India's forest cover remains far below the 33% of total geographical area recommended in the National Forest Policy (1952), yet the net sown area has also not increased significantly since 1960–61. If forests haven't grown and farmland hasn't grown much either, what does this suggest about where land has actually been shifting, and what are the likely consequences of this trend?
Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · 2026-06-26 13:27 · grounding rag
Model Answer
Since forest cover has remained below the desired 33% and net sown area has also stagnated since 1960–61, land has been increasingly shifting towards non-agricultural uses — settlements, roads, railways, and industries — and to wasteland (rocky, arid, degraded areas).
This trend has serious consequences: it leads to land degradation due to continuous, unmanaged use; reduces permanent pastures, threatening livestock; threatens the livelihoods of communities dependent on forests; and disturbs ecological balance, harming biodiversity and the environment.
Source: Resources and Development, Chapter 1 — Land Use Pattern in India
---
Explanation
- The examiner expects you to identify the "missing" land category: non-agricultural uses (urban expansion, infrastructure) and wasteland/degraded land — not forests, not farmland.
- Then link this directly to consequences mentioned in the passage: land degradation, ecological imbalance, loss of forest-dependent livelihoods, and decline of pastures.
- Avoid vague statements; name specific consequences from the text.
- The 3-mark structure works best as: 1 mark for identifying where land shifted → 2 marks for consequences (name at least 2–3).