Why was the impact of reserved forests more severe on pastoralists than protected forests?

Correct answer: Entry and grazing were highly restricted in reserved forests

Reserved and protected forests were not identical categories under colonial forest administration. In reserved forests, the state claimed stronger control and usually allowed very limited customary use. Entry, grazing, collection of wood, and movement could be prohibited or permitted only under special conditions. This directly threatened pastoral routes and access to fodder. Protected forests could also impose restrictions, but some customary use was more likely to continue, subject to official rules. The difference in the degree of access explains why reserved forests often caused more severe disruption.

Option A is correct because it identifies the major distinction: entry and grazing were highly restricted in reserved forests. Option B reverses the situation by claiming full rights. Option C is too broad and false because protected forests did not necessarily end every right. Option D is wrong because reserved forests were not created only for cultivation. The answer follows from comparing the strength of state control in the two categories.