Chapter XI: Lord Hastings and the Mahalwari Settlement in Northern India (1815-1822)

CHAPTER XI

LORD HASTINGS AND THE MAHALWARI SETTLEMENT IN NORTHERN INDIA (1815-1822)

THE last Mahratta war was over, and the last of the Peshwas was captured in 1818; and Lord Hastings was forced to face the problem of a proper land administration in India, far more difficult to deal with than swarms of the Pindaries or armies of the Mahrattas. The task of conquests and annexations was easy enough, when disciplined troops faced undisciplined hordes in the field of battle. But the story of such conquests is not the history of India; the story of the administration, and of the condition of the people under the new rule, is the true history of the country.

The Board of Commissioners in the Conquered and Ceded Provinces (Northern India), consisting of Sir Edward Colebrooke and Mr. Trant, submitted their report on land settlements in the different districts—Moradabad, Bareilly, Shajehanpur, and Rohilkhand; and they once more pressed that the assessments made should be made permanent.

“We should not fulfil the duty of the station in which it has pleased the Government to place us if we were to abstain from offering it as our decided opinion that the greatest injury cannot but occur to the interests of the British Government in this quarter of its possessions by any longer withholding the benefits of a Permanent Settlement, which have been so long and so anxiously expected by the mass of the population of the Ceded and Conquered Provinces.

“We shall not enter upon any discussion of the advantages of the measure in a fiscal point of view, although we are fully satisfied of them, because we consider the faith of the Government to have been pledged by the promulgation of the two Regulations above quoted, which having been enacted, as we understood, after a full discussion of the question of the Permanent Settlement with the Honourable the Court of Directors, was to be considered as the absolute and final determination of the supreme authorities, both in this country and in Europe…

“We at the same time take the liberty of again expressing our conviction, both individually and collectively, that no measure short of a general permanency to the settlements of the whole of these provinces will meet the expectations of the landholders, founded on what they consider a solemn promise of Government.”¹

In the following year, 1819, a minute was recorded by Mr. Dowdeswell on the same subject on the eve of his retirement from India after a long and distinguished service. And he spoke in no uncertain voice.

“The position, then, which I maintain is, that the faith of Government was irrevocably pledged to the great body of the people to extend to them the benefits of a Permanent Settlement, with the limited exceptions above stated, at the expiration of the term of ten years, reckoning from the period of the cession and conquest respectively…

“It is painful to me to be compelled to state facts and opinions which, I am sensible, cannot prove agreeable to those for whose consideration they are chiefly intended; but the Honourable Court [of Directors] will, I am persuaded, do justice to the motives which actuate me. Had I thought myself free to choose, I should most readily have declined the task in which I am at present engaged. It is only because I thought the exposition of my sentiments to be a duty of more than ordinary exigency that I have been led to place them on record….

“It will answer every object which I have at heart if I can aid in showing that the measure would conduce to the best interests of the Government in promoting the agricultural improvement of the country, and more specially in cementing the attachment of the people to the British name and power, without any inordinate sacrifice of the public resources. The landholders, I doubt not, would be fully satisfied to improve their means of subsistence by gradually reclaiming such small portions of land as lie intermixed with those already reduced to a state of cultivation, or in other words, within the limits of a Pergana, Mouza, or other division of an estate for which the settlement might be formed; the rest, as shown in preceding paragraphs, would belong de jure to Government….

“On the other hand, I neither deem it wise, just, or politic that Government should gradually so enhance the assessments as to draw from the land the maximum revenue which it can possibly pay. I believe that, generally speaking, the assessment has already been raised as high as is consistent with the well-being of the agricultural classes and the gradual improvement of the country….

“I now quit the subject, in all probability for ever. It is equally a source of pride and satisfaction to me to reflect that I have contributed something towards the internal peace and good order of the country; that I have laboured according to the extent of my means for the improvement and the administration of civil and criminal justice; and that the public resources generally have not suffered from the share I have had in the management of them. Wide, therefore, as the range is, I should scarcely have had a wish ungratified could I have witnessed, previously to quitting the country, the establishment of a Permanent Settlement in the western provinces.“¹

A still more distinguished officer, Sir Edward Colebrooke, was now about to leave India after his forty-two years’ useful and distinguished service in the country. And he too made one more endeavour, on the eve of his retirement, to secure to the people of the country some prospect of wealth and of future gain from the soil, against the ever increasing and impoverishing demands of the Court of Directors. With his Minute, recorded in 1820, he submitted a statement showing how the land revenue of the Ceded and Conquered Provinces had been continuously increased during twelve years, from 1807 to 1818; and he recommended the promised limitation of the land revenue demand which would leave “to the landholders the fruits of their improved industry.“²

The following figures are taken from Sir Edward Colebrooke’s statement, accepting ten Rupees as equivalent to a pound sterling.

Conquered and Ceded Provinces, Northern India.

In a later Minute, recorded in the same year, Sir Edward Colebrooke made his last recommendation for securing the prosperity of the people of India among whom he had lived so long.

“On the eve of finally quitting a country in which I have resided forty-two years, and a service in which, through the early partiality of the late Warren Hastings in selecting me for Persian Secretary to Government so long ago as the beginning of 1780, I have borne an efficient and responsible part from the age of eighteen, I should feel a true satisfaction if, by the last act of my official existence, I could flatter myself in having contributed to secure the blessings of a limited assessment to that portion of the British territories in which the last twelve years of an active life have been employed… I cannot, however, forget that to the general character of the landholders of those provinces I am indebted for the success of my labours, and common gratitude, if even my conviction of the propriety of the measure were less strong, might dictate this return.”

A noble sentiment this, but futile. The loyal and peaceful character of the Indian people has never induced the Government to abate its own pecuniary demands; it has often had the contrary effect of encouraging the Government to enhance its demands till the people became impoverished and resourceless, in spite of the peace and security secured by the British rule, and in spite of the thrift and industry of the people, and the richness and fertility of their land.

Armed with the Reports and Minutes of the Board of Commissioners, of Mr. Dowdeswell and Sir Edward Colebrooke, as well as of Messrs. Stuart, Adam, and Fendall, the Governor-General, Lord Hastings, made his final appeal to the Court of Directors for that measure of Permanent Settlement, which had been solemnly promised by the British Government, and which was needed for the prosperity of the people.

“It is, then, our unanimous opinion that the system of a Permanent Settlement of the land revenue, either upon the principle of a fixed Jumma, or of an assessment determinable by a fixed and invariable rate, ought to be extended to the Ceded and Conquered Provinces.“¹

The Directors of a trading company, now owners of an empire, refused the proposals of Lord Hastings with a curtness which betrayed how little real regard they entertained for the happiness of the people when their own pecuniary interests were concerned.

“We must again pointedly apprise you that we are not prepared to assent to the opinion to which, you say, you have unanimously come, ’that the system of a Permanent Settlement of the land revenue, either upon the principle of a fixed Jumma, or of an assessment determinable by a fixed and invariable rate, ought to be extended to the Ceded and Conquered Provinces;’ and we distinctly repeat the injunction contained in the eighty-sixth paragraph of our letter in this department, dated the 15th January 1819, against any Permanent Settlement of land revenue; and we desire that you will abstain not only from making any such settlement, but from taking any measures which may raise the expectation that a settlement in perpetuity will hereafter be formed.“² The controversy was thus closed for forty years.

Holt Mackenzie, then Secretary to the Board, had in the meantime recorded his famous Minute of 1819, revealing the existence of Village Communities in Northern India, and recommending a settlement with these communities where they existed, after a systematic survey and inquiry. ¹ The Minute contained a review of the different districts and suggested that the villages should now be surveyed, that a record of rights be prepared, and that Village Communities should be represented by head-men who should be called Lambardars, or persons having a “number” in the Collector’s register of persons liable to pay land revenue to the State. It was also suggested that the rates of assessment should be equalised rather than enhanced; and that revenue payers should have their rights secured such as they were.

All ideas of a Permanent Settlement being abandoned in 1821, the minute of Holt Mackenzie was accepted as the basis of settlement. The idea was that settlements should be made with landlords where they existed, and with Village Communities where they held land in common tenancy. And it was specially desired that the land tax should be fixed at a moderate rate. This was particularly insisted upon in the Government Resolution of 1822.

“87. It appears, indeed, that the ancient Hindu laws assigned to the Sovereign a certain and moderate share of the produce. But if we judge of the practice of ancient times by that of more modern Hindu principalities, it may apparently be assumed that the actual sums levied from the cultivators were by no means always limited by the nominal rates. . . .

“88. So also in the Moghal system as described by Mr. Grant, who states the ordinary money rates to have been fixed by an average valuation of one-fourth of the produce. . . .

“93. On the whole, indeed, his Lordship in Council is disposed to conclude that although the native governments to which we succeeded allowed considerable weight to ancient customs, even in adjusting their pecuniary demands, and though in later days especially, they were too weak to enforce all that they might regard as their just dues, yet that (subject to the general obligation of consulting the case of the Ryots) the right of the ruling power to fix the rate of its demand was never questioned…

" 101. In the case of Government especial caution is necessary to guard against an excessive demand ; for there must always be great danger lest, while we imagine that we take only a share of the net rent, we in fact encroach on the fair wages of labour and profits of stock…

" 129. When the rates of rent payable by the cultivators are settled, it will remain to determine the nature and extent of the advantages to be assigned to the intermediate managers and others [landlords], and the manner and proportion in which the net rent and profits arising out of the limitation of the Government demand is to be distributed…

" 373. His Lordship in Council has derived much satisfaction from the evidence afforded on other occasions, that the native revenue officers have a lively sense of the distinction of honorary rewards. That feeling it is most important to cherish, and it can never be the wish of Government to practise, in regard to any class of public functionaries, the fallacious economy which leaves to officers invested with extensive trust the alternative of poverty or dishonour.¹

A week after the date of this Resolution was passed Regulation vii. of 1822, “declaring the principles according to which settlement of the land revenue in the Ceded and Conquered Provinces, including Cuttack, Pattaspore, and its dependencies, is to be hereafter made.”

The revision of the settlement was to be made village by village and estate by estate, and as an estate is called a Mahal in the Indian language, the settlement which was made in Northern India is known as the Mahalwari Settlement. The revenue demand was not to be raised in any estate unless it was clear that the landlords’ profits exceeded one-fifth of that demand. In such cases “the assessment shall be so regulated as to leave the Zemindars and others aforesaid a net profit of twenty per cent. of the amount of the Jumma,” or revenue demand. Thus in an estate with a rental of £1200, the State-demand was to be raised to £1000, so as to leave to the landlord £200, or one-fifth of the State-demand. The State-demand was thus to be over 83 per cent. of the rental of estates.

Revenue Collectors were empowered to grant leases to cultivators, specifying the rents payable by them. In cases in which estates were held not by landlords but by cultivators in common tenancy, the State-demand might be raised to 95 per cent. of the rents, i.e. to the entire rental “with a deduction of 5 per cent. on account of Malikana, or such other rate not being less than 5 per cent. as Government may determine.” In such cases the Revenue Collector was empowered to make a fresh partition of the lands of the village, or of the proportion of the State-demand payable by each cultivator.

Revenue Collectors might be empowered to try suits between landlords and tenants, to determine the rents payable, to adjust accounts between them, and to decide all matters connected with lands, rents, leases, and engagements between landlords and tenants. An appeal was allowed from the decision of the Collector to the Board, and finally by a regular suit in Civil Courts.¹

Such was the first comprehensive Land Act of Northern India, passed twenty years after Northern India was ceded to or conquered by the British; and a careful examination of its clauses discloses its defects. The Act prescribed no equitable standard of rents payable by cultivators except the judgment of the Revenue Collector. It prescribed no equitable margin of profits to landlords except a bare 17 per cent. of the rental. In curious contrast to frequent professions “to guard against an excessive demand,” and to “take only a share of the net rent,” it swept away virtually the whole of the rental of the country, leaving landlords and cultivators equally impoverished. It made any accumulation of wealth and any improvement in the material condition of the people impossible; and it fixed no limits to the State demand in future and recurring settlements after the brief period of the first settlement was over.

The system broke down ultimately by reason of its own harshness. Some relief was at last given to the people of Northern India in 1833 by the best and greatest of the Company’s Governor Generals, Lord William Bentinck. To an account of the Land Settlement of 1833 we shall revert in a future chapter.

Footnotes

¹ Report dated 27th October 1818.

¹ Minute dated 7th October 1819.

² Minute dated 17th March 1820.

¹ Revenue Letter to the Court of Directors, signed by the Governor-General, Lord Hastings, and members of his Council, Messrs. Stuart, Adam, and Fendall, dated 16th September 1820.

² Revenue Letter from the Court of Directors to the Governor-General in Council, dated 1st August 1821.

¹ Resolution of Government dated 1st August 1822.

¹ Regulation vii. of 1822.