The Permanent Settlement: A Critical Study of Decolonial Approach
Mohammad Golam Rabbani*
Abstract
More than a half century has past after the political decolonization of the
Indian subcontinent but the history of this region, to many extents, is yet to be
decolonized. The colonial subservience is still dominant, especially, in the
history of Bangla. Under this observation, the history of the Permanent
Settlement is attempted to be critically reviewed with a decolonial approach in
this article. The Permanent Settlement is often fantasized by many scholars as
a benign settlement for capitalist transformation in agriculture. But, from a
decolonized standpoint it can be seen as a settlement for the ‘revenue farmers’
for being the permanent pillar of the British political domination in Bangla.
Differentiation and expropriation in peasant economy were the main effects of
the Permanent Settlement. But, most of the historical works, presumably
owing to colonial scholarship and colonial source materials have spent much
time in researching the benign role of its authors. Its devastating impacts, as
obvious by evidences though provide the maximum contents of those texts,
their model overwhelmingly perceive the ‘benign role’ of its authors which
eventually caused to conceptual paradoxes. These need to be addressed and
challenged.
1. Introduction
The Permanent Settlement was formulated and enforced by Lord Cornwallis, the governor
general of the Fort William of Calcutta (Kolkata) in 1793 which had devastating impacts on
the economic life of Bangla. The Permanent Settlement was, however, a landmark towards
Company’s political domination over the economy of Bangla by which the land ‘revenue’ i.e
land-rent1 to be paid by the ‘revenue farmers’ i.e. land-rent collectors was permanently fixed.
The peasant economy of Bangla (colonial term is ‘Bengal’) was directly affected by the
political change for the first time during the colonial period. In fact, the mercantile plundering
since the Palashi (colonial term is ‘Plassey) and thereafter, the enforcement of the Permanent
Settlement with sole interest of ‘revenue’ (henceforth land-rent) had shattered the peasant
economy of Bangla in many regards. As Sirajul Islam (1992) observed, though the people of
Bangla were though rarely fortunate to manage their political affairs by themselves, in the
sphere of economic life they had always been original and autonomous in their thought and
activities. Particularly, peasant economy and the agrarian relations in the country side tended
to continue more or less unaffected and unchanged until Bangla was subjugated by the British
East India Company. Then what makes the Company’s domination different? Why shattering
changes occurred in the peasant economy and in the agrarian structure during Company’s
occupation? Answers can be found in the fact that, unlike all previous regimes, Company’s
domination in Bangla derived from entirely mercantile interests. That politico-mercantile
domination, eventually, caused to devastating reshuffling in agrarian relations. And, in real
1
*Associate Professor, Jahangirnagar University.
Email: [email protected]
Since the Company was not a legitimate government of the country the fees it took from the raiyats and
peasants for land cultivation should be considered as land-rent, not as ‘revenue’.
1
judgment, the Permanent Settlement was nothing but an instrument of Company’s
exploitative control over the land management, and thereby, over the peasant economy of
Bangla.
It is arguable that why the Permanent Settlement was enforced? The colonial subservient
view is that the Permanent Settlement was a benign settlement for capitalist transformation in
agriculture. To quote Sirajul Islam,
Economically it was expected that the permanent settlement would
encourage the investment of capital in land and, therefore, the growth of
a middle class; that it would lead to more lenient and considerate
treatment of the tenants by the landlords, and would thus promote
general prosperity.2
But how far this was true? Needless to say, the Company enforced the Permanent Settlement
for the sake of their interest. The period from Palashi to the Permanent Settlement was an era
of mercantile plundering of the Company’s servants which besides ruining the economy of
the country spoiled the economy of the Company. Presumably, it is not the ruining of the
country that made the colonial authority to find out a way of recovery but the wreck of the
Company. According to Sirajul Islam (1992), in digging out the causes of the crisis the rulers
discovered the fault not in the policies of the new regime, but in the imagined weakness of
the land control system. The Permanent Settlement was, however, a settlement for the landrent collecting agents i.e the zamindars (colonial term is ‘revenue farmers’) for being the
permanent pillar of the British political supremacy in Bangla. And, the political ambition of
the Permanent Settlement was however, successful. As history attests, the sycophant ‘revenue
farmers’ were devoted for holding up the British domination until the eventual years.
2. Subservient interpretations of the Permanent Settlement and the reality
The rural agrarian structure underwent little changes even after the establishment of the
Company’s domination till the enforcement of the Permanent Settlement in 1793. Apparently,
crushing changes in the agrarian structure were taking place after the Permanent Settlement.
But, most of the historical works, presumably owing to colonial scholarship and colonial
source materials have spent much time in researching the benign role of its authors. For
example, to quote Sirajul Islam,
Cornwallis was particularly disturbed to see that the landlords and
raiyats were coerced to pay higher and higher taxes every year and all
their surpluses were ruthlessly extracted from them by the Company’s
government. He called this practice banditry of the state, which was
primarily responsible, according to him, for the collapse of the Bengal
economy and the economy of the Company itself.3
But, if Cornwallis was really of that kind of view, why the land-rent was fixed by an extreme
over estimation? Why the revenue-sell law (popularly known as ‘sun-set law’) came into
effect and deceived the traditional big zamindars from their zamindari rights? Why land was
farmed out to the highest bidding speculators who had no previous connection with land
control, and according to Islam (1992), were given the license to squeeze the raiyats? In my
2
Sirajul Islam, The Permanent Settlement in Bengal-A Study of its Operations 1790-1819, Bangla Academy,
Dhaka, 1979, p.xi.
3
Sirajul Islam, (ed.), History of Bangladesh 1704-1971, Vol. 2, (Dhaka 1992), p.17
2
view, enhancement of land-rent was the main purpose of the Permanent Settlement which
was immediately made clear by the endorsement of the devastating ‘sun-set law’. However,
in the above quotation we can see that Company’s authority is being acknowledged as
‘government’ and ‘state’. But at the time of the enforcement of Permanent Settlement (1793)
the Company was not in a status of legitimate government of Bangla. In another place, Sirajul
Islam says,
As an improving landlord of his time, he (Cornwallis) had, however, no
doubt in his mind that the zamindari system vesting property rights in
the zamindar class and fixing the public revenue in perpetuity would
bring about a quick capitalist transformation in Bengal’s agrarian
relations and agriculture.4
Here, the land-rent to be collected by the Governor General-in-Council of the Fort William of
Calcutta is recognized as ‘public revenue’. But, there is a conceptual problem. In Bangla
language ‘revenue’ means rajaswa which is collected by the government of the state. And,
the general idea of ‘public revenue’ is that, a legitimate government of the state is entitled to
collect it and to spend for public service. But, as Sirajul Islam himself recognized, the so
called sovereignty still lay in the Mughal ruler 5. Then why the land-rent collected by colonial
occupiers recognized as ‘public revenue’? Thus colonial subservience and, thereby,
conceptual paradoxes are prevailing the history of permanent settlement.
3. The mood of Permanent Settlement
The Permanent Settlement is often fantasized as a colonial wisdom for capitalist
transformation in agriculture. Sirajul Islam (1992) is of the view that the Company’s Bengal
expert wanted the traditional agrarian relations to be changed for a more dynamic system
which would take the country to the path of capitalist transformation with its happy
consequences on the rulers as well as on the ruled. But, as a matter of fact, capitalist
transformation did not occur. Why? Again, Sirajul Islam found its reasons in the inability of
the zamindars of Bangla to lead a capitalist transformation. But, in my view, somewhat desire
for agrarian capitalism might be in the spirit of the Permanent Settlement but not in its code.
Rather, the sole interest of the Permanent Settlement was to enhance land-rent. If Lord
Cornwallis was really looking for a capitalist development in agriculture and agrarian
relations through the Permanent Settlement, at least, there could be no ‘sun-set law’.
However, in view of the Company’s interest it might be a ‘reform, which was also auspicious
for the banians (local merchants and creditors). But, what did it bring for the peasants and
raiyats? As historical evidences attest, it brought nothing but shattering changes for them.
Nevertheless, the overall changes in the period were significant for the development of the
region on modern lines. In this context, it would not be misleading to refer that colonial
process of development as pauperization. 6 And, the rural proletarianization was primarily the
outcome of that pauperization.
It is undeniable that there was a growth in agriculture after the Permanent Settlement. But the
growth was only in the size of land in cultivation, not in the mood of production. To be noted
that, in the early nineteenth century, the expansion of land in cultivation had occurred due to
the growth of population. By 1792 it was officially estimated that due to lack of husbandmen,
4
Ibid.
Ibid.
6
Pauperization is a development process whereby an increasing number of families become poorer.
5
3
about one-third of the fertile land of Bangla fell out of cultivation 7 which, in turn, resuming to
be cultivated by the increasing population. So, the due expansion of land in cultivation did
not essentially mean any capitalist or commercial transformation in agriculture. It is
interesting to note that there is no evidence of commercial farm-house in Bangla during the
post-permanent settlement period. Ironically, the zamindari estates were being considered by
the colonial authority as ‘revenue farm’ and the zamindars as ‘revenue farmer’. So,
theoretically, it is unrealistic to expect any capitalist transformation in agriculture from a
system where crop-farmers were deceived of property rights and were subjected to the
‘revenue farmers’.
In principles, the Permanent Settlement did not differ with the periodical settlements such as
the ‘yearly settlement’, ‘the five years settlement’ and the ‘ten years settlement’. In fact, the
very permanent settlement was merely a conversion of the ‘ten years settlement’.
Theoretically, if there were any higher thought behind the Permanent Settlement than those
behind the periodical settlements the existing ‘ten years settlement’ could not get the autostatus of Permanent Settlement, as it happened. It means, in principle, the Permanent
Settlement was not different from the haphazard periodical settlements. However, the
tendency of handing over the land ownership to the wealthiest banians derived entirely from
their increasing demand of land-rent. It imposed the burden of unfavorable and unaffordable
rent on the shoulders of the zamindars by extreme over estimation of land. In most cases the
traditional zamindars became unable to pay the permanently fixed over rent, and eventually
were left out of their property rights by the ironic ‘sun-set-law’. Thereby, property rights were
handed over to the highest bidding speculators, the wealthiest banians, who had no previous
connection with land control and were given the license to squeeze the raiyats.’8 Moreover,
the necessary economic flexibility, which is must for any capitalist transformation, did not
exist throughout the period. Rather, the colonial intervention had stopped the normal process
of the overall capitalist development, because, the banian capital had been shifted from
economic activities to land control. M.R. Tarafdar has rightly pointed out that the Permanent
Settlement of 1793 was a sort of aristocratic feudalism. The British associates, Bengali dalal
(speculator), fariah (middlemen) or the banians could be attentive to trade, commerce and
even industries at last; but being under the mechanism of the Permanent Settlement, they
tilted to the acquisition of landed property. Thereby, the probability of building up of a
commerce-industry based social class by the formation of capital for trade and industry came
to a halt for a long time. Thus the country turned into practically an agrarian one. 9And, only
land was commercialized.
4.0 Consequences of the Permanent Settlement
Under the Permanent Settlement, the pre-British landed authorities were replaced by the new
banian zamindars, hitherto unknown and unrelated with the agrarian system. On the other
hand, it imposed the burden of unfavorable and unaffordable land-rent on the shoulders of the
zamindars and also neglected the benign role of the pre-British landed authority. The newly
born urban oriented banian zamindars soon became absentees in their zamindari and turned
into a parasitic raentier class. It is widely held that the propitious outputs of the Permanent
Settlement were gained by the bhadralok while the peasants fell in a process of
prolatarianization. Now the question is - who were the bhadralook? The Bengali word
7
From 1767 to 1790, population was declining fast due to recurring famines and scarcities which made
mortality rate much higher than birth rate. See for details, Sirajul Islam, op. cit., 1992, Vol. 2, p.14-27.
8
Sirajul Islam, op. cit., 1992 p.14
9
M. R. Tarafdar, Madhyayuger Banglay Prayukti O Samaj Vivartan (Technology and Social Evolution in
Medieval Bengal), Bangla Academy, Dhaka, 1993, p.41.
4
bhadralok literally referring to as "well-mannered person" used to denote the new class of
'gentlefolk' who arose in Bangla during the colonial period. Mukherjee (1977) suggests that
neither ‘bhadralok’ nor ‘babu’ describes straightforward communal or caste categories. These
terms reflected, instead, the social realities of colonial Bengal, the peculiar configuration that
excluded, for a variety of historical reasons (Sen, 1976), the vast majority of Bengali
Muslims and low-caste Hindus from the benefits of land ownership and the particular
privileges it provided. The two biggest factors that led to the rise of the bhadralok were the
huge fortunes many banians made from aiding the English East India Company's trade, and
English education. And finally, many of them owned zamindari under the joint venture of the
Permanent Settlement and the revenue-sell law. Thus, under the Permanent Settlement, while
the ‘microscopic’ bhadralok found occasions of making fortunes and thereby upgrading their
status, the peasants were fell in a process of proletarianization.
4.1. Rise of peasant property and its death
Sirajul Islam has rightly observed that if the Permanent Settlement had created classes of
tenure-holders in between the riyats and zamindars the series of tenancy laws had created
differentiation and landlessness in the peasant society. However, the rise of proja or peasant
property through the successive Rent Act of 1859, Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885, Tenancy
Amendment Act of 1928 and the Amendment Act of 1938 introduced new elements in the
organizational structure of traditional peasant farming. It is widely accepted that the Acts
were introduced to provide the peasantry with land occupancy right. But it was not the case
that all cultivators acquired the legal status of occupancy-raiyat. Because, the Acts were
designed to accommodate the political pressures, exerted by an economically ascendant upper
stratum within the peasantry’.10 Before the Permanent Settlement, land could not be bought
and sold at peasant levels. But, after creating the a speculative land markets under the
Permanent Settlement, the series of tenancy legislations by legalizing the transferability of
land, in deed, gave peasants only the selling rights of their lands, which within a short time
made them landless forever. So, in real judgment, the tenancy acts gave peasants the right not
to possess land but to dispossess them. It tended to the concentration of landed property in the
hands of those who were socially and financially powerful. However, land was now
‘bourgeois landed property’ in the sense that Marx used the term in his critique of Guizot 11.
The rural society was differentiated into landed jotedars at the top and landless bargadars at
the bottom and a host of intermediate interest in between. Thus, under the operation of the
various tenancy legislations the peasant society was differentiated so much so that a large
section of the peasants became landless, and thereby, ‘the free tenant of Bengal as productive
entrepreneur ceased to exist’12.
The Report of the Land Revenue Commission of the Government of Bengal, popularly
known as Floud Commission revealed an unambiguous picture of differentiation among the
peasants (see Figure 1).
10
K.K.Sen, ‘Agrarian Structure and Tenancy Laws in Bengal 1850-1885’ in: Perspective in Social Sciences, vol.
2, Calcutta, p.56.
11
Alavi and Shanin, Introduction to the Sociology of “Developing Societies” , Macmillan, London 1982; cited
in, Hussain Zillur Rahman, ‘Landed Property and the Dynamic of Instability’, (unpublished PhD thesis),
Victoria University of Manchester, October 1986, p.134.
12
Ratan Lal Chakraborty, ‘Rural Indebtedness in Bengal 1935-1947’, (unpublished PhD thesis), University of
Dhaka, 1988, p. 73.
5
Figure 1
Source: Report of the Land Revenue Commission
(Floud Commission), 1940, Vol. 5, Table VIII (b),
Bengal Government Press, Alipore.
The rising differentiation in the rural society was also statistically noticed by Ishaque’s Plot
to Plot Survey (1944-1945) which found only less than 16% of rural households owning more
than 5.0 acres of land and the rest of the society was of small and marginal farmers,
sharecroppers and landless laborers (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
Source: H. S. M. Ishaque, Agriciltural Statistics by Plot to Plot
Enumeration in Bengal, 1944-45, Part-I, 1946, Alipore.
4.2. Rise of labor market and barga system
As a result of land concentration on one hand and absolute landlessness on the other, there
also developed an agricultural labour market. However, a considerable number of marginal
peasants and artisans, being deprived of their occupations entered into the labour market and
adhered to a new class known as ‘day-laborer’ and, thereby possessed a new degraded status
in the society than before which adversely affected their social life. A spectacular increase
occurred between 1880s and 1940s, and on a conservative estimate, some 7 million peasants
6
and artisans had joined the ranks of the wage-laborer by the middle of the 20 th century.13
Thus, they encountered various challenges in relation to access and participation vis-a-vis
social status. On the other hand, many people who became landless or highly marginalized,
held land at barga (share-cropping) terms and thus was absorbed into a new class known as
bargadars or adhiars (share-croppers). Bhaduri suggests that the agrarian economy was
controlled by a small number of large landlords who by taking lion’s share of the crop from
their sharecroppers, and by lending at high rates of interest, kept the latter having no
alternative source of credit, in a state of permanent indebtedness and subordination 14.
Perhaps, the inter-generational transmission of poverty could be traced back to this period of
structural changes in agrarian relations.
4.3. Decline in ‘social capital’ and rural wellbeing
The pre-colonial structure though exploitative was, somewhat, economic reality and social
order of the day. Peasants were familiar with traditional structure and fairly seemed as ‘noncomplaining’ against that. Shirin Akhtar (1982) observed that the continuation of the
zamindari in the same family for generations had naturally fostered closer ties between the
hereditary zamindars and their projas who lived in the same village and ploughed the same
land for years. Those traditional zamindars were replaced by new banian zamindars hitherto
unknown and unrelated with the agrarian system. The Permenent Settlement thus neglected
the benign role of the pre-British landed authority. For instance, zamindars’ initiatives for
building roads, bridges, serais, pathsalas, tols and resolving the problems of law and order in
their realm, and even repairing the loss of property through theft and robbery began to
disappear and, thereby, ruining the constructive forces of the village economy. The old
networks of mutual support and the social capital were shattered. On the other hand,
zamindars’ governing authorites were eliminated under the Permanent Settlement which led
to multitude of structural tensions.
4.4. Decline in rural productivity
From ancient period down to the so far industrial advent in the British era, Bangla was the
general storehouse of folk or rural crafts and cottage industry. The villages, inhabited by
peasants, artisans, goldsmiths, blacksmiths, carpenters, potters, fishermen, baniks and beparis
(traders), traditional healers and, so on, were by and large self-contained while the inhabitants
were bound together by the enduring institutions of kinship. If we look at the economic
growth of seventeenth century Bangla, it can be seen that the possibility of capital formation
was not least. Irfan Habib says, “Though our evidence is not as firm as we should like it to
be, there are some grounds for holding that the techniques in textile crafts were not absolutely
stagnant.”15 The luxurious style of living, the pageantry and majesty of the considerable
zamindars boosted indigenous arts and crafts. Forster noted that the private wealth was
usually expended on the spot where it had been acquired, and though severity and oppression
might have been exercised in the accumulation, yet, by its quick circulation, through luxury
expenditure the country at large was improved and embellished, without any decrease of the
general currency.16 Thereby a fine quality cotton textiles, exquisite silks, jewellery, decorative
13
Willem van Schendel, “Economy of the Working Class”, in: Sirajul Islam, op cit., 1992, p. 565.
Anthony Beck, ‘Poverty and Power Survival in Three Villages of West Bengal, India’, (unpublished Ph.D
thesis), SOAS, University of London, p.74.
15
Irfan Habib, “Indian Textile Industry in the 17th Century”, in S. C. Sarkar, Felicitation Volume, New Delhi,
1975, p.186.
16
G. Forster, A Journey from Bengal to England, 1, p.6.
14
7
swords and weapons etc. were produced by the indigenous entrepreneurs. 17 Huge quantities
of muslins, mulmuls and cosses were exported from Bangla to the markets of Europe. 18 By
collapsing the pre-British landed authority and, on the other hand, by creating absentee
zamindars the above mentioned arts and crafts were brutally declined.
It may be pointed out that most of the newly born zamindars left village for cities and entered
into politics and non-commercial professions. The rent, paid by the peasants was thus spent in
cities. One immediate impact of it was that the wealth of villages was being drained to cities,
thereby, wrecking the village economy. Moreover, zamindars’ spending on luxury articles,
social and religious ceremonies which had positive effect on the economic life of the rural
community was also reduced significantly.
Bibliography
-
17
18
Akhtar, S. 1982. The Role of Zamindars 1707-1772, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh,
Dhaka.
Beck, Anthony ‘Poverty and Power Survival in Three Villages of West Bengal,
India’, (unpublished Ph.D thesis), SOAS, University of London.
Chakraborty, Ratan Lal ,1988 ‘Rural Indebtedness in Bengal 1935-1947’,
(unpublished Ph.D thesis), University of Dhaka.
Forster, G. A Journey from Bengal to England, 1.
Habib, Irfan, 1963. The Agrarian System of Mughal India 1556-1707, Asia Publishing
House, London.
Habib, I. 1975. “Indian Textile Industry in the 17th Century”, in: S. C. Sarkar,
Felicitation Volume, New Delhi.
Hussain Zillur Rahman, 1986. ‘Landed Property and the Dynamic of Instability’,
(unpublished Ph.D Thesis), Victoria University of Manchester.
Imperial Gazetteers of India
Islam, Sirajul, 1987. “The problem of the Madhyasvatvas in Nineteenth century
Bengal”, Joournal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
Islam, Sirajul, 1979, The Permanent Settlement in Bengal-A Study of its Operations
1790-1819, Bangla Academy, Dhaka.
Islam, Sirajul (ed.), 1992, History of Bangladesh 1704-1971, Vol. 2, Dhaka).
Jahangir, B. K., 1979. Differentiation, Polarisation and Confrontation in Rural
Bangladesh, CSS.
Report of the Land Revenue Commission Bengal, Alipore, Volume I.
Schendel W. v. and Faraizi, A. H. 1984, Rural Labourers in Bengal 1880 to 1980,
Rotterdam.
Schendel, W. v. 1992 . “Economy of the Working Class”, in: Sirajul Islam, (ed.),
History of Bangladesh 1704-1971, Vol. 2, Dhaka.
Sen, Binayak 1992. “Industrial Entrepreneurship”, in: Sirajul Islam (ed.) History of
Bangladesh 1704-1971, Vol 2, Dhaka.
Sen, K.K. ‘Agrarian Structure and Tenancy Laws in Bengal 1850-1885’ in:
Perspective in Social Sciences Vol 2, Calcutta.
Sinha N.K. (ed.), 1967. The History of Bengal, Calcutta.
Tarafdar, M. R. 1993. Madhyayuger Banglay Prayukti O Samaj Vivartan (Technology
and Social Evolution In Medieval Bengal), Bangla Academy, Dhaka.
Shirin Akhtar, The Role of Zamindars 1707-1772, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, (Dhaka 1982), p.187.
Imperial Gazetteers of India, Bengal, II, 428; J. Z. Holwell, Interesting Historical Events, Part I, p.202.
8