EHI - 5

Block 4
5th Part

Q  Compare and contrast the Ryotwari and Mahalwari revenue settlements.         20

Q  Discuss important features of the Ryotwari settlement introduced by the British in India.  20

Q  Mahalwari settlement                                                  6

A  Ryotwari Settlement - 

The emergence of Ryotwari -  Munro, and Read were sent to administer a newly conquered region of Madras in 1792. Instead of collecting from the zamindars, they began to collect directly from the villages, fixing the amount that each village had to pay. After this, they proceeded to assess each cultivator or ryot separately - and thus evolved a system that came to be known as the 'Ryotwari' system. This early ryotwari system was based on field assessment methods. This means that the tax payable on each field was fixed by a government officer, and then the cultivator had the choice of cultivating that field and paying that amount, or not cultivating it. If no cultivator is interested in cultivating any particular piece of land then it would lie fallow.

Land assessment under Ryotwari

The govt official has to fix the tax 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. 

Now, in fixing the land revenue of a field, the revenue officer had to consider two things: o-n e was the quality of the soil - whether it was rocky or rich, irrigated or dry, etc.; the other was an area of the field. Thus one acre of first-class rice land should pay the same amount whether it was located in this village or that one.

The Adoption of Ryotwari in Madras

Since the Madras government was in dire need of funds, it adopted the ryotwari system. It resulted in larger revenue to the state than any other system could have produced. This was because there were no zamindars or other intermediaries who were co-sharers of the agricultural surplus. The government squeezed maximum from the cultivator went directly to the State.

Ryotwari Theory and Practice

In practice, the estimates done by officials were largely guesswork. The amounts demanded were so high that they could be collected with great difficulty, & sometimes could not be collected at all. The tax came to be fixed on an arbitrary basis, usually by looking at what he had paid in earlier years. This was known as a 'put cut' assessment.

Again, in theory, the ryotwari system allowed the ryot to give up any piece of land that he didn’t want to cultivate. But it soon became clear that if this was freely permitted the tax revenue of the State would fall substantially. So government officers began to compel the cultivators to hold on to (and of course, pay for) land that they did not really want to cultivate. The use of beating and torture was widespread to enforce payment. 

Effects of the Ryotwari System in Madras

There is hardly any doubt that the implementation of this system was extremely harmful to the rural economy. The peasants were impoverished and lacked the resources to cultivate new lands. Apart from this negative effect upon the rural economy, the heavy burden of taxation devastated the land market. Land in most districts of Madras had no value in the first half of the 19th century. No one would buy it, because buying it would mean that the new owner would have to pay the exorbitant land revenue. After paying for taxes, he would have no income from the land, and obviously, in such circumstances, no one would purchase land. 

Social Effects of the Ryotwari System

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 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 laborers. 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. This led to a 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.

Mahalwari Settlement 

             In the Mahalwari system land revenues were collected 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 a mahalwari settlement. Revenue was not fixed, rather revised periodically in the system. The responsibility of collecting the revenue and paying it to the government was given to the village headman. 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. 

Mahalwari Theory and Practice

In theory, the revenues were to be collected after the survey by Government officials. It should be done after recording all the rights of cultivators, zamindars, and others, and also fixing the amount to be paid from every piece of land. In practice it was never followed, the estimates done by officials were largely guesswork. The guesses were always on the high side, increasing the amounts to be paid to the State.

Effects of the Mahalwari Settlement

        One of the early effects was that the areas under the control of the big taluqdars was 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.

         As a result of it, large areas of land began to pass into the hands of money-lenders and merchants who ousted the old cultivators or reduced them to the position of tenants at will. This occurred frequently in the most commercialized districts, where the land revenue demand had been pushed to the highest level. Moreover, in these areas the landholders suffered immensely because of the business collapse and export depression after 1833. By the 1840s it became common that no buyers could be found to purchase land to settle 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 poverty to the cultivating communities of North India in the 1830s ad 1840s. As a result, the resentment was expressed in the popular uprisings of 1857. In that year villagers and taluqdars all over North India drove off the government officials, destroyed court and burnt down the official records and papers. They also ejected the new auction purchasers from the villages. Though the Mahalwari system eliminated middlemen between the government and the village community and brought about an improvement in irrigation facilities, its benefit was largely enjoyed by the government. The implementation of this system only brought poverty and impoverishment to the rural economy. 

Q  Did the Permanent Settlement in Bengal meet its objectives? Discuss.                                              12

Q  What was the nature of the Permanent Settlement that was tried out in Bengal?                          12

A   Permanent Settlement - Main Features - 

In this method, the land tax to be paid to the government was permanently fixed. There was assurance from the government not to increase land tax in the future. The state would not demand anything extra even if the production increases as it was believed that landholders would invest money in improving the land.

Zamindars - The zamindars became the agents of govt who were assigned the duty to collect taxes (land revenue). The zamindar had to pay the tax which was fixed upon it, by collecting from the peasantry and if he did so then he was the proprietor, the owner of his zamindari. However, he had the right to sell, mortgage or transfer it. The members of his family would inherit the lands after him. 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 new owners would have all the rights. 

Peasantry - The actual cultivation of the land was carried on by the peasants who were reduced to the status of tenants of the zamindars. Now the peasants were wholly at the mercy of the zamindars who can evict them at will. 

             The permanent assessment demand was fixed as the largest sum that could be extracted out of the land by the government. It was a heavy and oppressive assessment. The tax demand was huge, it led to oppressive methods employed by zamindars to collect revenues. The zamindars could seize 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 greatly worsened the position of the actual cultivators of the soil, in order to benefit the zamindars and the British Government.

The objective of Permanent Settlement - The main objective of this system was to get maximum money out of land every year without variation. The zamindars were obliged to pay a fixed amount every year on fixed dates and any failure on their part meant the sale of the zamindari. Furthermore, the land revenue demand fixed by the government was so high that it left no margin for shortfalls due to flood, drought or another calamity. As a result, many zamindars had their zamindaris taken away and sold in the decades immediately after the permanent Settlement. The government benefited immensely which was the primary objective.     

Q  Discuss the effects of the Permanent Settlement on Bengal. 

A  Effects of Permanent Settlement on Bengal

Zamindars -  The zamindars became the agents of govt who were assigned the duty to collect taxes (land reverse). The zamindar had to pay the taxes which was fixed upon it by collecting from the peasantry and if he did so then he was the proprietor, the owner of his zamindari. They were obliged to pay a fixed amount by fixed dates every year, and any failure on their part meant the sale of the zamindari. Furthermore, the land revenue demand fixed by the government was so high that it left no margin for shortfalls due to flood, drought or another 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 try to increase the rents to be paid by the tenants in order to make a profit from their purchases.

        Gradually the population of Bengal increased, waste and jungle land came under cultivation. Rents also increased. On the other hand, the tax payable to the 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. 

Peasantry -  The actual cultivation of the land was carried on by the peasants who were reduced to the status of tenants of the zamindars. Now the peasants were wholly at the mercy of the zamindars who can evict them at will. 

             The permanent assessment demand was the largest sum that could be extracted from the land by the government. It was a heavy and oppressive assessment. The tax demand was huge, it led to oppressive methods employed by zamindars to collect revenues. The zamindars could seize 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 greatly worsened the position of the actual cultivators of the soil, in order to benefit the zamindars and the British Government.

Q  Analyse the commercialization of agriculture under the British rule in India. What was its impact ?                                  20

Q  How did the commercialization of agriculture affect the Indian economy in the 19th century?                      12

Q  What was the impact of the commercialization of agriculture on the Indian economy?                                    12

Q  How did the commercialization of agriculture affect the Indian economy & society?                               20

Q  Analyse the commercialization of Indian agriculture under British rule.                                             20

A       After the Industrial Revolution in Britain started, these mills found it difficult to compete with the Indian products, and in the 1780s they launched an agitation, claiming that the East India Company was injuring them by its import of Indian fabrics. The company realized that it needed to promote other lines of export from India, agricultural products were a safe line. They could not compete with British products, and also serve as raw materials for British industry. This strategy had been followed in the case of silk from the 1790s and with the development of the British industry, this trend grew stronger. Furthermore, by the 1789s an indirect method of remitting the Indian tribute via China had begun to take shape. The British imported large quantities of tea from China and had to pay for it in silver, as the Chinese did not want Western goods. However, the Chinese bought Indian products like ivory, raw cotton, and (later on) opium. The Chinese products could be got in exchange for Indian products that the British acquired in India. This system became known as 'triangular trade', with the three points being Calcutta, Canton, and London. Wealth circulated through the first two but gathered in the Company's treasury in the third.

                      The Selection of Commercial Crops

              The crops on which the company concentrated were indigo, cotton, raw silk, opium, pepper, and, in the 19th century, also tea and sugar. Of these, raw silk was used by British weavers as it could not be produced in Britain. Silk remained an important export item til the last decades of the 19th century. The same was true for cotton, and it could also be sold to the Chinese. Opium was smuggled into China. The development of opium as a commercial crop served two objectives of the Company - it gave a large revenue in India and also helped in transferring Indian remittances to London via China. Indigo was a textile dye, extracted from a tropical plant and was in great demand in the West. Tea cultivation was introduced in Assam from the 1840s. Sugar and pepper were other crops that were commercialized during this period. None of these crops competed with or replaced any British product. Moreover cheap agricultural goods acted as raw materials to British industries.

Effects on Indian economy

Impoverishment - One of the major objectives of the exports of agriculture goods was to remit resources out of India. It was the method by which the Indian 'tribute' was transferred to Britain. India received no imports in return for these exports. Obviously such a transfer impoverished India. The cultivation and export of commercial crops thus served to impoverish rather than to enrich India. 

Instability - Agriculture in India was exposed to many hazards like drought, flood or other calamity but with commercial agriculture, another factor was added. The crops were now going to distant markets. Therefore if prices of a commodity drop in one region due to bumper crops, the same trend is repeated in other regions leading to less payment and maltreatment. For example, the Bundelkhand region began to grow a lot of cotton for the Chinese market after 1816. The British officials claimed the area became very prosperous and increased the land tax. However, exports and prices of cotton declined after the 1830’s but the taxes weren’t reduced leading to the impoverishment of the peasantry. Thus, the commercialization added a fresh element of instability to the rural economy.

The various markets

Commercialization developed in India led to the disappearance of the other markets. 

# Labor market - In the ryoti system, the peasants were coerced to cultivate crops and supply them at a very low price. They could survive because they and their families could grow food on the rest of their land - but a landless laborer could not do this, and would have had to be paid more. So the planters and businessmen did not like to employ wage labor, and the labor market did not develop.

# Input market - The peasant had to use his own implements like plough, bullocks, etc. to raise the commercial crop. But he was not paid extra for this - as that would reduce the planters' profits. He could bear the loss because these things were needed to grow his own food supply also, but as in the case with labour, no free market for these input goods could develop . 

# land market - The regime of the tax-collector, the zamindar, and the planter hindered the growth of the land market. Due to high taxes and unreasonable demands by planters, no outsiders were interested in buying land and thus the land market didn’t develop. 

# Free market - There was the credit market, to provide loans. The indigo cultivators were given loans by the planters as a way of tying them down. The interest charged was high while the product was purchased at the minimum possible price leading to a debt trap. On the other hand, the planter himself did not want the advance repaid, because then the peasant would escape from his control. Similarly, in the case of opium, the peasants took the advance to grow the crop at least in part because they feared that a refusal would anger the village headman and the Government. A free market, with the freedom for each individual to act in his own interest clearly did not exist. 

Social structure - The continual use of coercion and State power distorted the markets and prevented the appearance of a full labor market. Production continued to be carried on by the peasant and his family on (his little plot of land), but now the indigo planter or opium agent forced him to mark off a part of his land for a commercial crop, from which he earned little or nothing. The peasant was impoverished and the rural economy was ruined. There was widespread poverty, impoverishment of masses as a consequence famine became a regular feature wiping out the population. But neither the method nor the organization of production was altered. The European businessmen found it more profitable to exploit the small peasant household than to engage in large-scale production with hired labor.