The Permanent Settlement
The Permanent Settlement was a land revenue policy introduced by the English East India Company in 1793 in the engal Presidency! It has been regarded as a turning point in Indian economic and social history! The English East India Company ac"uired the diwani o# engal$ ihar and %rissa in 17&'! The ma(or concern o# the East India Company)s administration in India$ since the grant o# diwani$ was to collect as much revenue as possible! *griculture was the main basis o# economy and the main source o# income$ hence ma+imi,ation o# land revenue was pursued with great determination! Several land revenue e+periments were introduced in haste to ma+imi,e e+traction! The corruption as well as lac- o# understanding o# the local situation led to complete disorgani,ation o# the agrarian economy and society in the diwani provinces within a #ew years! years! This led to the Company Company assuming assuming the actual responsibility responsibility #or revenue administration in 177.! In 177.$ /arren 0astings$ the overnor o# engal$ introduced a new system -nown as the #arming system! 2nder this system$ revenue collecting right was #armed out to the highest bidders! 0owever$ the #arming system ultimately #ailed to improve the situation$ as the #armers tried to e+tract as much as possible without any concern #or the production process! The burden o# revenue demand on the peasants increased as a result and o#ten it was so onerous that it could not be collected at all! The net outcome o# this whole whole process o# rash e+perimentation e+perimentation was the ruination ruination o# the agricultural agricultural population! population! Eventually$ in 174$ 5ord Cornwallis was sent to India with a speci#ic mandate to stream streamlin linee the revenu revenuee admini administ strat ration ion!! Cornw Cornwall allis is reali, reali,ed ed that that the ritis ritish h agrarian policy had impoverished the country$ ruined agriculture and did not produc producee the the large large and regular regular surplu surpluss that that the Compan Company y hoped hoped #or! #or! It was was recogni,ed that the only solution to the deteriorating condition was to #i+ the revenue permanently! permanently! 0istorians writing in the late 19'6s and early &6s$ li-e ana(it uha and Eric Sto-es$ have emphasi,ed the ideological roots behind the ritish land revenue settlements! Sto-es writes that 8ritish policies moved within the orbit o# ideas primarily determined in Europe)! The point o# emphasis in uha)s study$ * ule o# Prop Proper erty ty #or #or eng engal al$$ is simi simila lar! r! uha uha trie tried d to stud study y 8the 8the orig origin inss o# the the Permanent Settlement in that con#luence o# ideas where the two mainstreams o# English and rench thought merged in the second hal# o# the eighteenth century)! * Permanent Settlement was #irst #ormulated #ormulated as a policy recommendation recommendation by *le+ander :ow in 1776! It was the thesis o# 0enry Pattullo)s Essay published two years later! In 177& Philip rancis made it the very basis o# his #amous revenue plan! 0e was under the Physiocratic Physiocratic thin-ing that land is the source o# all wealth! 0e advocated #or the recognition o# the right o# the ,amindars to landed property! property!
0e also carried #orward the Physiocratic ideas about the duration o# the lease that is the longer the lease the more secure the #armers #elt and this was good #or agriculture! The idea was given legal sanction by Cornwallis in his rules #or a decennial settlement issued in 179;96$ which #inally led to the declaration o# the Permanent Settlement o# 1793! :ow$ Pattullo$ rancis$ Cornwallis were thus its leading champions in the 1 th century! It is now generally accepted that colonial policies cannot be understood merely in terms o# the in#luences o# intellectual ideas and doctrines which developed in Europe! The ideas$ a#ter all$ were selectively accepted$ and their meaning (udiciously reinterpreted in accordance with colonial needs! Studies by *siya Siddi"i$ avinder the other sees them as the product o# a process o# 8adaptation) and 8accommodation) to the traditional structure o# local society$ as put #orth by ry-enberg$ or as attempts to legali,e e+isting rights and privileges$ as advocated by ay! ana(it uha has stated that the Permanent Settlement was a ma(or departure #rom accepted land revenue policy in India! 2nder the settlement$ the e+isting ,amindars were declared #ull owners with absolute proprietary rights o# land$ without reali,ing that they were only ta+ collecting intermediaries during the preceding regime! Thus$ the ,amindars were technically converted into hereditary landlords with the right to sell$ mortgage or trans#er their land! They no more remained agents o# the government in collecting land revenue but were now owners o# the entire land in their ,amindari! The assumption that the ,amindars under the Permanent Settlement were landlords rose #rom the application o# English terms and concepts to Indian
realities #or which they were not suitable! 5and ownership in India was a comple+ phenomenon! The #ramers o# the Permanent Settlement by identi#ying the ,amindars as the nearest appro+imation to the ritish concept o# landlords #ailed to ma-e the important distinction between the lords o# the territory ?the ,amindars@ and the lords o# the soil ?the (otedars@! In actuality$ the ,amindars under the Permanent Settlement ac"uired titles to revenue collection and not absolute property right! The actual rights o# possession were not disturbed! Aor did the settlement lead to a total ruin o# traditional ,amindars and the emergence o# a new class o# urban capitalist landlords! The only important #eature o# change$ according to ay$ was the strengthening o# a high caste 8creditor employer) class ?(otedars@ at the village level! The 8(otedar thesis) came under serious attac- by many historians! In a monograph Sugata ose asserts that (otedar domination con#ined only to northern engal! In the rest o# the region he discovered two other distinct modes o# peasant economy$ that is the peasant landholding;demesne labour comple+ in the west and the peasant small holding system in eastern engal! In both these regions he #ound the power o# the ,amindars continuing unhindered till the 1936s! 5ord Cornwallis regarded the Permanent Settlement the best revitali,ation towards agriculture and considered it to be the best security o# revenue! It was e+pected to stimulate agriculture and bring about a con#idence in property! It was hoped that the settlement would encourage ,amindars to invest money in improving the land$ as with the state demand being #i+ed the whole bene#it #rom increased production and enhanced income would accrue to them! There were other practical reasons #avouring the introduction o# the Permanent Settlement! It was easier to collect revenue #rom a small number o# ,amindars than #rom the innumerable peasants$ which would re"uire a large administrative machinery! urther$ it would ensure the loyalty o# a power#ul class o# the local population! Those who lost out in this settlement were the peasants$ who were le#t at the mercy at the ,amindars! Their customary occupancy right was ignored and they were reduced to the status o# tenants! The burden o# high revenue assessment was shi#ted on the peasants! The provision o# patta$ or written agreement$ between the peasant and the ,amindar providing a record o# the amount o# rent to be paid$ was rarely #ollowed by the ,amindars! Aor was it li-ed by the peasants who always #eared to lose in any #ormal record o# rights and obligations! The subse"uent regulations o# 1799 and 11. gave the ,amindars the right to sei,e property o# the tenants in case o# non;payment o# rent without any legal permission! Thus the enhancement o# the coercive power o# the ,amindars under the Permanent Settlement resulted in a decline in the condition o# the actual cultivators!
A!
*t the time o# the Permanent Settlement$ 36;3'D o# land was cultivated! It increased to 7';6D by the end o# the 1 th century! 0istorically the Permanent Settlement was an improvement on the harsh revenue settlements o# the period #rom 17&';1793! /hile the landlords derived bene#its #rom the secured rights$ the actual cultivator did not bene#it! The cultivator continued to su##er #rom the same insecurity and harshness o# treatment! The cultivators #urther came to su##er as their rent was collected with strictness and no remissions were given even in un#avourable circumstances! This development o# the Permanent Settlement was une+pected! 5ord Cornwallis had believed that the bene#it o# secured possession at a #air rent would be e+tended by the ,amindars to the ryots! 0owever$ the ,amindars denied the bene#its o# security to their peasant tenants! *s the price o# crops and rental values shot up in the early years o# the 19th century the ,amindars #ound it convenient to arrange #or the rents to be collected through intermediaries called patnidars or i(aradars! The intermediaries would hold estates under a ,amindar$ pay him a #i+ed rent but were #ree to ma-e any rental demand on the peasants! * large number o# middlemen grew leading to subin#eudation and absentee landlordism! This process o# subin#eudation went to e+treme lengths in some permanently settled areas as rental values determined by mar-et #orces continually rose! The Permanent Settlement also resulted in the multiplication o# litigation! In 1799 vast powers were given to the ,amindars! edress against un(ust acts o# the ,amindars was provided by appealing in the civil courts! The poor tenant cultivators had no -nowledge o# the #unctioning o# the courts$ o# their rights and had no money #or litigation! The peasant cultivators were denied their customary protection while the civil courts #ailed to sa#eguard their interest! The relationship o# trust between the ,amindars and the tenants bro-e down! Cornwallis) belie# that a vigorous commercialism would enter agriculture as soon as the uncertainty o# revenue demand was ended was not reali,ed! *lthough there were "uite a #ew landlords who had su##icient resources but they were not enterprising enough to invest #unds #or agricultural improvements! atnale-ha ay argues that the #actor which prevented the ,amindars #rom playing the part o# model landlords$ bringing about capitalistic improvement in land$ was the di##iculty o# ac"uiring physical control o# land at the local level! The "uarrels between the rival ,amindari branches$ the grant o# i(aras o# distant villages to revenue #armers and the creation o# sub;tenures called patnis prevented the conversion o# purchase titles into actual possession! The state also reali,ed that it had no sta-e in the increased rental value and the price o# the land! The state secured the political base o# an in#luential class as the ,amindars became staunch allies o# the government and was #reed #rom the e+tra burden o# yearly assessment which stabili,ed its income! 0owever$ the Company reali,ed that its #inancial loss resulting #rom the sacri#ice o# revenue was immense!
*s the amounts o# the annual payments by landlords were #i+ed under the Permanent Settlement$ they were le#t #ree to retain the balance between their payments to governments and collections #rom their tenants! *s a conse"uence$ they en(oyed the whole bene#it o# increased cultivation! Though there was an occasional increase in the government revenue share$ but over all it re#lected a declining trend! The land revenue demand which in 1793 was #i+ed at 96 percent o# rental declined by the end o# the 19 th century to . percent! Some recent economic historians have "uestioned the view that the ritish land revenue policy led to a pro#ound trans#ormation o# the rural society! They assert that there was more or less a continuation o# the pre;ritish system! ay stresses on the element o# 8continuity) within the 8traditional) agrarian order! ay notes a marginal modi#ication at the bottom in the areas o# Permanent Settlement! Even the change at the top$ ay argues$ was not as drastic as is conventionally presumed$ nor was it a new phenomenon! Such changes were occurring in the period prior to ritish rule$ and according to ay$ constant change at the upper levels continued a#ter the Permanent Settlement! In truth$ the rule o# property in soil proved to be a hal#;hearted measure! ay)s conclusion that even the changes at the 8upper levels) were a continuation o# a 8pre;modern) process is hardly convincing! *ll changes are not o# the same order! The composition o# the ,amindars may not have changed a#ter the Permanent Settlement$ but their authority$ power$ #unction$ and the nature o# their relationship to other classes within the rural order were trans#ormed! The settlement led to de#inite changes within the social #abric! I# one re#ers to the entire structure o# social relations$ the conclusions about 8continuities) would be more di##icult to sustain! There is also enough evidence to show that at a 8lower level) the customary claims o# poor peasants$ landless petty tenants and agricultural labourers were gradually eroded$ and the nature o# their subordination within the agrarian structure underwent a change! It has been argued that ritish revenue settlements represented primarily the economic and political preconceptions o# ritish o##icials which were imposed on Indian soil and in the process they disrupted traditional Indian arrangements! Cornwallis) introduction o# the Permanent Settlement o# 1793 owed much to the /higgish and Physiocratic regard #or landlord proprietorship! This was challenged by the rise o# utilitarianism in the early 19 th century! Eric Sto-es argues that ideological disli-e #or landlordism was a ma(or #actor behind the development o# yotwari and ahalwari Settlements! 0owever$ it has been asserted by some historians that the ritish were not imposing their doctrines and policies upon a peasant agrarian society and their revenue settlements were o#ten #ormali,ation o# arrangements prevalent at the village level! Even at the provincial level$ it may be agued$ that the basic structure
o# indigenous land tenure dictated the broad shape o# local government policies! There#ore the o##icial policies and local reality did not act as antithesis! %#ten we #ind that the policies o# the o##icials owed more to pragmatism than to ideological in#luences and also we #ind that their policies were in#luenced by the local situation and the in#ormation made available to them by their Indian subordinates about the people who would contract to pay revenue! Thus$ the ritish land revenue policy$ when applied to the locality$ very o#ten assumed an altogether di##erent shape determined by the particular local mechanism! 2nder these circumstances$ it bore little trace o# the original conceptions and intentions o# the planners and gave rise to unanticipated results! The Permanent Settlement$ which led to une+pected conse"uences$ largely #ailed in #ul#illing its purpose and was eventually abandoned!
ibliography= Aeeladri hattacharya Colonial State and *grarian Society ?Situating Indian 0istory@ atnale-ha ay Intellectual %rigins o# the Permanent Settlement atnale-ha ay Continuity and Change in engal *grarian Society Se-har andyopadhyaya rom Plassey to Partition
y= Su#ia
