How does the combined aim of revenue and resource control explain colonial deforestation?

Correct answer: The state wanted tax from cultivation and useful timber from forests

The direct answer is A: the state wanted tax from cultivation and useful timber from forests. This is called a dual motive because colonial authorities saw land and forests as two connected sources of profit and control. The reasoning is: cultivated land could produce revenue through taxes; forests could provide valuable timber and other resources; clearing or reorganising forests could create plantations or farmland; controlling labour made production possible; therefore revenue collection and resource extraction together explain colonial deforestation. Option A is correct because it includes both sides—tax from cultivation and timber from forests. Option B is wrong because the colonial state did not give up revenue or timber; it actively sought both. Option C is wrong because revenue demands often encouraged cultivation, commercial use and control rather than fully protecting forests. Option D is wrong because resource control usually restricted local self-rule instead of increasing it. The exact balance differed by place and period, but the broad textbook explanation is the combined search for revenue, timber and administrative power. Memory cue: colonial forest policy had a double aim—taxable land and profitable timber.