#Maratha Empire forward increase from Varanasi

[namdevkishanbajgirebjp]

[marymosley]

ABOLITION OF PRIVATE LANDLORDISM

INTRODUCTION

A landlord is the owner of a house, apartment, condominium, land, or real estate which is rented or leased to an individual or business, who is called a tenant or a lessee. The Other term for the owner is lessor. The term landlady may be used for female owners, and lessor/ lessee may be used regardless of gender.[1]

The notion of a landlord came from the feudal system of manoralism, where the lord of the manor is the proprietor of the estate.  The lower nobility which  were  ranked as knights during the higher medieval period, holding their fief  through  subinfeudation,  although  in  few instances  the land may also precisely be affiliated under   the  higher nobility, just like the king was the owner or proprietor of the royal domain, or as the villages were owned by the emperor in the  Roman Empire.

In modern times, landlord describes any individual(s) or entity (e.g. government body or institution) providing housing for persons who cannot afford or do not want to own their own homes.[2]

LAND REVENUE SYSTEM DURING THE BRITISH RULE

The major source of revenue for the kings and emperors in the ancient times was through taxes collected from the land. But there were changes over the time in the ownership pattern of land. At the time when Kingship was in existence, the land was branched as Jagirs, and they   were alloted to Jagirdars, these Jagirdars distributed this land to subordinate Zamindars. The peasants cultivated the zamindars’ land and, in-return they collected a particular share of their revenue as tax.

Three major systems of land revenue collection existed in pre independent India. They were – Zamindari, Ryotwari and Mahalwari.

Zamindari System:

Lord Cornwallis in 1793 formulated a system called the Zamindari System through the Permanent Settlement Act in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and Varanasi which made approximately 19% of British India. This system is also known as the Permanent Settlement System[3]. In this the owners or the proprietor of the land were the Zamindars, who had the right to   charge the   rent from the farmers. The accrued amount would be split into 11 parts. 1/11 of the stake was accorded to Zamindars and 10/11 of the stake belonged to the East India Company[4]. The revenue administration came in the hands of the East India Company in 1765[5]. The system of dual government was introduced in Bengal[6] and subsequently the entire administration of Bengal was annexed by the East India Company[7].  With this an improved style of economic system was initiated which was called `Annual Bidding System`. The main feature of  this system was that the land was divided into estates and the authority  to charge the  taxes from these estates were bargained  in bidding and as per the understanding  the revenue had to be paid in entirety on winning the bid. But a drawback to this procedure was that the collector of taxes, kept on changing frequently and this drove them to a state of chaos which resulted in systemic corruption. The person collecting taxes, used to collect large chunk of excess tax from the lands. In order to avoid such problems of `Annual Bidding System`, Zamindari System` was introduced.

PROVISIONS OF ZAMINDARI SYSTEM

  Zamindars were accepted as owners of the lands.

They were authorised to collect the payment from the farmers.

The realized amount would be divided into 11 parts. 1/11 of the share belonged to Zamindars and 10/11 of the share belonged to East India Company. The amount to be paid to the company was called as `Peshwash[8]`.

There used to be a contract for ten years, which could be extended, also, this could be inherited by the future generations of the Zamindars.

The amount of tax to be collected was on the discretion of the zamindars.

ADVANTAGES TO THE BRITISHERS

  The Britishers did not have to collect tax as this duty was carried out by the locals[9]. .

There was stability and security in the earning as the amount of revenue was pre-determined and fixed. .

The system of tax collection was durable and long-lasting.

One reason why the British did not quit India was because of the Loyalty of the zamindars, who supported them.

  DIS-ADVANTAGES TO THE INDIANS

  Since the zamindars were in a position of authority, the hapless farmers were exploited by them by levying huge amounts of taxes.

The status of farmers was not safeguarded.

The main focus of landlord was collection of output though; he never participated in any of the production activities. This was called ‘absentee landlordism’[10] .

As famines were frequent occurrences, no one came forward to support the farmers in harsh times.

  Ryotwari System

Thomas Munro brought in the Ryotwari System in 1820 in the provinces of Madras, Bombay, parts of Assam and Coorgh provinces of British India[11],[12] wherein, the proprietorship was in the hands of the farmers. Taxes were charged from the farmers directly. Under this system, farmers had to pay 50% for the dry lands and 60% for irrigated land.

Ryotwari system was introduced as an experiment and it was proved to be successful. British conquered many territories within a span of 9 years[13].  In 1799, Mysore was conquered. In 1801, Carnatic was conquered and Madras province was created subsequently in the same year. In 1818, Maratha territories were conquered and Bombay presidency came into being.  Ryotwari System was introduced in all these territories.

The reason why the Zamindari System was not introduced in these territories was because the system was unfavourable in following ways:

There was a need for more revenue at that time, the Ryotwari system was considered more lucrative.

There was a lack of powerful and loyal zamindari class in these territories; therefore, the zamindari system was not enforced.

ANALYSIS OF THE RYOTWARI SYSTEM

The system was beneficial to the farmers, as they could not be fleeced. Theoretically, this system was considered to be more beneficial than the Zamindari System, but practically it was not. The fact was that the ryotwari System was popularised in those areas where farmers were poor, and famines were a frequent recurrence.  The farmers under the zamindari system were better-off than those under the Ryotwari System. However, no exemption or mercy was shown towards the tax rates to the farmers during the famine.  High corruption was prevalent among the revenue officials and the money lenders, who oppressed and abused the poor farmers. Therefore, the obligation or the indebtedness was high in villages, which were under the ryotwari system.

Mahalwari System

William Bentick came up with the idea of Mahalwari system and it was implemented in 1833, in the Central Province, North-West Frontier, Agra, Punjab, Gangetic Valley, etc of British India[14]. These places comprised of about 29% of the British India.  It came into existence at the time of Warring Hastings.

The Mahalwari system was a combination of both the Zamindari System and Ryotwari System. In this system, the land was divided into Mahals and each Mahal constituted one or more villages. The proprietorship rights were with the farmers, whereas the responsibility for charging taxes lied with the village committee.

PROVISIONS OF MAHALWARI SYSTEM

In case villages under the Mahals were too small, then two or three villages were combined to form a Mahal.

A fixed revenue was charged after the evaluation of the entire Mahal.

The accountability for charging taxes was with the village committee.

The farmers were given the Ownership rights.

Moneylenders used to abuse and were cruel to the farmers

The British used to charge high taxes.

ABOLITION OF THE INTERMEDIARIES

Removing the intermediaries from the system was the first effort towards agricultural reform to divide the agricultural assets equally in a fair manner.[15]

  REASONS BEHIND THE ABOLITION OF INTERMEDIARIES

During the pre- independence era, the rich land proprietors influenced the Indian administration and the Indian economy even at village level. Land could be owned just by paying a minimal amount to the British government.

An intermediate class was also created by the British government to ease their process of collection of taxes. This class had no personal involvement with the land and agriculture, but they could easily take over the land to any extent. This act exploited the sharecroppers, small and marginal farmers and forced them to transfer land to the big landlords. Due to which employment level as well as the productivity level decreased, and they lost their motivation to work.

In the post-independence period, the Indian Government initiated the agricultural reforms again with the aim to dissolve the intermediaries or else the division of lands would have been challenging for the Government.[16]

  PROCESS OF THE ABOLITION

The land was taken from the intermediaries, and the expense of small landowners was reimbursed, by the government for submitting their lands. The reimbursed amount was inversely proportional to the amount of profit or income obtained from the land.

  EFFECTS

Government spending in the agricultural sector had increased as a result of the reimbursement to the peasants. Many pension schemes were introduced for the intermediaries who were not able to start an earning afresh. Therefore, this was a big strain on the government.

Due to the removal of the intermediate classes, millions of peasants in India had associated themselves personally with the government, which resulted in a hike in tax revenue received from the villages. This made up for the loss that the Government was incurring. As a result, the monetary stability of the peasants upgraded and productivity and employment also went up, but the sub tenants remained unaffected.[17]

  LAND REFORMS

During the pre-independence times, the peasants as individuals did not have any ownership of land. The proprietorship remained with the intermediaries, i.e. the zamindars, jagirdars etc. The peasant would work on the land and pay revenue to these intermediaries. They however, did not spend enough on farming and agriculture, because their main interest was in minting money through charging the tillers. As a result, the land and its tiller, both were at a loss.

During the post-independence period, it was found that the production from farming could not sustain the whole country. And therefore, to overcome this problem, the government came to the conclusion that the tillers of the land should be made the owners of the land which will boost the production. Thus, the land reforms took place by removing the intermediaries.[18]

  OBJECTIVES OF THE LAND REFORMS

After independent the Indian government kept the following points in view to initiate these land reforms.

The main aim was to bring about a total transformation to the agricultural structure of the country in a methodical way.

The other objective was to put an end to the zamindari system

It brought impartiality in the economy and society and safeguarded social justice from the atrocities faced by the peasants in the past.

These reforms also put an end to any kind of exploitation of the tenant peasants by the landlords.

Lastly, to enforce such practices which inspire these peasants and give a boost to the agrarian production

  STEPS IMPLEMENTED UNDER THE LAND REFORMS[19]

Many Indian states passed the Zamindari Abolition Act post-independence. In the states of Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar etc the excess and unused lands of the landlords were taken away by the states. The Supreme Court found the Act unconstitutional, but the legislature rectified the article and changed their actions. By this, a few crore tenants were given proprietorship of the lands. Thus, positive effect of the reformation was now visible.

Another vital advancement was the implementation of the act of land ceiling, according to which it was to be decided as to how much total land an individual or family can own. Also, if an individual had land exceeding the fixed limit, the government could take it away and give it to the landless peasants, in an unbiased manner. The purpose of introduction of such a land ceiling law was to dissuade the concentration of land among few individuals. It also encompassed the consolidation of holdings. That is, if a peasant owned various small pieces of land scattered in the village, then these pieces would amalgamate into one big chunk of land. This was possibly done by trading or swapping of lands by the farmers.

Small land tilling was a drawback to commercial farming. This drawback could be overcome by applying the strategy of co-operative farming, which would eventually help the government overcome the problems of sub-division of land and financial crisis. Unfortunately, the strategy of co-operative farming has not been too successful in India.

  CONCLUSION

The main motive of these land reforms is to benefit the farmers and the land cultivators at the micro level. The Government realised that if these peasants are not exploited they would work hard and willingly on their lands. The Government need to safeguard their interests and give them financial support. And if the cultivators were made the proprietors, they could put in their best to increase investment so as to cultivate their lands to the maximum.

Another important benefit of land reform was on a macro level to boost the agricultural output of the country, without any major investment of capital.

India struggled with massive famines in the past and could not manage to have sufficient production for survival. With these cost efficient land reforms, India could manage to give a boost to its agricultural production. If the farmer has enough grains to sustain his family he would sell the extra grains in the market, and this would in turn help the national economy.

These land reforms were a way to improve close interaction between the peasants and the government. During the pre-independence era, these farmers were oppressed and hence became helpless and powerless. These reforms helped unblock the communication between the government and the peasants. They both now work in tandem to develop the agricultural sector of our economy.

The land reforms were also one of the important goals of the five-year plan. This provided social justice to the crores of peasants in the country.  It ensured that the peasants gained from their hard work and helped in promoting equality of wealth distribution in the society.[20]

  REFERENCES

  https://www.toppr.com/

yourarticlelibrary.com

wiktionary.org

https://encyclopedia

jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/land

economywatch.com/agrarian/india/abolition-intermediaries.html

com/education/Zamindari-System

clearias.com/land-revenue-systems-zamindari

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absentee landlord

[1]en.wiktionary.org

[2]https://encyclopedia2

[3] hubpages.com/education/Zamindari-System

[4] The amount to be collected was called Peshwash

[5] 1765

[6] 1765-1772

[7] 1772-1793

[8] hubpages.com/education/Zamindari-System

[9] https://ift.tt/2NpmoCc

[10] ww.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absentee landlord

[11] byjus.com/free-ias-prep/ncert-notes-ryotwari-and..

[12] 52% of British India was covered.

[13] 1799-1818

[14] secureias.com/mahalwari-system

[15] https://ift.tt/2VarSEV

[16] www.economywatch.com/agrarian/india/abolition-intermediaries.html

[17]https://ift.tt/1zcxLSx

[18] https://ift.tt/2B1O8tW.

[19] https://ift.tt/37Yak4m

[20] https://www.toppr.com/

Disclaimer: This article has been published in Legal Desire International Journal on Law, ISSN 2347-3525, Issue 22 ,Vol. 7

KRITI BHATNAGAR

Student of Law, Amity Law School, Noida, Amity University, Uttar Pradesh

The post ABOLITION OF PRIVATE LANDLORDISM appeared first on Legal Desire.

ABOLITION OF PRIVATE LANDLORDISM published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/