Consider the following statements: I. As per recent amendment to the Indian Forest Act, 1927, forest dwellers have the right to fell the bamboos grown on forest areas. II. As per the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, bamboo is a minor forest produce. III. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 allows ownership of minor forest produce to forest dwellers. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Statements II and III are correct, and I is not. The answer is B.

• Statement I is wrong. The recent change to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 took bamboo out of the Act's definition of 'tree'. That makes bamboo easier to grow, harvest and transport, especially outside recorded forests. It does not give forest dwellers a general right to fell bamboo inside forest areas. Aspirants often read 'bamboo amendment' as a forest-dweller right, and that is the trap here.
• Statement II is correct. Section 2(i) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 defines minor forest produce to include bamboo, along with tendu leaves, honey, lac, and other items.
• Statement III is correct. Section 3(1)(c) of the Act recognises the right of ownership, access to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce, including items collected from within or outside village boundaries.

The core concept is the distinction between the Forest Act, 1927, which is a colonial-era law centred on state control of forests, and the 2006 Act, which recognises individual and community rights of forest dwellers. This matters for Mains GS-II and GS-III on tribal rights, forest governance and the conflict between conservation and livelihoods.

Trap: treating the 1927 amendment as a grant of felling rights, or assuming the Forest Rights Act does not cover bamboo.