Land Revenue Systems: Land revenue was one of the major sources of income for the British in India. To maximize this income, they introduced different systems across India. Today, we will discuss the key land revenue systems introduced by the British, their introduction, locations, reasons, and their impact on the Indian agricultural community.
Introduction:
Friends, after the Battle of Plassey in 1765, the East India Company gained the right to collect revenue from Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha. This marked the beginning of their experiments with land revenue systems. In 1772, Bengal’s Governor, Warren Hastings, introduced the Farming System. Under this system, the responsibility of collecting revenue was assigned to European district collectors, but the right to collect revenue was given to the highest bidder (auction system).
However, the Farming System was not very successful because the bidders, without considering the production process, attempted to extract as much revenue as possible. This resulted in the worsening condition of peasants, which led to the introduction of other systems by the British.
Permanent Settlement of the Zamindari System:
In 1793, Lord Cornwallis introduced the Permanent Settlement, which was one of the most significant reforms in land revenue systems. Under this system, the responsibility of revenue collection was handed over to zamindars. The reason for selecting zamindars was that it was easier to collect revenue from a few zamindars compared to numerous peasants. Furthermore, the British wanted to establish strong ties with the influential sections of society.
Under the Permanent Settlement, zamindars were allowed to keep 11% of the total land revenue, while 89% was to be paid to the British government. The zamindars were also given landownership rights, which they did not have before. Previously, their role was only to collect revenue. Under the new system, cultivators were reduced to mere tenants and could be evicted by the zamindars at will.
This system was introduced not only in Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha but also in the United Provinces (Banaras division) and northern Karnataka. The Zamindari system covered about 19% of British India.
The Permanent Settlement included a sunset clause, meaning that the zamindars had to pay the land revenue by a fixed date; failure to do so would result in the auctioning of their land. The goal behind introducing the Permanent Settlement was to create a fixed and reliable source of revenue for the British, which would help in planning their budget and expenditure. Additionally, Cornwallis believed that the zamindars would invest in land, thus increasing productivity.
However, this system faced several problems. Firstly, the amount of revenue set was so high that zamindars struggled to collect it, especially in the early years. Many zamindaris were auctioned off. Secondly, zamindars did not invest in land, as they focused on maximizing their profits. Revenue assessment was done arbitrarily, without considering actual agricultural productivity. As a result, peasants were forced to pay heavy rents and were exploited by zamindars, leading to widespread discontent.
The Ryotwari System:
As the East India Company expanded into southern and southwestern India, new challenges emerged in terms of land settlement. Unlike in northern India, large zamindars were not prevalent here, and the Zamindari system was not feasible. Furthermore, British officials like Munro and Read suggested that the settlement should be made directly with the cultivators (referred to as ryots) instead of zamindars. This led to the Ryotwari System, which involved periodic revision of revenue assessments.
The Ryotwari System was introduced by officials such as Alexander Read in 1792 in the Bada Mahal area. Later, Thomas Munro extended it to other areas of Madras. Over time, it was adopted in the Bombay Presidency as well. Under this system, revenue was directly collected from the ryots, and the settlements were not permanent, but subject to periodic revision.
The Ryotwari System covered about 52% of British India, including Madras, Bombay, Sindh, Assam, and parts of the Punjab. In this system, peasants did not own land, and instead, they were considered government tenants. The British set very high revenue rates, which were based on the gross production of land (as high as 45-55% in Madras). Even in times of famine or crop failure, peasants were required to pay the set revenue. This led to a situation where peasants were trapped in a cycle of debt and exploitation by moneylenders.
Mahalwari System:
The Mahalwari System was a modified version of the Zamindari system and was introduced in parts of the Ganga Valley, North-West Provinces, Central India, and Punjab. This system was implemented by British officials like Holt Mackenzie and R.M. Bird. Under this system, the revenue was fixed for an entire village or estate, and settlements were made with the village head or zamindar.
This system covered around 29% of British India. Under the Mahalwari System, revenue was fixed based on the net income of land, and the British government took up to 66% of the income. The settlements were made for 30 years.
Similar to other systems, this one also had its issues, particularly with high revenue assessments and lack of proper agricultural assessments. As a result, the burden on peasants increased, and many of them were forced into the hands of moneylenders, traders, and merchants. The villagers’ social and economic conditions worsened, and the system led to greater exploitation.
Impact on Indian Agriculture and Society:
The British land revenue systems led to a breakdown of the rural economy in India. Traditional village communities were disrupted, and the existing social, political, and economic framework crumbled. The concept of private property and land being treated as a market commodity changed the dynamics of rural India. The importance of new social classes, such as landlords, moneylenders, and traders, increased, while peasants, tenants, and agricultural laborers became increasingly impoverished.
The excessive revenue assessments were a common feature of all these systems, as the primary aim of the British was to maximize revenue income. This led to farmers falling into debt, the sale of land, and the eviction of peasants from their lands. The exploitation faced by the peasants resulted in widespread protests and revolts, which we will discuss in detail in future videos.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the land revenue systems introduced by the British were designed to maximize revenue at the cost of the peasants. These systems disrupted traditional agricultural practices, led to widespread exploitation, and caused severe economic hardship for the rural population. The introduction of these systems played a significant role in creating unrest among the peasantry, which eventually led to numerous revolts against the British rule.