Paper 2›Modern India›Early Structure of the British Raj

Early Structure of the British Raj

UPSC PYQs

The Charter Act of 1833 rung down the curtain on the company's trade and introduced

a new concept of government in India. Substantiate. [2011, 20 m]

"The Regulating Act (1773), the Pitt's India Act (1784) and eventually the Charter Act of

1833 left the East India Companyas a mere shadow of itsearlier political and economic

power in India." Critically examine. [2015, 10 m]

"The need to impose greater parliamentary control over the Company's affairs

increased during the decades (1773 - 1853) after Plassey." Elucidate. [2016, 20 m]

As the Company's domains expanded and its responsibilities diversified, a series of new

questions had to be faced. What type of government should be set up in the new territories?

What kind of political institutions would fit most suitably with Indian social structures? And

what of the 'pacified' Indians? Should they be educated, or even converted to more

acceptable forms of religion? Was the EIC really a fit organ of government? Should its

monopoly be maintained? Distinct approaches to these questions emerged, each with its

partisan advocates.

Industrial Capitalism

In the 18 th century,the EICfaced domesticopposition dueto thefearsof perniciousinfluence

of corrupt nabobs on English society and politic leading to the Acts of 1773, 1784 and

attempts at professionalization of its bureaucracy. Still, the EIC remained powerful and

entrenched in parliamentary politics and never lost its trade monopoly. In the 19 th century,

however, the scale of opposition to it changed after industrial capitalists became powerful.

Growing Opposition to the Company in London

Duetothemonopoly,nobodyin Englandhadrighttodobusiness with Indiaandanyonetrying

would be arrested and imprisoned. By the late 18 th century, there was growing opposition to

the East India Company's (EIC) monopoly over commerce with India and China.

With 'free trade' becoming the dominant economic doctrine in Britain, it was difficult for

the government to resist demands for the termination of the Company's monopoly.

Private traders wanted to share in the profits.
Industrial capitalists

The success of the Industrial Revolution drastically altered conditions in Britain:

rather than buying finished products, Britain now needed to secure markets for its

factory goods produced on a massive scale, and captive suppliers of raw materials

for the production of these goods.

At pace with the altered conditions, Company rule in India now had to act as an

accessory, an instrument to ensure 'the necessary conditions of law and order' to

make the vast Indian market captive for British goods. (Eric Stokes)

Thus, a loose free trade pressure group had been operating in British politics for some time

and had tried, unsuccessfully, to have the Company's monopoly withdrawn in 1793.

With renewal of the charter due in 1813, this alliance of manufacturers and exporters

reinvigorated its efforts. These industrial capitalists successfully bribed/pressurized the

government to abolish trade monopoly by Charter Act of 1813 partially and 1833 fully.

The Charter of 1793

The control over the Company was further tightened when its Charter was renewed in 1793.

The Charter Act of 1793 renewed the charter of the Company for 20 years, giving it

possession of all territories in India during that period.

The Act established that "acquisition of sovereignty by the subjects of the Crown

is on behalf of the Crown and not in its own right," which clearly stated that the

company's political functions were on behalf of the British government.

Control over the Company:

The financial independence of the Company was taken away.
The Home Government members were to be paid out of Indian revenues which

continued up to 1919.

The royal approval was mandated for the appointment of the governor-general,

the governors, and the commander-in-chief.

Therewasamodestconcessiontothefreetraders.The Companywasempoweredto give

licences to individuals as well as the Company's employees to trade in India.

Steps towards centralization within India

Notmanysignificantchanges inthegovernmentof India exceptthe increase inthe

power of the governor.

The governor general's power over the council was extended.
He was given power to levy taxes and authorized to issue licenses for liquor.
Governorsof Bombayand Madraswerebroughtmoredecisivelyunderhiscontrol.

Reduced administrative discretion:

A specific direction was given to the Companyadministration that it would have to

draw a written code of law for India. Thus, it introduced in India the concept of a

civil law, enacted by a secular human agency, and applied universally.

All laws were to be printed with translations in Indian languages, so that people

could know of their rights, privileges, and immunities.

Itboundthecourtstoregulatetheirdecisionsbytherulesanddirectivescontained

therein. Thus, a new tradition was set as the judicial courts could interpret these

written laws (rules and regulations). Pure discretionary powers of the

administration was thus to be curtailed.

The Act of 1793 was a consolidating measure. It laid out the high-sounding principle of non-

aggression. This was merely a re-iteration of the principle already defined in the Pitt's India

Act of 1784. However,this policy remained a high-soundingprinciple and was notfollowed by

the Governors-General (Cornwallis, Wellesley, Hastings). Even though the Directors of the

Companywerenotenthusiasticaboutthewars,the Governorstookadvantageofthedistance

from London, and a more protracted process of decision making on part of the Bo C and Co D.

Thus, the Company continued to expand its territorial limits. Before the Act of 1813, it had

brought under its sway a significant part of Indian territory.

The Charter Act of 1813

The Company fiercely contested the proposal to abolish its Indian monopoly when its charter

came up for renewal in 1813.

Parliamentwas,ontheotherhand,unconvincedof the Company'sargumentsand the Charter

Act of 1813 put an end to its monopoly over India.

Provisions:

It included a clause asserting the Crown's undoubted sovereignty over all of the

Company's territories. Its preamble explicitly declared that the sovereignty of the British

Crown over the Company's territories in India was paramount.

In 1813th e Company Charter was renewedwitha provisothatthe Companymonopolistic

hold over the Indian trade would end and a new era of free trade wouldbe initiated. Thus

Renewal of charter for 20 years, thus the Company was granted right over Indian

possessions and revenues for next 20 years.

The chairman of the Board of Control was necessarily to be from among the

Ministers of the government.

Partial abolition of trade monopoly: Except for trade in tea and trade with China.

Partial opening of India to British emigrants:

It imposed licensing restrictions on long-term residence by private British

individuals (private merchants, free traders) in India.

The act also allowed Christian missionaries to enter India and propagate their

religion.

Rs.1 lakhperannumforpromotionof Indianlanguages,literatureandscientificeducation

in India. It was for encouraging learned natives and the revival of literature, and for

promoting knowledge of the sciences among the inhabitants of the country.

The Charter Act of 1813 was thus an important benchmark in the push towards

westernisation of India. At pace with the altered conditions, Company rule in India now had

to act as an accessory, an instrument to ensure 'the necessary conditions of law and order' to

make the vast Indian market captive for British goods.

The Charter Act of 1833

When the time came to renew the Charter in 1833, there was increased pressure in Britain

for the government to take over the Indian administration directly and abolish the Company.

The Reform Act of 1832 had recently been passed, which fuelled a general desire for reform

in Britain. A parliamentary inquiry was conducted, and the resulting Act of 1833 became a

significant moment in the constitutional history of India.

This Actbecame alandmarkin the constitutionalhistoryof India andhad alarger significance.

Most of its provisions pertained to arrangements for governing the Indian empire. The

framework evolved in 1833 was to continue almost unchanged down to 1858, and some

elements were retained in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

Provisions:

The charter gave to the Company the authority to govern the Indian empire for another

20 years.

All its business activities were wound up, including the abolition of the monopoly of tea

trade with China. Now, the Company ceased to be a commercial concern. Henceforth, it

was to be only a political-administrative body.

This did not amount to a loss for its shareholders who were guaranteed an annual

dividend of 10.5% by the British government.

Opening India further:

All restrictions on British immigration, through licensing requirements were

removed. Also, British settlers could henceforth settle and acquire land in India.

It laid down the regulation for Christian establishments in India and the number

of Bishops was made three.

It further tightened the control of the government over the Company. The Board of

Control was empowered to superintend all administrative affairs in India.

Centralisation of Government:

Centralization of financial, legislative and administrative matters.
The governor general was henceforth to be known as the 'Governor General of

India'. (Lord Bentinck becomes the first one).

He would, in consultation with his council, control all civil, military and revenue

matters in the whole of India.

Governors of Madras and Bombay were made fully subordinate to him.
Thus,the Actcreated, forthe firsttime, a Governmentof India,with authorityover

entire territorial possessions of the British India.

The Charter Act of 1833 also introduced some administrative changes.

Formation of a fourth presidency (Agra Presidency) by splitting the Bengal

Presidency into two. This experiment was a short-lived one.

Separation of Power: Some crucial changes were made to the governor general's council.

It made a distinction between the executive and legislative duties of the Governor-

General. Thus, this was the conceptual beginning of the legislative council.

The governor general in council was, therefore, empowered to legislate for the

whole of British territories in India and these laws were to be applicable to all

persons, British or Indian.

The Act centralized the process of framing laws (One Legislative Council for all

British territories in India) and gave to the laws and regulations framed by the

governor general's council the force of statutes.

▪ The council thus became the main legislative body in India. Presidency

governments could submit drafts of legislation to the council for

consideration.

Since the making of lawsrequired legal expertise,a provision was made for adding

a 'law member' to the council. (4 th member)

▪ Thelawmember'spresencewassupposedtobeessentialwhenthecouncil

was deliberating upon any legislation.

▪ Thomas Macaulay was the first law member to be appointed.

It provided for a law commission to facilitate the codification of law.

▪ This four-member commission was headed by Macaulay.

▪ Subsequently, both civil and criminal codes were prepared based on the

recommendation of the law commission.

Reform Provisions:

Indians to be recruited in jobs and no discrimination based on race. (Section 87)
It enjoined the Company's government to abolish slavery in India. (Slavery was

finally abolished in 1843.)

The Charter Act of 1853

In 1853, during the renewal of the Company's charter, the parliament asserted its right to

decide how India was to be governed more strongly than before. The free traders' demand

to end the Company's mechanism of governing India, which had already won a significant

victory with the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, could not be ignored much longer. Yet the

Companycouldstillmustersufficientpoliticalsupporttobeabletocontinuewithitshold over

the Indian empire, even though this hold was considerably weakened by the 1853 Act.

Provisions:

The Charter was renewed in 1853, but this time not for another 20- years. It did not

specify the duration for which it would be valid.

The Company was allowed to retain the Indian possessions "in trust for Her

Majesty, her heirs and successors until Parliament shall otherwise provide", thus

keeping the door ajar for a future takeover. Thus, it was made clear that the

Company would be in control till the Parliament would make alternative

arrangement.

It subjected the EIC's empire in India to much tighter control by the British government.

A decisive measure was the provision for reconstituting the court of directors.

▪ One-third of its members were now to be nominees of the British

government. They were to be the members of the British Council of

Ministers.

The selection of covenanted civil servants was now to be based on an open

competition.

▪ Members of the court of directors were deprived of the privilege of

nominating candidates for appointment to superior posts in the civil

service.

▪ A committee was constituted by the board of control to work out the

modalities of the competition. Public examinations commenced in 1855.

The idea of a distinct 'legislative council', which was already conceptually present in the

Charter Act of 1833, was now developed further. This was now a body of 12 members

comprising the

Governor general
Four 'ordinary members' (including the law member)

▪ The law member (added in 1833) was now made a full member of the

council.

The commander-in-chief
Six 'additional members' (added in 1853)

Chief justice and a judge of the Supreme Court of Calcutta
One member each from the three presidencies of Bengal, Madras,

and Bombay, and from the North-Western Provinces.

▪ (Did not sit when the council met to discuss executive matters)

After 1773, 1783 and 1833, British company in India simply remained a shadow of its own

authority. Examine.

It is true that the EIC gradually transformed from a trading concern into a political-

administrative body. As the time went by, increasing checks were instituted by the British

parliament to regulate the Company's finances, reduce corruption as well as manage the

foreign policy. It was done in order to ensure that the Company doesn't emerge as an

autocratic power, and India remains open for all the British in London. It started with the

Regulating Act of 1773 in the wake of the financial debacle post-1770 s famine.

It went a step further in the Pitt's India 1783, when a Board of Control was formed and dual

controlovercompanyaffairswithparliamentarysupervisionwascreated.Later,bythe Charter

of 1833, the trade monopoly wasabolished,diminished its commercial role and the Company

was converted into administrative authority which had to work to the tune of London.

However, despite the attempts to increase the oversight, in practice, the Company was never

amereshadow.Itreservedunlimitedadministrativeauthorityin India.Duetothelackofquick

communication between Londonand Calcutta,Indianadministratorsalwayshadsomeleeway

in decision-making. London couldn't make a proper supervision and thus, the Governor-

General was a man-on-the-spot with arbitrary power. Post 1833, Governors-General from

Auckland to Ellenborough and above all Lord Dalhousie carried unrestricted annexationism in

their will.

Thus, even though the Company was gradually hollowed out from 1773 till 1858 when it was

finally abolished, it remained to be a powerful body. Its primary function however evolved

over time, first as commercial and later as administrative.

Therobber-rulersynthesiseventuallygavewaytowhatwouldbecomeclassicalcolonialism,

with the recognition of the need for law and order and a modicum of reasonable

governance. - Amartya Sen

Major overhauling of administrative structure

Factors Features

Material Compulsion: Need of Industrial

Capitalism of London

Ideological Factor: Liberalism and

Utilitarianism advocating administrative

reforms to pull out of backwardness

and stagnation.

Better law and order
Judicial and legal reforms
New land revenue settlements
Reforms in civil service, police, and

army

Law and Order

Improvementinthe law-and-orderconditionwasessentialif Indiahadtodevelopasamarket

for the British manufactured goods. That's why during this phase, several Governor Generals

took steps for improvement in the law-and-order situation.

Suppression of Pindaris and Pathans by Lord Hastings

Pindaris plunderers created law and order problems in parts of India after the decline of

Marathas.

GG Hastings dispatched a big army under the command of General Thomas Hislop

to suppress Pindaris.

Most important Pindari leaderslike Heeru,Buranand Wasir Md.Chitu were killed.

Karim Khan surrendered before the army.

Pathans werealsoathreat tolawandorder.Hastingstartedamilitaryoffence againstthe

Pathans. Pathan leader Aamir Khan surrendered and promised to lead a peaceful life. He

was afforded Jagir of Gauspur.

Suppression of Thugee by Lord Bentinck

Thugs were the criminals, who were mainly linked with road robbery, ritualized murder

and mutilation on highways. Poverty and unemployment created by British rule that gave

a new fodder to this profession.

Bentinck decided to suppress Thugee.

He created a Thuggee and Dacoity Department 1830.
Colonel William Sleeman headed it from 1835-39 to eliminate the problem.
Many thugs were hanged or imprisoned, and the thuggee menace was largely

eradicated by the mid-19 th century.

Judicial Reforms

During this period, the judicial reforms were being implemented under

theinfluenceofutilitarianideas. Utilitarianideasweredeeplyassociated

with the rise of industrial capitalism in Britain.

Jeremy Bentham was a critic of the Indian Judicial system, and he

underlined following weaknesses in it.

The absence of Habeas Corpus
Lack of codification and uniformity in legal system
Some Indian laws were cruel and inhuman.

He aggressively advocated the codification of all the common law into a coherent set of

statutes. Therefore, under Benthamite influence, following steps were undertaken to

establish a centralized and modernized legal system:

Codification of Laws

The Charter Act of 1833 provided for a law member in the Governor General's council.

Lord Macaulay was appointed as the first law member to start codification and a Law

Commission was established.

He drafted rational, unified legal codes for British India, finishing the job in two

years of intensive work.

Later, it became the basis for IPC 1860, Cr PC 1872, CPC 1908 etc. which were

applicable throughout British India.

Equality/Uniformity of Law

Macaulay'sdraft Penal Codereformedandstandardizedcriminal law,makingitapplicable

to all under British Indian jurisdiction regardless of religion or caste (territorial laws).

In 1836,Macaulayrevoked theprivilege accordedto Europeansto have cases heard in the

Supreme Court in Calcutta, rather than in the Company's Sadr Adalat.

This measure reduced the white privilege but was dubbed the Black Act, was resisted

vigorously, but unsuccessfully, by the European population of Calcutta.

Monolingual ascendency of English Langauge

Since 1765, when the Company obtained Diwani from the Mughal emperor, it had

maintained an extensive, cumbersome and inefficient bilingual bureacracy for its

administrative functions. (English for internal communication while Persian with Indians

with the help of Dobashis)

In the era of William Bentinck, English replaced Persian as the language of higher courts

(1835-37).

Itrejectedthebilingualequation with Persianinfavourofmonolingualascendancy

of English. It asserted the power of colonial state over its subjects and, in effect,

removed British Indiafrom subordinate Mughal orderandre-situateditwithin the

global British empire on the basis of langauge.

Unified Judicial Administration

Earlier, a duality existed in the Indian Judicial System.
On the one hand, the courts like Sadar Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat

existed in Calcutta, in which Indian laws were prevailing.

On the other hand, there was a Supreme Court in Calcutta, where English laws

were invoked.

This duality was abolished and a unified system of judicial administration was created.
The Sadar Diwani Adalat, Sadar Nizamat Adalat and the Supreme Court were

abolished.

The High Courts were established at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay on the basis of

High Court Act of 1861.

Appointment of Indians

Bentinck abolished the Cornwallis-era practice of not employing Indians as subordinate

judges. He employed many Indians as subordinate judges (Charter Act of 1833 -

recruitment of Indians without discrimination)

Judicial Reforms - Critical Analysis

Positives

Comprehensive codification of the Indian legal system
Standardization: Same legal system in all regions
Integration: uniform judicial system from top to bottom
An attempt to implement the rule of law
Some laws were made more humane

Negative s

Lord Macaulay had no knowledge of Indian condition, yet he was given such a

huge responsibility.

The Indian legal system was Europeanized.
The gap between the judicial system and common people increased and justice

became expensive. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Land Revenue Reforms

Earlier, the Permanent Settlement was guided by

mercantilist interest. However, in the early decades

of the 19 th century, India was being developed as a

British commodity market.

In this era, new revenue arrangements viz. Ryotwari

and Mahalwari systems were developed during this

period to suit the changed requirements of the

British government. Permanent settlement was not

expanded to other areas. Now, the British adjusted

the revenue-strategy according to the special

characteristics of the agrarian structure in each

region.

Ryotwari Settlement

Ryotwari system of land revenue collection was first introduced in Madras by its Governor

Thomas Munro. In this system the land revenue was to be collected directly from the

cultivators, instead of being collected through intermediaries as under the zamindari system.

A direct relationship was created between the Government and the cultivator.

Ithadmanyfeaturesofrevenuesystemof the Mughals. Wherethelandrevenuewasimposed

directly on the ryots (the individual cultivators who actually worked the land) the system of

assessment was known as Ryotwari.

It was argued that though the Company would be getting more revenue, the peasants would

be paying less, as intermediaries would be eliminated from the system.

This system was introduced in Madras Presidency, Bombay Presidency, Assam and some

other portions covering 51% area of British India.

Ideological Factors:

Indian Paternalism:

Many English officers like Reed, Munro and Elphinstone, who had first-hand

knowledge about the region, felt that Ryotwari system was as per local Indian

tradition where the cultivator had enjoyed certain rights since time immemorial.

The super-imposition of the zamindari settlement would completely disrupt the

existing local order.

Utilitarian economics: Capitalist thinkers like David Ricardo targeted landlords in their

'Rent Theory'. This philosophy had a 'distaste for landlordism', as per Eric Stokes.

Maximization of Revenue: Rent was surplus from land.

▪ If the cost production and labour/equipment is deducted from the total

produce, what remains is the surplus.

▪ This surplus was equated with rent and the government can legitimately

claim a large portion of it as revenue.

Elimination of unproductive intermediaries: Zamindar was a parasite who had no

role in producing value. Yet, he received a fraction of land revenue. Therefore, it

theoretically suggested eliminating the intermediaries and state should

appropriate larger share.

Effect of Scottish Enlightenment: It too denied the role of landlords in production and

gavegreaterimportanceto agriculturalpeasants.Itcelebratedtheimportanceofyeoman

farmer in agricultural societies.

Material Factors:

Firoj Sarwar has argued that the Ryotwari System was more pragmatic than doctrinal.

Inapplicability of Zamindari system:

There were no zamindars holding big estates with whom revenue settlement

could be struck. Local chiefs in these regions had been eliminated or reduced to

insignificance.

In Zamindari, the government was deprived of the opportunity to increase the

revenue, so Co D was dissatisfied. They needed the right to enhance the revenue

in future, as and when possible.

Company-governmentatthisstageneededmoreresourcesduetoconstantwars(Madras

government was chronically short of funds) and to satisfy the needs of British

industrialization.

Thus,thearrangementwastobe made directlywiththeactual cultivators (ryots).

The state's direct dealing with an individual farmer meant that it had direct access to the

area being cultivated and the income that accrued from it. Both helped the state assess

and collect the revenue better.

Ryotwari System: Madras Presidency

Ryotwari was first implemented in Barahmahal region by Colonel Alexander Reed in 1792

when the region was taken from Tipu Sultan. Soon, Thomas Munro elaborated and

implemented it in some districts in 1810, in the areas of Malabar, Canara, Coimbatore,

Dindigul. When he became the Madras Governor, he implemented it throughout the

presidency in 1820. This system was in operation for nearly 30 years.

Ryotwari System: Bombay Presidency

The British took away the land of western India from the Marathas and there needed the

management of land revenue. Elphinstone, a disciple of Munro,attempted to implement the

Ryotwari system in Bombay. The land revenue was too high upto 1836. In 1836, certain

reforms were brought in after the survey conducted by Wingate and Goldsmith, which was

slightly more rational. Based on this, land revenue rate was reduced.

Ryotwari: Evaluation

Characteristic Features Consequences

Unlike the Zamindari system, every

registered raiyat was considered as

the owner of the land, and the

agreement of land revenue was

made with him

In reality, under the Ryotwari Settlement the

state became the virtual zamindar. It did not

bringpositivechangesinthelifeofcultivators

because the large number of landlords had

been replaced by the British government.

The cultivator cannot be evicted by

Government so long as he pays the

fixed assessment. (The system was

expected to increase the security of

the cultivator and removed the

Zamindar the middleman.)

Community land was owned by the

government.

The assessment rate was fixed and

did not vary from year to year.

Ideally the Ryotwari system was

supposed to be based on fixation of

therentforeach Ryotandeachfield.

A Ryot was to be given a choice to

accept or reject the offer made by

the government's assessment for a

particular piece of land. Thus, a Ryot

had the option annually of

increasing or diminishing his

holding,orofentirelyabandoningit.

The land revenue was temporarily

fixed for 30-40 years. Thus, a

temporary agreement (not

permanent)wasdonewiththeryots

and the revenue could be increased

periodically.

In unfavourable seasons, remissions

of assessment are granted for entire

or partial loss of produce.

The quantum of rent was fixed arbitrarily by

the Company officials. The system of survey

and measurement was abandoned. Thus,

land revenue in reality was very high,

sometimeseven 50-55%ofthetotalproduce.

The people were left with bare maintenance

with available resources. Moreover, the

government retained the right to enhance

land revenue at any time.

When most of peasant started declining

cultivation, they were forced to do by

government.

Harsh collection: The peasants were also not

allowed any exemption in case of bad

harvests or natural calamities. The cultivators

had to pay revenue even the produce was

partiallyorcompletelydestroyedbydroughts

or floods. Both force and fraud were used to

extract maximum rent from the cultivators.

Those who failed to pay it, were deprived the

ownership of land by mean of confiscation of

the land.

No uniformity in the determination of land

revenue. Privileged farmers had to pay

relatively less revenue

Cultivation was no longer profitable. Many

peasants abounded agriculture and escaped

into forests or neighbouring native states.

The system had become obnoxious and

repressive, which was brought out by the

Report of the Madras Torture Commission in

1855.It was found that only 14.5 million acre

land was under the plough and 18 million

acre fertile land was lying fallow due to

extremely heavy burden. Only after that the

government was forced to provide some

relief.

The land was made salable. The

ryots were given right of transaction

of land. He is at liberty to sublet his

Gradually, due to over-assessment, the land

shifted from the poor peasants to rich

peasants. Therefore, a landlord class

property, or to transfer it by gift,

sale, or mortgage.

established (like zamindar), which began

crop-sharing.

Thus, the agriculture was ruined in Ryotwari areas. Production declined sharply. Even the

availability of food grains was seriously affected. Poverty, hunger and famine became

widespread.

Land lost its market value in Ryotwari areas, as nobody wanted purchase it as agriculture

was not profitable.

Sincetherewasnomaximumlimitontheamountoflandapersoncouldown,biglandlord

emerged in fertile delta of Kaveri.

The distress of peasantry was acknowledged by the Company's government in the report.

In the second round of settlements arrived at in the 1840 s, the tax burden was reduced

considerably (Firoj Sarwar). Unfortunately, this was neutralized by the excessive powers

granted to revenue collectors.

Moneylenders were afraid to invest money due to high revenue rate. When a reformed

version was introduced (1854-55), the land gained market value but now money leaders

started capturing land of poor peasants. Soom, an extremely severe problem of rural

indebtedness emerged and the peasants got no benefit.

Mahalwari Settlement

First itcameintoforcein North(centralregionof the Mughal Empire),andlaterimplemented

in NW, Punjab, Awadh and some part of Central India.In these regions,thepanchayat system

was quite active.

Features:

The name mahalwari has been derived from the word mahal or village. Here the

settlement was struck with the village headman or with the leading families of the village

collectively.

In Mahalwari system, a group of villages (Mahal) was taken as a unit, and thus rent was

fixed for the entire Mahal. The rent was collected through the village Pradhan/

muqqadam/ lambardar or any other cultivator of high standing in the village. It was such

villages committee was held responsible for collection of the taxes. Thus, the revenue

settlement was made mahalwise (estatewise).

However,everycultivator had a jointresponsibility for paymentof therent. So,ownership

rights were vested with the peasants. The private responsibility of the farmers remained.

It was implemented by Holt Mc Kenzie for the first time in 1822. He is regarded as the father

of Mahalwari settlement. The rent here remained arbitrary and too high. Revenue arrears

mounted and soon the entire system virtually broke down under the weight of high rent. The

agricultural depression of 1828 made the situation worse.

Subsequently, an attempt was made to retrieve the system by the Regulation of 1833 which

did bring some relief to these cultivators. Thomson and RM Bird played a role in its evolution

duringthetimeof Lord Bentinck. The Settlementwasmade for 30 yearsin UPandfor 20 years

in Punjab and the Central Provinces and 66% of the net produce of the land was fixed as the

share of the state. Lord Dalhousie further rationalized the system in 1855 and reduce the

burden to 50%. The revised settlement was led astray by corrupt settlement officers who did

not pay heed to the carefully laid out rules in collecting revenue. Misery and discontent

continued.

Mahalwari Impact:

Inthe Mahalwariassessment area,especiallyin Awadh,thetaluqdars(biglandlords)were

uprooted who opposed Mahalwari.

In this arrangement too, the oppression of the cultivators by the leaders of the village

was inevitable. The headmen of the village misused their power and swindled the poor

peasants.

Exorbitant rates of the land revenue put tremendous pressure (Normally 65%, going up

to 95% of surplus). And unlike zamindari areas, it was fixed temporarily. Thus, on the

whole, Mahalwari system also ruined the cultivators giving a field day for moneylenders.

Thus, in Mahalwari region, there was intense peasant rebellion in 1857.

Overall Impact of the Land-Revenue Settlements

The three settlements were based on different principles. At the same time, they were

governed by same concern - need to maximize the revenue. Land tax remained the single

most important source of the government's revenue (Neils Charlesworth). In 1858-59, land

revenue constituted 50.3% of the government's total revenue.

By the middle of the nineteenth century the Company's administration had devised three

systems of land revenue administration, creating private property in land and conferring that

proprietary right on three different groups. According to a rough estimate, in 1928- 29 about

19 % of the cultivable land in India was under zamindari settlement, 29 % under Mahalwari

settlement and 52 % under Ryotwari system.

Consequences: Breakdown of village society:

The traditional Indian village had a self-sufficient, self-subsistent character. The villagers in

each village used to remit their taxes to the state collectively. Under the new arrangement

however, tax was to be assessed separately and individually. The aim of the settlements was

to create an atmosphere conducive to trade and investment. As a result, there took place

certain associated developments like the growth of a market economy, commodity

production,moneyeconomyetc.Such developmentsdemolished the self-sufficientcharacter

of the village economy of the pre-colonial times. Under the forceful thrust of the various land

revenue settlements India's traditional village economy was shattered. It was indeed a sharp

break with the past. To the peasants it was the loss of the old world, but, there was no

corresponding gain of a new world. From the cultivators point of view the new arrangements

were strange, alien and unintelligible.

Historians debate regarding:

How far the earlier zamindars and village headmen were displaced? (BB Chaudhuri)
The extent of peasant indebtedness? (Dharma Kumar)

Increase in the number of moneylenders? (Neil Charlesworth, H Fukuzawa, Ravinder

Kumar)

Was there complete rupture of agrarian relations or some continuity? (CA Bayly, Burton

Stein).

However, it cannot be gainsaid that there were important changes brought about by the new

revenue settlements. These are summarised as below:

Revenue demand increased dramatically.

All three ultimately resulted in over-assessment and arbitrary fixation of high

rent.

There was rigorous/harsh way of its collection.
A system of cash payment and that too during the harvest time (further

aggravated the situation)

The results were arrears of payment, mounting debt, increasing land sales and

dispossession. All of this led to miserable condition of peasants (chronic hunger,

starvation) and created several famines that occurred all over the 19 th century.

Land as property

The British created a newform of private property in land for their own benefit (to

protect revenue).

As the land became a marketable commodity, landed property changed hands

rapidly. Eventually, it led to the evolution of a new set of agrarian relations that

was extremely regressive. Overall, it promoted differentiation within the rural

society and intensified social conflicts.

▪ It strengthened the power of rural magnates (wherever they existed). For

example, as pointed out by David Ludden, in many districts in Tamil Nadu,

the mirsadars manipulated the system to get privileged rents and convert

their collective rights into individual property rights. By the beginning of

the twentieth century, there was an affluent group of big landholders-

whom A. Satyanarayana calls "peasant-bourgeoisie"-who controlled large

farms and leased out surplus lands to landless tenants and sharecroppers.

▪ The intermediate strata also did well and lived under stable economic

conditions.

▪ The rights of the small landowners progressively reduced due to

indebtedness. The poor peasants were exploited by rich ryots, creditors

and lessors, and were forced to hire themselves despite wretched

conditions and remained tied to small plots of land. Thus, there also

emerged a vast class of landless sharecroppers and agricultural labourers.

Thus, it affected the local power structure. The stability and continuity of the

Indian villages were shaken because of this.

The introduction of contractual relationship between the owners-tenants initially

reinforced the dominant power structures. Gradually it changed social relations.

'Customary' rights/practices were ignored.

Various informal arrangements which helped poor people (poor peasants,

sharecroppers, landless labourers) to rely on agriculture were abolished.

Rights of women who did not own property but had rights to the produce were

totally sidelined.

← PreviousBritish Expansion in India Next →Economic Impact of British Colonial Rule