A land revenue system is a method used by a government to assess and collect taxes from landholders or cultivators. The land revenue system in British India involved three main structures, such as Zamindari System, Ryotwari System and the Mahalwari System.
Ever wondered what made British rule so powerful in India? One major reason was the clever systems they set up to extract wealth from the country. One such example is the land revenue systems in British India, which deeply impacted the economic growth of farmers, rural power structures and the relationship between the state and the farmers. As the British sought a stable and reliable source of income, they implemented three major land revenue systems known as Zamindari, Ryotwari and Mahalwari to extract money. Each land revenue system was rooted in severe exploitation of farmers who had to give away a large portion of their income to the revenue collectors, who kept a portion of the money to themselves and handed over the rest to the British government.
In the British Indian Era, the revenue collectors were the Zamindars, Ryotwaris and Malwaris who kept a portion of the peasants’ income, making them extremely rich and powerful. This created an economic divide as the poor remained poor, but the rich continued gaining power. As per the Zamindari system, which was established under the Permanent Settlement Act, farmers were expected to pay a fixed and large amount to the British via the revenue collectors, no matter their income. Even if their crops withered and they were left with no money, they had to arrange the revenue amount. After several protests, the Ryotwari system and Mahalwari system took over, which gave some power to the farmers. However, they were constantly dragged into politics, cycles of poverty and powerlessness.
What is the Land Revenue System?
A land revenue system is a method used by a government to assess and collect taxes from landholders or cultivators, representing a primary source of state income in many historical, particularly colonial, economies. The land revenue system in British India involved three main structures: the Zamindari System, Ryotwari System, and Mahalwari System. Under the Zamindari system, landlords collected revenue from farmers and paid it to the government. In the Ryotwari system, farmers paid taxes directly to the government. The Mahalwari system collected revenue from entire villages. These Land Revenue Systems often placed heavy tax burdens on farmers, leading to poverty, debt, and agricultural decline in many regions.
Key Land Revenue Systems in British India
The land revenue system in British India was established in 1793 to maximize their income. It consisted of three exploitative systems known as the Permanent Settlement in Bengal, which was also known as the Zamindari system. Other systems were the Ryotwari system in the South and the Mahalwari system in the North. All of these land revenue systems placed immense financial pressure on farmers and significantly altered land ownership. Let’s look at the key land revenue systems in British India: -
1. Zamindari System (Intermediaries)
The Zamindari system was introduced by Lord Cornwallis in Bengal, Bihar and Odisha under the Permanent Settlement Act of 1793. The Zamindari revenue system allowed Landlords who were called Zamindars, to own the land farmers used for agricultural activities. This created pressure on the farmers to pay a fixed annual income to Zamindars, who kept a portion of the revenue to themselves and handed over the rest to the British government.
2. Ryotwari System (Direct to Farmers)
The Ryotwari System was introduced by Thomas Munro and Captain Alexander Read in 1820 in the Madras and Bombay areas. The state dealt directly with the ryots, who were the farmers and were recognized as landowners instead of revenue collectors. Revenue was not fixed and was periodically revised depending on the produce obtained by the farmers in the collection period. The revenue was often set at 50%-60% of the produce. Farmers were supposed to pay in cash, and no middleman was involved in the process. The system was still exploitative as it took away more than half of the farmer’s income.
3. Mahalwari System (Village-based)
The Mahalwai system was introduced by Holt Mackenzie in 1822 and revised in 1833, it was a British colonial land revenue system covering parts of the Gangetic Valley, Punjab, and Central India. The revenue was collected by the head of the village or estate as a whole. They were known as Mahal, who collected revenue, which was periodically revised. This system resulted in corruption and exploitation of weaker farmers.
Key Impact of Land Revenue Systems in India
The land revenue systems in British India, such as Zamindari, Ryotwari and Mahalwari, primarily aimed at maximizing revenue, which resulted in extreme poverty, massive indebtedness and suffering of the Indian farmers. High cash-based taxes forced farmers into the hands of moneylenders, leading to the decline of agriculture, frequent famines and lack of food security.
1. Impoverishment of Peasantry
The revenue was set so high that farmers often lost their land or were forced to take loans from moneylenders to meet demands, leading to a cycle of debt. Many farmers committed suicide, some abandoned their families, and others suffered extreme poverty.
2. Commercialization of Agriculture
To pay cash taxes, farmers were forced to switch from growing food crops to cash crops such as indigo and cotton because they yielded a good income. This resulted in food shortages and constant famines, affecting the food security of the region.
3. Structural Changes in Land Ownership
Traditional communal land ownership was replaced by private property rights. Those unable to pay taxes had their land sold, making the Zamindars hoarders of many lands, which made them extremely powerful and rich.
4. Rise of Intermediaries
In systems like the Permanent Settlement, a new class of exploitative intermediaries, such as the zamindars, emerged. While in Ryotwari systems, the state dealt directly with peasants with equally harsh results. No matter the system, the suffering of the farmers remained constant.
5. Farmer Revolts
The extreme exploitation gave rise to widespread rural distress and resulted in various farmer revolts throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, such as the Indigo Revolt and Champaran Satyagraha, rebelling against the exploitative land revenue systems.
6. Breakdown of Village Economy
The traditional self-sufficient Indian-village community was broken down as the economy was forced into a market-driven and cash-based system. Farmers no longer produced regional or traditional crops and focused primarily on high-yielding crops.
What is Permanent Settlement?
Introduced in 1793 by Lord Cornwallis in Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha, the Permanent Settlement was a land revenue system that fixed land tax permanently. It made Zamindars hereditary owners of land, requiring them to pay a fixed 10/11th of the revenue to the British, creating a loyal landlord class and fostering rural exploitation. Under the Land Revenue Systems in British India, zamindars had to give 10/11th of the rent they collected from farmers to the British government and were allowed to keep only 1/11th for themselves. The amount of land revenue they had to pay was fixed permanently, meaning the government would not demand more in the future.
However, if zamindars increased the rent collected from farmers, they were allowed to keep the extra amount. To ensure high revenue, the British fixed the initial land tax very high without consulting the zamindars. While the system helped the British secure steady income and created a loyal class of landlords, it led to severe exploitation of farmers.
Negative Impact of Permanent Settlement Act 1793
The dark side of the Permanent Settlement Act included severe exploitation and impoverishment of farmers who lost land rights and faced high pressure. Landlord absenteeism and neglect of agricultural improvements lead to famines and lack of food security. There was increased inequality where the landlords were getting richer, but farmers were becoming poorer. Let’s take a look at the negative impact of permanent settlement ACT 1793: -
1. Farmer’s Exploitation
Zamindars extracted high rents, often without written agreements and pushed farmers into financial pressure because the revenue used to be so high. At times when farmers couldn’t garner enough crop produce, they took on debt to pay taxes. This pressure resulted in extreme exploitation of farmers.
2. Increased Inequality
Zamindari created a wealthy and lavish class of zamindars while farmers remained poor and marginalized. This created economic instability because resources were poorly allocated to groups. The poor were not growing economically, and the rich were getting more powerful day by day.
3. Reliance on Zamindars
The permanent system's success depended entirely on the zamindars' goodwill, which often led to negligence and corruption. They had complete power and often had selfish motives of prioritizing their financial well-being at the cost of farmers live.
4. Zamindar Default
High revenue rates forced many zamindars to sell estates, because they had pressure from the British to pay the revenue to them, no matter what. In case they couldn't collect it from farmers, they had to sell off land to acquire that money.
5. Strong Support to British Rule
The Permanent Settlement system created a powerful landlord class that often supported British rule. They did little to nothing to stop the money-sucking behaviour of the British government because it indirectly made them more powerful. This even strengthened British roots in Indian soil.
What is the Zamindari System?
The Zamindari System was introduced by Lord Cornwallis in 1793 through the Permanent Settlement Act. It was a major land revenue collection system in colonial India that established a class of powerful intermediaries known as Zamindars between the British government and the farmers. While a version of the system existed during the Mughal Empire, it was significantly altered and formalized by the British East India Company. The Zamindari System primarily covered Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, and parts of North India, resulting in severe exploitation of cultivators, high rents, and the creation of a powerful, often absentee, landowning class.
Key Aspects of Zamindari System
The Zamindari System was introduced by the British in 1793 under Lord Cornwallis. Zamindars were recognized as landowners and were responsible for collecting revenue from farmers. They had to pay a fixed amount to the government. If they failed, their land could be taken away. Farmers faced high taxes and exploitation under the Zamindari system. Let’s have a quick look at the key aspects of the Zamindari system: -
1. Permanent Revenue Fixation
The revenue to be paid to the British was fixed permanently. This meant the government could not increase its share even if agricultural productivity or prices rose. The dark side was that farmers still had to pay the fixed amount even if they couldn’t garner sufficient waste.
2. Proprietary Rights
Under the Zamindari System, proprietary rights over land were granted to zamindars. They were legally recognized as landowners, while cultivators had little or no ownership rights and depended on zamindars for security and tenancy agreements.
3. 11th Rule (Division of Revenue)
The total revenue collected was divided into 11 parts. 10/11th went to the British government, while 1/11th was kept by the Zamindar as their share. This highlights the dominance of the British over money that absolutely didn’t belong to them. The rightful owners never got their full credit under the exploitative land revenue system.
4. Lack of Investment
Under the Zamindari System, many zamindars showed little interest in improving Agriculture Imports and Exports. Since their main goal was collecting revenue, they rarely invested in irrigation, tools, or soil improvement. This lack of investment reduced productivity and worsened the condition of farmers.
5. Sunset Law
If a Zamindar failed to pay the fixed revenue by sunset on a specified date, their land rights were taken away and auctioned to the highest bidder. This sunset clause highlights the strictness of the Zamindari system and the brutality against farmers. It was one of the most unforgiving and stringent laws.
What is the Ryotwari System?
The Ryotwari system was a land revenue policy introduced by Thomas Munro in the 1820s as an alternative to the Permanent Settlement, establishing direct revenue relations with farmers who were known as ryots in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies. It granted farmers direct ownership and transferable property rights aiming to eliminate middlemen while setting high tax rates that were revised every 20-30 years. The revenue amount was not fixed, and the government only demanded 50-60% of the farmer’s production.
Key Aspects of Ryotwari System
The Ryotwari System involved direct settlement between the government and cultivators. Each ryot was recognized as the landholder and paid revenue directly. Assessment was based on land quality and periodically revised, often placing significant financial responsibility and risk on peasants. Let’s have a quick look at the key aspects of the Ryotwari System: -
1. Direct Settlement
Unlike the Permanent Settlement Act, which used Zamindars as intermediaries, the Ryotwari system allowed the British government to deal directly with the farmers, removing the dependence on middlemen, such as zamindars, who utilised some portion of the revenue for themselves.
2. Ryot Ownership Rights
Ryots were considered the owners of their land with the right to sell, lease, or mortgage it, provided they paid the income tax. The ryotwari system gave complete authority over the land to farmers without any exploitation.
3. Revenue Collection
In the Ryotwari system, taxes were directly collected from the farmers with rates often set extremely high, roughly 50% of the produce for dry land and 60% for wet land. This still created a lot of financial pressure on farmers as they had to give away more than half of their produce to the British government.
4. Cash Payments
Under the Ryotwari System, land revenue had to be paid in cash rather than in kind. This requirement forced many cultivators to sell crops quickly, often at low prices, making them dependent on traders and moneylenders for loans and credit.
5. Regional Implementation
The Ryotwari System was mainly implemented in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies, and later in parts of Assam and Berar. British officials, such as Thomas Munro promoted it, believing direct settlement with cultivators would simplify administration and increase revenue collection efficiency for the colonial government.
Negative Impact of Ryotwari System
The Ryotwari system was introduced in the early 19th century in Southern and Western India. It aimed to establish direct tax relations with farmers known as ryots, eliminating middlemen such as Zamindars. While granting land ownership to farmers, the system led to high Income tax rates, forced cash crop cultivation and widespread debt, causing significant rural poverty and the rise of moneylenders. Let’s take a look at the negative impact of the Ryotwari system in detail.
1. Economic Distress and Debt
Land revenue was often very high, sometimes exceeding 50% of the farmer’s produce, leading to severe financial distress and increased indebtedness among farmers who started depending on moneylenders who exploited them.
2. Shift To Cash Crops
The need to pay taxes in cash prompted a shift from food crop cultivation to cash crops like cotton and indigo, weakening local food security. Many food crops could not be sold expensive in the market, whereas cash crops were helping farmers deal with the regular harassment of the British government.
3. Agricultural Stagnation
The constant pressure to pay revenue meant farmers had little capital left to invest in improving their land, leading to long term agricultural decline. It also leads to constant families, hunger and poverty.
What is the Mahalwari System?
The Mahalwari system was a British land revenue system in India, introduced by Holt Mackenzie in 1822 and reformed by Lord William Bentinck. The system treated a village or group of villages as a single unit for tax collection, with the village headman responsible for collecting revenue from farmers and paying it to the British government. A single unit was called ‘Mahal’ and it differed from Zamindari and Ryotwari systems by emphasizing collective village responsibility with periodically revised revenue demands which were not permanent.
Key Aspects of Mahalwari System
The Mahalwari System, introduced by the British in parts of North India, was based on village communities as the basis of revenue assessment. Land revenue was fixed collectively, periodically revised, and collected through village headmen. It recognized customary rights but imposed heavy financial obligations on rural populations in many areas. Let’s have a quick look at the key aspects of Mahalwari System: -
1. System Mechanism
Under the Mahalwari system, revenue was assessed for an entire village or mahal rather than individual fields. Village communities were collectively responsible for payment. Headmen or lambardars collected and remitted revenue to the state. Assessments were periodically revised based on surveys, soil quality, and estimated agricultural output in each settlement.
2. Periodic Revenue Revision
Unlike the Permanent Settlement Act, revenue was not fixed but revised periodically every 20-30 years based on land measurement and the produce farmers could generate in the collection period. The revenue amount was not fixed, but farmers were generally expected to pay 50-60 % of the produce, which is still exploitative in nature.
3. Unit of Assessment
In the Mahalwari system, the unit of assessment was the village or mahal, and it became the basic unit for revenue assessment, incorporating all village lands. Revenue demand was calculated for the entire community, considering cultivated land, productivity, and local conditions. The collective liability meant that all landholders in the village shared responsibility for paying the assessed amount annually.
4. Joint Responsibility
Under the Mahalwari system, village communities bore joint responsibility for paying land revenue to the government. If some cultivators failed to pay, others were required to cover the deficit. This collective liability strengthened administrative control but often increased financial pressure on peasants during poor harvests or economic hardship locally, too.
5. Peasant Ownership
In the Mahalwari system, peasants were recognized as proprietors of their land, either individually or as part of the village community. They retained certain customary rights to cultivate, transfer, or inherit land. However, heavy revenue demands and periodic revisions often limited their economic survey and autonomy in practice for many.
Negative Impact of Mahalwari System
The Mahalwari system's impact was largely negative. It caused impoverishment of farmers, breakdown of village communities, increased debt leading to food insecurity. It also led to social inequality as high revenue demands and corruption by village lambardars pushed farmers into rebellion, contributing to the 1857 revolt. Let’s take a look at the negative impact of the Mahalwari system: -
1. Breakdown of Village Communities
The Mahalwari system undervalued the traditional communal ownership of land, replacing it with individual property rights and enforcing individualism over community. Karl Marx, a famous German philosopher, noted this as a destruction of the village's economic base.
2. Increased Inequality and Corruption
Village headmen known as Lambardars became powerful representatives, often joining hands with British officials to exploit poorer farmers, thus enforcing existing hierarchies of the Zamindari system.
3. Resentment and Revolt
The widespread economic distress fueled discontent, contributing to the popular Revolt of 1857, where villagers and farmers attacked British officials, highlighting their dissatisfaction with being financially exploited.
Difference Between Ryotwari System and Permanent Settlement
The Ryotwari system recognized the farmers as owners, whereas the Permanent Settlement recognized the Zamindars as owners. The revenue in the Ryotwari system was revisable while the revenue in the Permanent Settlement Act was fixed. Both systems often resulted in heavy burdens on the farmers. While the Ryotwari system initially intended to protect farmers, it often led to intense exploitation due to inflexible revenue demands and high taxation. Let’s have a quick comparison between the Ryotwari system and the Permanent settlement: -
Comparison Between Permanent Settlement vs Ryotwari System |
Feature |
Permanent Settlement (1793) |
Ryotwari System (1820s) |
Introduced By |
Lord Cornwallis |
Sir Thomas Munro |
Owner of Land |
Zamindars |
Ryots (Cultivators) |
Middlemen |
Yes (Zamindars) |
No |
Revenue Rate |
Fixed Permanently |
Revised Periodically |
Area |
Bengal, Bihar, Orissa |
Madras, Bombay, Assam |
Conclusion
The British government was focused on generating land revenue from India to fill its own pockets. In order to do this, they created many revenue systems, and one such system was the land revenue system. This forced the farmers to pay heavy amounts to the British government through the produce they generated. There were mainly three types of land revenue systems in British India, such as the Zamindari system, Rytowari system and Mahalwari system. Farmers were at times compelled to take debts in order to pay the revenue, and this exploitative system resulted in constant cycles of poverty, famines and lack of food security in colonial India. This also created an economic divide as the landlords, such as Zamindars and Lambardars, became powerful and the farmers became poorer and poorer.