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 debatesphilosophical 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 Governments 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 Companys 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 asystem 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 Companys 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 178990 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 Companys 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.1820s 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 of1855 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.

Question : Discuss in brief the economic Nationalism?

Answer :
The economic criticism of colonialism is one of the most important lines of thought in the history
of Indian freedom movement. The Indian freedom movement did not start as an anti-colonial
movement. It was through the development of the economic critique of colonial policies that the
true exploitative nature of British colonialism was discovered and gradually this criticism
evolved into political criticism of the British.
Main Proponents of Economic Nationalism- The leaders who developed this economic criticism
were known as the moderates and are also popularly clubbed as the economic nationalists Dadabhai Naoroji the Grand Old Man of India wrote (1867) Poverty and Un-British Rule in
India; and he is also known as the high priest of the drain theory; Justice Mahadev Govind
Ranade; Romesh Chandra Dutt wrote Economic History of Indias (1901) G.V. Joshi; G.
Subramanya Iyer; G.K. Gokhale; Prithwis Chandra Ray; R.C. Dutt wrote Indian Today.
These early leaders, who were in essence intellectuals of India, were from the sections of the
society that had benefited from western education, and the job opportunities thrown up by the
colonial rule, law, Indian Civil Services, doctors, and so on. They in fact had an implicit faith in
the goodness and practicality of the British Government. They believed that the colonial
government would help India on her path to modernisation along the lines of Britain in all
spheres of economy. This does not imply that they were blind to the negative aspects of being
under the rule of a foreign government. They simply believed that India was yet not ready to
stand on her own legs and needed British rule which would guide and develop India.
The place of Dadabhai Naoroji is unique in that he was a businessman and a publicist settled in
England. The early leaders-intellectuals were deeply influenced by Naoroji and they all came to
know each other during the 1860s and 1870s while they were either studying for ICS or law.
They sought to make the British Indian government aware of the true economic conditions of
India and suggest changes to the government which Would work as the framework for India s
development but under the aegis of the British. The early leaders were primarily concerned with
fostering better understanding of the Indian situation amongst the British so as to help them in
governing India better. However, deeper they studied they observed that the positive steps in the
direction of building Indian economy were too slow and too mild and that Indian economy was
in reality under-developing and regressing. The lack of economic development was evident in
the frequency of famines and the widespread poverty.

Naorojis paper The Poverty and Un-British Rule in India printed in 1867 was one of the most
important books in the literature of economic nationalism. The book made a case that the policies
of colonial Government were destructive and despotic to the Indians and UN-British and suicidal
to Britain. On the other hand, a truly British course could and would certainly be vastly
beneficial both to Britain and India and that the British were falling short of applying the nobler
British ideals in India. The truly British course was to transform Indias-economy and develop it
along the lines of modernisation. The economic nationalist praised and acknowledged the nonmaterial consequences of the British rule-liberation from superstition, and education, etc but as
far as the material consequences were concerned British had a lot to fulfill. The debates led to
questioning of the moral basis of British rule in India. It was advocated that a government could
enjoy a long political rule only as long as it enjoyed the confidence of the people in the morality
of the state and failure to do so was suicidal to the continuation of British rule. And this
confidence exists when people believe that the state is responsible, in a constructive way, for the
welfare of the people. It was accepted that the British rule had done much good for India but the
economic nationalists opined the British were not fulfilling their moral responsibility. The school
of thought that emerged from the writings of these figures is called Economic Nationalism.
Due to the efforts of the economic nationalists poverty became the central theme of critique.
They asserted that India was poor not because poverty was inherent and natural to India nor was
it inherited from the past but that it was recent; and in fact, the result of the colonial policies.
India which was in essence a manufacturing industry was transformed into a raw-material
producing industry by the colonial economic policies.
The economic nationalists made popular the notion that the interest of British imperialism lay in
keeping the economy of India subordinate to that of the British. They discovered that
exploitation of India took place not through the simpler forms of outright plunder but by more
disguised forms like- foreign investment, discriminatory protective tariffs, free trade and so on.
For them Indias poverty exemplified the lack of national development. According to RC. Dutt if
the taxes paid by the Indians are spent within the country then the money would circulate within
her boundary and give boost to trade, industries and agriculture. The money would also then
reach the people of India in some form or the other. Bit if, like in the drain, the taxes paid by the
Indiana were being unilaterally taken out of India and spent abroad then Indian economy would
suffer. The economic nationalists thus, came to believe that Indias salvation lay in developing its
economy which meant developing modern industries based on modern technology and capitalist
enterprise. Another very important line of thought that they developed was that Indian industries
had to be developed by using Indian capital and not foreign capital as foreign capital replaced
and suppressed Indian capital and became a tool for further exploitation of India.
The drain of wealth theory was the fundamental critique of colonialism developed by the
economic nationalists. In course of debates, researches and printing, other aspects of colonial
economic policies in foreign trade, railways, tariffs, currency and exchange, finance and labour

legislation came under scrutiny for their role in exploitation of India. They studied the decline of
the handicraft industries and identified the deliberate policy of the British of discouraging
indigenous industries in order to help the British manufacturers. The criticism that grew out of
the economic policies of the colonial government eroded the moral confidence of the people in
the Government. They exposed the explosive character of the Governments policy Economic
criticism was just the first step towards political critique of the British Government. The
economic nationalists created a situation in which the antagonism between the rulers and the
ruled went on developing As it continued and when combined with other issues (early demands
of Indian National Congress) struggle for political power became inevitable.