no edit summary
imported>Grapple X mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Use Indian English|date=February 2017}} | {{Use Indian English|date=February 2017}} | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2017}} | {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2017}} | ||
{{short description|Land revenue system in British India}} | {{short description|Land revenue system in British India}}The '''ryotwari''' system was a land revenue system in [[Company rule in India|British India]] which was introduced by [[Sir Thomas Munro, 1st Baronet|Sir Thomas Munro]] allowed the government to deal directly with the cultivator ('ryot') for revenue collection and gave the peasant freedom to cede or acquire new land for cultivation.Ryotwari System somewhere in mid and changes in the position <ref>{{Citation|chapter=Ryotwari system |title=Encyclopaedia Britannica |chapter-url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/ryotwari-system}}</ref>{{sfn|Harnetty|1966|pp=361–362}} | ||
The ''' | |||
== Description == | == Description == | ||
This system was in operation for nearly 5 years and had many features of revenue system of the Mughals. It was instituted in some parts of British India, one of the three main systems used to collect revenues from the cultivators of agricultural land. These taxes included undifferentiated land revenue and rents, collected simultaneously. Where the land revenue was imposed directly on the [[ryot]]s (the individual cultivators who actually worked the land) the system of assessment was known as '''ryotwari'''. Where the land revenue was imposed indirectly—through agreements made with [[Zamindar]]s -- the system of assessment was known as zamindari. In [[Bombay]], [[Madras]], [[Assam]] and [[Burma]] the [[Zamindar]] usually did not have a position as a middleman between the [[government]] and the farmer. | This system was in operation for nearly 5 years and had many features of revenue system of the Mughals. It was instituted in some parts of British India, one of the three main systems used to collect revenues from the cultivators of agricultural land. These taxes included undifferentiated land revenue and rents, collected simultaneously. Where the land revenue was imposed directly on the [[ryot]]s (the individual cultivators who actually worked the land) the system of assessment was known as '''ryotwari'''. Where the land revenue was imposed indirectly—through agreements made with [[Zamindar]]s -- the system of assessment was known as zamindari. In [[Bombay]], [[Madras]], [[Assam]] and [[Burma]] the [[Zamindar]] usually did not have a position as a middleman between the [[government]] and the farmer. | ||
An official report by [[John Stuart Mill]], who was working for the [[ | An official report by [[John Stuart Mill]], who was working for the [[East India Company]] in 1857, explained the Ryotwari land tenure system as follows: | ||
{{quote|Under the Ryotwari System every registered holder of land is recognised as its proprietor, and pays direct to Government. He is at liberty to sublet his property, or to transfer it by gift, sale, or mortgage. He cannot be ejected by Government so long as he pays the fixed assessment, and has the option annually of increasing or diminishing his holding, or of entirely abandoning it. In unfavourable seasons remissions of assessment are granted for entire or partial loss of produce. The assessment is fixed in money, and does not vary from year to year, in those cases where water is drawn from a Government source of irrigation to convert dry land into wet, or into two-crop land, when an extra rent is paid to Government for the water so appropriated; nor is any addition made to the assessment for improvements effected at the Ryot's own expense. The Ryot under this system is virtually a Proprietor on a simple and perfect title, and has all the benefits of a perpetual lease without its responsibilities, in as much as he can at any time throw up his lands, but cannot be ejected so long as he pays his dues; he receives assistance in difficult seasons, and is irresponsible for the payment of his neighbours... The Annual Settlements under Ryotwari are often misunderstood, and it is necessary to explain that they are rendered necessary by the right accorded to the Ryot of dimi | {{quote|Under the Ryotwari System every registered holder of land is recognised as its proprietor, and pays direct to Government. He is at liberty to sublet his property, or to transfer it by gift, sale, or mortgage. He cannot be ejected by Government so long as he pays the fixed assessment, and has the option annually of increasing or diminishing his holding, or of entirely abandoning it. In unfavourable seasons remissions of assessment are granted for entire or partial loss of produce. The assessment is fixed in money, and does not vary from year to year, in those cases where water is drawn from a Government source of irrigation to convert dry land into wet, or into two-crop land, when an extra rent is paid to Government for the water so appropriated; nor is any addition made to the assessment for improvements effected at the Ryot's own expense. The Ryot under this system is virtually a Proprietor on a simple and perfect title, and has all the benefits of a perpetual lease without its responsibilities, in as much as he can at any time throw up his lands, but cannot be ejected so long as he pays his dues; he receives assistance in difficult seasons, and is irresponsible for the payment of his neighbours... The Annual Settlements under Ryotwari are often misunderstood, and it is necessary to explain that they are rendered necessary by the right accorded to the Ryot of dimi | ||
Rapeg or extending his cultivation from year to year. Their object is to determine how much of the assessment due on his holding the Ryot shall pay, and not to reassess the land. In these cases where no change occurs in the Ryots holding a fresh Patta or lease is not issued, and such parties are in no way affected by the Annual Settlement, which they are not required to attend.<ref>John Stuart Mill, Examiner of the India Office, "Return to an Order of the House of Commons (June 9, 1867), showing under what tenures, and subject to what Land Tax, lands are held under the several Presidencies of India." Quoted in {{harvnb|Dutt| | Rapeg or extending his cultivation from year to year. Their object is to determine how much of the assessment due on his holding the Ryot shall pay, and not to reassess the land. In these cases where no change occurs in the Ryots holding a fresh Patta or lease is not issued, and such parties are in no way affected by the Annual Settlement, which they are not required to attend.<ref>John Stuart Mill, Examiner of the India Office, "Return to an Order of the House of Commons (June 9, 1867), showing under what tenures, and subject to what Land Tax, lands are held under the several Presidencies of India." Quoted in {{harvnb|Dutt|1904|pp=93-94}}</ref>}} | ||
== History == | == History == | ||
The Ryotwari system is associated with the name of [[Thomas Munro]], who was appointed Governor of [[Madras]] in May 1820.{{sfn|Dutt|1902|loc="Munro and the Ryotwari Settlement in Madras, 1820-27", pp. 153-171}} Subsequently, the Ryotwari system was extended to the Bombay area.{{sfn|Dutt|1902|loc="Wingate and the Ryotwari Settlement in Bombay, 1827-35", pp. 368-383}} Munro gradually reduced the rate of taxation from one half to one third of the gross produce, even then an excessive tax.<ref>{{harvnb|Dutt|1902|p=369}}: Bishop Heber to the Right Honourable Charles Williams Wynn, dated Karnatic, March 1826: "Half the gross produce of the soil is demanded by Government, and this, which is nearly the average rate wherever there is not a Permanent Settlement, is sadly too much to leave an adequate provision for the present..."</ref><ref>Amelia (Shipley) Heber, ''Life of Reginald Heber, D.D., The Lord Bishop of Calcutta by his Widow with Selections. | The Ryotwari system is associated with the name of [[Thomas Munro]], who was appointed Governor of [[Madras]] in May 1820.{{sfn|Dutt|1902|loc="Munro and the Ryotwari Settlement in Madras, 1820-27", pp. 153-171}} Subsequently, the Ryotwari system was extended to the Bombay area.{{sfn|Dutt|1902|loc="Wingate and the Ryotwari Settlement in Bombay, 1827-35", pp. 368-383}} Munro gradually reduced the rate of taxation from one half to one third of the gross produce, even then an excessive tax.<ref>{{harvnb|Dutt|1902|p=369}}: Bishop Heber to the Right Honourable Charles Williams Wynn, dated Karnatic, March 1826: "Half the gross produce of the soil is demanded by Government, and this, which is nearly the average rate wherever there is not a Permanent Settlement, is sadly too much to leave an adequate provision for the present..."</ref><ref>Amelia (Shipley) Heber, ''Life of Reginald Heber, D.D., The Lord Bishop of Calcutta by his Widow with Selections. | ||
In Northern India, | In Northern India, dward Colebrooke and successive [[Governor-General of India|Governor-Generals]] had implored the Court of Directors of the East India Company, in vain, to redeem the pledge given by the British government, and to permanently settle the land-tax, so as to make it possible for the people to accumulate wealth and improve their own condition.{{sfn|Dutt|1902|p=368}} | ||
Payment of the land tax in cash, rather than in kind, was instituted in the late 18th century when the East India Company wanted to establish an exclusive monopoly in the market as buyers of Indian goods.{{sfn|Dutt|1902|p=368}} The requirement of cash payments frequently proved economically untenable for cultivators, exposing them to the exorbitant demands of moneylenders when crops failed.{{Citation needed|date=April 2007}} | |||
Payment of the land tax in cash, rather than in kind, was instituted in the late 18th century when the | |||
==Other systems== | ==Other systems== | ||
| Line 39: | Line 38: | ||
# This led to excessive marketing of land, which lost its sentimental grip on the farmer. The land became merely a commodity. | # This led to excessive marketing of land, which lost its sentimental grip on the farmer. The land became merely a commodity. | ||
Also because of the political scheme of [[Subsidiary alliance|Subsidiary Alliances]], the pressure on agricultural land made things worse. It led to a failure of administration, leaving the blame on the feudatory king of the province; | Also because of the political scheme of [[Subsidiary alliance|Subsidiary Alliances]], the pressure on agricultural land made things worse. It led to a failure of administration, leaving the blame on the feudatory king of the province; which allowed the East India Company to easily take over the administration. | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||