Exploitation Of Farmers Under The Permanent Settlement System
The Permanent Settlement, introduced by the British East India Company in 1793, was a pivotal moment in the history of India's agrarian system. While ostensibly designed to streamline revenue collection and create a class of loyal landlords, it had a devastating impact on the Indian peasantry. This article delves into the mechanisms through which farmers were exploited under this system, examining the economic, social, and legal factors that contributed to their plight. It is important to understand the intricacies of this system to grasp the long-term consequences it had on Indian society and economy.
The Genesis of the Permanent Settlement
To understand the exploitation, it's essential to know the backdrop of the Permanent Settlement. The British East India Company, after gaining control over Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, sought a reliable and efficient system of land revenue collection. Prior to the Permanent Settlement, the Company experimented with various methods, including annual auctions of revenue collection rights. These methods, however, proved unstable and often led to over-assessment and exploitation of the cultivators. Lord Cornwallis, the then Governor-General, conceived the Permanent Settlement as a solution to these problems. The idea was to fix the land revenue demand permanently, thereby ensuring a steady flow of income for the Company and encouraging landlords, known as Zamindars, to invest in land improvement. The Zamindars were recognized as the owners of the land and were made responsible for collecting revenue from the peasants. The amount to be paid by the Zamindars to the Company was fixed in perpetuity, hence the name 'Permanent Settlement'.
The primary aim of the Permanent Settlement was to secure revenue for the Company and to create a class of loyal landlords who would support British rule. It was believed that by fixing the revenue demand, the Company would be insulated from fluctuations in agricultural output and prices. It was also expected that the Zamindars, having a vested interest in the land, would undertake improvements such as irrigation and cultivation of new lands. However, the actual implementation of the system and its consequences for the farmers were far from the intended goals. The Permanent Settlement, while intended to bring stability and prosperity, ironically became a source of immense hardship and exploitation for the farmers. The initial assessment of revenue was often set at a high level, placing a significant burden on the Zamindars, which in turn led to increased pressure on the cultivators. This high demand, coupled with the rigid nature of the system, left little room for flexibility during times of drought or crop failure.
The long-term implications of this policy were profound. The Permanent Settlement not only altered the agrarian structure but also had significant social and economic consequences, particularly for the peasantry. The system created a hierarchical structure in the countryside, with the Zamindars at the top and the cultivators at the bottom. This hierarchy became entrenched over time, leading to a wide disparity in wealth and power. The farmers, who were the backbone of the agricultural economy, found themselves increasingly vulnerable and marginalized. The exploitation they faced under the Permanent Settlement had lasting effects, contributing to rural poverty and agrarian unrest in the decades that followed.
Mechanisms of Exploitation
Several mechanisms facilitated the exploitation of farmers under the Permanent Settlement. One of the most significant was the high revenue demand fixed by the Company. The initial assessment was often exorbitant, leaving little surplus for the cultivators. This forced them into a cycle of debt, as they had to borrow money from moneylenders to pay the revenue. The moneylenders, who often colluded with the Zamindars, charged exorbitant rates of interest, further exacerbating the farmers' financial woes. The burden of this debt often passed down through generations, trapping families in a perpetual state of poverty. The high revenue demand, therefore, was a primary driver of exploitation, pushing farmers to the brink of destitution.
Another crucial aspect was the absence of clear tenancy rights. While the Zamindars were recognized as the owners of the land, the rights of the cultivators were not clearly defined. This ambiguity allowed the Zamindars to evict tenants at will, increase rents arbitrarily, and impose various illegal cesses (taxes). The lack of legal protection meant that farmers were entirely at the mercy of the Zamindars. This insecurity of tenure discouraged farmers from investing in land improvement, as they feared that the benefits of their labor would be reaped by the Zamindars. The absence of tenancy rights, therefore, was a major factor contributing to the vulnerability and exploitation of the farmers.
Sub-infeudation was another mechanism that intensified the exploitation. To meet the high revenue demands, Zamindars often sub-let their lands to intermediaries, who in turn sub-let to others. This created a complex hierarchy of tenure holders, each extracting a share of the produce. By the time the actual cultivator received his share, it was often a pittance. The layers of intermediaries added to the burden on the farmers, as each level sought to maximize its profit. This system of sub-infeudation became widespread, particularly in Bengal, and it significantly contributed to the impoverishment of the peasantry. The multiplicity of intermediaries made it difficult for the government to regulate the system effectively, further exacerbating the exploitation.
The Impact on Farmers
The impact of the Permanent Settlement on farmers was profound and multifaceted. Economically, it led to widespread indebtedness and poverty. The high revenue demands, coupled with the insecurity of tenure, pushed many farmers into a cycle of debt from which they could not escape. They were forced to borrow money at exorbitant rates, often mortgaging their lands or other assets. In many cases, they lost their lands altogether, becoming landless laborers. The economic hardship led to a decline in agricultural productivity, as farmers lacked the resources and incentives to invest in land improvement. The system, therefore, not only impoverished the farmers but also had a detrimental impact on the overall agricultural economy.
Socially, the Permanent Settlement exacerbated inequality and social stratification. The Zamindars, who were the primary beneficiaries of the system, amassed wealth and power, while the cultivators were relegated to a subordinate position. This created a wide gap between the landlords and the tenants, leading to social tensions and conflicts. The Zamindars often exercised their power arbitrarily, subjecting the farmers to various forms of exploitation and oppression. The social hierarchy created by the Permanent Settlement had long-lasting effects, shaping social relations in rural India for generations.
The legal system under the Permanent Settlement also failed to protect the interests of the farmers. The courts were often biased in favor of the Zamindars, and legal remedies were expensive and time-consuming. This meant that farmers had little recourse against the exploitative practices of the Zamindars. The absence of an effective legal framework to protect their rights further marginalized the farmers and made them vulnerable to exploitation. The legal system, therefore, became another instrument of oppression, reinforcing the power of the Zamindars and the vulnerability of the cultivators.
Case Studies and Examples
Numerous case studies and historical examples illustrate the exploitation of farmers under the Permanent Settlement. In many parts of Bengal, farmers were forced to pay exorbitant rents and illegal cesses. They were often evicted from their lands for failing to meet these demands, leading to widespread landlessness and destitution. The diaries and accounts of British officials and missionaries document the plight of the farmers, highlighting the harsh realities of the system.
One notable example is the Pabna Peasant Uprising of 1873. This uprising was a response to the increased rents and illegal exactions by the Zamindars in the Pabna district of Bengal. The farmers organized themselves and resisted the oppressive practices of the landlords. While the uprising was eventually suppressed, it highlighted the deep-seated grievances of the peasantry and the extent of their exploitation under the Permanent Settlement. The Pabna uprising is a testament to the resilience of the farmers and their determination to fight for their rights.
Another example is the Champaran Satyagraha of 1917, led by Mahatma Gandhi. This movement was launched in response to the exploitation of indigo farmers in the Champaran district of Bihar. The farmers were forced by European planters to cultivate indigo at low prices, leading to immense hardship and poverty. The Champaran Satyagraha was a watershed moment in the Indian freedom struggle, and it brought to the forefront the plight of the farmers under the colonial system. The success of the Satyagraha demonstrated the power of non-violent resistance and its potential to bring about social and economic change.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Permanent Settlement, while intended to streamline revenue collection and create a stable agrarian system, had disastrous consequences for the Indian peasantry. The high revenue demands, the absence of clear tenancy rights, and the system of sub-infeudation all contributed to the exploitation of farmers. The economic, social, and legal dimensions of this exploitation were far-reaching, leading to widespread indebtedness, poverty, and social inequality. The Permanent Settlement serves as a stark reminder of the unintended consequences of policy decisions and the importance of protecting the rights and interests of vulnerable populations. The legacy of the Permanent Settlement continued to shape agrarian relations in India long after its abolition, highlighting the lasting impact of this historical event. Understanding the mechanisms and consequences of this system is crucial for comprehending the complexities of Indian agrarian history and the challenges of rural development.
The exploitation of farmers under the Permanent Settlement was a significant chapter in Indian history, illustrating the vulnerabilities of agrarian communities under colonial rule. The lessons learned from this period remain relevant today, as policymakers grapple with issues of land rights, agricultural development, and rural poverty. By examining the past, we can gain insights into the challenges of the present and work towards creating a more equitable and sustainable future for farmers and rural communities.
