The correct option is (b)
Explanation
The British colonial administration fundamentally opposed shifting (jhum) cultivation because it hindered their primary objectives: consistent revenue generation and effective administrative control. They actively promoted settled agriculture, viewing it as more "civilized" and conducive to the state's economic and political interests.
Statement-wise Analysis
- Statement 1 is Incorrect. The British found shifting cultivators harder to control and administer, not easier. Populations that were constantly on the move could not be easily monitored or regulated. The British preferred settled peasants because they lived in fixed locations, making them easier to govern.
- Statement 2 is Correct. A mobile workforce made it difficult for the colonial state to assess land and collect a regular, fixed land revenue. The British revenue systems (like the Permanent Settlement or Ryotwari) relied on fixed plots and identifiable owners, which shifting cultivation did not provide.
- Statement 3 is Conceptually Correct (but excluded by options). The British did believe that shifting cultivation destroyed forests and endangered valuable timber required for railway sleepers. They feared that the flames used in slash-and-burn agriculture would spread and destroy timber forests. However, since Statement 1 is factually incorrect, and options (a), (c), and (d) all include Statement 1, the only viable answer by elimination is (b).
Key Takeaway
The British discomfort with shifting cultivators stemmed primarily from the administrative difficulty of
collecting regular land revenue and the political challenge of
controlling a mobile population.