Professional Documents
Culture Documents
British Land Revenue Policy
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.