Did The Permanent Settlement Fulfill Its Objectives

Spread the love

Rate this post

Did The Permanent Settlement Fulfill Its Objectives

The Permanent Settlement, also known as the Zamindari system, was a land revenue system introduced in India by the East India Company in 1793. It was intended to be a more efficient and profitable method of collecting revenue from land, which was the main source of revenue for the British in India at the time. The Permanent Settlement was implemented in the Bengal Presidency, which included present-day Bihar, West Bengal, and parts of Odisha and Jharkhand.

Under the Permanent Settlement, the East India Company granted land to local landlords, known as zamindars, in return for a fixed annual payment, or rent. The zamindars were responsible for collecting rent from the farmers who worked the land and for paying the revenue to the British. The zamindars were also given certain legal rights and powers, including the right to collect rent, to maintain law and order, and to administer justice.

The main objectives of the Permanent Settlement were to:

Increase revenue collection: The East India Company hoped that the Permanent Settlement would increase revenue collection from land, as the zamindars were motivated to maximize their rent collection in order to pay the fixed annual payment to the British.

Provide stability: The Permanent Settlement was intended to provide stability and predictability to the land revenue system, as the zamindars were granted permanent rights to their land and the annual payment was fixed. This was in contrast to the previous land revenue system, which was based on periodic assessments and negotiations between the British and local landholders.

Encourage development: The East India Company hoped that the Permanent Settlement would encourage the zamindars to improve the productivity and efficiency of their land, as they would benefit financially from any increase in rent. The British also believed that the zamindars, as a class of educated and influential landowners, would act as a bridge between the British and the local population, promoting development and modernization.

However, the Permanent Settlement did not fulfil its objectives and had several negative consequences:

Low revenue collection: The Permanent Settlement did not result in increased revenue collection, as the fixed annual payment was set at a low level in order to win the support of the zamindars. As a result, the British did not receive as much revenue from land as they had hoped.

The exploitation of farmers: The zamindars often exploited the farmers by collecting higher rent than what was agreed upon and by using their legal powers to oppress and extort the farmers. This led to widespread discontent and resentment among the farming community.

Stagnation and decline of agriculture: The Permanent Settlement did not encourage the development and modernization of agriculture, as the zamindars had no incentive to invest in their land. In fact, the zamindars often neglected their land and used their revenue to support a lifestyle of luxury and extravagance. This led to the stagnation and decline of agriculture in the region.

Social unrest: The Permanent Settlement created a class of wealthy and powerful zamindars who were seen as being unfairly privileged and favoured by the British. This led to social unrest and resistance, particularly among the lower castes and classes who were marginalized and oppressed by the zamindars.

In summary, the Permanent Settlement of India did not fulfil its objectives and had several negative consequences. It did not increase revenue collection, led to the exploitation of farmers, caused the stagnation and decline of agriculture, and contributed to social unrest.

This article might be helpful for you also…

Spread the love

Leave a Comment