Topic: British Land Revenue Policy

Question :  Briefly Discuss the British land revenue Policy?

Answer:

Revenues are an important source of every economy. The basic questions that go into collection and implementation of revenues can be summarized in terms of - How much to collect? Who will collect? When to collect? And how to collect? The land revenue policies followed during colonialism did not materialize overnight but were the results of two odd decades of debates- philosophical and ideological, and experiments.

In the pre-colonial days land relations and revenue administration in India were marked by several layers of more or less powerful intermediate local authorities positioned between the Central Government and the actual tillers of land. From the beginning the reach of the central authority had been rather narrow and based on collaboration with several allies- local rajas, landowners, zamindars and so on. The land revenue was collected from the peasants and sent to the centre through these several intermediate channels – zamindars, landlords, nawabs and so on, each of which kept aside their own share, leaving little for the peasants. It is also commonly believed that with the breakup of the Mughal Empire the number of intermediaries of extraction increased considerably leading to a decline in the conditions of the peasantry. In 1790, 12 ‘big zamindari houses together paid more than 53% of the revenue assessed in Bengal.

To this circle of powers was added the British, who had originally come to trade. The question of land revenue and the means to secure it was central to the interests of the British. The British acquisition of the revenues of Bengal did not start in one go. But it was a gradual process that started with a single territory and then after gaining diwani rights in 1765 extended over to the entire Presidency.

The land revenue system emerged as a consequence of experiments. Three main systems of land revenue emerged in different parts of British territory in India - Permanent Settlement (or Zarnindari), Ryotwari Settlement and Mahalwari Settlement. But whatever be the legitimising credo, the tax on the land saw a continuous increase. The revenue was exorbitant and left less than subsistence for the farmers.

Given the importance of the revenues, the task of organizing and administering the revenues was quite formidable yet imperative to the British But what complicated their task was their lack of knowledge of the agrarian system of India. They understood little about the land relations. Wherever they went they faced a confusing array, of quasi-feudal rights and obligations that were difficult to put in a concrete and identifiable terms. Apart from the lack of knowledge about the local dialects, the various rules and obligations were recorded only in memory and were considered as good as written ones. On the Government’s behalf there was an absence of communication between different levels of administration and the ever present corruption of some of the officials in the early years of the Company’s administration. Moreover, the tenure of the local officers was too short to permit them consistency in policies. The company, by and large, had to depend on the local amils and their contacts. The honesty of these in turn was itself doubtful. So you have this situation where for the 7 years after the grant of the diwani there was an absence of lack of  unified policy of revenue administrations.

The peasants, to say the least continued to suffer under the extractions. In the years after the grant of the Diwani there emerged a dual system of revenue administration. The Nawabi administration was retained with Muhammad Reza Khan as the Naib Diwan. While the native officials were in charge of collecting the revenue, European officers had supervisory authority over them. But as mentioned earlier, corruption was rampant.

The famine of 1769-70 was disastrous in terms of its extent and Wiped out almost one-third of the Bengal population. The company came under severe criticism but mainly because it was unable to pay the shareholders. Reza Khan was conveniently charged with embezzlement and with him out of the picture, Warren Hastings, the newly appointed Governor, could ensure that the British had the sole charge of manning the revenue administration.

Warren Hastings (1772-85) assumed that all land belonged to the sovereign, and introduced a- system of revenue farming in 1772 whereby revenue collecting rights were auctioned to the highest bidder. These auctions did not give ownership rights to the winning bidder. This led to havoc in the Bengal countryside. The revenue demand on the peasant was often so high that it could not be collected. As a result of this what took place was an institutional plunder of the farmlands. The system failed and led to misery and depopulation. The land revenues failed, however, in spite of the utmost coercion. In a minute of September 18, 1789, Lord Cornwallis remarked, “I may safely assert that one- third of the Company’s territory in Hindustan is now a jungle inhabited only by wild beasts.”

(i) Permanent Settlement - Nature and Demerits

Lord Comwallis was sent to India in 1784 to improve the conditions and rectify the errors made by the revenue policies of Warren Hastings Cornwallis on his appointment took a completely different view of the issue.
The main idea behind Permanent Settlement Cornwallis believed that it was the zamindar and not the sovereign who was the proprietor of the land. This concept formed the basis of the Permanent Settlement. The whole concept of permanent settlement that finally took shape was based on Cornwallis’ understanding and his image of the improving English landlords who secured in their land-ownership and had much to gain from introducing reforms and adopting techniques to enhance agriculture output. The idea was to take away the feudalistic features of the zamindars collection of transit duties, deciding civil cases, and reforming them by fashioning them along the lines of English landlords.

How much to collect? The land revenue under Permanent Settlement was to be fixed or assessed for ever. This, it was believed, would lead to reduction in corruption. Moreover, since it was assessed for ever, the revenue was fixed at the absolute maximum. Taking the revenues of 1789-90 as a yardstick, the revenues were fixed at 26.8 million Rupees.

Who was to collect it? The zamindars. By nature of the settlement, the zamindars were invested with ownership rights of land. In the pre-settlement days, they had only enjoyed right in revenue collection. With a fixed land tax, zamindars could securely invest in increasing their income without any fear of having the increased taxes taken away by the Company. Cornwallis made this motivation quite clear in a declaration “when the demand of government is fixed, an opportunity is afforded to .the landholder of increasing his profits, by the improvement of his lands.” The Court of Directors also hoped to guarantee the Company’s income which was constantly plagued by defaulting zamindars that fell into arrears, making it impossible for them to budget their spending accurately.

When to Collect? The zamindars were to pay a fixed amount of revenue by the sun-set of a particular day. Inability to hand over the revenue meant sale of his zamindari land.

DEMERITS OF PERMANENT SETTLEMENT ON THE ZAMINDARS

While the Permanent Settlement was pro-zamindar, yet the way in which it eventually worked out even the zamindars lost. Default meant loss of his land. The threat of losing land very real more so because the revenue was fixed at a very high rate and the ryots could not often meet it. There were instances of sale of zamnidari lands.

Given the precarious position of the zamindars, they did not transform into improving landlords as expected of them. But infact many of them simply sub-let their land to different categories of people leading to a process popularly called sub-infeudation. In the end, the peasants lost out because the burden of rent kept increasing with every sub-infeudation. The way in which Permanent Settlement worked out led to fragmentation of land and creation of multiple intermediaries. Usually, the large estate would be partitioned into chain of multiple intermediaries leading to fragmentation of land to the extent that “by the’ late nineteenth century 88.5% of the 110,456 permanently settled estates of Bengal and Bihar were less than 500 acres in size”. This also meant that the actual producers were too oppressed and burdened with the revenue demands that they could not undertake improvements. And on the other hand, it also created a hierarchy of rentiers who would be dependent on the revenue derived from the primary produces. This led to a situation where the entrepreneurial spirit was institutionally destroyed.

DEMERITS OF PERMANENT SETTLEMENT ON THE RYOTS

The change in the status of the zamindars however, meant that the peasants actually lost out because the peasants’ customary occupancy rights were transformed into that of tenancy. The manner of implementation of the Permanent Settlement actually increased the insecurity of the peasants. The settlement fixed was quite high and it was not usually met. They became victim of over-assessment; they had nobody (a zamindar) to help them out, when falling short of dues. It also left no room for respite in times of food shortage due to any calamity. Furthermore, the Regulating Acts of 1799 and 1812 gave the zamindars the right to evict the ryots and seize the land in case of the ryots’ ‘failure in payment of the rent.

The ryots or the peasants who were the actual tillers of the land and who paid their dues to the super-ordinate zamindars were the one who did not really benefit from the Permanent Settlement.

The fragmentation of land meant that they had to part with a larger portion of their produce. The customary occupancy rights which the peasants ‘held’ in relation to the land was taken away and they were transformed into tenants who could be evicted exploited and thus insecure in their hold of land. Cornwallis to provide the peasants with some measure of protection did include the issue of pattas or written agreements between the ryot and the zamindars that would state the amount to be paid but offered little protection to the peasants who were not literate and feared misuse of the pattas. The Permanent Settlement overall infact increased the coercive power of the zamindars.

However, instead of being a solution for ensuring a flowing avenue of revenues, Permanent Settlement led to increasing disappointment. The zamindars did not turn into the improving landlords, and since the revenue was fixed any increase procured from the land was appropriated by the zamindars. Nonetheless, PS was extended to the Madras Presidency where in the absence of substantial zamindari class, the local polygars were recognized as zamindars.

(ii) Ryotwari Settlement : Nature and Demerits

Ryotwari settlement was the land revenue system that took shape under Alexander Reed in 1792 in Bararmahal and was then extended by Thomas Munro from 1801 in the Ceded Districts. From.1820’s it was extended to parts of Madras and Bombay Presidencies, East Bengal and portions of Assam and Coorg (part of present Karnataka)

Main idea behind it- The Madras government suffered from perpetual acute financial crunch due to continuous warfare. It came to be believed that the revenues due to the Government could be increased by by passing the several intermediaries and making direct contract with the ryots.

Who was to collect it? The settlement was made directly with the ryot who was recognized as the owner of his plot of land subject to the payment of revenue. The Ryotwari Settlement technically created individual proprietary rights in land which were vested in peasants. This was in direct contrast with the Permanent Settlement which vested the rights in the zamindar.

How was it to be collected and how much? What was visualized was a field assessment system where the rent was to be fixed permanently through a survey of lands and required a detailed land survey covering area of the field, quality of the soil and average produce of every piece of land. However, in reality the assessment was based on guesswork which led to over-assessment of revenue and like other settlements, increased the tax burden of the ryots.

DEMERITS OF THE RYOTWARI SETTLEMENTS

Ryotwari Settlement being badly administered led to problems for the cultivators. By the Saharanpur Rules of’1855 the Government demand was fixed on the discretion of the revenue officers at each recurring settlement. This meant that the ryot had no fixity of rental, no security against the enhancement of the rent and no adequate motive for Investing in agricultural improvement.

In Ryotwari areas, since the cultivators were under heavy tax burden, they had to resort to loans from local money lenders and thus fall into further penury.
Even though the ryotwari settlement was based survey of land and other such measures, the peasants, the revenue assessment was usually more than what the ryot could extract from his field.

(iii) Mahalwari Settlement: Nature and Demerits

The main idea and where was it introduced? In the North Western Provinces of the Bengal Presidency (most of this area is now in Uttar Pradesh) Holt Mackenzie devised a new system that came into effect in 1822. He felt that the village was an important social institution in north Indian society and needed to be preserved Mahalwari system was introduced in order to rectify problems which had arisen in the other two land revenue settlements. The first concern was to ensure a stable income. Thus, in the Mahalwari. Settlement, the settlement was to be made village by village and estate (mahal) by estate. Secondly, lambardars were created as intermediaries between the state and the ryots but unlike in the permanent settlement they were not invested with perpetual rights. Thirdly, while the state reserved to itself the right of direct management of the agricultural economy it did not worry itself with cultivation and revenue collection as it did in the ryotwari system. And lastly, though the cultivation was done individually, the revenue was to be paid collectively by the village as a whole. This had the capacity to reduce the individual insecurity and distress.

Who was to collect it? The settlement was made not with individual landlords, the basis of the assessment of the revenue was the produce of a mahal or estate for which the villagers as a whole, both collectively and individually, were responsible for the payment of revenue for the whole village through the medium of the village headman or lambardar.

How and how much? The revenue was not fixed forever but for a limited period of thirty years at some places and twenty years at other places. Individual villager was to contribute in accordance with his holding. The revenue was fixed according to the yielding capacity of the soil, the nature of crop it produced and its prices. Once the assessment, was done, it continued for the full term of the settlement.

On what basis? The Revenue was fixed on the basis of periodical assessment by the officers in consultation with the lambardar and the village bodies.

DEMERITS OF MAHALWARI SETTLEMENT

The lambardars and other village headmen enjoyed more privileges which they abused for their profits. Since they acted as the intermediaries between the villagers and the Government, many of the lambardars brouht large areas of village land under their control.

The ryots were often reduced to the status of tenants, subtenants, co-sharers, and so on. These ryots like in the other two land revenue settlements after meeting the revenue demand were left with very little to survive on. They were overburdened and rack-rented.

Go Back To Main Page