Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:45:48.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Struggle Over Land Tenure in India, 1860–1868

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Thomas R. Metcalf
Get access

Extract

The 1857 uprising, by shattering many of Britain's most cherished beliefs about India, introduced a decade of controversy and reappraisal in many fields. At the center of this controversy stood land policy, for the land revenue was the heart of the administrative system, and the form through which outside events made their influence felt most strongly upon the structure of society. In collecting the land revenue, the Government had of necessity to settle responsibility for its payment on some person, and in so doing to define the rights in land of the various classes of society. This had a profound effect on the distribution of power within Indian society. Whichever class obtained the land settlement, and the rights and privileges it entailed, was in effect proprietor of the land, able to reduce all others to dependence upon its generosity. The British could insure the dominance of either peasant or landlord simply by manipulating the Record of Rights and assessment rolls.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , May 1962 , pp. 295 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On James Mill see his evidence to a House of Commons Committee 4 Aug. 1831 in Parliamentary Papers [Hereafter P. P.] 1831, VI, 309 and his History of British Indian (London, 1820), V, 416Google Scholar. For J. S. Mill's advocacy of peasant proprietorship see his Principles of Political Economy (Boston, 1848), I, 380–93.Google Scholar

2 For a general discussion of the utilitarian impact on Indian land policy see Eric Stokes, English Utilitarians and India (Oxford, 1959) Ch. ii.

3 Minute by Robertson of 15 April 1842 in P. P. 1852–3, LXXV, 125. On Thomason see Richard Temple, James Thomason (Oxford, 1893), pp. 150–60.

4 Memo of 15 Jan. 1858. P. P. 1859, XVIII, 304.

5 For discussion of the 1858 Oudh settlement and the reversion to a landlord system after the Mutiny see my article, “The Influence of the Mutiny of 1857 on Land Policy in India,” The Historical Journal, IV (1961), pp. 152–63.Google Scholar

6 On Bagehot as the central exponent of mid-Victorian liberalism see Asa Briggs, Victorian People (London, 1954), pp. 100–07. Among the most distinctive features of Bagehot's liberalism were his stress on the role of deference and dignity in society, and his preference for a system of removable inequalities, which allowed men to rise by self-help but kept a class structure.

7 Letter from Canning to Wood, 6 December 1859, describing his view of the future position of the Oudh taluqdars. Wood Papers, India Office Library.

8 Letter of 24 March 1864 to Government of India in P. P. 1865, XL, 207. Wingfield was Chief Commissioner of Oudh 1859–66. On laissez faire as the guiding principle of Irish land policy see R. D. Collison Black, Economic Thought and the Irish Question, (Cambridge, 1960). In Ireland a laissez faire landlord policy was actively pursued throughout the period from 1815 to 1870, for the utilitarian reformers never obtained a foothold in the Irish Government. Nevertheless their remedy was the same-peasant proprietorship, which J. S. Mill tirelessly advocated for both India and Ireland.

9 See for instance the Taluqdar Encumbered Estates Act of 1870, by which any taluqdar was permitted to vest the management of his estate in the Government in order to prevent its sale for debt. After all debts and liabilities were cleared off, the estate would be returned to the taluqdar. On the operation of laissez faire in England see Brebner, J. B., “Laissez Faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth Century Britain,” Journal of Economic History, VIII, (1948) Supplement.Google Scholar

10 Speech in Legislative Council 19 October 1868. Proceedings, VII, 431. Strachey was C. C. of Oudh 1866–68; and during the 1870's Lieutenant-Governor N.W.P. and Financial Member of the Viceroy's Council.

11 See Woodruff, Philip, Founders of Modern India (New York, 1954), pp. 336–38Google Scholar and Eric Stokes, Utilitarians and India, pp. 244–48.

12 Misra, B. B., Central Administration of the East India Company, 1773–1834, (Manchester, 1959), pp. 191–4Google Scholar. See in particular Regulation 7 of 1799, which vested in the zemindar power of destraint and sale over the property of defaulting tenants.

13 See for instance letter from the Deputy Collector of Champaran to the Lt. Gov. of Bengal 5 March 1855: “The curse of this District is the insecure nature of the ryot's land tenure. The cultivator, though nominally protected by regulations of all sorts, has, practically, no rights in the soil. His rent is continually raised; he is oppressed and worried by every successive teekadar, until he is actually forced out of his holding.” Papers Relating to Act X of 1859, National Archives of India, New Delhi [N.A.I.].

14 For Peacock's criticism see his speech in the Legislative Council 9 April 1859. Proceedings, V, 226–9. The only protests against the principle of regulated rent came from the Board of Revenue of the Lower Provinces (Notes on the Proposed Rent Bill of 1 Dec. 1858), and from the British Indian Association (Petition of 14 February 1859). Papers Relating to Act X. Their protests were to some extent muted by the fact that in the case of new tenants at least the landlord could evade the act by eviction before the twelve year period had expired.

15 Minute of 27 November 1858. Papers Relating to Act X.

16 Case of James Hills v. Ishur Ghose, Decisions of 24 September 1862, and 2 September 1863. Both are printed in full in Decisions Under the Rent Laws of the High Court of Judicature from 1860 to 1863 (Calcutta, 1865)Google Scholar. See also a Minute by Peacock of 31 March 1864. Enclosure in letter from Maine to Wood of 2 April 1864. Wood Papers.

17 Letter from Trevelyan to Wood, 8 September 1863. Wood Papers. Trevelyan was Finance Member of the Council of India from January 1863 to April 1865.

18 Wood to Lawrence, 16 August 1864. He also pointed out that in the absence of any proof of increased value the previously existing rent should be deemed fair and equitable. Wood Papers.

19 Maine to Wood, 12 June 1864. Wood Papers. Maine was Legislative Member of the Council of India 1862–69.

20 Wood to Lawrence, 3 April 1865. Maine stated, in letter to Wood of 13 August 1865, “I should be inclined to abolish occupancy rights altogether as future institution; i.e., I would protect all existing occupiers of twelve years' standing … but say that nobody shall acquire a right of occupancy in future. Every single old right would thus be protected, but the objection to so strange a bonus for the squatter would be met.” Wood Papers.

21 Wood to Lawrence, 27 February 1865. Wood Papers.

22 See his letter of 6 October 1858 to C. C. Oudh: “Our endeavour to better, as we thought, the village occupants in Oudh has not been appreciated by them … The Governor General is therefore of opinion that these village occupants deserve little consideration from us.” Foreign Consultations, 5 November 1858, No. 193. N.A.I.

23 C. C. Oudh to Government of India, 7 September 1860, in Foreign Department, Revenue A [Rev. A ], March 1862, No. 7. N.A.I.

24 “Report on Administration of Justice in Oudh 1861,” dated 28 April 1862; Foreign Department, Judl. A, December 1862, No. 11, N.A.I.

25 Summing up the results of the inquiry in a letter to C. C. Oudh of 19 June 1865, R. H. Davies at once admitted that, “As regards the existence of a right of occupancy, otherwise derived than from former proprietorship …, the reports leave no room for doubt that previous to annexation no such right was or could be claimed by the cultivator against the zemindar.” Rev. A, February 1866, No. 72. Davies was specially appointed Financial Commissioner of Oudh by Lawrence to conduct the inquiry.

26 Edward Thompson, Deputy Commissioner of Sitapur; letter of 25 October 1863. Rev. A., February 1865, No. 124.

27 Davies to C. C. Oudh, 19 June 1865, Loc. cit.

28 D. Simson, Commissioner of Fyzabad; letter of 1 October 1863. Rev. A., February 1865, No. 121.

29 Letter of 19 June 1865 to C. C. Oudh.

30 C. C. Oudh to Government of India, 14 July 1865. Rev. A, February 1866, No. 71.

31 C. C. Oudh to Government of India, 26 March 1864. P.P. 1865, XL, 208.

32 Capt. Hutchinson, , Narrative of the Mutinies in Oudh (Calcutta, 1859), pp. 96–8.Google Scholar

33 Letter of 26 March 1864. P. P. 1865, XL, 207.

34 Ibid., 209. He suggested that tenants who objected to paying the full rent for land “should leave it to others who will and repair trans-Gogra,” to the uncultivated wastelands of northern Oudh. Wingfield to H. M. Durand 6 August 1863. Rev. A., February 1865, No. 91.

35 Minute of 12 September 1864. Rev. A., February 1865, No. 160.

36 Sec., Government of India to C. C. Oudh, 16 January 1866. Rev. A., February 1866, No. 126.

37 Political Dispatch No. 3 of 10 February 1865 from Sec. of State.

38 W. Grey and Sir Hugh Rose, C. in C., opposed any action liable to disturb the taluqdars, whose maintenance provided “a useful link between the Government and the ignorant masses, which enables the former to obtain insight into, and control, the feelings and passions of the people.” Henry Maine supported the principle of inquiry, but opposed any creation of new rights through the introduction of Act X into Oudh. Rev. A., February 1865, No. 129–34.

39 “Note on Tenant Right in Oudh,” 14 May 1866, in Printed Notes of Government of India No. 434-C96. N.A.I.

40 C. C. Oudh to Government of India, 20 August 1866. Rev. A., June 1867, No. 43. This letter contains a detailed account of the negotiations and an outline of the settlement.

41 See Strachey's speech in the Legislative Council, 17 July 1867. Proceedings, VI, 307. On the worsening plight of the cultivator during the 1870's, see the results of an inquiry conducted in 1883 and published as The Condition of the Tenantry in Oudh (Allahabad, 1883).Google Scholar

42 Prinsep to Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 28 April 1863. P.P. 1870, LIII, 454.

43 Settlement Report of 1865–66, dated 13 August 1866. Ibid., pp. 535–7.

44 See Reports of District Officers in Appendix II of Proceedings of Punjab Tenant Rights Committee (Lahore, 1865).

45 Minute of 10 February 1868. Rev. A., January 1870, No. 48.

46 Minute of 13 September 1866. P.P. 1870, LIII, 432. “A foreign government desiring peace, prosperity and permanence,” Macleod pointed out, should always show “the utmost consideration and courtesy to proprietary rights in the land”; while he subscribed to the laissez faire view that mobility of labor was the only remedy for rural stagnation.

47 Minute of 30 April 1867 in P.P. 1870, LIII, 161.

48 Speech in Legislative Council, 19 October 1868. Proceedings, VII, 414.

49 Ibid., p. 423. See also Minute of 26 October 1866 in P.P. 1870, LIII, 552.

50 Speech in Legislative Council, 19 October 1868. Proceedings, VII, 404. See also Speech of 11 April 1868, p. 271.

51 For the application of Indian concepts of tenant rights to Ireland see Sir George Campbell, The Irish Land (1869), in which he advocated rights of occupancy at a fair rent and compensation for disturbance for the Irish peasantry. Many of the principles of the Punjab Act of 1868 were incorporated in the Irish Land Acts of 1870 and 1881. Campell, , Memoirs of My Indian Career (London, 1893), II, 190–1.Google Scholar