Permanent Settlement - Summary Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary Notes...

Description

The Permanent Settlement of Bengal was brought into effect by the East India Company headed by the GovernorGeneral Lord Cornwallis in 1793. This was basically an agreement between the company and the Zamindars to fix the land revenue. First enacted in Bengal, Bihar and Odisha, this was later followed in northern Madras Presidency and the district of Varanasi. Cornwallis thought of this system inspired by the prevailing system of land revenue in England where the landlords were the permanent masters of their holdings and they collected revenue from the peasants and looked after their interests. He envisaged the creation of a hereditary class of landlords in India. This system was also called the Zamindari System.

Permanent Settlement UPSC – Background  

 



Before the British advent in Bengal, there were a class of Zamindars in Bengal, Bihar and Odisha who collected revenue from land on behalf of the Mughal Emperor or his representative, the Diwan. After the Battle of Buxar in 1764, the East India Company was granted the Diwani of Bengal. But then the Company found itself not able to collect revenue from the innumerable number of farmers in rural areas. They also did not have a good understanding of local laws and customs. The severe Bengal famine of 1770 occurred partly due to this neglect by the Company. Then, Warren Hastings tried to bring in some reforms like the five-yearly inspections. Here, the revenuecollection was awarded through an auction to the person promising the highest revenue. Due to the dangerous implications and effects of such a system, Hastings also experimented with the annual settlement of land. But this too did not improve conditions. Then, Lord Cornwallis under directions from the then British PM, William Pitt, proposed the Permanent Settlement system in 1786. This came into effect in 1793, by the Permanent Settlement Act of 1793.

Features of the Permanent Settlement  

Landlords or Zamindars were recognised as the owners of the land. They were given hereditary rights of succession of the lands under them. The Zamindars could sell or transfer the land as they wished.



The Zamindars’ proprietorship would stay as long as he paid the fixed revenue at the said date to the government. If they failed to pay, their rights would cease to exist and the land would be auctioned off.



The amount to be paid by the landlords was fixed. It was agreed that this would not increase in future (permanent).



The fixed amount was 10/11th portion of the revenue for the government and 1/10th was for the Zamindar. This tax rate was way higher than the prevailing rates in England.



The Zamindar also had to give the tenant a patta which described the area of the land given to him and the rent he had to pay the landlord.

Merits of the Permanent Settlement 

The responsibility of taking care of farmers fell upon the shoulders of the Indian landlords. Being sons of the soil, they could reach the far corners of the region and also understand local customs very well.



Because of the permanent nature of the system, there was a sense of security for everyone. The company knew the amount it would get in revenue. The landlord also was assured of the amount. Finally, the farmers also, in lieu of the patta were certain of their holdings and knew how much rent was to be paid.



Since the settlement was of a permanent nature, the Zamindars would have an interest in the improvement in the land thereby improving the revenue.

Demerits of the Permanent Settlement 



The basic demerit of this system was that the efficiency depended upon the nature of the Zamindars. If they were good, the interests of the farmers and the land were looked after very well. They would make improvements in the land which would be beneficial to everyone concerned. But if the landlords were bad, they were negligent of the plight of the farmers and the conditions of the land. This created a class of hereditary landlords forming the upper aristocracy in society who generally led luxurious and extravagant lifestyles.

 



The Zamindars were generally favourable to the British administration and supported the British even during the freedom struggle. There were exceptions. The land assessment was not done properly and land revenue was fixed arbitrarily. This meant that both productive and unproductive land was expected to furnish revenue at the same rates. This created a burden on the farmers of unproductive land. Also, in the case of productive land, it was a loss of revenue to the government. The revenue rates were so high that many Zamindars became defaulters. In time, this system proved to have disastrous effects. In 1811, the British government warned against the imposition of permanent settlement without a proper land survey.

Frequently Asked Questions about Permanent Settlement of Bengal What were the main features of the Permanent Settlement of Bengal? Key Features of Permanent Settlement were:  

Landlords or Zamindars were recognised as the owners of the land. They were given hereditary rights of succession of the lands under them.

 

The amount to be paid by the landlords was fixed. It was agreed that this would not increase in future (permanent in nature).

What was the result of the Permanent Settlement of Bengal? The Permanent Settlement of Bengal led to an agreement between the East India Company and Bengali landlords to fix revenues to be raised from land that had far-reaching consequences for both agricultural methods and productivity in the entire British Empire.

Ryotwari system Apart from the Permanent Settlement, there were other kinds of land revenue systems under the British in India. These were the Ryotwari and the Mahalwari systems. 

This system of land revenue was instituted in the late 18th century by Sir Thomas Munro, Governor of Madras in 1820.

  

This was practised in the Madras and Bombay areas, as well as Assam and Coorg provinces. In this system, the peasants or cultivators were regarded as the owners of the land. They had ownership rights, could sell, mortgage or gift the land. The taxes were directly collected by the government from the peasants.

 

The rates were 50% in dryland and 60% in the wetland. The rates were high and unlike the Permanent System, they were open to being increased.

 

If they failed to pay the taxes, they were evicted by the government. Ryot means peasant cultivators.



Here there were no middlemen as in the Zamindari system. But, since high taxes had to be paid only in cash (no option of paying in kind as before the British) the problem of moneylenders came into the show. They further burdened the peasants with heavy interests.

Mahalwari system



The Mahalwari system was introduced by Holt Mackenzie in 1822 and it was reviewed under Lord William Bentinck in 1833. This system was introduced in North-West Frontier, Agra, Central Province, Gangetic Valley, Punjab, etc.

 

This had elements of both the Zamindari and the Ryotwari systems. This system divided the land into Mahals. Sometimes, a Mahal was constituted by one or more villages.



The tax was assessed on the Mahal.





Each individual farmer gave his share.

 

Here also, ownership rights were with the peasants. Revenue was collected by the village headman or village leaders.

 

It introduced the concept of average rents for different soil classes. The state share of the revenue was 66% of the rental value. The settlement was agreed upon for 30 years.



This system was called the Modified Zamindari system because the village headman virtually became a Zamindar.

Consequences of the British land revenue systems 

Land became a commodity.



Earlier there was no private ownership of land. Even kings and cultivators did not consider land as his ‘private property’. Due to the very high taxes, farmers resorted to growing cash crops instead of food crops. This led to food insecurity and even famines. Taxes on agricultural produce were moderate during pre-British times. The British made it very high.

  

Insistence on cash payment of revenue led to more indebtedness among farmers. Moneylenders became landowners in due course.

 

Bonded labour arose because loans were given to farmers/labourers who could not pay it back. When India achieved freedom from colonial rule, 7% of the villagers (Zamindars/landowners) owned 75% of the agricultural land.

Frequently Asked Questions related to Ryotwari system What do you mean by Ryotwari system? In this system, the peasants or cultivators were regarded as the owners of the land. They had ownership rights, could sell, mortgage or gift the land. The taxes were directly collected by the government from the peasants. This system of land revenue was instituted in the late 18th century by Sir Thomas Munro, Governor of Madras in 1820. This was practised in the Madras and Bombay areas, as well as Assam and Coorg provinces.

What is the difference between the Ryotwari and Mahalwari system? Under the Mahalwari system, the land revenue was collected from the farmers by the village headmen on behalf of the whole village. Under the Ryotwari system, the land revenue was paid by the farmers directly to the state. The Zamindari system was started by the Imperialist East India Company in 1793.

Who started the Mahalwari system in India? The Mahalwari system was introduced by Holt Mackenzie in 1822. The other two systems were the Permanent Settlement in Bengal in 1793 and the Ryotwari system in 1820. It covered the states of Punjab, Awadh and Agra, parts of Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh.

What were the features of permanent settlement? (a) The rajas and taluqdars were recognised as zamindars. (b) They were responsible for collecting revenue from peasants and paying to the Company. (c)Revenue demand was permanently fixed....