Permanent Settlement, 1793
A self-learning flipbook on Cornwallis, zamindars, land revenue and the consequences for cultivators.
What was the Permanent Settlement?
The Permanent Settlement was a land-revenue arrangement introduced in Bengal in 1793 under Lord Cornwallis. It fixed the land revenue demand payable to the East India Company permanently and made zamindars responsible for paying that demand.
Who?
Lord Cornwallis and the East India Company administration.
When?
1793 — the settlement was made permanent.
Where?
Bengal was the central area associated with the settlement; it was also applied in other territories, including Bihar.
Core idea
Fix the government’s revenue demand permanently and collect it through zamindars.
Why introduce a new revenue arrangement?
The Company needed a regular and dependable source of revenue to finance its administration and other expenses. Revenue collection also raised questions about who should be recognised as the intermediary between the colonial state and the cultivator.
Revenue certainty
A permanently fixed government demand offered predictability for the colonial administration.
Intermediary collection
Zamindars were used to collect revenue and transfer the prescribed amount to the Company.
Administrative objective
The Company sought a workable revenue structure that could be administered through recognised local landholders.
Expected investment
The expectation was that secure landholding and predictable obligations would encourage improvement of agricultural land.
How did it work?
Worked the land
Collected rent
Received revenue
- The Company fixed the revenue demand payable by the zamindar permanently.
- Zamindars were responsible for collecting rents from cultivators and paying the government’s demand.
- The zamindar’s ability to retain a surplus depended on collections and the obligations imposed by the settlement.
- If a zamindar failed to pay the required revenue, the estate could be sold under the revenue-sale arrangements.
Five features to remember
1. Permanent demand
The Company’s land-revenue demand from the zamindar was fixed permanently.
2. Zamindar intermediary
The zamindar was responsible for paying the assessed government revenue.
3. Rent collection
Zamindars collected rent from cultivators; cultivator rents were not themselves fixed permanently by this settlement.
4. Payment obligation
Failure to meet revenue obligations could put the estate at risk of sale.
5. Investment expectation
Secure interests in land were expected to encourage zamindars to improve agricultural productivity, but this expectation was not consistently realised.
Exam distinction
Permanent revenue demand ≠ permanently fixed cultivator rent.
Who gained power, and who bore the burden?
| Group | Position under the arrangement | Key issue |
|---|---|---|
| East India Company | Received the permanently fixed revenue demand. | Revenue certainty, but no automatic increase in the fixed demand as agricultural output or prices rose. |
| Zamindars | Collected rent and were responsible for paying government revenue. | Could face estate sale for revenue default; many exercised greater power over tenants. |
| Cultivators | Continued cultivating land and paying rent. | Could face high rents, illegal dues, eviction and insecurity of tenure. |
| Moneylenders | Provided credit to cultivators who struggled to meet payments. | Debt could deepen dependence and lead to distress sales of produce or loss of land. |
Zamindars: security with obligations
The settlement recognised zamindars as key revenue intermediaries and gave them a stronger position in agrarian relations. However, permanent assessment did not remove the risk of losing an estate if the required payment was not made.
Potential advantages
- Predictability in the government’s revenue demand.
- Scope to retain surplus when collections exceeded the fixed government demand and other costs.
- Greater authority in relations with cultivators.
Pressures and outcomes
- Revenue default could lead to the sale of an estate.
- Some older zamindars lost estates; new moneyed groups acquired land.
- Sub-infeudation added further intermediaries between cultivators and the state.
Spectrum notes that by 1815, half of the total land in Bengal had passed into the hands of new owners, including merchants, moneylenders and other moneyed classes living in towns.
The peasant’s position
The cultivator did not receive the same protection as the permanently fixed government revenue demand. In many cases, zamindars sought to maximise rent collections, while tenants experienced insecurity and coercive practices.
- Evictions: cultivators could be removed from land when zamindars sought to increase collections or reorganise holdings.
- Illegal dues: demands beyond the recognised obligations increased the cultivator’s burden.
- Begar: forced or unpaid labour could be exacted from peasants.
- Loss of traditional rights: changing land relations and the transferability of land increased insecurity for tenants.
- Limited investment: cultivators often lacked the resources and security needed to improve the land.
How could revenue pressure lead to landlessness?
Spectrum describes the cultivator as bearing a combined burden from the government, zamindar and moneylender. Moneylenders could also be grain merchants and might require the farmer to sell produce at low prices to clear debts.
Why did the expected agricultural improvement fall short?
Weak investment incentives
Where zamindars prioritised rent collection, they might have little incentive to invest in improving productivity, especially when they lacked secure ties to the village economy.
Limited cultivator resources
High payments and debt left cultivators with little capital to invest in better methods or agricultural improvements.
More intermediaries
Sub-infeudation could fragment control and increase the number of people claiming payments from the cultivator.
Absentee landlordism
Some landowners lived away from their estates, further weakening direct relationships between landlords and village life.
Objectives versus outcomes
| Expected or intended outcome | Observed problem |
|---|---|
| Stable and predictable government revenue | The permanently fixed demand limited the government’s ability to capture increases in agricultural revenue through reassessment. |
| Encourage investment by secure landholders | Many zamindars prioritised rent collection; agricultural improvement remained limited. |
| Establish an effective intermediary structure | Estate sales and sub-infeudation could create new owners and additional intermediaries. |
| Improve the organisation of agrarian revenue | Cultivators could face rent pressure, illegal dues, eviction and debt. |
Timeline and memory check
Company obtained the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, strengthening its role in revenue collection.
Lord Cornwallis served as Governor-General.
Permanent Settlement of Bengal introduced under Cornwallis.
Spectrum notes that half of Bengal’s land had passed into new hands, including merchants and moneylenders living in towns.
Try recalling these without looking back
1. Who introduced the Permanent Settlement, and when?
2. What was permanently fixed?
3. Name two consequences for cultivators.
Test your understanding
Choose one option for each question. Submit each answer to see the explanation before moving on.
Your result
Answer the questions and check each response to see your score.
