Explain how the Permanent Settlement initiated a rule of property in Bengal and what were its consequences?

Answer:

The Permanent Settlement of 1793, introduced by Lord Cornwallis in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, transformed revenue relations by recognising zamindars as proprietors of land and fixing the state demand permanently. It marked the beginning of a colonial “rule of property” because land became a legally defined, transferable and revenue-paying property.

Permanent Settlement and the Rule of Property

Zamindars as landowners:

• Earlier zamindars were revenue intermediaries with customary rights and local power.
• The Permanent Settlement treated them as proprietors of land.
• Their duty was to pay a fixed revenue to the Company.
• If they failed, their estates could be auctioned under the sunset law.

Legalisation of land market:

• Land became saleable, mortgageable and inheritable property.
• The colonial state used law and courts to enforce property rights.
• This introduced a new legal order in which revenue-paying capacity became the basis of ownership.

Fixity of state demand:

• The Company fixed its revenue demand permanently.
• Any future increase in rent or agricultural surplus would go to zamindars.
• The state expected zamindars to invest in improvement.

Consequences

Rise of landlordism:

• A powerful zamindari class emerged in Bengal.
• Many old zamindars lost estates due to revenue default, while new auction purchasers and absentee landlords rose.
• Subinfeudation created layers of intermediaries between zamindars and peasants.

Peasant exploitation:

• Peasants did not receive secure proprietary rights.
• Zamindars increased rents and extracted cesses to maximise income.
• Many raiyats faced insecurity, debt and eviction.

Administrative convenience for Company:

• The Company gained a fixed and predictable income.
• It reduced the burden of repeated revenue assessment.
• It also created a loyal landed elite useful for colonial rule.

Limited agricultural improvement:

• The expected agricultural improvement did not occur widely.
• Many zamindars preferred rent extraction to productive investment.
• Absentee landlordism weakened direct concern for cultivation.

Ranajit Guha saw the Permanent Settlement as a colonial restructuring of domination, while R.C. Dutt criticised it for producing landlordism and peasant oppression. Therefore, it initiated a rule of property in Bengal, but the property rights were mainly for zamindars, not cultivators. Its result was legal order for the state and landlords, but insecurity and exploitation for many peasants.