This essay challenges two historiographical myths about indigenous forest resistance in colonial India (1857–1947): that forest-dependent communities were inherently conservationist, and that they acted primarily as monolithic, passive victims of colonial rule. First, drawing on a subaltern studies framework, the analysis reveals that indigenous resistance was driven primarily by material and political concerns—particularly over land access and customary rights—rather than environmental ideals or elite nationalist agendas. Second, far from being uniform or passive, the forest movements driven by grievances over British forest legislation, especially the Acts of 1878 and 1927, which criminalized traditional practices and imposed sweeping state control over forest lands, demonstrated tactical flexibility and political autonomy shaped by local contexts. They ranged from legal petitions to strategic violence. In addition, when engaging with nationalist discourse, this essay argues that indigenous forest resistance did so not as followers of elite mobilization, but as autonomous actors, selectively appropriating, adapting, or rejecting Gandhian methods to advance their visions of self-rule. By foregrounding these socio-economic and political motivations, as well as forms of agency and strategic resistance, this essay reframes forest movements as politically complex struggles rooted in sovereignty and survival rather than mere episodes of ecological preservation or victimhood. In doing so, it offers a more nuanced account of anti-colonial resistance and indigenous politics in South Asia.