During the British colonial rule in India, the economic landscape underwent significant transformations, particularly in the agrarian sector. Agriculture formed the backbone of the Indian economy, with the majority of the population dependent on farming for their livelihood. The colonial administration sought to maximize revenue generation from land, leading to the introduction of various land revenue policies that aimed to regulate and control land ownership, taxation, and administration.

Development of Land Revenue Policies in the British India:

• Permanent Settlement: The Permanent Settlement, also known as the Zamindari System, was introduced by Lord Cornwallis in 1793, primarily in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, and Northern districts of Madras. The system fixed land revenue rates (10/11th of the total derived rentals), transferring collection rights to intermediaries called zamindars. However, this system led to exploitation, high revenue demands, and rural distress, prompting its abandonment in other regions.
• • The policy led to an escalation in the collected sum, rising from Rs. 14,290,000 in 1722 to Rs. 18,180,000 in 1764 and further to Rs. 23,400,000 in 1771.
  • This policy covered approximately 19% of the total land in British India. •
• Ryotwari System:
  • In response to the shortcomings of the Permanent Settlement, the British introduced the “Ryotwari System” in certain southern Indian regions such as parts of Madras and the Bombay Presidency.
  • This system, introduced in 1820 by Thomas Munro and Charles Reed, aimed to directly engage individual cultivators in the assessment and collection of land revenue.

Under this system, individual cultivators (ryots) held direct rights over land, and revenue was fixed based on crop assessment.

• This policy covered approximately 51% of the total land in British India.
  • The system aimed to eliminate intermediaries, but it often resulted in heavy tax burdens on peasants and insufficient revenue for the government.
• Mahalwari System: The British implemented the “Mahalwari System” in certain regions of North India, such as the Punjab and parts of the Central Provinces, under the introduction of Holt Mackenzie in 1822, with further evaluation conducted by Lord William Bentinck in 1833. In this system, revenue was collected from village communities (mahals) rather than individual cultivators. The community held joint responsibility for payment, which aimed to encourage collective responsibility while simplifying administration.
  • This policy covered approximately 30% of the total land in British India.
  • Even after the implementation of this system, challenges like uneven land distribution and the burden of revenue payment persisted, making the system unable to completely eradicate agrarian issues.
• North-West Provinces Regulation (1881): The British introduced the North-West Provinces Regulation in 1881 to standardize land revenue policies across territories. This regulation aimed to provide security to peasants by limiting revenue demands, protecting tenants’ rights, and improving land records.
• Land Revenue Settlements: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the British conducted various land revenue settlements, such as the Punjab Land Revenue Act (1887), Madras Settlement (1902), and Bombay Land Revenue Code (1879). These aimed to standardize revenue assessment methods, protect tenant rights, and provide relief during times of distress.
• The 20th Century: The 20th Century marked a period of significant changes in India’s land revenue policies as the country moved closer to independence. For instance, the colonial government introduced the “Bengal Tenancy Amendment Act” in 1928, which aimed to address issues of tenant rights and protection.

In conclusion, the evolution of land revenue policies during British colonial rule in India reveals a complex journey of experimentation, adjustments, and responses to socio-economic challenges. Alongside this, the impact of these policies on the agrarian system can be observed, including effects such as the acceleration of commercialization and instances of distress within rural communities.