Railways’ Sleeper Demand and Deforestation

  • Pallavi V. Das


The second half of the nineteenth century is often referred to as the period of high imperialism in colonial India. As suggested in the previous chapter, this period had at least two characteristics. First, trade became Britain’s dominant mode of exploiting India’s resources. Second, the colonial state increasingly became interventionist. It particularly intervened to create conditions for “economic development” in order to increase agricultural exports from India to serve Britain’s needs. This economic intervention was partly expressed in the form of the state’s promotion of infrastructure projects such as the railways. Indeed, railways expanded so rapidly that by the end of the century, India had the largest and most advanced railway network among Britain’s colonies.1


Forest Department Railway Line Railway Company Colonial State Hill Forest 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. M. Morris and C. B. Dudley, “Selected Railway Statistics for the Indian Subcontinent (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), 1853–1946–47,” Artha Vijnana XVII(3) (September 1975): 194–5.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    I. J. Kerr, Building the Railways of the Raj, 1850–1900 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997), 147.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    This involved forcing liquid creosote, an oily liquid distilled from coal tar, under pressure into sleepers. Creosoted sleepers lasted from twelve to eighteen years while noncreosoted ones lasted six to seven years in Britain. See W. H. Mills, Railway Construction (London: Longman, Green, 1900), 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 6.
    J. Simmons, The Railways of Britain: An Historical Introduction (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961), 90; Mills, Railway Construction, 209.Google Scholar
  5. 13.
    G. N. Rao, “Political Economy of Railways in British India, 1850–1900,” Artha Vijnana 20(4) (December 1978): 404; S. Bose and A. Jalal, Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999), 103. This payment for British manufactured equipment was a part of the annual Home Charges remitted by the colonial government from Indian revenue, that is, part of colonial profits to the British government and private companies.Google Scholar
  6. 14.
    J. Hurd, “Railways.” In The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol. 2, ed. D. Kumar, 752 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); N. Charlesworth, British Rule and the Indian Economy, 1800–1914 (London: Macmillan, 1985), 59.Google Scholar
  7. 21.
    M. Gadgil and R. Guha, This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India (Delhi; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 122.Google Scholar
  8. 27.
    H. F. Cleghorn, The Forests and Gardens of South India (London: W. H. Allen, 1861), 33.Google Scholar
  9. 28.
    Ibid., 3; italics added.Google Scholar
  10. 29.
    Government of Madras. Report of the Madras Railway Department for 1858 (Madras, 1859), 30.Google Scholar
  11. 34.
    B. Weil, “Conservation, Exploitation, and Cultural Change in the Indian Forest Service, 1875–1927,” Environmental History 11(2) (2006): 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 37.
    The deodar was generally found between 5000 and 8000 feet above the sea level. See Punjab Provincial Gazetteer, Imperial Gazetteer of India, Provincial Series: Punjab, Vol. I (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1889), 73.Google Scholar
  13. 51.
    R. S. Troup, Indian Forest Utilization (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1913), 75; PWD (Railway) Proceedings for March 1861; PWD (Governor-General) Proceedings for June 1863, Proceeding No. 11.Google Scholar
  14. 57.
    Although Grove (Green Imperialism) argues that conservationist motives informed the implementation of forest conservation in India, recent studies have shown that forest officials/scientists in the Punjab promoted conservation in economic terms such as timber crisis for railways that led the state to establish forest conservation (V. Saberwal, Pastoral Politics: Shepherds, Bureaucrats, and Conservation in the Western Himalaya (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999); P. Das, “Hugh Cleghorn and Forest Conservancy in India,” Environment and History 11(1) (2005): 55–82).Google Scholar
  15. 61.
    Before 1860, the earliest instances of forest conservancy establishment in colonial India were in 1847 in the Bombay Presidency and in 1856 in the Madras Presidency. See E. P. Stebbing, The Forests of India, Vol. I (London: John Lane, 1922), 219. However, forest conservancy in these provinces “hardly rose above the level of a revenue administration.” See B. Ribbentrop, Forestry in British India (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1900), 71.Google Scholar
  16. 64.
    E. P. Flint, “Deforestation and Land Use in Northern India with a Focus on Sal (Shorea robusta) Forests, 1880–1980.” In Nature and the Orient: The Environmental History of South and Southeast Asia, eds. R. H. Grove, V. Damodaran, and S. Sangwan, 439 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  17. 66.
    I. M. Saldanha, “Colonialism and Professionalism: A German Forester in India,” Economic and Political Weekly XXXI(21) (1996): 1268; italics added. Deodar, teak, and sal were considered by the colonial state to be the most valuable trees since they were needed for railway construction and for other public works. However, these trees did not form pure forests but often grew with other species such as oak, which were used as fuel, fodder, and small timber by the local people. See R. Guha and M. Gadgil, “State Forestry and Social Conflict in British India,” Past and Present CXXIII (1989): 147.Google Scholar
  18. 67.
    Saldanha, “Colonialism and Professionalism,” 1268; Guha and Gadgil, “State Forestry,” 147; K. Sivaramakrishnan, “Colonialism and Forestry in India: Imagining the Past in Present Politics,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 37(1) (January 1995): 18. This conversion of mixed forests to monocultures not only affected the forest ecology, but also ran counter to the survival needs of the local people.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 68.
    R. Grove, Ecology, Climate and Empire: Colonialism and Global Environmental History, 1400–1940 (Cambridge: White Horse, 1997); Weil, “Conservation.”Google Scholar
  20. 69.
    R. Miliband, Marxism and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977); H. Alavi et al., Capitalism and Colonial Production (London: Croom Helm, 1982).Google Scholar
  21. 73.
    B. Ribbentrop, Hints on Arboriculture in the Punjab; Intended for the Use of District and Forest Officers (Lahore: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1873), 73.Google Scholar
  22. 76.
    R. Guha, “Forestry in British and Post British India: An Historical Analysis,” Economic and Political Weekly XVII (1983): 1886; Weil, “Conservation.”Google Scholar
  23. 88.
    C. F. Amery, “Report on the Forests of India,” Transactions of the Scottish Arboricultural Society VIII (1876): 219–20.Google Scholar
  24. 109.
    Z. Smith, The Environmental Policy Paradox (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1992), 40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pallavi V. Das 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pallavi V. Das

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations