The Consequences of the Permanent Settlement

Topics will be Discussed: 1. Implement of Permanent settlement.

2. The Results of the Permanent Settlement.
i. Situation of Raiyats. ii. The Conditions of Zamidars.
iii. The East India Company.
Historians have varied opinions about the outcome of the permanent settlement. James Mill
has criticized, “Within a generation the old Zamidari families were wiped out; those who were
descended from the Mahajan class of Calcutta took the place of the old Zamidars." According
to Marshman, This measure was a bold and a brave measure. It removed the uncertainty of
land-revenue and the criticism of Holmes. The Zamidars aimed to improve agriculture by
obtaining permanent ownership rights in land. Farmers also benefited. Soo, here we identify
both positive and negative impacts of Permanent Settlement in Bengal.
Implement of Permanent settlement:
At the end of this controversy, Cornwallis introduced a ten-year settlement in Bengal and Bihar
in 1789 AD. Cornwallis sent James Grant, Sir John Shore and his own recommendations to
the British authorities. Henry Dundas, president of the Board of Control, and Pitt, the Prime
Minister of England, approved Cornwallis's recommendations, deciding the authority to
review these recommendations. Cornwallis issued his regulation on March 22, 1793 AD, after
receiving instructions from the British authorities, converting the ten-year settlement into a
permanent settlement. According to this act, the land revenue was permanent not the land and
have to before the sun set on a fixed date (the Sunset Act).
The Results of the Permanent Settlement: Three parties were connected with the
permanent settlement, namely the Raiyat or peasant, the company and the Zamidar. The
outcome of this settlement can be accurately known by judging the reaction of the permanent
settlement on these three parties.
 Situation of Raiyats:
Ramesh Chandra Dutta says that the condition of the Raiyat is improved by the
permanent settlement. The permanent settlement saved the Raiyat from tyranny of
government bureaucrats. Vipanchandra commented, this acts resulted less exploitation of
Raiyats but criticized the loss of farmer’s ownership of land. However, in long term it was
not beneficial for the peasants. For Example:
1. The Oppression of Zamidars and Middlemen: P. J. Marshall commented that " Some
gained from the new system: others lost.' Because of this settlement, the revenue
pressure on the Raiyats increased tremendously. By 1793 AD, the total land-revenue
due to the government was 2,68,00,989 rupees. As the population increased, the
Zamidars increased the revenue and the middlemen force the Raiyat to pay additional
rent. The farmers of Bengal were fed up with lawsuits and repression. There was no
better system to destroy the cultivator than a permanent settlement.
 2. The loss of Land Ownership: The permanent Settlements deprived Raiyats from the
ownership of lands and the Raiyats class became the land slaves of the Zamidars. During
the Mughal era, Zamidars never owned land. Zamidars were only revenue collectors.
According to Dr. NK Singh, "It gave a blank check to the Zamidars by the perpetual
settlement.
3. The Patta System: In 1793, Regulation VIII directed Zamidars to grant Pattas to
Raiyats. However, this regulation became a dead letter. The Zamidars refrain from
giving Patta due to collect extra money. The Raiyats were also reluctant to receive
because they obliged to pay regular rent and feared that the hidden land will be caught
when the land survey for grant of Patta starts. In short, due to non-cooperation of
Zamidars in granting Pattas and reluctance of Raiyats to accept Pattas, the Patta system
did not work.
4. The Haptam Act : Regulation VII of 1799 states that if the Raiyat leaves the revenue of
the Zamidars, the Zamidars can take possession of all the properties immovable and
movable on the basis of the application to the Munsef by filing a suit in the court. Even
if the Zamidar made a wrongful claim against the Raiyat, the Raiyat had no recourse.
According to researcher Sirajul Islam "Haptam Act was Ek Kala Kanoon" (A black
Act).
 The Conditions of Zamidars:
1. The Early Happiness: The increase in land increases the profit of the Zamidars and the
Zamidar is able to settle the land at any rate he likes. Thus, in primary stage the Zamidars
were got the golden key to make own self-profitable.
2. The Crucial Sunset: For the Sunset Act, most of the large Zamidaris were confiscated
by the government due to their arrears of revenue. Big Zamidaris like Rajshahi,
Dinajpur, Nadia, Birbhum, Mednipur etc. of Bengal disappeared. In Orissa between
1804-1818, 51-6% of the old Zamidars lost their ownership.
3. The Emergence of Small Zamidars: In Bihar, the Maharaja of Dwarbhanga, the Raja
of Hatiar, the Raja of Tikari of Gaya could protect the Zamidari. The small Zamidars
were not particularly affected by the permanent settlement. The government took a more
forgiving attitude towards small Zamidaris. The government seized the land of the big
Zamidars and settled them with new Zamidars.
4. The Emergence of Middlemen or Pattnidars: The Pattnidars received Zamidari
settlements on perpetual terms as intermediaries. Here we identify an hierarchy of
settlements.
1. The Company.

2. The Zamidar.

a. 1st Middle Man - The Sadar Pattanidar.

b. 2nd Middle Man - The Dar Pattanidar.
c. Third Middle Man - The Dar-Dar-Pattanidar.
d. ……………..
e. ……………..
 Between the principal Zamidars above and the Raiyats below, at least five or six layers
of intermediate classes arose. The intermediaries enjoyed the surplus revenue by giving
the property owner his due. According to PJ Marshall, "Within a few years of the
introduction of the Permanent Settlement, it became clear that the Company's aim to
protect the Raiyat's interests had become a failure."
 The East India Company:
1. The Early Loss of Revenue and Resettlement: Most of the landlords are unable to
pay high rate of revenue. Moreover, due to the high rate of revenue, it was difficult to
collect it from the Raiyats. Meanwhile, due to arrears of revenue to the government,
the government enforced the sunset law, taking over the deficit Zamidari. Frequent
transfers of Zamidari at the beginning of the permanent settlement resulted in regular
collection by the Government. 1794-1807 AD: the revenue of Bengal was blocked
and 41% of the land had to be occupied and resettled by the government. About 51-
60% of Orissa's land had to be re-settled by the Company.
2. The Long Term Revenue Crisis: Settlements without land survey left many lands
hidden. When the Permanent Settlement was first granted in 1793 AD the Company
was entitled to 90 per cent of the revenue collected, the Zamidars to 10 per cent
Although the Zamidars received many times more revenue from the Raiyats, the
government had to be satisfied with a fixed rate of revenue every year. Sir John Shore,
for this reason, expressed his opinion against giving permanent settlements without
collecting all the facts relating to the land
3. The Financial Crisis: A statistic shows that in 1793, 90% of the revenue collected by
the government. In 1940 AD, According to the Floud Commissioner's report, the
government got only 18-5% of the revenue collected. As the amount of revenue
collected by the Zamidars increases, the revenue rate of the government decreases
proportionally according to the inverse ratio. Thus, during the needy period of
company. It could not increase its finance as the income was fixed. After this bitter
experience of permanent settlement, the Company Government refrained from
extending permanent settlement to other provinces of India.

Finally, it may conclude that, neither the permanent settlements was beneficial for the
Company nor for the Zamidar and Peasant. This settlement resulted only the rise of
intermediary and the limitless miseries of farmers.