c
 

 


British rule was established in Subcontinent in 1757 and lasted in 1947. Nawab Siraj-ud-dollah
who was the ruler of Bengal, Orissa and Bihar was defeated by Lord Robert Clive in 1757.

The British Empire in India- a multiplicity of motives lies beneath the British penetration into
India: commerce, security and an alleged moral uplift of the people. British investors ventured
into the unfamiliar interior landscape in search of opportunities that promised substantial profits.
It is difficult to measure the magnitude of wealth that has been cruelly looted by the free looting
agents of the wealthy East India company. But it must have been extremely great and it sowed
the seeds of scarcity, famine, poverty and ignorance resulting in the destruction of the whole
economic fabric of the society.

The most disastrous and terrible famine, the people of Bengal experienced in the year 1769,
during the early phase of British rule when one third of the entire population died out of
starvation. Though the British ruler wanted to provide natural disaster as the prime cause for it
but there were no such factors responsible in real. The English chose the food grains as a trade to
make money that resulted in famine. Even a broke who was indulged in this business was able to
pay 60 thousand pounds to Europe just after this destructive famine. The most noticeable part is
that the Governor, Warren Hastings congratulates the company expressing his gratification on
able to forcibly keep up the revenue when one out of every three population perished from the
starvation.

c








£uring the British rule the permanent settlement act of 1793 was introduced by Lord Cornwallis
that instituted a radical change in the existing system of land-man relations and opened
dimension for an avenue to exploitation. The objective was to assure maximum possible revenue
collection on a regular basis of a fixed amount without any cost or risk. The company was quite
successful even during the disastrous famine.

The act gave birth to a hereditary landed aristocracy, a completely new class of Zamindars who
were the close allies of British ruler. The Zamindars were perceived as the Indian counterparts to
the British landed gentry. Apart from being loyal to the locality, Zamindars payed a vital role in
sustaining colonial rule and sucking out wealth without any head to the national economy. The
outcome was the destruction of the whole socio-economic fabric of the society and so permanent
settlement act was made use for achieving that end. The peasants who were previously owners
became gradually the tenants and their positions were left totally at the mercy of the Zamindars
who could remove them almost at will. Ultimately, the peasants became slaves.

To reduce the risk, Zamindars also in many cases fixed taxes in perpetuity in return for
ownership of large estates. Although legal protection was there against possible eviction or rent
enhancement, but in practice the peasants could not be protected by those laws owing to their
social, economic and political vulnerability. The lawyers, judges and high officials were closely
connected with the landed aristocracy. Under such circumstances, inspite of deteriorating
economic condition, the peasants had to bind to their soil, which they cultivate, accepting all
sorts of repression by the land.

 
 
 

The second phase of under colonial rule started through the establishment of unfair institution. In
this phase the mode of exploitation was considered in the form of misuse of agricultural surplus
through collecting land revenue, purchasing raw materials for British industries at a very low
price by creating an unfavorable trade policy and importing finished commodity products in
India and selling it at a higher price. India had a vast internal market; sufficient supply of raw
materials and every potential for an independent capitalist development was there. £uring that
phase colonial policy was to polish out all local industries and destroyed self-sufficient rural
economy with the hope to sell their commodities in a monopolistic manner.
It was also one of the objectives of the Permanent Settlement to create a safe and profitable field
of investment in the agricultural sector through owing Zemindary, with the hope that vast
amount of capital would be brought back into non-productive investment. They also obtained
this objective by taking unfavorable trade policy and fiscal intervention in the form of imposing
heavy tax on industrial and other commercial profit and exemption of all taxes on the earning of
the Zemindar and land property. The British commodity product as a result could not enter into
Indian market because of low purchasing power of the rural masses and high rising prices of the
commodities. The transport cost of the raw materials from India to Britain and manufactured
products vice-versa was quite significant and wage rate of the British labor was higher than the
Indian. Under such conditions, only the Zamindars and a few classes whose income were higher
managed to purchase those English goods. As a result, rural small scale industries were under
serious threat persisting to meet the demand of a mass number of people local people.

 
 

 


The last phase of exploitation started when British capitalism penetrated into Indian economy.
As it has been noted earlier that British policy was inimical to the growth of independent capital
in India and they abstain from taking any initiative to invest the same in any sector till the first
half of the 19th century. £uring second half of the same century growing investment in railways
by the British brought about a significant change in the internal economy but instead of capitalist
development presumed by Marx, it was essentially served the colonial interest in India.
Outside railway, investment of British¶s capital came about as they realized the higher
profitability of such investment under the condition of availability and lowers the cost of labor
and raw material in one hand and a vast market in the same soil on the other. The presence of the
British Finance capital in alliance with the faithful allies¶ feudal landlords gave birth to a new
type of capital termed as µcomprador¶ capital which served the interest of the imperialist and
feudal forces and in reality act against industrialization and all sorts of capital development.
£uring British rule industrial sector was insignificant as compared to agriculture.It was estimated
in the year 1880 that in the state of Bengal, about 20 million pounds sterling land revenue had
been earned by the Zemindars and they paid only 400 thousand pounds to the government, that
means on the part of the Government to earn 400 thousand pounds had to sacrifice 20 million
pounds as expenditure under Zemindary system. Apart from that the limitation of rent payable by
the Zamindars, coupled with the exemption from payment of income tax also caused an undue
burden on other classes of tax-payers. In that case excess profit went into the pocket of the
ZemindarsÊ and neither state nor peasants were actually benefited from that. They were
economically in a much better position to invest their earnings in agriculture, industries or other
productive sectors but instead they were guided by feudal values.
‰




 
It was hoped that development of communication, transport and better administrative set up
would help to reduce the situation of scarcity and famine. £uring British rule, agricultural
production did not increase significantly owing to the fact that neither Zemindars nor
government did take any step towards that. Irrigation system, especially canals, which were
developed earlier, contributed much to the agricultural production. Apart from other factors,
considerable inequalities in income assets due to conspicuous exploitation by the imperialist
forces and their allies contributed much in creating the situation of mass poverty, scarcity,
famine for the general masses.

  

 


£uring the colonial era, the countries general picture that could be emerged one of a basically
peasant economy, pre-dominantly subsistence oriented, with a class of intermediaries whose sole
economic function appears to be the collection of rent i.e. assisting the state apparatus to transfer
agricultural surplus to the center. Some cases few of those intermediaries known as Zemindars
did contribute to agricultural production by encouraging and financing reclamation of waste land
and building medium scale irrigation works etc. It should not be denied that in some causes they
had contribution in maintaining and encouraging cultural and social activities and a part of their
income were spent in constructing schools, hospitals and roads etc. The service that has been
performed by the Zemindars including with their ³philanthropic activities´ does not justify the
fabulous amount of essentially unearned income appropriated by them.

   


The exploitation of british colonialism was borne by the Indian peasants adversely. However the
peasants fought against the Britishers at every single step. There was a change in the resistance
behaviour of the peasant`s cause they started fighting for their demands and the unjust done to
them. Since it lacked any Indian leadership, Mahtma Gandhi stepped forward to cultivate the
national freedom movement. Though most of the Zamindars were in Bengal but Muslim
Zamindars who were small in number demoralized the peasants like their Hindu counterparts.
Slowly and gradually, the British rulers¶ so called policy of ³£ivide and Rule¶ started falling
apart before their establishment.
 


   c
  !
Floud Commission was assigned to report, amongst other things, whether it was practically
desirable for the government to acquire all superior interest to bring actual cultivators into direct
contact with the government and so proposed a new system known as µraiyat wari¶ which was
under the consideration that there would be no intermediaries between the state and the
cultivator. The British rulers finally left the sub-continent in 1947. Under the scheme of the act,
all holders of lands directly became tenants under the government. The government was to
redistribute them among bonafide cultivators, holding less than 3 acres of land, on payment of a
rate randomly fixed, known as Salami. Compensation was payable for the acquisition of lands in
excess of ceiling at the rate of 5 times the net annual profit from the land. Compensation was
also payable for the acquisition of the rent receiving interests. All types of subletting were
strictly prohibited in the Act, except sharecropping, which was not treated as tenancy
arrangement.
"#c
 
    !"$
Two important features emerged from the act. There was an array of hope that the elimination of
all rent receiving interests that included the intermediary class would reach the government
directly. It was expected that it would provide the opportunity to re-invest into the same sector of
agriculture. But the government did not meet the expectations; instead it replaced only the
intermediary tenures which brought al large number of peasantry under the direct control of the
state. It was assumed that the tahsildars treated the govenrnment khas lands as their personal
peoperty and left these out on barga clandestine for their personal gain. The tahsildars were
boosted with the new grab in the sense that they were more powerful and protected with the
authority of government behind them. The tenants were fish out of the water and preferred the
previous Zamindars in contrast to the new masters who denied them the personal arrangement of
arrears, credit or advice and illegal extortion along with new imposition and rising new taxes. It
is quite clear view that the tenants were not beneficial except the economic effects of the act
were restricted to an increase of government revenue. According to Abdullah land revenue
initially it was increased and calculated as 67.5 million in1957-58 that later stabilized between
130-150 million in the year of 1965-66 to 1969-70.
The second act was noticeable due to the redistribution of the seized land. The extention of the
ceiling was negligible to the extent that since it was high and the clauses and the definitions were
moderate. So it can be ultimately said with assurance that the amount seized for redistribution
was under the act did not play any major role the scheme may be labeled as a reform of revenue
administration.
The Act failed to establish any security of tenures and apparently the peasants weren¶t ready to
risk their investments in land developments. The share cropping which caused suffering to most
was the worst form of tenancy that wasn¶t forbidden with other forms of tenancy as it was not
treated as subletting in the act. It is obvious that the abolition of Zamindars did not do any good
to the people rather new landlords and subletting was introduced that did not guide them to their
destination. It was seen earlier that the corruption among the government was extensive, the
urban and the rural forces only succeeded in legalizing the abandoned states of the Zamindars in
a decisive illegal way.


   %