The Permanent Settlement and the Ryotwari settlement were two distinct systems of land revenue collection implemented by the British colonial administration in India during the 18th and 19th centuries. Despite sharing the common goal of establishing a stable revenue source for the colonial government and promoting agricultural productivity, these systems differed significantly in their features and outcomes.
Permanent Settlement
Features
Landownership Structure: The Permanent Settlement, also known as the Zamindari system, established zamindars (landlords) as permanent owners of land. These zamindars were granted hereditary rights to collect land revenue from peasant cultivators, known as ryots.
Revenue Collection: Under this system, zamindars were responsible for collecting fixed amounts of land revenue from ryots and paying a predetermined sum to the British government. The revenue assessment remained fixed, regardless of fluctuations in agricultural productivity.
Intermediary Role: The presence of zamindars as intermediaries between the state and the ryots created a hierarchical structure in landownership, with zamindars exerting significant economic and social power over the peasant cultivators.
Outcomes
Social Inequalities: The Permanent Settlement led to the consolidation of power and wealth in the hands of zamindars, exacerbating social inequalities in rural India. Absentee zamindars often exploited ryots by increasing land rents, leading to economic distress among the peasantry.
Revenue Stability: Despite its intention to provide a stable revenue source for the colonial government, the Permanent Settlement failed to achieve this objective. Zamindars frequently defaulted on payments, resulting in revenue arrears and administrative challenges.
Ryotwari Settlement
Features
Direct Revenue Assessment: Unlike the Permanent Settlement, the Ryotwari settlement directly assessed and collected land revenue from individual peasant cultivators, or ryots. The revenue assessment was based on the extent and quality of land cultivated by each ryot.
Absence of Intermediaries: In the Ryotwari system, there was no intermediary landlord involved in the revenue collection process. The state interacted directly with the ryots, eliminating the hierarchical structure present in the Permanent Settlement.
Flexible Revenue Assessment: The Ryotwari system allowed for periodic revisions of land revenue rates based on changes in agricultural productivity, ensuring a more flexible and responsive approach to revenue collection.
Outcomes
Fairer Revenue Collection: The Ryotwari settlement provided a relatively fairer system of revenue collection compared to the Permanent Settlement. Direct assessment and periodic revisions of revenue rates based on local conditions helped in mitigating economic exploitation of the peasantry.
Revenue Challenges: Despite its fairer approach, the Ryotwari settlement faced challenges in accurately assessing land revenue and ensuring timely payments from peasant cultivators. Revenue generation was often insufficient, particularly during periods of economic downturn.
Fulfillment of Objectives
Both the Permanent Settlement and the Ryotwari settlement had mixed results in fulfilling their objectives. The Permanent Settlement failed to provide a stable revenue source for the colonial government and exacerbated social inequalities. In contrast, the Ryotwari settlement achieved a relatively fairer system of revenue collection but struggled to generate sufficient revenue due to administrative challenges.
In conclusion, while both systems aimed to establish a stable revenue source and promote agricultural productivity in colonial India, they differed significantly in their features and outcomes. The Permanent Settlement entrenched social inequalities and failed to provide revenue stability, while the Ryotwari settlement offered a fairer approach to revenue collection but faced challenges in revenue generation.
