Demerits of the Permanent Settlement
This system’s primary flaw was that it was dependent on the Zamindars’ character for efficiency. The interests of the farmers and the land were well taken care of if they were good. They would make land improvements that would be advantageous to all parties involved. However, if the landowners were terrible, they would have been careless about the situation of the farmers and the state of the land.
This led to the emergence of an upper aristocratic class of hereditary landlords who lived opulent and extravagant lives in general. The Zamindars generally supported the British government and did so even during the war for independence. Exceptions did exist.
Land revenue was established arbitrarily and the assessment of the land was improper. In other words, it was expected that both productive and unproductive land would generate income at the same pace. Farmers now had to work on unproductive land, which was a strain. Additionally, there was a revenue loss for the government in the case of productive land. Numerous Zamindars defaulted due to the high revenue rates. This system eventually turned out to have terrible consequences. The British government issued a warning in 1811 against forcing a permanent settlement without conducting an accurate land survey.
Permanent Settlement- Meaning, Features and Impact
The Permanent Settlement in Bengal was brought up with the effect of the East India Company, which was headed by Lord Cornwallis in 1793, who was the then Governor-General. It was an agreement that was signed between the company and also zamindar for the fixation of land revenue. It was first enacted in Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha, and was later followed by the northern Madras Presidency and also a district of Varanasi.
Permanent Settlement
Contact Us