Explanation of the Correct Answer
Why Option D Is Correct
Option D identifies the reform that has not yet occurred, and this aligns directly with the passage.
- The passage notes that the government:
- No longer treats forests primarily as a source of revenue
- Has stopped ecologically hazardous practices like clear-felling
- However, it also clearly states that the government has refused the central demand of critics:
“handing over areas of degraded forests to individuals and communities for afforestation”
This shows that local people are still excluded from forest cultivation and management, making Option D the correct choice.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
-
Option A:
- Suggests that the state’s claim to forest land is no longer recognized
- The passage explicitly shows the opposite: the principle of state monopoly over forests continues
-
Option B:
- Implies a complete ban on deforestation
- The passage does not mention a total ban, only the regulation of harmful practices
-
Option C:
- Claims ecological concerns are not recognized
- This is contradicted by the passage’s mention of stopping ecologically hazardous practices