CHAPTER V

LAND SETTLEMENTS IN THE CENTRAL PROVINCES

THE large tract of country known as the Central Provinces of India has an area of nearly ninety thousand square miles, and a population of over nine millions.¹ It came under British Rule at different dates. In the last Mahratta war, which took place in 1817, the troops of the Raja of Nagpur attacked the British force at Sitabaldi, but were repulsed with loss. The Raja disclaimed any connection with his rebellious troops, and cemented his friendship with the British by the cession of the Sagor and Narbada Territories, which thus came under British Rule in 1818. Subsequently, Lord Dalhousie annexed the State of Sambalpur on the death of the Raja in 1849 without an heir; and in 1853 he annexed the State of Nagpur, on the demise of its ruler, the claims of the adopted heir being set aside. All these scattered territories, with the exception of Sambalpur, were united under one Administration by Lord Canning in November 1861, and were henceforth called the Central Provinces of India. And Sambalpur was added in 1862. It is necessary to say a few words here on the early administration of these separate tracts, previous to their union in 1861 and 1862.

SAGOR AND NARBADA TERRITORIES.

When the Territories of Sagor and Narbada came under British Rule in 1818, they were first placed directly under the rule of the Indian Government, and were subsequently placed under the Lieutenant-Governor of the North-West Provinces. In 1842 they were under an Agent directly under the Government of India, and on a later date they were once more transferred to the Lieutenant-Governor of the North-West Provinces. And this state of things continued till the Union of 1861.

The early administration of the Sagor and Narbada Territories was not successful. British administrators made the mistake which they had made in Madras and elsewhere. They assessed the lands too high, demanded an impossible revenue, impoverished the people, and retarded the progress of the country. The mistake was found out at a later date, and was condemned in the strongest terms.

Hoshangabad and Seonee Districts.—The first five-year settlement of Seonee and Hoshangabad, made in 1821, “probably was the worst settlement ever made. Major Macpherson had to deal with a depopulated country and an impoverished and dispirited people. . . . Major Macpherson expected an amount of improvement in five years which has not taken place in forty-five. . . . It was soon found that this assessment was extravagantly high, and could not be paid. . . . Major Macpherson, however, had chastised Hoshangabad with whips, and Seonee he scourged with scorpions.”²

The assessment fixed by Major Macpherson in 1821 was £10,359 for an area which had been assessed by the Mahratta Government at £2277 only. In 1825 another five-year settlement was made, and the assessment was still further increased to £13,877, which was seven times what the Mahrattas had demanded. The enormous demand could never be realised, and remissions had to be allowed. “But the remissions were not sufficient, and very strenuous efforts were made to collect the revenue by any means, so that to this day a most lively recollection of the tortures and cruelties then suffered lives in the minds of the Zemindars.”³

A third five-year settlement brought little redress. At last, in 1836, a twenty-year settlement was made at a reduced assessment of £6192, which was still nearly three times the old Mahratta demand.

Narsinghpur District.—The operations of the first fifteen years were as bad at Narsinghpur as at Seonee and Hoshangabad. “It is no exaggeration to say that the first fifteen years of our administration were engrossed in one continuous struggle to keep together and support the agricultural community under an almost unbearable pressure of land revenue demand. Our first settlements were founded on the later Mahratta assessments, which, as has already been stated, had been most unduly strained to meet an extraordinary crisis. . . . When our officers attempted a rigid system of collection on so unsound a basis, and the temporary prop afforded by the consumption of the Narbada field force was withdrawn, the whole unsubstantial fabric broke down, and the impolicy of the assessment was shown by the entire desertion of numerous villages.”⁴

The first assessment was £66,769. The results were disastrous, and the Malguzars or revenue-payers were ruined. Heavy remissions had to be allowed, and considerable reductions were made at the triennial settlements of 1830 and 1833. The twenty-year settlement of 1836 was made at a reduction of £5313.

Damoh District.—In this district, unfortunately, the twenty-year settlement, made in 1835, increased, instead of reducing, the previous assessment made in short term settlements. The assessment fixed in 1835 was £30,514. “Several of the Malguzars at this settlement threw up their leases, and it was only by the adoption of very determined measures that the difficulty was got over. . . . Landed property quite lost its value. Scores of villages remained under khas management year after year.”⁵

Sagor District.—In this district also, the long term settlement which followed the short settlements, did not bring any relief. “The Government demands press so heavily upon the people that all enterprise has been crushed, and there is not the slightest attempt at improvement. I have personally satisfied myself that in many instances the Government demand exceeds the gross rental assets of some villages.

“The people have lost heart to that extent that in some instances the rightful owners of hereditary descent refused on any terms to accept the proprietary rights of villages.

“The widespread misery and distress throughout this division of the district must be seen to be appreciated, especially at Dhamonee and the part of Benaika Patna.

“The impression conveyed to me on inspecting these tracts was, that the Paganahs were dead, so vast was the desolation, and so scarce the signs of life or of human beings.”⁶

“The Government of India strongly condemned this state of things at Sagor, after half a century of British administration. “In 1834,” they wrote, “the twenty years settlement was still not sufficiently moderate; and the same benefits did not accrue from this long settlement as in other districts of these Territories. Heavy reductions were granted, and the assessment was thus further reduced. It is to be remarked that although the Government of the day pressed the necessity of reduction, its orders were carried out by the local authorities with a niggardly hand, and concessions made in driblets. Had the reductions been granted promptly, the district, it is probable, would have been recovered.”⁷

And the Secretary of State for India wrote from London: “Even in a stronger degree than former reports from the same quarter of India, this report gives evidence of the evils committed by over-assessment since the district came under British Government.”⁸

These extracts will sufficiently indicate the state of the Sagor and Narbada Territories during the early decades of the British Rule. Short settlements and heavy assessments were the rule at first; and it was Robert Merttins Bird, known as the Father of Land-Settlements in Northern India, who pressed for the introduction of a long settlement in 1834. He submitted a vigorous report on the unhappy state of these Territories, brought about by persistent attempts “to prop up by temporary expedients a revenue confessedly excessive.”

Robert M. Bird’s general report.—“An excessive system of fraud and speculation,” he went on to say, “is said to have been introduced, and the cultivators rarely receive the benefit of that which is foregone by the Government, but have been forced to pay all that could be collected from them. On the other hand, a system of interference has been introduced, which, by destroying all confidence, has driven away capital from the land. The stores of the merchant have been opened, and grain forcibly taken away to be given out to the cultivators for seed, without any payment being made to the merchant, or any assistance afforded him for the subsequent recovery of the property of which he has been thus despoiled.

“This spoliation is stated to have occurred in favour of cultivators to whom the bankers have refused to make advances from past experience of their fraud and unfaithfulness. Capitalists, having obtained decrees against agriculturists, were not permitted to sell their cattle or imprison their persons, because, it was supposed, either of these measures would leave the land uncultivated. There is little use in following out the narrative of this system throughout all its ramifications of detail. It is sufficient to say, that an ample collection of facts, openly stated by the Natives, and which could not be denied by the European officers, afforded abundant proof that, in the vain hope of propping up an exorbitant assessment, and under the mistaken notion of practical skill in the management of details, a system of mischievous interference in the private arrangements and concerns of individuals had almost universally prevailed.”⁹

It was after the submission of this report, and under the orders of the Indian Government, that a long settlement for twenty years was concluded in these Territories. We have seen before that this long settlement brought relief to some districts where the assessment was reduced while in other districts it brought none, because the local officers were still wedded to the principle of exacting the highest possible revenue from the land. The long settlement was allowed to last until the new administration of the Central Provinces was formed in 1861.

NAGPUR STATE.

This State was under the Mahratta rulers of the Bhonsla family for over a hundred years, from 1743 to 1853. But within this period it had come under the management of British officers during twelve years, from 1818 to 1830, during the minority of the ruling prince. British administrators mistook the enhancement of the Land Revenue as a sign of efficient administration. Within these twelve years the Land Revenue of the State was very considerably enhanced; and in one district, Chanda, it was doubled. When the State was restored to the Raja on his attaining his majority, the Land Revenue had risen to £253,000.¹⁰ The Raja’s administration was not so rigorous as that of the British; and to us it is satisfactory to note, that the Land Revenue fell to £224,170 by the time of his death in 1853. The State was then annexed by Lord Dalhousie.

The administration of the newly annexed State during the first eight years, from 1853 to 1861, was not successful. Short term settlements did not add to the prosperity of the people, nor did they add to the revenues of the State. In 1861 the annexed State was united with contiguous districts and formed into the Central Provinces.

SAMBALPUR STATE.

This State was ruled for centuries by a dynasty of the Chohan Rajputs, who had established their power in many parts of India before its conquest by the Mahomedans. After a brief interruption, a descendant of the Chohan dynasty was restored to the throne in 1817 by British influence, and the State was placed under the political control of the Bengal Government. The Land Revenue of the State was about £10,000 sterling.

On the death of the last Raja without an heir, Lord Dalhousie annexed the State in 1849, and it was administered by the Government of Bengal until 1862. It thus happened that, when the administration of the Central Provinces was formed in 1861, Sambalpur District did not form a part of it, but still belonged to Bengal. And after its transfer to the Central Provinces in 1862, it was for some years the scene of disturbances created by a pretender. The district of Sambalpur was thus excluded from the great Settlement of the Central Provinces which was concluded between 1863 and 1867; and the land system of Sambalpur is to this day different from that of the other parts of the Central Provinces.

FORMATION OF THE CENTRAL PROVINCES.

On November 2, 1861, Lord Canning recorded the Resolution creating the Central Provinces Administration. One or two extracts from this Resolution are given below.

“The Governor-General in Council, having had under consideration the administrative arrangements of the Province of Nagpur and those of the Sagor and Narbada Territories, resolves that the time has now arrived for consolidating these several districts under one central jurisdiction.”

“Therefore the Governor-General in Council,—holding, firstly, that it is desirable that the Sagor and Narbada Territories should cease to be administered as an adjunct of the North-Western Provinces, and that they should possess an Administration sufficient in itself and permanent in its nature ; and, secondly, that these Territories may be joined with the Province of Nagpur under one Local Government, with the greatest advantage to the management of the resources, and to the development of the capabilities of the whole area,—has resolved to constitute a separate Chief Commissionership for the Nagpur Province and the Sagor and Narbada Territories, to be designated the Chief Commissionership of the Central Provinces.”¹¹

Sambalpur District was added to the Central Provinces in April 1862; Nimar District in May 1864; and Bijragogarh in May 1865.

Colonel Elliot, an old and worn-out officer, was appointed the first Chief Commissioner; but upon his absence, in the first instance on furlough, and subsequently on his removal, Sir Richard Temple (then Mr. Temple) was placed in charge, and ruled the Province until 1866. He had served his apprenticeship under Thomason the great revenue administrator and ruler of Northern India ; he had worked under the Board of Administration and under Lawrence in the Punjab; and he now had the opportunity of establishing his reputation as an able and sympathetic ruler by his administration of a newly created Province. The times were in his favour; there was a desire to deal with India considerately, and even generously, during the first decade of the Queen’s direct administration; and the influences of Canning and Lawrence, of Sir Charles Wood and Sir Stafford Northcote, were all for improving the material condition of the people, and attaching them to British Rule.

PROPOSED PERMANENT SETTLEMENT.

While Mr. Temple was still officiating in his new post, the proposal of Colonel Baird Smith, referred to in the last chapter, for a Permanent Settlement of the land revenue, came before him for his consideration. It is needless to state that the proposal received Richard Temple’s hearty support, and his reply to the Indian Government,¹² which is not a very lengthy one, is given below in full.

“Your No. 2038 of the 7th October 1861, and subsequent letter, No. 1474 of the 20th March 1862, requiring the opinion of the Officiating Chief Commissioner on the question of a Permanent Settlement of the land revenue, discussed in paragraphs 62 to 82 of Colonel Baird Smith’s Famine Report, and as to the value of a legislative sanction for settlement for terms of years where existing settlements are not of a character to be made permanent, have, up to the present time, remained unanswered. The subject was very important, and the changes in the administration of these provinces rendered it impossible to accord that attention to it which it merited. The Officiating Chief Commissioner having, however, now fully considered it, in reference to its bearing on the peculiar condition of the districts comprised in the Central Provinces, is prepared to submit his opinion, and has accordingly desired me to report as follows:—

“2. In the first place it may, the Officiating Chief Commissioner remarks, be superfluous to state that here, as elsewhere, a Permanent Settlement would effect only the land tax itself. It would fix the assessment for ever, and it should be more accurately termed the permanent and perpetual limitation of the direct State-demand on the land. It would in no wise effect the fundamental right and property of the people in the land. That right and property will be fixed absolutely and immutably, whether the land tax be limited to a certain sum for ever, or not. The value and interest of such right and property will indeed be greater or less, according as the Statedemand is fixed for a short or long term, or for ever. But under any circumstances, the nature and essence of the right and property itself will remain the same.

“3. Here, then, as elsewhere, in the above sense, the principle of a Permanent Settlement is applicable. It would have an effect altogether beyond immediate calculation, in stimulating the industry, enterprise, and self-reliance of the agriculturists, the application of capital, the accumulation of wealth. Where the assessments were fair, it would be accepted as a great boon by the people. On the other hand, the State, no doubt, will subject itself to prospective loss by surrendering all future right to increase its land revenue. But on the other hand, such loss would be more than compensated by the gradual, if not rapid, increase of all the other branches of the revenue. These branches entirely depend on the growth of wealth in the mass of the people. A Permanent Settlement will contribute more than any measure that could be devised to augment that wealth. It follows that a Permanent Settlement will cause all other heads of revenue, except land tax, to increase. Now, in these provinces more than one-third of the total income is derived from taxes other than the land tax; the other taxes are increasing, the land tax alone remains stationary. In a fiscal point of view, then, there can be no fear for the success of a measure which would, while restricting the land tax, cause all other taxes to rise. Again, it is quite true that the value of the money will continue falling, and that prices of produce will rise more and more throughout these provinces. Thus the agriculturists will, in a short time, receive much more for their produce than they ever did before. On the other hand, the price of labour will rise, and that will greatly enhance the State expenditure. All the salaries and the establishments of the lower grades, at least, will be gradually raised, and the cost of the public works will be greatly enhanced. There might appear to be some risk then, if Government, while anticipating increased expenditure, were to limit the land tax, the main source of revenue. But it will, in reality, be quite safe to trust to increase of other taxes. It was declared, quite irrespectively of the Permanent Settlement, in the Joint Report of Colonel Elliot and Mr. Temple, that “it is rather from the miscellaneous taxes than from the land tax that increase of resources is to be expected.”

" 4. A Permanent Settlement, then, so far as it can be introduced, will be, firstly, good for the people, and secondly, good equally for the State. The questions remaining are—To what extent could it be applied? And When could it be introduced? Now, it is to be ever remembered that in these provinces the railways, the roads, and the navigation will certainly work great changes, while similar results are not here to be expected from irrigation. But this prospect exists here, in common with the rest of India, neither more or less. If, then, the prospect of material improvement does not bar the concession of a Permanent Settlement elsewhere, neither should it have that effect here. So far, then, as railways, roads, and navigation are concerned, the Central Provinces seem as much entitled to the advantage of a Permanent Settlement as other provinces of India. But further, it is to be borne in mind that the amount of culturable waste in these provinces is enormous, and though this condition may exist more or less everywhere, it is peculiarly prevalent here. Not only are vast tracts of culturable waste vaguely claimed by parties with doubtful title, but within the legitimate boundaries of many, even perhaps the majority of estates and villages throughout these provinces, there is a large proportion of culturable waste. Now, although the inducement held out by a Permanent Settlement to reclaim the waste is one of the cardinal benefits of that measure, still it is but fair to the State that this privilege should be kept within moderate bounds. It would be right to allow every estate permanently settled a just margin of waste as a field for extending cultivation. But it would not be right to allow a Permanent Settlement to an estate which might include a large or indefinite area of waste, at present quite beyond the means of the owner to reclaim, but capable in the future of being rendered valuable by a variety of contingencies.

" 5. Thus in these provinces there are many estates and villages, many entire tracts, and some entire districts, where a Permanent Settlement could not at present be properly introduced. Such districts are Raepore, Belaspore, Sumbulpore, Sironcha, Bhundara, Mundla, Seonee, Chindwara, Baitool. All these districts are in a transition state; and influence will, it is hoped, sooner or later, be brought to bear, which shall change the entire face of them.

" 6. On the other hand, there are some districts in each of which a Permanent Settlement might be introduced into parts, but not the whole, with as much benefit and as much reason as into the other parts of India. And into these the introduction of the measure has been recommended. These districts are Nagpore, Chandah, Natchengaon (Kowta), Jubbulpore, Saugor, Dumoh, Nurnsingpore, Hoshungabad. All these districts (excepting Saugor and Dumoh) have large portions of their area continuously and highly cultivated and subject to the same kind of development as the rest of India. The Saugor and Dumoh districts are more rugged, and do not possess long strips of cultivation like those just named; but in other respects their position is the same. As regards past assessments, some have been too high and others too low, but this circumstance is not peculiar to these districts, and is but too common everywhere. On the other hand, for the Jubbulpore, Saugor, Dumoh, Nurnsingpore, and Hoshungabad districts, there are the fiscal data year by year during thirty-five years of British rule. For the Nagpore, Natchengaon, and Chandah, besides the British assessment, there are the data of the assessments made during the Regency exercised by Sir R. Jenkins and his officers.

“7. Such being Mr. Temple’s views on this question, I am further to state that he sees no reason why they should not be applied in the course of the settlement now in progress. The state and circumstances of the operations connected with that settlement were reported at some length in my No. 11¹³ of 30th ultimo; it is, therefore, unnecessary to enter into great detail on this point. The Officiating Chief Commissioner would merely submit that, should his Excellency the Viceroy in Council be pleased to approve, firstly, the general principles of the question as above laid down; and secondly, the application of them at once to such of the districts in the Central Provinces as are advanced enough to receive them, then he would solicit that sanction be accorded to the following specific measures:—

“8. (i.) That, when in the course of the present settlement it shall appear to the authorities engaged in making the settlement that an estate is, in the sense explained above, fitted for a Permanent Settlement, in such estate the assessment be made in perpetuity.

“9. (ii.) That one of the chief conditions of fitness for this boon be that at least three-fourths of the culturable area is under cultivation.

" to. (iii.) That it be competent for Settlement Officers to hold out a promise, in certain cases, that on estates attaining that advanced state in which three-fourths of the land is under cultivation a revised assessment be made and declared permanent.

" II. Thus, if a permanent assessment be really desired by the people, then this system would induce every landholder to increase his cultivation so as to secure the boon, and thus the greatest possible stimulus might be imparted to agricultural industry.”

SETTLEMENT OF 1863-67.

While the question of a Permanent Settlement continued the subject of debate for many years, a new Settlement of the Central Provinces was commenced in earnest. The principles of this Settlement had been laid down, as long ago as 1854, by a Proclamation issued by the Government of the North-Western Provinces, for the Sagar and Narbada Territories which were then under that Government. No action had been then taken. It was after the formation of the Central Provinces in 1861 that the old Proclamation of 1854 was taken as the basis for a Settlement of the Land Revenue throughout those Provinces.

The main principle laid down by this Proclamation, and afterwards accepted for the Central Provinces generally, was the recognition of proprietary rights in the Malguzars or revenue-payers. This has often been described as the conferring of a new gift; but it was a new gift only in so far as it admitted, in theory, a right which was enjoyed by the Malguzars in practice. “I do not know,” said Mr. Chisholm, one of the ablest Settlement Officers of the time, “any rights appertaining to landed property which the Malguzar individually, or he and his sharers jointly, did not exercise, except the power of sale and mortgage. He could not transfer his village, merely because the Native Government, from a short-sighted policy, declined to recognise any absolute right in land; but while he remained in possession, he was absolute as regards all the internal arrangements of the village—settling cultivators, dispossessing them, increasing rent, planting groves, constructing tanks—in fact wielding all the authority in the management of the village which appertains to holders elsewhere under the most indisputable titles.”

Nevertheless it was a great gain when this right, which had been exercised in practice, was expressly admitted; and when power was also given to the Malguzars to sell or mortgage their property. " It is now the intention of Government,” said the Proclamation of 1854, " to make another twenty years’ settlement, and to confer the Zemindari right on such persons as may appear to have the best right to such a gift.” And it was added in the same Proclamation: " Every proprietor shall enjoy the free right of transfer or division.” It was the pleasant duty of Richard Temple to carry this principle into operation in the Settlement which he carried through.

The proprietary rights of Malguzars having been recognised, the next question was: What portion of their rental should be claimed as Government revenue? The Saharanpur rules had laid down that, in Northern India, the land revenue should be limited to one-half of the rental; and this rule had been extended to the Sagar and Narbada Territories.¹⁴ But what was the rule for Nagpur which now formed the larger portion of the Central Provinces?

For Nagpur, the Government of India had sent directions¹⁵ to leave the Malguzars from 35 to 55 per cent. of the gross rental. And it was added that “the Governor-General in Council would be disposed to leave the Malguzars in all cases 40 per cent. for expenses of management and proprietary rights, and to extend the limit in special cases to 50 per cent.” These instructions were liberally interpreted by Richard Temple; and in the Settlement Code which he issued, with the sanction of the Governor-General, for application throughout the Central Provinces without any reservation,¹⁶ the only principle of assessment he laid down was the half-rental principle of the Saharanpur rules.

These, then, were the two main principles of the Settlement of the Central Provinces:—

(1) The recognition of proprietary rights in Malguzars and tenant’s rights in cultivators;

(2) The limitation of the land revenue to one-half of the rental of estates.¹⁷

It is painful to record that the second principle was not adhered to in the assessments made. The exact method by which the rental value of each estate was ascertained has been described by two subsequent Chief Commissioners of these Provinces.¹⁸

In so far as these two accounts can be reconciled, it is clear that Settlement Officers did not accept the actual rental of estates. They estimated what the rental should be from their own calculations; they based the land revenue demand on these estimated rentals; and they communicated the demand to the landlords who were left to raise their rents to the estimated rentals. A more reprehensible system of encouraging landlords to screw up their rents from helpless and ignorant cultivators can scarcely be conceived. In Bengal, in Oudh, and in the Punjab, Lord Canning and Sir John Lawrence had striven to restrict the enhancement of rents by private landlords by special legislation. But Settlement Officers in the Central Provinces and elsewhere adopted a method which encouraged landlords to screw up their rents.

The actual proportion of the rental, so calculated, which was demanded as land revenue, was also higher than 50 per cent. in most districts, as the following list will show.¹⁹

It will thus be seen that the principles laid down for the assessment of the land revenue were violated in a twofold manner. In the first place, the rental accepted as the basis of assessment was higher than the actual rents received by the landlords; and in the second place, the proportion demanded as revenue exceeded 50 per cent. of this rental in most districts, and was fixed at 78 per cent. in Nagpur itself. Once again the orders of the Government “were carried out by the local authorities with a niggardly hand,” and the people had no redress against the violation of rules by the very officers for whom the rules had been framed.

One benefit, however, the people obtained from this Settlement. The Settlement lasted for thirty years, and the cultivators and landlords enjoyed some rest after the harassment of previous operations.

Footnotes