1. The permanent system of Bengal though initiated with best of intentions was a sadly blundering affair.  (20 marks)

Lord Cornwallis engineered a Permanent Settlement in 1793 which fixed the revenue rate. Since 1770, European observers like Alexander Dow, Thomas Law were advocating that the land revenue be fixed permanently. A step ahead was taken by Pitt’s India Act wherein rules for permanent land revenue were laid down. In 1790, Cornwallis made provision for deccanial settlement which was made permanent in 1793. The revenue per year was approximately 3 million sterling. The Zamindars and local revenue farmers were converted into landlords and were given the task of securing the revenue from the farmers. Their right over land was made hereditary and transferrable. The farmers were reduced to mere tenants on the land and lost their right of ownership, on forest land, pastures, irrigation canals etc. The formula was that 10/11th revenue be given to the British and the rest be kept with them. Land became saleable and could be confiscated and mortgaged. The government wont interfere in internal issues as long as the zamindars paid revenue. John Shore estimated that if total revenue was 100, the Company took 45, Zamindars and intermediaries took 15 and the peasant was left only with 40

It  was introduced with the expectation that it would confer certain benefits on the Government in the following manner:

Creation of allies like Zamindars : Zamindars would owe their existence to the British and help them during revolt. This is seen from the absence of Zamindars from popular revolts in Bengal.

Creation of private property in land:  The idea was that no government could be assured of its revenue unless it was prepared to guarantee the rights of proprietorship/ private ownership of lands.

Security of Revenue: Right to property in land would ensure the regularity and permanence of revenue income by a settlement with zamindars.

Creation of ‘improving’ landlords: security of property rights would induce prosperous Indians to invest in land and they would be making fresh investments and initiating improvements in the rural areas

Agricultural development capital formation: The above three would facilitate agricultural development, leading to capital generation. Marshman has said that it was a wise and bold measure. Cultivation has been extended and improvement in agriculture can be seen.

Demerits / A blundering Affair

Ruination of the peasant class: The government remained unresponsive to the oppressive measures taken by the zamindars against the cultivators to collect revenues. The latter were at the mercy of the zamindars. The cultivators lost right over their land. In 1799, Zamindars were given right to take over properties of defaulting peasants and evict them without an order from courts . TR Holmes has called this a great blunder because tenants did not benefit, zamindars defaulted on payments and their lands were sold for benefit of British government. There was agricultural depression in 1790s which reduced the rents from farmers leading to defaults.

Minacious sunset law: Many zamindars fell victim to the unpopular sunset law which accounted for withdrawal of private property right upon not paying the sky-high land revenue. This led to the creation of a new ‘landlordism’ which included merchants, revenue officers, money lenders, who had no interest in the development of land and public welfare.

Inability to enhance land revenue: Even with the rise in price of grains and produce of the soil, the government could not enhance the land revenue complying with the fixation of the revenue amount.

Failure to produce ‘improving landlords’: There was no perceived improvement in agriculture as absentee landlordism increased and Zamindars spent money on luxuries.

Proliferation of subinfeudation or absentee landlordism: Typically, the zamindar used to delegate the task of collecting the rent to a middleman on condition of a part of the collection as his commission, leading to further exploitation of the cultivators. This also kept the idea of private ownership in vague. Subinfeudation took place under Patni tenures wherein multiple intermediaries were added leading to increase of burden on peasants. Burdwan zamindars did that.

According to Rajat and Ratnalekha Ray, the Zamindar was nothing but a feudatory of the British who collected revenue. Actual power passed on to the rich peasants or Jotedars who controlled land holding in the village and severely resisted the efforts of Zamindars to discipline them. Dinajpur region study of Francis Buchanan.

Contrary to the official expectations, the growing disillusionment with the functioning of the Permanent Settlement proves it nothing but a blunder. Under the Permanent settlement system company was a financial loser in long run as the revenue to be paid remained fixed but expenses of company rose exponentially due to engagement in continuous state of war.