ABOLITION

OF
ZAMINDARI

SUBMITTED BY: UTKARSH PRIYADARSHI

A3211112171
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my teacher, Ms. Ranjana Dubey, for assigning me this
enticing topic which challenged me intellectually and also allowed me to
understand my topic better. I would also like to thank Amity University for this
opportunity as well.
 Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Mughal Rule
3. British Rule
4. Zamnidari Abolishment Act
5. Abolition of Intermediaries
 Introduction

A zamindar on the Indian subcontinent was an aristocrat, typically hereditary, who held
enormous tracts of land and held control over the peasants, from whom the zamindars reserved
the right to collect tax (often for military purposes). Over time, they took princely and royal titles
such as Maharaja (Great King), Rana (King), Malik (King),Rai (King), Raja (King), Deshmukh
(Chief), Sardar, Mankari, Nawab (Lord), Mirza (Prince), Taluqdar (District Holder),
Gowda,Chaudhary (Lord), Reddy (Headman), Naidu, Gounder, and many others.

Although zamindars were considered to be equivalent to lords and barons[1] in some cases they
were seen as independent, sovereign princes.[2] Often zamindars were Indian princes who lost
their sovereignty due to British Rule (see: Madras Zamindari). For example, the Sivaganga
Zamindari and Ramnad Zamindari were the lesser and greater Kingdom of Marava ruled by the
royal family till 1803; ever since then they were the Zamindars of Marava.

There is no clear distinction between royal zamindars, such as Raja Venkata Ranga Rao, or
merely aristocratic zamindars. Many kings were former zamindars, such as the Royal House of
Benares; conversely many new zamindars were old kings.[citation needed] As a result, there is some
confusion about the Indian kingdoms about who is a king and who is a zamindar, as there were
as many as 568 kingdoms and, according to some other sources, 572 princely states in India
before independence. During the Mughal Empire, zamindars belonged to the nobility[3] and
formed the ruling class. Emperor Akbar granted them mansabs and their ancestral domains were
treated as jagirs

The practice took structural footholds before the Mughal Era and was solidified by the indirect
system of taxation in the Mughal Empire and British Raj. After the British withdrew, the system
was legally abolished with the creation of India, Pakistan and (after independence in 1971)
Bangladesh; however, it is current in some areas of modern Pakistan. Zamindars built lavish
palaces, lush gardens, schools, temples and other venues of philanthropy. Several families were
of ancient lineage and had been independent rulers in earlier periods. In most cases, zamindar
families were descendants of cadet branches of earlier royal families.[citation needed] Zamindars held
considerable powers in their territories: magisterial, army recruitment (as lathials), revenue
collection and taxation, among others.

\
Mughal Rule

Other terms for zamindar were and are used. For example, a zamindar is known as a Wadera or
Wadero in Sindh and as a thakur in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal
Pradesh, Uttrakhand, Chhattisgarh and Bihar. In the Punjab and Haryana, there are multiple
variations, such as chaudhary - ancient land holders from pre Muslim era and (which often
became lambardar or zaildaar during the British Empire's occupation of North India), Sardar
and Malik (an Arabic term which literally means "King"). The word zamindar is derived
ultimately from the Persian ‫ زمین‬Zamīn, "earth/land", and the common suffix ‫ دار‬-dār, "-holder"
(also Before Mughal rule in India, the aristocracy collected and retained revenue from land and
production. The Mughals appointed people to act as tax officers, sending them around the
country to oversee collection of revenue and remit it to the capital city of Delhi.[6] These people
were known as the zamindari (intermediaries)[7] and they collected revenue primarily from the
Ryots (peasants)[8] The zamindari system was more prevalent in the north of India because
Mughal influence in the south was less apparent.[7]

The zamindari system ensured proper collection of taxes in a period when the power and
influence of the Mughal emperors were in decline. With the Mughal conquest of Bengal,
"zamindar" became a generic title embracing people with different kinds of landholdings, rights
and responsibilities ranging from the autonomous or semi-independent chieftains to the peasant-
proprietors. All categories of zamindars under the Mughals were required to perform certain
police, judicial and military duties. Zamindars under the Mughals were, in fact, more the public
functionaries than revenue collecting agents. Although zamindaris were allowed to be held
hereditarily, the holders were not considered to be the proprietors of their estates.[9]

The territorial zamindars had judicial powers. Naturally, judge-magistracy, as an element of state
authority conferred status with attendant power, which really made them the lords of their
domains. They held regular courts, called zamindari adalat. The courts gave them not only power
and status but some income as well by way of fines, presents and perquisites. The petty
zamindars had some share in the dispensation of civil and criminal justice. The Chowdhurys,
who were zamindars in most cases, had authority to deal with the complaints of debts, thefts and
petty quarrels and to impose paltry fines.

found in many of the terms above)The term means, in Persian, 'land owner.'
 \British Rule
The British colonists of India generally adopted the extant zamindari system of revenue collection in the
north of the country. They recognised the zamindars as landowners and in return required them to collect
taxes. Although some zamindars were present in the south, they were not so in large numbers and the
British administrators used the ryotwari (cultivator) method of collection, which involved selecting
certain farmers as being land owners and requiring them to remit their taxes directly

Zamindari Abolition Bill

First Amendment to the Indian Constitution

After India got its Independence and shaped the new Constitution, it found that
during the first fifteen months of its working, certain difficulties had been
brought to light by judicial decisions  specially in regard to fundamental rights.
Article 31 had also given rise to unanticipated difficulties in the
implementation of important measures of agrarian reform passed by the State
Legislatures and had been held up due to litigation. This resulted in the First
Amendment to the Indian Constitution The main objects of the Act were
accordingly, to amend Article 19 for the purpose indicated above and to insert
provisions fully securing the constitutional validity of zamindari abolition laws
in general and certain specified State Acts in particular.

The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948
(Madras Act XXVI of 1948). was implemented by the Madras Government
(which then included both Tamil Nadu and Andhra States). Our Jagir was
taken over by the Government on 3/1/1951 and subsequently Compensation
was determined .  It was woefully inadequate as the Jagir was then earning 2
lakhs per year and the determined sum was to be 12.5 times  or Rs 25 lakhs
instead of a mere 10 lakhs and was to be paid in 5 installments. The
Compensation and Interim payments (a type of interest payment for the delay
in paying a lumpsum compensation)  were paid over a period of several years
(the last 5th and Final Compensation was paid in November 1964). The
Entitlement was four-fifths to the principal landholder and his legitimate sons
and grand sons in equal proportion, with the balance one-fifth to all the
"maintenance holders". This meant that in our case Dad and the three of us get
one-fifth  each and all the other relations clubbed together will get one-fifth as
maintenance holders.

As Dad had never ever given our mother and us any love or affection and
treated us just as a  legitimate liability besides squandering his money on
races, his mistress and high living without any investments or savings,( by just
giving my mother a monthly maintenance allowance), we decided not to give
him the Power of Attorney to make the claims on our behalf. We decided to
stake our own claims and that is how we survived to make a life for us and our
loved mother a better one.
 Abolition of Intermediaries:
Intermediaries like Zamindars, Talukdars, Jagirs and Inams had dominated the agricultural sector
in India by the time the country attained independence. Quite naturally top priority was accorded
to the abolition of intermediary tenures. Congress had long ago been committed to the idea of the
removal of intermediaries between the peasant and State.

Soon after independence, measures for the abolition of the Zamindari system were adopted in
different states. The first Act to abolish intermediaries was passed in Madras in 1948. Since then,
state after state passed legislation abolishing Zamindari rights.

The Orissa Estates Abolition Act was passed in 1951. By 1955, the progress for the abolition of
intermediaries had been completed in almost all the states.

The abolition of intermediaries has both advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages:
(a) As a result of the abolition of intermediaries, about 2 crore tenants are estimated to have
come into direct contact with the State making them owners of land.

(b) The abolition of intermediaries has led to the end of a parasite class. More lands have been
brought to government possession for distribution to landless farmers.

(c) A considerable area of cultivable waste land and private forests belonging to the
intermediaries has been vested in the State.

Disadvantages:
(a) Abolition of intermediaries has resulted in a heavy burden on the state exchequer .The ex-
intermediaries have been given a compensation amounting to Rs. 670 crores in cash and in
bonds.

(b) It has led to large-scale eviction. Large-scale eviction, in turn, has given rise to several
problems – social, economic, administrative and legal.

(c) Instead of the abolition of the official land-lords, absentee land-lords as a class have emerged.
Hence the claim of the official documents pertaining to the abolition of intermediaries has no
logical foundation. The truth is that it has changed only its garb.

2. Tenancy Reforms:
Rural India witnesses three types of tenants. They are- (a) permanent or occupancy tenants, (b)
temporary or non-occupancy tenants, and (c) sub-tenants. The permanent tenants have the
permanent ownership right over the land. The rent for permanent tenants is fixed. The right to
cultivate land goes from generation to generation so long as they pay rent.
Hence land is inheritable. Because of such security of holding, the occupancy tenants make
improvement on their land. They are almost the owners of land, as they can mortgage or sell
their land.

There is hardly any difference between the peasant-proprietors or the owners of land and
occupancy tenants. The only difference is that while the owners pay the rent to the government,
the occupancy tenant pays it to the land-lord.

Temporary or non-occupancy tenants have no right to cultivate the land permanently. They can
be evicted from land on minor pretexts. In their case, rent is too high. It may be increased
arbitrarily. They do not make any improvement on the land for the fear of eviction.

Sub-tenants are the tenants who cultivate the land of the big land owners. They cultivate land
only on lease basis. The leases are rather oral. These can be changed at will. They pay rent either
in cash or in share of the product. In any case the rent is exorbitant.

There is no security of tenure. Their position is not only weak and insecure but also pitiable.
According to the National Sample Survey (8th round) 20 per cent of land is under the tenancy-at-
will and sub-tenancy.

It is not at all possible to put an end to the tenancy system. But it can be mended so as to be
acceptable from the social as well as economic point of view. The tenancy reforms in various
states have three important features, though the provisions are not similar in all cases.

These are- (i) security of tenure for the tenants, (ii) fixation of fair rent and (iii) grant of
ownership rights to certain types of tenants.

(i) Security of tenure:

Sir Arthur Young rightly observed: “Give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock and he
will turn it into a garden; give him a nine years lease of a garden and he converts it into a desert.”
This remark very pithily sums up the need for providing security of tenure. Security of tenure
creates interest among the cultivators for improving their land. Further, it helps in attaining two
basic objectives of land reforms namely increase in productivity and promotion of social justice.

To protect tenants from ejectment and to grant them permanent rights on lands, laws have been
enacted in most of the states. They have three essential features.

(a) Tenants cannot be evicted without any reason. They can be evicted only in accordance with
the laws.

(b) Land can be resumed by the landlord only on the ground of personal cultivation. But the
land-lord can resume the land only up to a maximum limit.

(c) The landlord should leave some area to the tenant for his own cultivation. The tenant in no
case should be made landless.
However, tenancy legislations in India are not uniform throughout the country. Each state has its
own legislation. In Orissa, a limit has been imposed on the landlords for resuming land for
personal cultivation.

(ii) Regulation of Rent:

In Pre-Independent India rents were high for obvious reasons. A number of factors such as
defective land tenure systems, pressure of population on land, absence of non-farm employment
opportunities and the apathetic and lukewarm attitude of the government towards the tenants’
interest were responsible for the continuous rise in rents. Fifty per cent of the total produce was
paid as rent.

In some areas the rent was as high as 70 per cent. In addition to such high rent, the tenant had to
provide certain free services to landlords. This was called Bethi and Beggary in Orissa. So at the
beginning of the First Plan, the Central Government insisted on the regulation of high rent by
State Governments. It was laid down that the rent to be paid to the landlord should not be more
than 20 to 25 per cent.