62 SOCIAL SCIENTIST not solutions in themselves—they beg the question of the structural changes necessary if the continuing process of ecological degradation is to be reversed. (2) A consequence of the approach outlined above would be the endeavour to see the history of Indian forestry in terms of the social forces that mould state policy. While making a reference to .the "capitalists who are the main beneficiaries of the current forest policy" (p 51) towards the end of her paper, Joshi concentrates her fire on the FD. We are told that of the six paramount needs enumerated in the 1952 Forest Policy statement, the last two, namely, the supply of forest produce for defence, communications and industry, and the realisation of maximum annual revenue consistent with needs (1) to (5) "have been the main concern of the forest department" (p 48. Emphasis added) and as for the propagation of fast growing species, "here also, the forest department has been influenced by the British forest policy" (p 51).3 Here too, in implying that it is the FD which is unable to shrug off the colonial heritage, Joshi misses the wood for the trees. Although the interests behind the formation and execution of state forest policy may have differed, the methods used have been strikingly similar in the colonial and post-colonial periods. Colonial methods of forest working, and the inter-related principles of state monopoly right and exclusion of forest communities, on which they are based, have been consciously adopted by the Indian state to serve the classes whom it represents. The draft forest act is a good example of how state forestry practices have adopted and further strengthened the principles of colonial forest administration. While all sections of the two previous Acts of 1878 and 1927 have been retained (except the preamble), 57 new ones, in accordance with the needs of the ruling classes, have been added. The F D is merely the organ of the state which assigns it certain tasks.4 Yet it has been the target of "universal condemnation" and JoshPs analysis adds fuel to the fire. The department itself is feeling increasingly concerned, and as one senior official has recently pointed out: "Whether it is the forest industrialist, the elected representative of people in legislatures, the tribal, the villager, other government agencies and departments concerned with forests like animal husbandry, agriculture, irrigation and power or the newly formed (environmental) groups, none has a good word to say about foresters and their attitudes. Each, of course, has its own reasons which are often contradictory to each other."5 _ (3) There exist certain factual errors in Joshi's presentation. Talking about popular movements against forest restrictions in the UP Himalyas, she says: "The strength of the movement was such that in 1908 after police firing on the people resisting British control over their forests at Tilari in Uttarkhand region. Sir John Hewett