The Permanent Settlement and its effects in Bengal

During the Mughal era, the Zamindars in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were functionaries who merely had the right to collect revenue on behalf of the emperor and his representative or ‘Diwan’. When the East India Company was awarded the ‘Diwani’ of Bengal by the Mughal Empire in 1865 following the Battle of Buxar, it found itself short of trained administrators, especially those familiar with local customs and law. As a consequence, the land-holders found themselves unsupervised or reporting to corrupt officials. The extraction of revenue proceeded without any regard for future income or local welfare.

After the devastating famine of 1770 which wiped out one-third of the Bengal population and was caused partially by the short-sightedness of the company administration, the company experimented with five-yearly, annual and decennial land revenue settlements (Chowdhury, 2001). The disastrous consequences of these were noted in the British Parliament and the Pitt’s India Act of 1784 had a clause directing the Calcutta government to stop revenue experiments forthwith and make a permanent settlement of land revenue with the Zamindars under terms and conditions beneficial to both the parties. Lord Cornwallis was sent out to Bengal in 1786 to oversee an alteration.  

Introduction of Permanent Settlement: The ‘Permanent Settlement’ was a grand contract signed by the East India Company and the land-holders (Zamindars and independent Talukdars) concluded by the administration of Lord Cornwallis in 1793. The land-holders were inducted into the colonial state system through this process as absolute proprietors of landed property. They were also granted the privilege of holding their proprietary right at a perpetually fixed rate of land-revenue (Islam, 2003: 34).

But although the Zamindars had the right to transfer their land freely through sale, mortgage or gift, their Raiyats (tenants) were denied such privilege. The Zamindars of course had the obligation to pay the government revenue on time. In case of failure to pay the ‘kist’ (instalment) within the stipulated period, their lands or such portions as might be sufficient to make good the arrears could be sold in auction (Islam, 2003: 34). This was known as the ‘Sunset Law’ (Islam, 2004: 227).

The conclusion of the permanent settlement with the Zamindars had some immediate objectives (Islam, 2003: 39). These were: (a) placing revenue collection on a definite footing by bringing in an element of certainty; (b) ensuring minimum revenue for the company; (c) relieving officials of revenue matters and engaging them in other spheres of administration; and (d) forging an alliance between the Zamindar class and the colonial rulers. The government largely succeeded in achieving these short-term goals.

The Permanent Settlement was the outcome of a long-drawn debate among the policy-makers of the East India Company and should not be looked at as merely an arrangement for collecting revenue. It was contrived of as a core part in the control system of the colonial state. Other parts of administration were geared towards making the permanent settlement work. However, despite all the cares taken to preserve this system, it eroded gradually under the impact of new and changing circumstances. The system went through a series of amendments and modifications and was finally abolished in East Bengal in 1950.

The Effects of Permanent Settlement: The initial crisis in Zamindari power and control that occurred immediately after the introduction of the permanent settlement system was followed by a spell of stability and even of relative prosperity among the Zamindari class. The summary powers provided to Zamindars by a series of enactments (Regulation XXXV of 1795, Regulation VII of 1799, Regulation V of 1812 and Regulation VIII of 1819) enabled the Zamindars to enhance and collect revenue expeditiously through greater control over their Raiyats. The public auction of Zamindari land due to revenue defaults thus became a rare phenomenon from 1820 onwards. Besides, Regulation VIII of 1819 enabled the Zamindars to create perpetual intermediary rights between themselves and actual cultivators. The opening up of Bengal to free trade from 1813 also led to ever-larger export volumes of primary agricultural commodities with concomitant positive effects on the Zamindari income. The growth in population with consequent extension of cultivable agricultural land, introduction of commercial crops and rising trend in prices also had positive effects on the Zamindari income.

However, the most disappointing aspect of the settlement was that it failed to produce any social change and improve the conditions of production (Rahim, 1997). The Zamindars lived off rents like parasites and a majority of them became absentee landlords living in Kolkata. The affluence of the Zamindar class did not in any way translate into a corresponding prosperity for the Raiyats (peasantry). The peasant surpluses were systematically extracted by the Zamindars and intermediate interests in the form of enhanced rents and myriads of impositions like abwabs, tuhuri, dasturi, chandas, bhet, nazrana, begar, selami, etc. The peasants continued to produce only subsistence plus rent. Following the integration with global capitalist economy from early 19th century, the subsistence economy in rural Bengal fell under severe strains. A series of peasant uprisings in many parts of Bengal from the middle of the 19th century was a direct manifestation of the estranged relationships between the Zamindars and the Raiyats.

The Faraizis (an Islamic reform initiative) took up the peasants’ cause during the first and second halves of the 19th century, and their movement established elaborate networks across the country, especially in southern Bengal, against Zamindari repression. The crisis was further aggravated by uprisings in the Santal Pargana (1855) and then in the Indigo districts (1858-60). The peasant resistance movement took a serious turn during the 1870s and early 1880s, when peasants in several parts of eastern Bengal formed alliances to assert their rights over land and minimise extraction of surpluses by the Zamindars. Outstanding among these uprisings were the Tushkhali peasant movement (1872-75), Pabna peasant uprising (1873), Chhagalnaiya peasant movement (1874), Mymensingh tribal peasant movement (1874-82), Munshiganj peasant movement (1880-81) and the Mehendiganj uprising (1880-81) (Islam, 2003: 40).

These uprisings indicated the gradual erosion of the permanent settlement system. The land-holders were losing their grips on the peasantry, who started to assert their rights over land. Unable to control these rebellious Raiyats, the Zamindars asked the colonial government to help discipline them, and the government sent police and even armed forces, where required, to quell these disturbances. A majority of the government reports on peasant movements pointed to the weakening of the Zamindari class. The application of the inheritance law and consequent partitioning and repartitioning of estates, family feuds, litigation, absenteeism, creation of intermediate tenures, extravagant life-styles and other associated factors eroded the Zamindari class. On the other hand, an affluent and assertive agrarian middle class in the persons of intermediate tenure-holders – such as Jotedars, Hawladars and other rich peasants – emerged steadily since the first and second quarters of the 19th century.

Conclusion: The various classes of people who were in effective possession of land and involved in agricultural operations included the Raiyats of various categories, Bargadars (share-croppers) and the agricultural labourers. Together they constituted 96 per cent of the agricultural population. No adequate provisions were made under the original permanent settlement proclamation of 1793 to protect the rights of the Raiyats, and their position was further weakened in the subsequent years when additional powers were vested on the Zamindars. But starting from 1859, a series of protective legislations were passed to bolster the position of Raiyats. Further changes were introduced by the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1928, whereby Raiyati holdings were declared to be transferable subject to the payment of a transfer fee amounting to 20 per cent of the sale price (Islam, 2004: 230). In fact, the position of Raiyats improved to such an extent that by 1938 they acquired almost all the rights of ownership of land, including the right of inheritance, unrestricted transfer, protection against enhancement of rent and ejection.

On the eve of the provincial election of Bengal in 1937, the Krishak Proja Party led by A K Fazlul Huq declared that it would abolish permanent settlement if voted to power. After the election, Fazlul Huq formed a coalition government which passed the Tenancy Amendment Act (1938) and the Moneylenders Act (1940). The former Act abolished the Zamindar’s transfer fee and the right of pre-emption, conferred the right of occupancy to all categories of Raiyats, suspended all provisions regarding enhancement of rent for a period of ten years, imposed summary penalties for collection of abwabs (Islam, 2004: 230) and recognised some rights of the Bargadars (share-croppers) (Islam, 2003: 42).

This was followed by the appointment of a Land Revenue Commission headed by Sir Francis Floud to examine the prevailing land revenue system and put forward recommendations for its modification. The Commission recommended abolition of the Permanent Settlement and its replacement by a system under which the Raiyats would pay land revenue directly to the government. This recommendation was finally implemented in East Bengal in the year 1950, thereby bringing to an end the colonial legacy of Permanent Settlement.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Choudhury, Nurul H. Peasant Radicalism in Nineteenth Century Bengal: The Faraizi, Indigo and Pabna Movements. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, 2001.

2. Islam, M Mufakharul. “Bangladesh Agriculture: Historical and Current Perspectives” in Bangladesh: National Culture and Heritage, edited by Ahmed, A F Salahuddin and Chowdhury, Bazlul M Dhaka: Independent University Bangladesh, 2004. pp. 226-236

3. Islam, Sirajul. “Permanent Settlement” in Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, Volume-8, edited by Sirajul Islam et al. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, 2003. pp. 34-42

4. Islam, Sirajul. “Permanent Settlement and Peasant Economy” in History of Bangladesh 1704-1971: Economic History, 2nd Edition, edited by Sirajul Islam. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, 1997.

5. Rahim, Aminur. Politics and National Formation in Bangladesh. Dhaka: The University Press Limited, 1997.

The writer is a senior civil servant & ex-editor of Bangladesh Quarterly. [email protected]