The Permanent Settlement Scheme of the British
Bengal, the main centre of vibrance during the British rule of almost 200 years (1757–1947) was facing a huge financial and judicial crisis when Lord Cornwallis was made the Governor-General of the Presidency of Fort William of West Bengal. The main aim of the British Crown to introduce his both as Governor-General of Bengal and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial British Forces in India was to set out new reforms of revenue system, bolster the Armed Forces and set out new judicial reforms. Earl Cornwallis set out three judicial plans: Judicial Plan of 1787, Judicial Plan of 1790 and Judicial Plan of 1793 wherein he introduced many reforms that kept the judicial machinery going at that time. But the most important was the Permanent Settlements, of the revenue reforms, introduced by Lord Cornwallis which attained great success and tremendous fame.
At the time of appointment of Lord Cornwallis as the Governor-General, the condition of farmers of India were deplorable and the land revenue system of the East India Company was ridden with defects.[1] The idea of Robert Clive, to collect land revenue from peasants through oppressive agents did not go down well with the common public. Eventually Warren Hastings tried to bring a better system. He established a Board of Revenue and appointed European Collectors to preside over them. But the problem arose of how to go to each and every village of the country and collect revenue from millions of peasants according to the size and nature of their lands. So Hastings thought of a system of auction. It so directed that any man who would collect the largest amount from any area would get the land for 5 years. This proved dangerous as money was being collected by all-round oppression for the greed of the land.
In case of Permanent Settlement, Cornwallis was assisted by Sir John Shore and Sir Charles Grant in the implementation and execution of the Permanent Settlement. They implemented the scheme and the scheme went on functioning till the end of the British Rule in India (1947). In this paper we attempt to find out about the Permanent Settlement Scheme and its implementation.
A note on the literature used…..
From Plassey To Partition And After A History Of Modern India by Sekhar Bandyopadhyay was the only printed literature that was used in course of the research. And without fail, it proved to be more than sufficient for undertaking the same. Such an expanse of information, disseminating it and corroborating it in the research paper would have been not at all possible without consultation to this book. It spoke volumes about what Permanent Settlement is, traced back its origins to the landlord system in England, why Cornwallis found it suitable to introduce the same measure in consonance with the zamindari system of India, its features, merits and demerits all at the same time.
Historical background and features of the permanent settlement scheme…..
Before Cornwallis took over as Governor-General, the revenue was collected from farmers who cultivated the lands. And the annual basis and contractual basis of land revenue had already rendered the peasants without any livelihood. Cornwallis came from a family of landlords in England. In those days, the British landlords were regarded as the permanent masters of their lands. They looked to the interests of the peasants and their lands, and collected revenue from them. As the landlords were hereditary, their interests the in lands were of a permanent nature. Cornwallis thought of such a system in India. He thought of creating a class of hereditary landlords who should become permanent masters of their lands. They should collect land revenue from the people and deposit it at the government treasury regularly for all times. Shore and Cornwallis disagreed on the term of the scheme, with Shore arguing for a ten-year time limit on the arrangement, while Cornwallis argued for a truly permanent scheme[2]. Cornwallis prevailed, noting that many of the company’s English revenue collectors, as well as others knowledgeable of company finance and taxation, supported permanency[3]. In 1790 the proposal was sent to London, where the company directors approved the plan in 1792. In Bengal, before the British conquest, there were old zamindar families who enjoyed hereditary rights on lands for long. But after the country was conquered by the English, those zamindars disappeared. Their lands were taken over by the Government. And, the Government collected revenues by various methods, as already discussed. Cornwallis and Shore wanted to revive that class and give them the responsibility of revenue collection. So, at last, Cornwallis issued a Proclamation in 1793, introducing the permanent Settlement. The Proclamation ran as follows: “The Marquis Cornwallis, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, governor-General-in-Council now notifies to all zamindars, independent talukdars and other actual proprietors of land in the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, that he has empowered by the Honourable Court of Directors of the East India Company to declare the Jumma which has been or may be assessed upon their lands, fixed for ever.”[4] Before the commencement of this Act the landlords were not considered the real owners of these lands. After the commencement of this, landlords were deemed to be the real owners of these lands.
The revenue which was to be paid by the landlords was once and for all. There was no possibility of making a change in it. So long the landlords continued to pay the revenue in time, they remained the owners of their land. Revenue paid by the peasants was based on patta system. The landlord had no right to make any enhancement or reduction in without the permission of the Court. Outwardly, this system of permanent settlement looked to be purely an economic system but actually, it gave birth to a new class of talukdars, peasants an Indian Society.[5]
Now the most strikingly impressive thing about the permanent settlement system are its features. The have discussed below.[6]
Firstly, it recognized the landlords as the proprietors of the land. It also recognized the rights of hereditary succession for the heirs or lawful successors of the landlords. The Government believed that these landlords would remain faithful to the British.
Secondly, the landlords were given the right to transfer or sell their lands if they liked.
Thirdly, all the rights of the landlords depended on their payment of the fixed revenue on the fixed date at the treasury of the Government. All their rights ended if they failed to pay.
Fourthly, it fixed once for all total amount of revenue to be paid by each landlord for his zamindari to the Government. It was agreed that the tax rate would not increase in future.
Finally, the landlord was required to give to the tenant the patta describing therein the area of the land and the rent to be collected for that land. Thus the tenants got rights on their holdings and knew of the revenue to be paid.
Merits and Demerits of the Scheme
Various historians have maintained their stance for both sides. Many appreciated the scheme and merited it whereas some demerited the schemes. Marshman says “ It was a bold, brave and wise measure”. Holmes on the other hand said “ The permanent settlement was a sad blunder”.
The following merits are noteworthy:
Firstly, in those beginning days of the British rule, the British administrative machinery could not touch the remote peasantry to collect revenue. Modern means of communication did not exist. It was decoded, therefore, to shift the responsibility to the shoulders of Indian nobility. The landlords looked into the problems of the peasants. As the British Government could not have done much to solve the land problems, it was better that the class of landlords took up that work.[7]
Secondly, the landlords were themselves the sons of the soil. They understood the real difficulties of the Indian villager and the problems of his cultivation. Therefore, in those days they served the people better. They knew that the land belonged to them for all time. It was their hereditary property. Therefore, they felt attached to their zamindari and worked for its improvement.[8]
Thirdly, the Permanent Settlement, by being a permanent system, created a sense of security in everyone concerned. There was a feeling of certainty in matters of land and revenue. The Government knew its exact income from the land. It knew the time of that income. It was also confident of the regularity of that income. And, all such benefits were enjoyed without the burden of collecting it from individual peasants. The landlord knew the area of his zamindari. He knew the amount to be collected from that area. He knew the amount to be paid to the Government from his collection. He knew the amount of his own income as the zamindar. Therefore, he became habituated with a system on a permanent basis. It helped him to acquire efficiency in his work. The peasant knew the plot of his land. He regarded the patta as the proof of his possession. He knew the amount of the revenue to be paid to the landlord. And, he knew where, when and how to pay. Thus, the Government, the landlord and the peasant were all aware of their respective position in revenue matters.[9]
Fourthly, all kinds of details regarding the lands, the papers of the countless riots, the questions of their rights, etc., were managed by the lords, and their naibs or managers, etc. The servants of the zamindars were usually competent persons. They took their duties seriously and worked to the best of their ability.
Fifthly, many of the landlords believed in philanthropic works for the benefit of their tenants. In those days, the Government did not establish charitable dispensaries, or schools. Government also did not dig wells or ponds for people’s welfare. Such works were done by the landlords out of religious considerations as well as for gaining popularity. Some of them believed that the prosperity of their sons and grandsons depended on their charitable works.
Now the demerits can be discussed as follows:
Administratively, by giving the landlords the responsibility of revenue collection, the Government avoided its own duty. It was no credit for any government to have done that. The landlords regarded the revenue collection as their rightful work. But, they never thought if they had any administrative duty at all. Many landlords were oppressive by nature. They punished the people, tortured them and at times put them to great hardship for non-payment of revenue. They did not always think if people had capacity to pay. In time of flood, drought or famine, many landlords did not show kindness to peasants. The peasants were too poor and too ignorant to complain against landlords before the Government. They suffered the indifference of the Government and the oppression of the zamindars. If the zamindar was good, the people were happy. If he was bad, there was nobody to protect the weak. In brief, in matters of revenue administration, the Government remained far from the people by throwing them to the mercy of the landlords.[10]
Economically, the Permanent Settlement had several drawbacks. The land revenues were fixed in a random way. The nature of the soil, etc., was not taken into account. So, good and bad plots were assessed in the same manner. That was a defective system of assessment. Similarly, the revenues were fixed permanently. If the productive capacity of the land increased, the revenue did not increase proportionately. That was a loss to the Government. Out of the total revenue of an area, the Government took the greater part. But the Government did not do anything to improve the condition of agriculture. The landlord got his share of the revenue, which he spent for himself. At times, the landlord extended the areas of cultivation in his zamindari. But, the Government did not get any extra revenue for that. It went to the pocket of the landlord. Thus, in course of time, when areas of in cultivation increased, it is the landlords who gained. Neither the Government nor the people had any economic benefit from that. And when, the income of the landlord increased, his luxury and extravagance also increased.
Socially, a small class of landlords formed the upper aristocracy in the society. They enjoyed social prestige arising out of status and wealth. Their presence prominently showed the existence of a class of nobility at the top, and the class of the poor tillers of the soil at the bottom. Social privileges led to various social evils. The landed aristocrats of Bengal encouraged such social evils as polygamy and Kulinism, etc. Many landlords looked down upon others as socially inferior to them.
Politically, the British Government regarded the landlords as the loyal supporters of the Empire. In fact, most landlords remained loyal to the British till the last. When the freedom movement began, the landlords as a class were suspected by the nationalists as the agents or supporters of the Government and enemies of the people. Exceptions were there. But on the whole the presence of the zamindars, like the presence of the princes, was a great political strength for the British.[11]
Analysis of Imperialist and Nationalist approaches to the scheme….
The British Imperialist scholars opined that the Permanent Settlement was a very good move by Cornwallis. It helped in reviving the class of zamindars that were once considered dormant. It saved the peasants from being oppressed in the hands of the zamindars. The burden of taxation was relieved off them and they could now happily cultivate. Moreover they could now wilfully pay the tax extracted as per the patta system which was nominal. To regulate good cultivation and timely payment, zamindars often used to give out incentives to encourage them. This settlement also led to a formal and uniform taxation system which was later on adopted by the Government further. This was a system which reached each and every peasant in each and every corner of the country so the administration could ensure prompt payment.[12]
The Nationalists thought on absolutely different lines. Revolts always originated from the lower strata of the society and subsequently went upwards from time to time. According to them, zamindars were watchdogs and they were revived only to curb any sort of developing revolts at the grass-root level itself. The biggest flaw according to them was that ‘permanency of rights was a hoax’. The zamindars had rights over their lands only if they had paid the taxes within the stipulated date and time. In case of a failure, they would lose their rights over that land. So to ensure taxes, zamindars were bound to resort to oppressive means of tax collection. The peasants could be thrown out any moment and they were at the mercy of the zamindars. No authority was there to look into the problem. So all in all, this was a strategy by the British Government to create class differences among the indigenous people of India to create a situation of disharmony and constant clashes between the two.[13]
Concluding Remarks
Failure or success, be it any one, but it is quite evident that Cornwallis introduced the Permanent Settlement for the good of the peasant class, by relieving the burden of taxation off them. The patta system of taxation on the farmers were not exorbitant. At the same time, it also revived the landlords and zamindari class, by enabling them to be an active machinery in the tax collection system and also have ownership over their inherent land masses. At the same time peasants were also left at the mercy of the zamindars.[14] They could be kicked out at any time. The social outcome of permanent settlement in Bengal was that the society was divided into two mutually hostile classes of Zamindars and Tenants.[15]
By this settlement, the company was sure of getting fixed revenues. It also facilitated the easier method of collection of revenue through Zamindars[16]. Before this settlement, the company needed large establishment / officials to make annual / five yearly assessments. The permanent settlement saved the company from these expenses. The officials could be engaged in judicial or other works. However, the permanent settlement could not enhance the amount of land revenue because it was inherent in the settlement that it was permanent in terms of revenue also and company could not increase a single pie even if there was rise in the produce or prices of the produce. This was one of the reason that some British authors called the settlement a blunder as it resulted in loss of enhanced land revenue in times to come.[17]
References
[1](Dec 20, 2018 12:04 PM) https://www.importantindia.com/12774/permanent-settlement-of-lord-cornwallis/.
[2] (Feb 23,2019, 1:10 PM) http://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/provisions-of-the-permanent-settlement-act-of-1793/2557.
[3] Ibid.
[4](Jan 24, 2019, 11:48 AM) https://www.importantindia.com/12774/permanent-settlement-of-lord-cornwallis/.
[5] Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, FROM PLASSEY TO PARTITION AND AFTER AHISTORY OF MODERN INDIA, 2nd ed.2016, 83–86.
[6](Jan 24, 2019, 12:53 PM) https://www.importantindia.com/12774/permanent-settlement-of-lord-cornwallis/.
[7](Jan 25, 2019, 7:10 PM) http://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/provisions-of-the-permanent-settlement-act-of-1793/2557.
[8]Ibid.
[9] Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, FROM PLASSEY TO PARTITION AND AFTER AHISTORY OF MODERN INDIA, 2nd ed.2016, 83–86.
[10] Ibid.
[11] ( Jan 25, 2019,9:30 PM) http://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/provisions-of-the-permanent-settlement-act-of-1793/2557.
[12] Sumit Sarkar, Imperialism And Nationalist Thought (A Case Study of Swadeshi Bengal), 32(II) INDIAN HISTORY CONGRESS, 111–124.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, FROM PLASSEY TO PARTITION AND AFTER AHISTORY OF MODERN INDIA, 2nd ed.2016, 83–86.
[15] (Jan 26, 2019, 12:06 AM) https://www.gktoday.in/gk/critical-analysis-of-permanent-settlement-of-bengal-bihar-and-odisha/.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, FROM PLASSEY TO PARTITION AND AFTER AHISTORY OF MODERN INDIA, 2nd ed.2016, 83–86.
