Evolution of Land Tenure System

1. The agrarian policies of the British colonial rulers are regarded as among the most important factors responsible for introducing changes in the agrarian structure of the sub-continent. In order to maximize their incomes from land (which was collected from the cultivators in the form of land revenue), they introduced some basic changes in the property relations in the Indian countryside.
2. These agrarian policies of the colonial rulers had far reaching consequences. In Bengal and Bihar, in parts of Chennai and United Province they conferred full ownership rights over the erstwhile zamindars that were only tax collecting intermediaries during the earlier regimes. The vast majority of peasants who had been actually cultivating land became tenants of the new landlords. Similarly, they demanded revenues in the form of a fixed amount of cash rather than as a share from what was produced on the land. Thus, even when bad weather destroyed the crop; the peasants were forced to pay the land revenue.
3. These changes led to serious indebtedness among the peasantry. They were forced to mortgage their land in order to meet the revenue demands. In the long run it led to peasants loosing their lands to moneylenders and big landowners. The big landowners and money lenders emerged as a dominant class in the countryside while the ordinary peasants suffered In the new agrarian class structure that emerged during the colonial rule, peasants had no motivation to improve their lands and work hard. As a result the agricultural production declined.

Land Revenue Systems during British Rule

1. After gaining control of Bengal in 1757, the British thought that they would retain the administration established by the Nawabs of Bengal but would use it to collect an ever – growing amount for themselves. However, the rapacity and corruption of the Company’s employees, and their continual interference in the administration led to complete disorganization, and was one of the main of the terrible famine of 1769 – 70, in which it was estimated that one – third of the population of Bengal died.
2. From 1772 therefore, a new system was introduced and this was the system of farming of land revenue. Under this system the right of collection of land revenue was given on a contract basis. The contractor who offered to pay the highest amount from a certain district or sub-division was given full powers for a certain number of years. Obviously, such contractors (they were called revenue farmers in those days), would try and extort as much as possible during the period that they held the contract; it would not matter to them if the people were ruined and the production in the later years declined. After all they would have made their profit Extortion and oppressions were the obvious results of such a system. Furthermore, many of the contractors had offered to pay very large amounts, and later found that they could not collect so much, even with great oppression. Finally, the system also led to corruption. As with many government contracts even today, profitable contracts on very easy terms were given to the friends and favourites and benamidars of men in power, leading to loss to the government.

The Permanent Settlement in Bengal

1. In 1786 Lord Cornwallis was sent out to India with orders to clean up and reorganize the administration. Cornwallis realized that the existing system was impoverishing the country- its agriculture was in decline. Furthermore, it was failing to produce the large and regular surplus that the Company hoped for. And it was also becoming difficult for the Company to get the large quantities of Indian goods that it planned to export to Europe, because, as Cornwallis observed the production of silk, cotton, etc. all depended on agriculture. When agriculture was decaying, handicrafts could hardly be prosperous. And both the London authorities and Cornwallis were agreed that much of the corruption and oppression originated in the fact that the taxation had the character of an uncertain, arbitrary imposition.
2. It was decided therefore, that the land-tax would now be permanently fixed: the government would promise never to increase it in future. Several effects were expected from this measure. It would reduce the scope for corruption that existed when officials could alter the assessment at will. Furthermore, now that the state would not demand anything extra if the production increased thus it was hoped that landholders would invest money in improving the land as the whole of the benefit would come to them. Production and trade would increase, and the government would also get its taxes regularly. Finally, Cornwallis believed that even if the land tax was fixed government could always levy taxes on trade and commerce in order to raise more money if it was needed. In any case, the land revenue was now fixed at a very high level – an absolute maximum – of Rs. 2 Crore and 65 lakhs.

Settlement with Zamindars

1. The Nawabs of Bengal had collected taxes from the Zamindars. These Zamindars were usually in control of large areas: sometimes entire districts. They had their own armed forces, and were termed Rajas. But there were also Zamindars who held smaller areas, and either paid directly to the State, or paid through some big Zamindar. The actual cultivation was carried on by peasants who paid the Zamindars at customary rates fixed in every sub- division (or Pargana). Oppressive Zamindars often added extra charges called Abwabs on top of the regular land revenue rates.
2. By 1790 British rule had greatly confused this picture. Some Zamindars were retained – others were replaced by contractors or officials. The old customary rates were ignored and every abuse permitted if it led to an increase in the revenues. By the time Cornwallis arrived on the scene, the situation was one of the complete confusion. The new Governor – General belonged to the landed aristocracy of Britain and was in favour of a settlement that gave the right of ownership to zamindars.
3. To understand this you must bear in mind that there must have been about four or five million cultivating families in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa at that time. Collecting from them would have involved the preparation of detailed records of all their holdings, and the calculation of a tax on this basis. This would take several years and a large staff to execute. In addition it would give great opportunities for corruption. It was obviously much simpler to collect the revenue from a small number of big Zamindars – and this was the arrangement made under the Permanent Settlement that was introduced in Bengal and Bihar in 1793. Every bit of agricultural land in these provinces therefore became part of some Zamindari. The Zamindar had to pay the tax fixed upon it if he did so then he was the proprietor, the owner of his Zamindari. He could sell mortgage or transfer it The land would be inherited by heirs in due course. If however, the Zamindar failed to pay the tax due, then the Government would take the Zamindari and sell it by auction, and all the rights would vest in the new owner.
4. Ram Krishna Mukherjee said that this was no less a social revolution. It changed the whole structure. There were many new people who became land owners. Land was made into commercial commodity. This commercialization did not help either Indian agriculture or peasant. Most landlords were traders and merchants who did not have any interest in development of agriculture. Even then commercialization changed the social structure of Bengal and other areas, where this system was implemented.
5. Zamindari system changed many things but it had negative impacts. Banerjee and Iyer said long after independence that these areas remained backward in agricultural terms. They were lagging behind compared to other areas in all terms. Zamindari system was tyrannical to the peasant It has less production and it did not in prove agriculture.

The Position of the Cultivators

1. The actual cultivation of the land was, of course, carried on by the lakhs of peasants who were now reduced to the status of tenants of the Zamindars Cornwallis had also decreed that the Zamindars should issue written agreements (called pattas) to each cultivator, and these should specify what the tenant was to pay. He apparently believed that this would prevent oppression by the Zamindars. In practice, however, no such pattas were issued, and the peasants were wholly at the mercy of the Zamindars.
2. This was not accidental. As we have noted earlier, the permanent assessment was the largest sum that could be got from the land It was a heavy and oppressive assessment. According to the estimate of a knowledgeable official John Shore, if a piece of land produced crops worth Rs.100, then Rs. 45 went to the government, Rs. 15 to the zamindar and only Rs. 40 was left to the cultivator. Such oppressive taxes could only be collected by oppressive methods. If the zamindars were not allowed to oppress the peasants then they would not be able to meet the demands of the State. By regulations made in 1794, 1799 and 1812, the zamindar could seize, that is, carry away the tenant’s property if the rent had not been paid. He did not need the permission of any court of law to do this. This was a legal method of harassment. In addition to this the zamindars often resorted to illegal methods, such as locking up or beating tenants who did not pay whatever was demanded. The immediate effect of the Settlement was, therefore, to greatly worsen the position of the actual cultivators of the soil in order to benefit the zamindars and the British Government.

Effects of the Permanent Settlement

1. It may seem that the settlement was greatly in favour of the zamindars but we should not forget that they were also now obliged to paya fixed amount by fixed dates every year, and any failure on their part meant the sale of the zamindari. Furthermore, many of the zamindaris were rated for large sums that left no margin for shortfalls due to flood drought or other calamity. As a result, many zamindars had their zamindaris taken away and sold in the decades immediately after the permanent Settlement. In Bengal alone, it is estimated that 68 percent of the zamindari land was sold between 1794 and 1819. Merchants, government officials, and other zamindars bought these lands. The new buyers would then set about trying to increase the rents paid by the tenants in order to make a profit from their purchases. Raja Rammohan Roy remarked that “Under the permanent settlement since 1793, the landholders have adopted every measure to raise the rents, by means of the power put into their hands”.
2. However, many zamindars still found it difficult to pay the amount demanded by the British. One such zamindar, the Raja of Burdwan then divided most of his estate into lots or fractions called patni taluqas. Each such unit was permanently rented to a holder called a Patnidar, who promised to pay a fixed rent If he did not pay, his patni could be taken away and sold Other zamindars also resorted to this: thus a process of subinfeudation commenced.
3. Gradually the population of Bengal increased; waste and jungle land came under cultivation. Rents also increased On the other hand the tax payable to government was fixed so the position of the zamindars improved and they were able to lead lives of indolence and luxury at the expense of their tenants. Only in 1859 did the State take some step to protect the rights of tenants: a law passed that year bestowed a limited protection on old tenants, who were now termed occupancy tenants.

Ryotwari Settlement

1. The task of fixing the tax, or settling the revenue was a difficult task. The revenue was to be fixed on thousands of fields in a sub-division or district, and to fix it in such a way that the burden on each such field is approximately equal. If the burden is not equally distributed then the cultivators will not occupy the heavily assessed fields, and cultivate only those with a light assessment.
2. Now, in fixing the assessment of a field the revenue officer had to consider two things: one was the quality of the soil – whether it was rocky or rich, irrigated or dry etc.; the other was area of the field It followed therefore, that this system depended on a survey and classification of land according to it. Thus one acre of first class rice land should pay the same amount regardless of whether it was located in this village or that one.
3. Munro usually fixed it by estimating what the usual product of the land was – for example – 2600 lbs. of paddy per acre. He would then claim that the State share of this amounted to one third or two – fifths of this, and thus calculate the amount that the cultivator had to pay the State. This, of course is the theory of Ryotwari – in practice, the estimates were largely guesswork, and the amounts demanded so high that they could be collected with great difficulty, and sometimes could not be collected at all.

Effects of the Ryotwari system in Madras and Bombay

1. The Permanent Settlement had established a few big zamindars in a position of dominance over the mass of the peasants. The social effects of the Ryotwari settlements were less dramatic. In many areas the actual cultivating peasants were recorded as the occupants or ryots, and thus secured the title to their holdings. However the tax was so heavy that many peasants would have gladly abandoned at least some of their land and had to be prevented from doing so. It was also possible for non – cultivating landlords to have their names entered as the occupants (or owners) of particular holdings, while the actual cultivation was carried on by their tenants, servants or even bonded labourers. This was particularly the case in irrigated districts like Thanjavur (in Tamil Nadu) where many of the ryots held thousands of acres of land. There was no limit to the amount of land that a ryot could hold so there could be great difference in wealth and status between one ryot and another. However, money- lenders and other non – cultivators were not much interested in acquiring lands because of the heavy taxes that came with them. Hence the small peasants, oppressed though they might be by the tax – collector did not have to fear expropriation by the money – lender or landlord.
2. Shekhar Bando Padhyaya said this was not so sound a system as it has propagated and mostly poligar (Palegars) became Ryotwars.
3. In opinion of B.R. Mishra, despite different system of revenue, there was collective land in all the village and there was common land also.
4. Baden Powell has supported this argument but said that land revenue system was arbitrary as in the central provinces, there was no logic for Zamindari system.
5. Under the reformed Ryotwari system that gradually developed in Bombay after 1836 and Madras after 1858 the burden of the land revenue was somewhat reduced, and land acquired a saleable value. The purchaser could now expect to make a profit from owning land: the State would not take it all as tax. One result of this was that money- lenders began to seize the lands of their peasant debtors and either evict them or reduce them to tenants. This process led to considerable social tension, and caused a major rural uprising in the Bombay Deccan in 1875.

The Mahalwari System

1. The aggressive policies of Lord Wellesley led to large territorial gains for the British in North India between 1801 and 1806. These areas came to be called the North -Western Provinces. Initially the British planned a settlement on the Bengal pattern, Wellesley ordered the local officials to make the settlement with the zamindars wherever they could, provided they agreed to pay suitably high land revenue. Only if the zamindars refused to pay, or if zamindars could not be found then only the settlements was to be made village by village giving the preference to the Mokuddums, Perdhauns, or any respectable ryots of the village. Ultimately, the settlement was to be made permanent, as in Bengal. In the meantime, however, every effort was made to enlarge the revenue collection. The demand in 1803-04 was Rs.188 lakhs and by1817-18 it became Rs. 290 lakhs.
2. Such enormous increases provoked resistance from many of the big zamindars and rajas, who had been almost independent in the earlier period Many of them were therefore driven off their lands by the new administration. In other cases the old zamindars could not pay the amount demanded and their estates were sold by the Government Increasingly, therefore, it became necessary to collect revenue from the village directly through its Pradhan or Muqaddam (headman). In the revenue records the word used for a fiscal unit was a Mahal and the village wise assessment therefore came to be called as Mahalwari settlement. It was however quite possible for one person to hold a number of villages, so that many big zamindars continued to exist. Furthermore, as in Bengal the confusion and coercion that accompanied the collection of the very heavy land tax created fine opportunities for the local officials, and large areas of land were illegally acquired by them in the early years. Meanwhile, the Government found that its expenditures were always exceeding its revenues, and the idea of a permanent settlement was dropped.

Effects of the Mahalwari Settlement

1. One of the early effects was that the areas under the control of the big Taluqdars were reduced The British officers made direct settlements with the village zamindars as far as possible, and even supported them in the law courts when the Taluqdars brought suits against them. But the so-called village zamindars were supported only because it was planned to extract the highest possible revenue from them. They were freed from Taluqdar’s claims only to subject them to a full measure of government taxation.
2. The result was often the ruin of the village zamindars. One officer reported that in many villages of Aligarh: “the Jama (land revenue) was in the first place considerably too heavy; and in which the Malgoozars revenue payers seem to have lost all hope of improving their condition or of bearing up against the burden imposed on them. They are now deeply in debt, and utterly incapable of making any arrangements for defraying their arrears”.
3. The result of this situation was that large areas of land began to pass into the hands of Money-lenders and merchants who ousted the old cultivating proprietors or reduced them to tenants at will. This occurred most frequently in the more commercialized districts, where the land revenue demand had been pushed to the highest level and where the landholders suffered most acutely from the business collapse and export depression after 1833. By the1840s it was not uncommon to find that no buyers could be found to take land that was being sold for arrears of land revenue. As in the Madras Presidency the tax in these cases was so high that the buyer could not expect to make any profit from the purchase. Overall therefore, the Mahalwari settlement brought impoverishment and widespread dispossession to the cultivating communities of North India in the 1830s and 1840s, and their resentment expressed itself in popular uprisings in 1857. In that year villagers and Taluqdars all over North India drove off government officials, destroyed courts and official records and papers, and ejected the new auction purchasers from the villages. 

The End of the Blog : Evolution of Land Tenure System