To what extent did the role of the moderates prepare a base for the wider freedom movement? Comment.
Answer: The Permanent Settlement was a land revenue system introduced by Lord Cornwallis in 1793 in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Under this system, the company's share in the revenue was fixed permanently with the Zamindars who were made hereditary owners of the lands under their possession. Reasons beRead more
Answer: The Permanent Settlement was a land revenue system introduced by Lord Cornwallis in 1793 in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Under this system, the company’s share in the revenue was fixed permanently with the Zamindars who were made hereditary owners of the lands under their possession. Reasons behind introduction of the Permanent Settlement System:
- To develop a class of landlords who were loyal to British interests.
- It was hoped that the system would end corruption as the officials would not be able to alter assessment at will.
- It was meant to ensure ease in administration on part of the Company as the burden of revenue collection was given to the intermediaries or Zamindars.
- To ensure a fixed and stable income for the company and save the government from the expenses on making periodical assessments and settlements.
- It was expected that property ownership would induce Zamindars to make larger capital investments in agriculture. Cornwallis thought that the company could increase its revenue by taxing trade and commerce.
However, the introduction of the permanent settlement system had far-reaching consequences:
- Exploitation of peasants: Peasants suffered from the double injustice of surrendering their property rights and being left entirely at the mercy of Zamindars who extracted exorbitant taxes, much higher than the official tax rate.
- Decline in agricultural productivity: Zamindars had their focus on collection of maximum revenue and took little interest in the development of agriculture.
- Rise in absentee landlordism: Under it, new moneyed men from Calcutta with no local connections bought lands when Zamindars struggled to meet revenue obligations. The new landlords were often absentees from their lands, and generated resentment among the farmers.
- Increase in social inequality: This system strengthened feudalism in upper sections and slavery in lower sections of society. Absentee landlordism drained out the wealth produced in the countryside to the urban centres, leaving the peasants in miserable condition.
- Commercialization of agriculture: It led to commercialisation of land that previously did not exist in Bengal coercing the local agriculturalists to cultivate cash crops such as cotton, indigo, and jute.
Permanent settlement did more harm than good to Indian agriculture. It led to impoverishment of the peasantry and rural indebtedness and eventually became one of the contributing factors of agricultural crises including famines in and around Bengal.
See less
The Santhal Hul, also known as the Sonthal Rebellion or Santhal Rebellion, was a significant uprising that took place in 1855-1856 in the eastern Indian state of Bihar and parts of present-day Jharkhand, Odisha, and West Bengal. While it is often referred to as an anti-British revolt, it was actuallRead more
The Santhal Hul, also known as the Sonthal Rebellion or Santhal Rebellion, was a significant uprising that took place in 1855-1856 in the eastern Indian state of Bihar and parts of present-day Jharkhand, Odisha, and West Bengal. While it is often referred to as an anti-British revolt, it was actually a rebellion against the exploitative policies and practices of both the British colonial government and the local zamindars (feudal lords) who were collaborating with the British.
- The Santhals, a tribal community, had traditionally lived in the region for centuries, practicing shifting cultivation and subsistence farming. However, with the arrival of the British, their lands were forcibly taken away and given to the zamindars, who then collected taxes from the Santhals. The British East India Company also imposed taxes on the Santhals, further exacerbating their economic hardships.
- The Santhals, who were already struggling to survive, felt that they were being exploited by both the British and the zamindars. They resented the forced labor, land grabs, and exorbitant taxes imposed on them. The British, on the other hand, saw the Santhals as ” primitives” and “uncivilized,” and believed that they needed to be “civilized” and brought under their control.
- The spark that ignited the rebellion was the death of a Santhal leader named Tilka Manjhi’s daughter-in-law at the hands of a British officer. This incident led to widespread outrage among the Santhals, who saw it as an example of British brutality. They decided to take up arms against both the British and the zamindars.
- The rebellion was led by Tilka Manjhi’s son, Birsa Munda, who was only 22 years old at the time. He rallied thousands of Santhals and launched a series of attacks on British army posts, police stations, and estates belonging to the zamindars. The rebels also destroyed crops and infrastructure built by the British.
- The British responded with force, and the rebellion was brutally suppressed. Many Santhals were killed or injured, and thousands were imprisoned or forced to flee into hiding. Birsa Munda was captured and executed in 1895.
- However, the Santhal Hul was not just an anti-British revolt; it was also a resistance against local exploitation by the zamindars. The rebellion highlighted the deep-seated grievances of the Santhals against both colonialism and feudalism. It also marked a turning point in their struggle for self-determination and their fight against economic exploitation.
- In many ways, the Santhal Hul can be seen as a precursor to later movements for tribal rights and self-rule in India. It showed that even marginalized communities could organize themselves and resist oppression when pushed to the limits. The rebellion also inspired other tribal communities in India to challenge colonialism and demand their rights.
See less