Did the Permanent Settlement fulfill its objectives? Comment.
Share
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
The Permanent Settlement of 1793, also known as the Cornwallis Code, aimed to address revenue-related challenges faced by the British East India Company in Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha. While the settlement had certain intended objectives, its overall impact was mixed, and it faced criticisms and shortcomings.
Objectives of the Permanent Settlement:
Stability and Predictability: The Permanent Settlement sought to bring stability and predictability to the revenue system by fixing the land revenue at a perpetual rate. This was intended to provide security to landowners and promote agricultural investment.
Enhanced Revenue Collection: The British aimed to increase revenue collection by providing incentives for landowners to improve agricultural productivity and maximize their profits.
Reduced Administrative Costs: By fixing land revenue and involving intermediaries (zamindars) in revenue collection, the British hoped to reduce administrative costs and make the revenue system more efficient.
Critiques and Shortcomings:
Economic Exploitation: The fixed revenue demand often proved to be oppressive for peasants, as it did not account for fluctuations in agricultural productivity or natural calamities. This led to economic exploitation and distress among the rural population.
Absence of Direct Connection with Peasants: The Permanent Settlement introduced intermediaries, known as zamindars, between the British administration and the actual cultivators. This indirect system created a disconnect, and zamindars often exploited their position to the detriment of the peasants.
Lack of Responsiveness to Local Conditions: The fixed revenue demands were insensitive to local conditions and changes in agricultural productivity. In times of famine or crop failure, peasants faced hardships, while zamindars were protected by the permanency of the settlement.
Limited Agricultural Progress: The anticipated increase in agricultural productivity did not materialize as expected. The zamindars, without a direct stake in the land, had little incentive to invest in long-term improvements or infrastructure.
Social Inequities: The Permanent Settlement entrenched social hierarchies and exacerbated economic disparities. The zamindars, often belonging to privileged classes, continued to benefit, while the peasants, particularly the sharecroppers and landless laborers, faced economic hardships.
In conclusion, while the Permanent Settlement aimed to provide stability and enhance revenue collection, it fell short of fulfilling its objectives. The system's inflexibility, economic exploitation of peasants, and the emergence of social inequities raised significant challenges. Subsequent land revenue systems, such as the Ryotwari and Mahalwari settlements, were introduced to address some of these shortcomings in different parts of British India.