Chapter VIII: Village Communities or Individual Tenants? A Debate in Madras (1807-1820)

CHAPTER VIII

VILLAGE COMMUNITIES OR INDIVIDUAL TENANTS?— A DEBATE IN MADRAS, 1807-1820

THE table given at the close of the last chapter shows the districts in Madras which were permanently settled, and those which had not been so settled in 1807. The question was then discussed, what durable arrangements should be made with regard to these last.

Would a Permanent Zemindari Settlement, similar to that introduced by Lord Cornwallis in Bengal, be extended to these places?

Would a Permanent Ryotwari Settlement, recommended by Thomas Munro, be adopted?

Or would a Permanent Mauzawari Settlement, i.e. a collective settlement with each Village Community, as recommended by the Madras Board of Revenue, be finally decided upon?

The economic history of India has no more interesting chapter than the debates on this momentous question.

On the eve of his departure for Europe in 1807, after his labour of seven years in the Ceded Districts, Thomas Munro recorded his famous report recommending a Permanent Ryotwari Settlement of those Districts. He described the exorbitant revenue he had raised, being 45 per cent. of the gross produce; he recommended a reduction of this revenue by a quarter; and he proposed that the assessment should then be made permanent.

“As one-third of the produce is, therefore, the highest point to which assessment can in general be carried without destroying landed property, and as it is also the point to which it must be lowered before persons who are not cultivators can occupy Circar lands without loss, it is obvious that unless the assessment is reduced to this rate, land can neither be occupied by all classes of inhabitants, nor ever become private property, nor can any Permanent Settlement be made, calculated to improve the condition of the Ryots or of the public revenue. I am, therefore, of opinion, that in a Permanent Settlement of the Ceded Districts, the rent of Government should be about one-third of the gross produce. The present assessment is about 45 per cent. To bring it to the proposed level would require a remission of 25 per cent., as may be seen from the following example: —

“I shall now proceed to state the manner in which I think a Permanent Ryotwari Settlement in the Ceded Districts may be made. . . .

“1st. The settlement shall be Ryotwari.

“2nd. The amount of the settlement shall increase and decrease annually, according to the extent of land in cultivation.

“3rd. A reduction of 25 per cent. on all land shall be made in the survey rate of assessment.

“4th. An additional reduction in the assessment of 8 per cent., or 33 per cent. in all, shall be allowed on all lands watered by wells, or by water raised by machinery from rivers and nullahs; provided the cultivators keep the wells or embankments (Dirroas) in repair at their own expense. A similar reduction shall be allowed on the lands watered by small tanks, wherever the cultivators agree to bear the expense of repairs.

" 5th. Every Ryot shall be at liberty, at the end of every year, either to throw up a part of his land or to occupy more, according to his circumstances; but whether he throw up or occupy, he shall not be permitted to select, but shall take or reject proportional share of good and bad together.

" 6th. Every Ryot, as long as he pays the rent of his land, shall be considered as the complete owner of the soil, and shall be at liberty to let it to a tenant without any limitation as to rent, and to sell it as he pleases.

" 7th. No remission shall be made, on ordinary occasions, for bad crops or other accidents. Should failure occur which cannot be made good from the property or land of the defaulters, the village in which they happen shall be liable for them to the extent of 10 per cent. additional on the rent of the remaining Ryots, but no further.

" 8th. All unoccupied land shall remain in the hands of the Government, and the rent or whatever part of it may be hereafter cultivated shall be added to the public revenue.

" 9th. All taxes on houses, shops, and professions, all duties, licenses, &c., shall belong exclusively to Government. The Ryot on whose land houses or shops may be built shall not be entitled to receive a higher rent from them than the equivalent of the survey rent of the ground which they occupy.

" 10th. The repairs of all tanks which are not rendered private property by an extra remission, or

Desivundum Enaum, shall be made at the expense of Government.

“11th. Tuccavie shall be gradually discontinued.

“12th. Potails, Curnums, and all other village servants shall remain as heretofore under the Collector.

“13th. Private creditors, who may distrain the property of Ryots, shall discharge the rent which may be due from such Ryots to Government, and shall give security for it before they begin the distraint.“¹

We have made this long extract because it is necessary to clearly understand the plan of a Ryotwari settlement as conceived by its real author. Thomas Munro desired a settlement with each individual Ryot, and desired it to be permanent, subject to increase or decrease of revenue as more or less land was taken under cultivation.

Lord William Bentinck, who succeeded Lord Clive as Governor of Madras in 1803, was precisely of the same opinion. In a minute recorded by him in 1806 he recorded that the Zemindari settlement suited Bengal, where there were hereditary Zemindars, but did not suit those parts of Madras where such landlords did not exist.

“I am satisfied that the creation of Zemindars is a measure incompatible with the true interests of the Government and of the community at large. . . . I am not at all at variance with the principles of the Permanent Settlement, which I admire, and which I believe to be applicable to this and to every part of the world.”

And in a subsequent minute recorded in the same year the Governor said:

“If an annual settlement with the Ryots, founded upon fixed principles, the essential part of which was to secure to the Ryot for a year the fruits of his industry, had actually been productive of such decided advantageous a Permanent Settlement founded upon the same principles, but carried to a greater extent with regard to the benefit of the Ryot, would produce the same effect in an increased ratio.“¹

It will appear from these extracts that a Permanent Settlement was the predominant idea both of Thomas Munro and of Lord William Bentinck when they advocated the Ryotwari system. Six years after he had left India, Thomas Munro was examined by the Committee of the House of Commons, on the eve of the renewal of the Company’s charter in 1813, and he explained his ideas before the Committee as forcibly, as lucidly, and as unmistakably, as he was capable of doing it.

“Has any permanent revenue arrangement been extended to the Ceded Districts of which you were the Collector?”

“Until the period that I left India no Permanent Settlement had been made, but the Ryots were so far protected in the enjoyment of their property, that a fixed rent had been settled upon all the land, and every Ryot could retain his own farm for ever, provided he paid that rent; no increase could be made upon the land rent.”

“Have the goodness to explain to the Committee what you understand by the Ryotwari system.”

“I shall state what I understand to be the principle of the Ryotwari system, the details will perhaps be too extensive. The principle of the Ryotwari system is to fix an assessment upon the whole land of the country; this assessment is permanent; every Ryot who is likewise a cultivating proprietor of the land which he holds is permitted to hold that land at a fixed assessment as long as he pleases; he holds it for ever without any additional assessment; if he occupies any waste or additional land, he pays the assessment that is fixed upon that land and no more; his rent undergoes no alteration.”

“Is the Committee to understand that in respect to permanency there is no difference between the Ryotwari system and the Bengal Permanent Settlement?”

“With respect to permanency there is no difference between the two systems, but the Ryotwari leaves the Government an increasing revenue arising from the waste in proportion to its cultivation.“¹

If language has any meaning, then it is clear that the Ryotwari settlements which Munro had already made, and which he desired to introduce in other parts of Madras, were on the condition that every Ryot would hold his land for ever without any additional assessment, except for new lands reclaimed. If words have any definite significance, then it is clear that there was no difference with respect to permanency between Cornwallis’s Zemindari settlement and Munro’s Ryotwari settlement, except that waste lands brought under cultivation had to be paid for under the latter system. It is necessary to comprehend this clearly, because the right of the cultivators in Madras to a fixed, unchanging, unalterable revenue for the same lands has been ignored by the Madras Government in the recent years, and the first principle of Munro’s Ryotwari settlement has been disregarded.

While the idea of a Permanent Zemindari Settlement began to be looked upon with disfavour, and that of a Permanent Ryotwari Settlement received Munro’s favour, a third system was advocated by the Madras Board of Revenue—a scheme of a Permanent Mauzawari Settlement, or a settlement with each village community. Referring to Munro’s proposal of the 15th August 1807 in favour of a reduction of 25 per cent on the exorbitant revenue which had been fixed, the Board of Revenue made this new suggestion.

“ 29. This is the outline of Colonel Munro’s plan, which is not less applicable to all the districts as yet unsettled than to the Ceded Districts ; and if the exigencies of Government allowed of so great a sacrifice as a remission on the present standard rents to the extent of 25 per cent., or even of 15 per cent., we should consider the measure highly advisable and calculated to produce great ulterior advantages. Indeed, it would be idle to dispute that the less we take from the cultivator of the produce of his labour the more flourishing must be his condition.

“ 30. But if the exigencies of Government do not permit them to make so great a sacrifice, if they cannot at once confer the boon of private property, they must be content to establish a private interest in the soil as effectually as they can under the farming system ; if they cannot afford to give up a share of the landlord’s rent, they must be indulgent landlords.

“ 31. Under such circumstances the transition from Ryotwari to Village-rents, as suggested by Mr. Hogdson, appears to us best adapted to secure the revenue of the State and the prosperity of the country….

“ 38. Every village with its twelve Agagandeas, as they are denominated, is a petty commonwealth, with its Mokuddum, Potail, Rapod, Reddy or chief inhabitant at the head of it, and India is a great assemblage of such commonwealths. The inhabitants, during war, look chiefly to their own head-inhabitants ; they give themselves no trouble about the breaking up and division of kingdoms while the village remains entire ; they care not to what power it is transferred, on whomsoever it devolves, the internal management remains unaltered ; the head-inhabitant is still the collector, magistrate, and head-farmer.

“39. From the age of Manu to the present day the settlements have been made either with or through the head-inhabitants. When the revenue was thought to be high enough, and the head-inhabitant agreed to it, he was usually left to settle with the Ryots; if it was too low and the head-inhabitant objected to an increase, the Amaldar settled with the Ryots in his presence. This system has stood the test of time, and as under it whole provinces have often been in a highly cultivated state, it must certainly be well calculated for the great object of promoting agriculture.” ^1

The Government of Madras, in their reply to the Board of Revenue, authorised the conclusion of triennial village settlements in many of the unsettled districts as a preparatory measure to the introduction of a Permanent Village Settlement. ^2 And on the expiry of these triennial settlements they proposed in their letter to the Court of Directors the conclusion of a decennial settlement, to become permanent if approved by the Directors. ^3

The Directors were now alarmed at the idea of a Permanent Settlement, and they charged the Board of Revenue with having acted without orders in authorising the decennial settlement.

“In all the provinces that may be unsettled when the despatch shall reach you, the principle of the Ryotwari system, as it is termed, shall be acted upon, and that where the village rents upon any other principle shall have been established, the leases shall be declared terminable at the expiration of the period for which they may have been granted.” ^4

The Government of Madras protested against this decision of the Directors.

“That agriculture was regarded as the basis of national wealth and prosperity; that it was considered essential to the improvement and extension of agriculture to restrict the demands of Government upon landed property; that it was not supposed Government could lose by this restriction, since without it agriculture would never be improved and extended, nor the resources of the country increased…. In offering the foregoing remarks, we have considered the Permanent Settlement strictly as a question of fiscal policy. But it does not need to be shown that it is of vital importance also, as being calculated to give to the mass of the people, who are engaged in agriculture, a deep and permanent interest in the stability of our Government.” ^1

In the following year, the Government of Madras made a still more eloquent appeal to the Court of Directors in favour of Permanent Village Settlements and against Permanent Ryotwari Settlements.

“If the primary object of a Permanent Settlement be to give the people the management of their own affairs, from the belief that their affairs will be indefinitely managed by themselves than by public officers, how little would that object be attained under such a system [the Ryotwari system]? How entirely would all management still remain in those hands from which it was meant to transfer it. It is singular that, under such a system, professedly designed to protect the rights and interests of landed proprietors, they are to forfeit all property in any land which, through general or peculiar calamity or indolence or mismanagement, they may any year fail to cultivate, and their property in it is, on every such occurrence, to escheat to the Government; assuredly a more violent encroachment on landed property, where it really exists, than ever was attempted under any other system….

“He [the cultivator] is not secure against a fraudulent measurement on the estimation of the land he quits or the land he occupies; nay, if to escape from the mode of oppression he resolves not to alter his limits, the current business of agriculture, the means of irrigation, the distribution of Tuccavy, or of an abatement of rent on account of calamity, all must be regulated by men who have no interest in his property, no sympathy with his feelings. Surely it were better that confidence should be reposed where self-interest affords a security against its being abused, and that the people should be left to improve the country in their own way, without the encumbrance of useless and ill-judged aid from public officers, and without the dread of their oppression and rapacity. At any rate, we own that the Ryotwari system, proposed by Colonel Munro, seems to us in no respect to deserve the name of a Permanent Settlement of the land revenue, but, on the contrary, to leave land revenue and landed property as unsettled as ever, and the people liable to all that prying, meddling interference of public officers under which no private concern can prosper….

“The grand difference between the view at present taken in England regarding Indian land revenue and that taken here, seems to be, that in England the fear is that the public demands upon the resources of India may not keep pace with its prosperity; while here the universal sentiment, we believe without any exception whatever, is, that the prosperity of the country is so much depressed by the public demands, that, without the most liberal and judicious management, there is more danger of its resources declining than room to hope for their speedy increase. This is a sentiment which we cannot too strongly convey to your Honourable Court. It is addressed to your wisdom, to your sense of justice, to your humanity; it concerns the successful administration of your Government no less than the welfare and happiness of a numerous population and the prosperity of an extensive country, favoured by nature, protected from internal commotion and foreign assault, and requiring only moderation in the demands of Government upon its resources to render it rich and flourishing. Compared with the attainment of these great ends, of how little value appears every sacrifice which can be made for them?”¹

The decision of the question between Ryotwari settlements and Village settlements was delayed for a time, as judicial and administrative reforms claimed more immediate attention. Thomas Munro had passed seven years in England after his twenty-seven years’ labours in India, when he was sent out again as the head of a Commission to revise the judicial system, and arrived at Madras on the 16th September 1814. How he laboured to improve the judicial system, and to admit the people of India to some responsible posts in the judicial service, will be narrated in another place; how he distinguished himself in the last Mahratta War by placing his confidence and trust in the people of India, as much as by his bravery in the field, is a subject which does not fall within the scope of this work.² On the conclusion of this war, Munro left once more for England in January 1819, and the question of land settlements now came up for decision.

The Board of Revenue at Madras were still in favour of the introduction of Village settlements, and in 1818 they recorded one of the most exhaustive and memorable minutes ever written in India.

Speaking of the Zemindari system, they said: “The increased facility and regularity with which this revenue had been collected, free from any extensive abuses on the part of the native revenue servants, and exempting the Government through its Collectors and Superintending Boards from the heavy duties inseparable from annual settlements, and from investigations into annual accusations of fraud and embezzlement in the collection of the revenue… forms a striking contrast with the former fruitless attempts of the Government to enforce the payment of their dues in the Circars, the evasion and subterfuges practised by the Zemindars and Polygars, the coercion and assistance of a military force, to which it was so often found necessary to resort for the purpose of realising the collections from the zemindari and pollam lands, and the numerous abuses of every description formerly so prevalent throughout the native establishments, and which still continue to disgrace the districts in which temporary settlements continue to prevail….

“The ancient Zemindars and Polygars were, in fact, the nobility of the country, and though the origin of some of their tenures would not bear too minute a scrutiny, they were connected with the people by ties by which it was more politic, more liberal, and more just to strengthen than to dissolve.

Had our power in the Circars been as strong on the acquisition of these provinces as it subsequently became at the period of the transfer of the Ceded Districts, the ancient Zemindars, like the Polygars of the latter country, might perhaps have been removed from their lands and reduced to the situation of mere pensioners on our bounty; but when the attachment of the people to their native chieftains and the local situation of many Zemindaris are considered, it may be greatly doubted whether such a policy would not have been as unwise as it would have been ungenerous.”

Speaking of the Ryotwari system, they wrote: “The Ryotwari system had its origin in the Baramahal and Salem districts, ceded to the Company in 1792, and was first introduced by Colonel Read, the officer appointed to take charge of that country on its cession; Colonel Munro, Colonel Macleod, and Colonel Graham, then lieutenants, were assistants under Colonel Read…

“In the Northern Division of Arcot, all these superiorities [special rights of Mirasdars or hereditary peasant proprietors] were also resumed and incorporated with the public revenue. In short, the survey assessment was raised so high as to absorb in the Government revenue any little rent remaining to the landholders. No intermediate person was acknowledged between the State and the actual cultivator…

“The Ryotwari settlement, in fact, was made annually, frequently by the Tehsildars and Sheristadars [subordinate low-paid officers], and was not in general concluded until after the crop had been raised; the system then was to make as high a settlement as it was practicable to realise. If the crop was good, the demand was raised as high within the survey rates as the means of the Ryots would admit; if the crop was bad, the last farthing was notwithstanding demanded, and no remission was allowed unless the Ryot was totally unable to pay the rent. On this point the most severe scrutiny was instituted, for not only was the whole of the Collector’s detailed establishment of servants employed in an investigation of his means, but each of his neighbours were converted into inquisitors by being themselves made liable for his failure, unless they could show that he was possessed of property. . . .

" He [the cultivator] was constrained to occupy all such fields as were allotted to him by the revenue officers, and whether he cultivated them or not, he was, as Mr. Thackeray emphatically terms it, saddled with the rent of each. To use the words of Mr. Chaplin, the Collector in Bellary, one of the most able of Colonel Munro’s former assistants, and still one of the most strenuous advocates of the Ryotwari system, it was the custom under it, ’to exert in a great degree the authority, which is incompatible with the existing regulations, of compelling the inhabitants to cultivate a quantity of ground proportionate to their circumstances.’ This he explains to have been done by ’the power to confine and punish them,’ exercised by the Collector and his native revenue servants; and he expressly adds, that if the Ryot was driven by these oppressions from the fields which he tilled, it was the established practice ’to follow the fugitive wherever he went, and by assessing him at discretion, to deprive him of all advantage, he might expect to derive from a change of residence.’ . . .

" Ignorant of the true resources of the newly-acquired countries, as of the precise nature of their landed tenures, we find a small band of foreign conquerors no sooner obtaining possession of a vast extent of territory, peopled by various nations, differing from each other in language, customs, and habits, than they attempt what would be called a Herculean task, or rather a visionary project even in the most civilised countries of Europe, of which every statistical information is possessed, and of which the Government are one with the people, viz. to fix a land-rent, not on each province, district, or country, not on each estate or farm, but on every separate field within their dominions. In pursuit of this supposed improvement, we find them unintentionally dissolving the ancient ties, the ancient usages which united the republic of each Hindu village, and by a kind of agrarian law, newly assessing and parcelling out the lands which from time immemorial had belonged to the Village Community collectively, not only among the individual members of the privileged order (Mirasdars and Kadeems) but even among the inferior tenantry (Pykaris) we observe them ignorantly denying, and by their denial abolishing private property in the land, resuming what belonged to a public body (the Gramamanium), and conferring in lieu of it a stipend in money on one individual; professing to limit their demand to each field, but in fact, by establishing such limit, an unattainable maximum, assessing the Ryot at discretion, and, like the Musalman Government which preceded them, binding the Ryot by force to the plough, compelling him to till land acknowledged to be over-assessed, dragging him back to it if he absconded, deferring their demand upon him until his crop came to maturity, then taking from him all that could be obtained, and leaving him nothing but his bullocks and seed grain, nay, perhaps obliged to supply him even with these, in order to renew his melancholy task of cultivating, not for himself, but for them.”

Such was the state of cultivators under the Ryotwari system without the protection of a permanent and moderate assessment which Munro had recommended. A more forcible picture of a “human cattle-farm” has never been painted.

Lastly, with regard to the Village system the Board wrote: “Although this system has not been equally successful in every district, yet even where (as in Bellary) it has been the least so, the Collectors are unanimous in opinion that it has most materially improved the condition of the agricultural population of the country, and it is the great body of the Ryots, and not the mere parties with whom the settlement was concluded, who have chiefly benefited by the Village settlement. The Ryotwari Teerwas have nearly everywhere been greatly reduced, and instead of the head Ryots oppressing their inferiors, most of the Collectors have been obliged to prop their weakened authority by that of their Tehsildars. This, without any material exception, is the universal language of all their reports, and it is a result which may be confidently offered as conclusive evidence that the system has generally answered the expectations of those by whom it was introduced. But where the settlement has been best conducted, as in Cuddapah and the Northern Division of Arcot, a picture of prosperity is drawn of which the parallel may in vain be sought throughout the revenue records of this Presidency.“¹

This last appeal was made in vain. The great author of the Ryotwari system, now Sir Thomas Munro, K.C.B., returned to India, for the third and last time as Governor of Madras; and the Ryotwari system was finally accepted for the Province, except where Zemindari settlements had already been made with Zemindars and Polygars. Looking back, after a lapse of over eighty years, to these memorable debates, the student of Indian history still reflects on them with a melancholy interest, and his admiration for the high personal character of Sir Thomas Munro does not prevent him from feeling that in this controversy the Board of Revenue was in the right. A wise Government tries to foster and improve, not to sweep aside, the ancient institutions of a country, when they are consistent with modern progress. It is undeniable that the internal concerns of villages in India could be managed more successfully, and more satisfactorily to themselves, by the villagers than by Tehsildars, Sheristadars, and policemen; and that it is a gain to the cause of humanity to let large classes of people manage their own concerns where possible. Munro himself, if he had seen village communities in a workable condition in the early scenes of his settlement work, in Baramahal, Canara, and the Ceded Districts, would have been the strongest advocate of that system. But having made settlements direct with the cultivators in those places, having advocated that system to the Government of Madras and before the House of Commons, having got the Directors of the Company to sanction that system in all the unsettled parts of the province, he was unable, late in his life, to change his opinion, and appreciate the more desirable form of land administration through the agency of village communities which the Board of Revenue had fostered between 1812 and 1818. As Governor of Madras, Sir Thomas Munro did all he could to foster the village institutions; he organised Panchyets, and conferred on them judicial powers, and he endeavoured to continue the village communities of India as living and organic institutions, such as they had been in the past. But all these endeavours failed. When all real power is taken away from old institutions, forms of authority will not keep them alive. And the villagers, harassed by every petty revenue officer and corrupt policeman, could no longer continue to work together as corporate bodies, as they had done before. Among the many changes which India has witnessed with the advent of the British rule, many of them making for progress and advancement, and some of them deplorable, the saddest change is the virtual extinction of the old forms of self-government, and the disappearance of those ancient Village Communities of which India was the first home among all the countries of the earth.

The final rejection of the Village system advocated by the Board of Revenue has only an academical interest for the modern reader; what has more practical significance is that the Ryotwari system, advocated by Thomas Munro himself, has not been continued in its entirety. Thomas Munro had declared in 1807 and in 1813, as strongly and emphatically as it was possible to do it, that the essence of the Ryotwari system was the permanency of assessments; that the Ryotwari settlement was as permanent as the Zemindari settlement of Bengal except in regard to waste lands. The Ryotwari system was introduced finally in all unsettled tracts in Madras in 1820, but the permanency of the assessments, recognised and admitted by the Madras Government down to 1862, has since been ignored. The uncertainty of the State demand, now altered at each recurring settlement on grounds which are unintelligible to the people, leaves the agricultural population of Madras in a state of perpetual uncertainty and chronic poverty.

Footnotes

^1 Letter dated 5th March 1813.

¹ Board’s Minute dated 5th January 1818.