What thinking of colonial rule is shown by converting forests into revenue yielding land?

Correct answer: Measuring nature mainly through economic profit

The direct answer is option B: colonial rule measured nature mainly through economic profit. When forests were converted into revenue-yielding land, officials treated them as sources of money, crops, timber, and state income. This approach valued forests according to what the government could extract or sell, rather than fully respecting local customs, livelihoods, biodiversity, or ecological balance. Option B is correct because it expresses the profit-centred colonial outlook. Option A is wrong because local rights were often restricted, not placed above state revenue. Option C is wrong because conversion into revenue land means the forest was not being kept untouched. Option D is irrelevant and impossible in this context; wildlife did not receive political rule. The important idea is not that forests had no other value, but that colonial policy commonly prioritised measurable commercial returns. Exam cue: “revenue-yielding” signals an economic viewpoint focused on income.