SARJANA

Vol. 34, No. 2, December 2019, pp. 26-34

THE COMPANY SARKAR’S EXPERIMENTATION WITH

LAND TENURE AND LAND REVENUE SYSTEMS RESULTING
IN THE INDIAN REBELLION OF 1857

Zaffar Iqbal Junejo1

Azharudin Mohamed Dali

Abstract
This article examines the historical context of British East India Company’s (commonly known
as Company Sarkar) introduced land tenure and revenue systems in British India. In addition,
it also unpacks the background of each tenure and revenue systems. Apart from it, the article
shows the effects upon the stakeholders – the Company or Company Sarkar, Landlords, and
Peasants. This article assesses land tenure systems such as Permanent Settlement, Ryotwari
Settlement, and the Mahalwari Settlement. The article also exposes how the Company over the
period through these settlement-controlled politics secured its economic interests in the form
of revenues and taxes. It also spotlights how these tenures passed the phases of trial and error
and caused major social and economic upheavals in the subcontinent. The Permanent
Settlement created a new class of landlords to replace the old class with the assumption that
investment in the land has to take place. However, Ryotwari Settlement enhanced the British
officers’ interaction with the rural population. The Mahalwari Settlement caused the peasants to
mortgage their lands to moneylenders, and the Company confiscated their lands due to
perpetual failure in paying the rent and arrears. This situation was one of the push factors for
the peasants to join the 1857 rebellion.

Keywords: The East India Company, Company Sarkar, Land Tenure, Permanent Settlement,
Ryotwari Settlement, Mahalwari Settlement, Land Revenue, Taxes, 1857 Rebellion

Introduction
In the history of Indian Land Settlement, Lord Robert Clive (1725-1774) played an important role. It was enforced with
the Allahabad Treaty. The treaty opened a new revenue channel for the Company. It systematically drained the Indian
wealth, and the treaty helped the Company to exploit the raw materials and pushed the peasants to cultivate cash
crops, which had demand in Europe (Wallerstein, 1988). Furthermore, Warren Hastings (1732- 1818) played an
important role in consolidating the British reign in India through the introduction of civil and criminal courts and
improved land revenue collection (Weitzman, 1929). In addition, it allowed the revenue collection rights to bidders
for a short time. Phillip Francis (1740-1818) argued that farming rights for a short period would not encourage the
cultivators to develop the land. Later, Lord Cornwallis (1738- 1805) succeeded Warren Hastings who established the
Permanent Settlement to collect the revenue. Phillips Francis and Cornwallis believed that the Permanent Settlement
was the only way to develop Indian agriculture. Thus tax collection rights and the property were assigned to Zamindars
(land lords) (Gidwani, 1992). Zamindars were recognized as owners of the land. Zamindars were given the rights to
 The Company Sarkar’s Experimentation with Land Tenure and Land Revenue Systems Resulting In The Indian Rebellion Of 1857 27

collect the rent from the peasants. Later, Arthur Wellesley (1769-1852) encouraged young officers of the Company to
come forward and play an instrumental role in designing the land revenue system of the newly inducted areas. One
of them was Thomas Munro (1761-1827) who supported the Ryotwari Settlement. Thomas Munro and the young
officers were supporters of the Scottish Enlightenment and English Enlightenment. Thomas Munro had proposed the
Ryotwari Settlement, which addressed the economic as well as political interests of the Company. He was of the view
that widening the base of the Ryot (individual cultivator) through Ryotwari Settlement would enhance agricultural
productivity and halt the corruption of Zamindars. In Ryotwari System, the ownership rights were handed over to the
peasants. British Government collected taxes directly from the peasants. Later, the government made some
amendments to frame it according to the political and economic interest of the Company. The Mahalwari Settlement
was the last land tenure system introduced by the Company, and its features were Record of Rights and Record of
Assets. The revenue departments’ Tapedars / Patwaris – ledger keepers or village accountants, prepared the records of
rights. The settlement's implementation happened through two types of land cultivations, one was the Residential
Cultivators, and another was Non-Residential Cultivators. However, the Mahals (each Mahal comprises one or more
villages by extension it is a district) were either heritable or transferable and ownership rights were vested with the
peasants subject to their defined arbitrary rules. In this system, the land was divided into Mahals. The village
committee was held responsible for collection of the taxes. The Mahals were under the supervision of Lamberdar- the
head of the village.

The Company Sarkar’s Control and Annexation of Land

There are diversified opinions about the status of land ownership patterns in ancient India (1500 BCE continued to
500 BCE). Land ownership belonged to the kingdom or state during that period. However, private ownership also
existed, and its mode was tenurial. Although ancient texts suggest the existence of private ownership of land in the
crown land system, Ranajit Guha (1982), inferred that private possession was not natural in ancient India. In addition,
land was given higher value in early India and was referred to as ‘Dharti Mata,’ Bhumi Mata,’ or ‘Bhumi Devi’ indicating
its sacredness. In the Vedic Age, land was treated as collective property, although individual rights were also
established (Singh and Singh, 1977). In those times, land was part of social life, and it contributed to the village-based
economy. However, generally, it was accepted that the king had the right to take away the property of the criminals.
On the other hand, there was consensus that the king has a responsibility to protect the property of bona fide people.
The Vedic rules instructed that one must be vigilant about the maintenance of land irrespective of its ownership
(Gopal, 1961). Later, in the post-Vedic era, the king was not the owner of the land. However, he had the right to take
a share of the produce.

The Muslim era came with a more systematic assessment of land; evaluation of the revenue was also
standardized. Sher Shah Suri started the systematic land revenue system, which was later developed by King Akbar
(Shariff, 1987). Meanwhile, Zamindars emerged as the rural elite and acted as intermediary between the tenants and
the state.

The British entered India as traders, while in 1613, the Company got a permit from the Mughal Emperor Jahangir
to open a factory at Surat (Rothermund, 2002). In 1757, the fall of Plassey opened the Indian doors for the company.
In 1765, the company controlled Bengal and Bihar, when it got the Diwani rights from the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam
II, which was granted to British East India Company to collect revenues. Various parts of undivided India became the
subjects of the Company at different times, and the nature of annexing was different. The first one was the Bengal
Presidency (Philips, 2013). However, later, the Company conquered or annexed other parts of India. The present day
Orrisa state came under the control of the Company in 1803. Likewise, in 1824, the British because of the ‘First Anglo-
Burmese War’ occupied Assam (later in 1826, the same was ceded to Britain by Burma). Prior to it in 1765, South
India’s four districts – Kistna, Godavari, Vizagapatam, Ganjam, and a part of Nellore were possessed as a grant from
the emperor (Banerjee and Iyer, 2005). However, its adjacent regions were conquered and made part of Madras
Presidency in 1792 and 1801. In addition, in 1803, some areas of Gujarat (the western parts) were conquered, and
Mahrattas defeated in 1817-1818 (Wilson, 2015). Resultantly, major areas came under the Bombay Presidency.
Furthermore, the Company annexed some of the areas in the Central Provinces and the consolidation continued until
1860. Correspondingly, in 1801-1803, significant parts of the North-West Provinces were gained from Nawab of Oudh.
28 Zaffar Iqbal Junejo & Azharudin Mohamed Dali

However, Oudh retained its independence until 1856 (Mishra, 2016). Soon after the defeat of Marathas in 1818, the
Company became a significant political power in India (Bowen, 2005). The British agents were empowered to set the
political agenda of the princely states, although the princes were at ease to manage the administration of their states
(Ramusack, 2004). The Company attempted to align it with British traditions and laws. Thus, it became imperative for
the Company to implement changes in land tenure, agrarian policies, and land allocation schemes. These policies and
practices brought significant changes in the agrarian relationship (Bayly, 2016). However, initially, a traditional land
assessment mechanism was carried out. Later, it was gradually modified with a design to collect maximum land
revenue to address the colonial expenditure. The first experiment was of the auction, and it happened in 1772, where
land revenue rights were allowed on a contractual basis. Over the period, the Company evolved these three land
tenure systems in various parts of India 1) Permanent Settlement, 2) Ryotwari Settlement, and 3) Mahalwari Settlement.

Discussion
The discussion on the Company Sarkar’s evolved land tenure systems was the British Empire’s major challenge in the
first quarter of the 19th century. These were 1) territorial expansion through war, 2) scaled expedition, 3) economic
crisis, and 4) loss in the opium trade. Therefore, all tenures and revenue collection oscillated in between the above
realities. Besides that, the Company officers’ role was also to do the topography mapping of the area and timing of
annexation was dependent on this too. Therefore, for more clarity and understanding the discussion in the article is
sub-headed as Permanent Settlement, Royatwari Settlement and Mahalwari Settlement.

Permanent Settlement
In the Mughal Empire of India, Zamindars collected the land revenue and taxes from the peasants. Out of the collected
revenue, the Nawab, as the representative of the emperor, kept 90%. The Company replaced the Nawab’s position,
especially of collecting the revenue; it happened due to Diwani rights (the rights to collect tax). The Company, in its
duration, tried various revenue collection methods and land tenure systems until the formation of the Amini
Commission in 1776. However, one of the commission’s recommendations was in favor of Permanent Settlement. Prior
to Alexander Dow and Henry Pattullo, Warren Hastings and Philip Francis also provided ideas and plans for the
tenure systems. Warren Hastings proposed that taxes on agricultural lands should be auctioned and allotted to the
top bidder. He fixed the auction period for five years (Travers, 2004) and changed the old system with a new tax
collection model. He replaced hundreds of small revenue collection officials, and it included Zamindars and company
servants with the centrally appointed officials. Resultantly, this attempt ended the Zamindars’ relationship with the
peasants and negatively affected their functions. The most critical functions were keeping order in the villages,
mediating disputes, gathering revenue collections, and extending money at the time of sowing and other social needs.
The erosion of the traditional support base caused the peasants to abandone farming and roam around for their
livelihood. This situation brought negative consequences. People started migrating in search of livelihoods, which
reduced agricultural production, and it limited the Company’s tax collection.

Cornwallis landed at Madras on 22 August 1786. He soon noticed corruption and inefficiency among the
Company staff. Therefore, he set a priority to stop the inefficiency, reduce the cost, and eradicate the corruption.
However, his most debated contribution is the code and settlement, which is called the Cornwallis Code and the
Permanent Settlement. He was of the view that the Company’s trade is associated with flourishing agriculture (Bayly,
2016). The code had roots in the British Enlightenment that promoted contractual governance. The Permanent
Settlement replaced the traditional connection between Zamindars and Ryots into a contractual relationship.

Consequently, Zamindars became a hereditary landed class, and the Company law protected the Ryots from
Zamindars’ exploitation. Zamindars continued to pay 90% taxes to the Company, and the remaining portion was
meager to sustain them. Over the period, the people who were able to pay the fixed amount joined the system.
However, the ground realities were rather different and not conducive to Permanent Settlement. Therefore, no
investment was made in land development, and the reality proved against the envisioned plan. The bidders’ interest
remained focused on protecting their investments instead of investing in the development of the land. Thus, revenue
declined, which the revenue collectors did not expected. However, Philip Francis had objected to the non-political role
 The Company Sarkar’s Experimentation with Land Tenure and Land Revenue Systems Resulting In The Indian Rebellion Of 1857 29

of Zamindars. Because of that internal discussion among the Company officials, a changed version of Permanent
Settlement came into in effect in 1775. It was an attempt to keep the balance between the interests of the Company and
Zamindars.

Interestingly, Alexander Dow and Henry Pattullo had claimed that the Permanent Settlement idea also came
into their minds, while they experienced the erratic climate conditions (Guha, 1982). Alexander Dow was critical of
Diwani. He was of the view that it has taken property rights from Zamindars. Therefore, Zamindars are not motivated
to invest in the land. Although the expectation was that Permanent Settlement has to shape traditional Zamindari into
‘Improving Landlords’- at that time, there was no standard definition of the improved landlords. However, the
Company also assumed that Zamindars had to improve the land and cultivate more land. Resultantly, the investment
in land has to generate capital (Guha, 1982). Surprisingly, Permanent Settlement disappointed the officials in its
inability in creating a political group and a secure revenue line (Islam, 1979). Resultantly, three types of people took
up Zamindari Institution, 1) people engaged in trade and commerce, 2) the government officials, and 3) dependents or
associates of the Zamindari Institution. However, Calcutta’s Bania took up the significant chunks of lands. They were
financiers or moneylenders of the Zamindari Institutions. The Permanent Settlement also introduced the absentee
landlords, where Zamindars delegated some of their responsibilities to other persons, and in return, they could keep a
fixed percentage as the commission. This arrangement also damaged the original idea of the Permanent Settlement.

The immediate impact of Permanent Settlement proved drastic. One of the lead factors was the inflexibility of
the officers to grant relaxation in taxes at times of natural disasters. Thus, many Zamindars became indebted, and it
caused auctioning of their lands. The Company officers, who understood that these lands are under-valued and may
be profitable, purchased most of the land. Ranajit Guna (Guha, 1982) argue that Permanent Settlement caused: 1) the
lands’ commercialization, 2) a new class of Zamindari emerged. The main features of the Zamindari Settlement were a)
alienable, b) rentable, and c) heritable land. In addition, the Permanent Settlement created two types of tenants a)
Tenants at will, and b) Occupancy Tenants. The Company thought that the new Zamindari class would be helpful to
generate revenue and act as a mediator between the Company and Ryots. However, Zamindars failed to meet the
pressure to grow more cash crops. Hence, peasant revolts occurred, and less revenue was generated. Therefore, the
government stopped the replication of the Permanent Settlement system to other areas.

Ryotwari System
The Treaty of Seringapatam signed on 17th March 1792 (Galbraith, 1960), at the end of the ‘Third Anglo-Mysore War,’
resulted in the Company getting some territories. However, the company immediately resolved that Salem and
Baramahal would be priority areas. Captain Alexander Read was made responsible for these areas. He chose Captain
Thomas Munro, Graham, and Macleod to assist him in the Central District (Dharmapuri), Northern Division
(Krishnagiri), and Southern Division (Salem). Captain Alexander Read and his team carried out a detailed study of
the land tenures of the new areas. Their systemic observations of the field led to the development of the Ryotwari
Settlement system. The team went through a tiring process of inquiry about local types of tenures and methods of
cultivation and postulated on different revenue collection methods, which have to be beneficial for the Royts (ordinary
people) and the Company. However, the officials of the Company resolved that Settlement should be suitable to both
parties and concluded that more division of land into small- portions would be beneficial (Frew, 2017). The Ryotwari
Settlement changed the position of the Company. It became the proprietor and ascertained the rights of the individual
who had paid even a single penny (Siddiqui, 2015). The Ryotwari Settlement calculated the revenue through the
following steps: 1) the average produce of a single field in a moderate season, 2) average produce in bad, and average
seasons, 3) converted the average into money, and 4) divided the money in agreed proportions. However, in 1802,
through Regulation Number 25, the Revenue Board proposed the Zamindari type Permanent Settlement in Salem and
Baramahal (Islam, 1979). Afterward, in a short period of two years, the southern part of Baramahal was sold out.
Alexander Read resigned after the 4th War of Mysore, and Thomas Munro was made in charge of Canara and the later
ceded districts. The Canara was a vast area with rugged and wild terrain located at the western coastal line of India.
In addition to that, most challenging was its steamy and damp climate and extended rainy season. However, Munro
found that the native's revenue system was like the Ryotwari System. He examined it and found that there was no
fixed revenue collection system in the natives’ system; instead, it was based on different calculations and estimations.
He concluded from the earlier records that the Ryotwari Settlement was the original method of South India. However,
the weather and non-cooperation of Ryot and limited authority was the hurdles in implementing this revenue
30 Zaffar Iqbal Junejo & Azharudin Mohamed Dali

collection system. He requested a transfer. Finally, it happened on the 12th October 1800, Nizam of Hyderabad signed
a treaty with the Company about the Tungabhadra river and the ceded district (Briggs, 1861). Thomas Munro was
selected for the new task; thus, his joining gave a new life to the Ryotwari Settlement. He took these initial steps: 1)
village assessment, 2) estimation of the production, and 3) cultivators’ agreement to pay the amount. This system
known as the Mouzawar system was experimented in 1800. The system took the following steps 1) calculate the total
sum based on the estimated revenue of the ceded Districts, 2) allocate the first sum to each division/area, 3) distribute
the received amount among the villages, 4) all cultivators were made responsible for paying the fixed amount.
However, the revenue collectors marked the year 1788-89 as the standard for the calculation of the revenue amount
although, this happened in situations of fraud or calamity. They revised the rent below the standard, and the year
1799-1800 was made the standard.

Thomas Munro carried out his Ryotwari survey until 1806. He came across two million farmers and collected
considerable revenue (Habib, 1975). Revenue collection during this time stabilized (Washbrook, 2004). In addition,
timely rains also supported good yields. Still, Ryotwari Settlement was meandering an order that came from the
‘Supreme Government of India’ to the Madras government to introduce the ‘Triennial Village Lease,’ it was an initial
version of Permanent Settlement (Raju, 1941). Although, Munro pleaded that the poverty, non-existence of wealthy
farmers, thin and scattered population, and low volume of trade were adverse factors for the introduction of this
system. He added that the low number of coins, frequent mobility of the people from one village to another village
were not supportive factors for the introduction of the ‘Triennial Village Lease.’ Lord William Bentinck fully
understood the case pleaded by Munro, and he supported the idea. Lord William Bentinck went back to England in
1807, and in the same year, Thomas Munro also traveled to England. George Barlow replaced William Bentinck, and
the later had a particular bias for Permanent Settlement. On the other hand, England was demanding to collect the
funds to invest in the Company.

At that time, Cornwallis’ introduced a judicial system that was already in practice in Madras, and it supported
Permanent Settlement. Consequently, Munro’s Ryotwari Settlement got less importance (Raju, 1941). Ryotwari
Settlement was in trial phases in between 1799 and 1809 years, and it was considered successful (Seshan, 1988).
However, the Hodgson report convinced the authorities in Madras and England to prefer the ‘Periodic Village Lease
System’ instead of Munro’s introduced system. It is a fact that Ryotwari Settlement’s success needed specific
qualifications of the officers, such as active, superintendence authority, and individual contacts with the locals. All
these tasks needed knowledge of the local language, considerate personality, and distilled understanding of the
environment. Ryotwari Settlement became successful because it suited the general conditions of the Presidency, and
Munro’s role, to some extent, was responsible for its success (Seshan, 1991). One must also look at how Munro’s
personality and ideological believes played a role in the success of Ryotwari Settlement. However, Munro’s work style
was the outcome of Victorian ethics, and he believed in peoples’ welfare. There were views that the Ryotwari
Settlement partially succeeded (Washbrook, 2004). Although, there was a consensus that the Ryotwari Settlement was
beneficial for the Zamindars as well for the Company.

The Ryotwari Settlement enabled the collectors to gather revenue directly from Ryots. Under the system, the
collection of land taxes and rents happened at the same time. However, land revenue was imposed directly on the
Ryot. However, the Zamindars from Madras, Bombay and Assam, did not have a position to act as an intermediary
between the farmers and the government. Ryotwari Settlement had four points. The first one was that each landholder
was accepted as a proprietor until he paid the rent. The second point stated he had the authority to sublet the property,
sell it, mortgage it, or transfer it. The third aspect was that there would be no rejection for the above if he had paid the
taxes/rent.

However, the fourth point stated that he had the option to increase or reduce the holding or abandon it (Metcalf,
1962). Furthermore, there was also an option of total or partial granting of remission in the unforeseen and unfavorable
years. Later, this system reached Mumbai, under the direction of Thomas Reid. In fact, Munro gradually lowered the
rent from half to one third of the total produce. The Ryotwari Settlement provided an opportunity for British officers
to establish contact with the individuals. Generally, features of this settlement refer to David Ricardo’s practical ideas
(Rothermund, 1969), who suggested that there should be a systematic foundation for the land revenue system. One of
the drastic features of this system was the strictness regarding the revenue collection, and it was collected even in
 The Company Sarkar’s Experimentation with Land Tenure and Land Revenue Systems Resulting In The Indian Rebellion Of 1857 31

times of famine and drought (Rao, 2000). In addition to that, the government insisted that cultivators must pay the
revenue in cash. Therefore, farmers switched from food crops to cash crops like cotton. Lastly, at the end of the
American civil war, cotton export declined, but the government retained the same revenue rates. Thus, the situation
pushed the farmers to get loans from the moneylenders and became perpetual defaulters, and it caused the transfers
of their lands to the moneylenders (Hebert, 1987).

Mahalwari Settlement
In the Mahalwari Settlement, the ‘Mahals’ or ‘villages’ where the community jointly owned the villages or groups of
villages. Thus, villages became the collective farmers or co-sharers. Thus, all of them collectively were bound to pay
land revenue. The Company introduced Mahalwari Settlement in vast areas of North-Western Provinces (NWP),
where traditional Bhai Chara (fraternity) assisted the government in implementing this revenue collection mechanism
and they were the government representatives known as the Settlement Officers, and they were made responsible for
calculating the rent while discussing it with the Lambardar (village heads). This system had different names in various
provinces. It was called Mauzawari in Utter Pradesh (UP), Malguzari in the Central Province (CP), and Mahali in
undivided Punjab. The significant characteristics of Mahalwari Settlement, irrespective of its operative areas, were: 1)
periodical revision of the rent, 2) Khasra Girdwari (legal revenue department) and Shijra (family tree of owners) became
the assessment tools and standards. The government introduced Mahalwari Settlement in the fertile pockets of British
India. Until 1857, and the Mahalwari Settlement extended to the North-Western Provinces. The topography of the area
included some of the tallest mountains, separated by a range of valleys having alluvial plains. The consolidation of
Company rules in these areas, assured regular revenue, because most of the tracks were far away from the threats of
famines, due to irrigation works – tanks, ponds, and canals.

Holt Mackenzie was the one who initiated the idea of Mahalwari Settlement in the Minutes of 1st July 1819 (in
Stokes, 1975). His suggestions became part of the Regulation VII (of 1822). Based on those suggestions, the cultivator
had to pay 90% of the rental value (Mann, 1995). The settlement gained maturity through Regulation IX (of 1833), and
in 1844 James Thomason made it fully-fledged. It was revised and fixed to 66%. The settlement duration extended to
20 or 30 years. Later, the 66% rent was lowered to 50 %, and it happened under Saharanpur rules (of 1855) by the then
Governor-General Lord Dalhousie. However, the settlement did not make any progress, due to two factors: 1) the
revenue demand was excessive; 2) revenue collection method was rigid.

In addition to that, one disadvantage was the collective engagement rather than individuals’ association with
the Company or Government. Later, William Bentinck concluded that the Regulation, 1822 pushed the cultivators into
misery. However, after some deliberations, the Regulation IX of 1833 was passed with some flexible terms and
conditions. The Mahalwari Settlement stated that the basic unit was a village. The villages were equally responsible for
the tax. The other points were that each farmer was the taxpayer as well as the guarantor of the other villagers. The
right to mortgage or sell his property was with the villager. The Lambardar had to collect the tax and hand it over to
the British officials. Besides that, periodical revision of the tax rates might take place. However, the ownership nature,
especially the transfer of ownership, caused a shift in the land ownership from father to sons, which led to the
productive pieces of land being fragmented. Thus, the system led to the land becoming less productive.

On the other hand, the cash nature of the revenue pushed the cultivators to borrow money from the
moneylenders. The cultivator’s situation became worst due to the failure of the crops and natural calamities. Thus, the
permanent feature that supported this system was loans. Resultantly, the moneylenders took over more land
compared to the Zamindars. Consequently, the Company became attentive to assure fixed and regular revenue.

The Mahalwari Settlement made the Indian land revenue system as a technical subject. The promoters of this
settlement claimed that it is one of the best land revenue systems. They argued that it contains some of the best features
of the Ryotwari Settlement and Zamindari Settlement systems. However, at the village level, it reduced the living
standard of the peasants. Mahalwari Settlement strengthened proprietary rights and supported the claims of Taluqdars
in the area (Ray, 1996). The induction of Lambardari paved the way for corruption. It pushed the peasants into economic
slavery. On the other hand, Mahalwari Settlement failed to prove as a universal system to replace all land settlements
in India. Its operation was dependent on the knowledge of Patwaris (a government official who keeps records
32 Zaffar Iqbal Junejo & Azharudin Mohamed Dali

regarding the ownership of land), who always aligned the facts according to their priorities. However, the Mahalwari
Settlement enhanced the commercialization of agriculture, and finally, the Indian trade ratio improved. The Mahalwari
Settlement also caused female infanticide to increase in the North-Western Provinces. At that time, the revenue
collectors applied coercive methods to collect revenue (Marx, 1857). The majority of the collectors became corrupt.
Thus, the economic burden doubled on the peasants (Ray, 1996).

The British officials managed these land tenures. However, the sole purpose of all these tenure systems was to
generate and collect revenues, even around 1852 British India gained 19,800,000 pounds from tax revenues. In 1858-
59, British India’s land tax collection was Rs 18.12 corers. The harsh and fixed revenue methods led to the peasant
rebellion of 1857 (Habib, 1998). Other factors for the rebellion also known as the 1857 mutiny were the fluctuating
food prices and the confiscation of lands. Thus, Mahalwari's way of revenue collection played the catalytic role in the
1857 rebellion, and the most volatile areas were the areas where Mahalwari Settlement was in operation.

Interestingly, popular leadership also came from the regions of Mahalwari Settlement. Mukherjee (2002) called
the rebellion of 1857 as a popular resistance in peasant clothes. In addition, it is also known as a collective response
against collective suffering (Roy, 1994). The rebellion of 1857 failed in its primary objective. However, it set a
movement initiated by the natives and conditioned the British Empire to look at the Indian matters differently.
Therefore, the British Empire felt the shock and decided to take responsibility for some of its initiatives in revenue
collection that led to the misery of the peasants. Consequently, in the passing of the Government of India Act of 1858,
the Company lost all its administrative powers, possessions, and army. Thus, all of these powers came under the
Crown.

Conclusion
The Company Sarkar’s introduced land revenue systems were not similarly applied throughout India, nor were
standard and unified procedures followed. However, the motive behind all land tenure system was to ensure a secure
and sustained collection of revenue. In all areas and in all conditions, consistent efforts improved the land revenue
collection and the administration of land for the Company. More than one land revenue system was experimented
with. However, any land tenure model at the initial stage needed ideologues and supporters in England as well as in
Calcutta, Madras, and Delhi. Apart from it, there were some common factors associated with these land tenure
systems. The commonalities among them were that each land tenure had an association with expansion of British area
(through either annexure, or war or treaty with the native states). The success of all land tenure systems had a
reciprocal link with the efficiency of the British revenue collectors. However, the topography played an important role
in revenue generation, because each region had its own climate zone, especially the monsoon cycle. The uneven
development in British-controlled areas also played a part in the failure of the implementation of the varied land
revenue systems. In terms of culture, these areas were not monolithic; each land tenure was not disaster-prone.
However, all land tenures were dependent on the intermediate groups of locals. Furthermore, support from England-
Delhi-Presidencies was crucial for success. Thus, many paper-pushing efforts consumed much time to complete the
triangulation. The most urgent demand was that the tenures have to be compatible with economic interests and
political expectations of the Company, and the Crown, Landlords, Peasantry, and the need for Indian agriculture to
meet the expectation of Industrial England. However, the primary motive of all these land tenure models was to secure
regular revenue for the Company. The revenue collected from the land tax contributed to the British economy in the
following ways: formed the primary capital base, and acted as a mover of wealth. However, the Company’s leading
source of revenue was trade, which was the primary source that drained the wealth of India to England. These land
tenure systems created massive stratification, which led to the contradictions observed in the social, political, and
cultural lives of the people. Finally, the failure of the land tenure systems, and the tax collection methods, which was
discriminately implemented, led to the peasant rebellion of 1857. Because of the Company’s failure India became the
subject of the Crown and all rights of the Company Sarkar was removed. It also led to the introduction of a series of
reforms in agriculture and land administration. However, until now the land-related legislation practiced in India,
Pakistan, and Bangladesh are refined versions of The East India Company’s land legislation introduced in the
undivided India.
 The Company Sarkar’s Experimentation with Land Tenure and Land Revenue Systems Resulting In The Indian Rebellion Of 1857 33

Endnotes

1
Department of History, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Email(s): [email protected],
[email protected]

References
Banerjee, A. & Iyer, L. 2005. History, Institutions, and Economic Performance: The Legacy of Colonial Land Tenure
Systems in India. American Economic Review, 95(4): 1190-1213.
Bayly, C. A. 2016. Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World 1780-1830. London: Routledge.
Bowen, H. V. 2005. The Business of Empire: The East India Company and Imperial Britain, 1756–1833. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Briggs, H. G. 1861. The Nizam: His History and Relations with the British Government. Hyderabad: B. Quaritch.
Dutt, R. C. 2013. The Economic History of India under Early British Rule: From the Rise of the British Power in 1757 to the
Accession of Queen Victoria in 1837. London: Routledge.
Frew, J. 2017. Scots and the Imposition of Improvement in South India. The Scottish Experience in Asia, c. 1700 to the
Present. New York: Springer.
Galbraith, J. S. 1960. The “Turbulent Frontier” as a Factor in British Expansion. Comparative Studies in Society and
History, 2 (2): 150-168.
Gidwani, V. K. 1992. 'Waste' and the Permanent Settlement in Bengal. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 27 (4): 39-46
Gopal, L. 1961. Ownership of Agricultural Land in Ancient India. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient,
4 (3): 240-263.
Guha, R. 1982. A Rule of Property for Bengal: An Essay on the Idea of Permanent Settlement. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan.
Habib, I. 1975. Colonialization of the Indian Economy, 1757-1900. Social Scientist, Volume 3 (8): 23-53
Habib, I. 1998. The Coming of 1857. Social Scientist, Vol. 26 (1/4): 6-15
Hebert, J. R. 1987. The Social Ecology of Famine in British India: Lessons for Africa in the 1980s? Ecology of Food and
Nutrition, 20 (2): 97-107.
Iftikhar, R. 2013. Historical Fallacies: Shah Jahan's Reign: Period of Golden Age. South Asian Studies, Vol. 28 (2): 361-
367
Islam, S. 1979. The Permanent Settlement in Bengal: A Study of Its Operation, 1790-1819. Dacca: Bangla Academy.
Mann, M. 1995. A Permanent Settlement for the Ceded and Conquered Provinces: Revenue Administration in North
India, 1801-1833. The Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 32(2): 245-269.
Marx, K. 1857. Investigation of Tortures in India. New York Daily Tribune, 17 September.
Metcalf, T. R. 1962. The Struggle over Land Tenure in India, 1860–1868. The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 21(3): 295-307.
Mishra, R. K. 2016. History and Context of Public Administration in India. In Public Administration in South Asia,
London. London: Routledge. (pp. 52-73).
Mukherjee, R. 2002. Awadh in Revolt, 1857-1858: A Study of Popular Resistance. Cambridge: Anthem Press.
Mukherjee, R. & Mukherjee, R. 1974. Rise and Fall East India. New York: NYU Press.
Philips, C. H. 2013. The East India Company 1784-1834. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Raju, A. S. 1941. Economic Conditions in the Madras Presidency, 1800-1850. Madras: University of Madras,
Ramusack, B. N. 2004. The New Cambridge History of India Vol III, Part IV, The Indian Princes and their States. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rao, G. 2000. Review of Famines and Droughts: Survival Strategies. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55 (4): 703.
Ray, S. K. 1996. Land System and its Reforms in India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51 (1): 220-237.
Rothermund, D. 1969. Government, Landlord and Tenant in India, 1875–1900. The Indian Economic & Social History
Review, 6 (4): 351-367.
Rothermund, D. 2002. An Economic History of India. New York: Routledge.
Roy, T. 1994. The Politics of a Popular Uprising: Bundelkhand in 1857. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Seshan, K. Permanent Settlement: The Madras Way. In Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, (Vol. 49, Pp. 339-
342). Indian History Congress.
34 Zaffar Iqbal Junejo & Azharudin Mohamed Dali

Seshan, K. 1991. Thomas Munro and the Impact of His Work. Reviewed Work Thomas Munro: The Origins of the
Colonial State and his Vision of Empire By Burton Stein. Social Scientist, Vol. 19 (1/2): 107-109
Shariff, I. 1987. Agricultural Development and Land Tenure in India. Land Use Policy, 4 (3): 321-330.
Siddiqui, K. 2015. Agrarian Crisis and Transformation in India. Journal Of Economics and Political Economy, 2 (1):3-22
Singh, U. S., & Singh, U. S. 1977. Early British Measures To Promote Economic Growth In Lower Burma. In Proceedings of
the Indian History Congress (Vol. 38, pp. 603-609). Indian History Congress.
Stokes, E. 1975. Agrarian Society and the Pax Britannica in Northern India in the Early Nineteenth Century. Modern
Asian Studies, 9 (4): 505-528.
Travers, T. R. 2004. ‘The Real Value of the Lands’: The Nawabs, The British and The Land Tax in Eighteenth-Century
Bengal. Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 38(3): 517-558.
Wallerstein, I. 1988. The Great Expansion: The Incorporation of Vast New Zones into the Capitalist World Economy
(C. 1750-1850). Studies In History, Vol.4(1-2): 85-156.
Washbrook, D. 2004. South India 1770–1840: The Colonial Transition. Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 38(3): 479-516.
Weitzman, S. 1929. Warren Hastings and Philip Francis. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Wilson, N. H. (2015). “A State in Disguise of a Merchant?” The English East India Company as a Strategic Action Field,
ca. 1763–1834. In Chartering Capitalism: Organizing Markets, States, and Publics (pp. 257-285). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.