The Ryotwari system was a land revenue system in British India, introduced by Thomas Munro in 1820 based on system administered by Captain Alexander Read in the Baramahal district. It allowed the government to deal directly with the cultivator for revenue collection, and 1 gave the peasant freedom togive up or acquire new land for cultivation. The peasant was assessed for only the lands he was cultivating.
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 ryots the system of assessment was known as ryotwari. Where the land revenue was imposed indirectly—through agreements made with Zamindars -- 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 British East India Company in 1857, explained the Ryotwari land tenure system as follows:
History
The Ryotwari system is associated with the name of Thomas Munro, who was appointed Governor of Madras in May 1820. Subsequently, the Ryotwari system was extended to the Bombay area. Munro gradually reduced the rate of taxation from one half to one third of the gross produce, even then an excessive tax. The levy was not based on actual revenues from the produce of the land, but instead on an estimate of the potential of the soil; in some cases more than 50% of the gross revenue was demanded. In Northern India, Edward Colebrooke and successive Governor-Generals had implored the Court of Directors of the British 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. Payment of the land tax in cash, rather than in kind, was instituted in the late 18th century when the British East India Company wanted to establish an exclusive monopoly in the market as buyers of Indian goods. Critics asserted that in practice the requirement of cash payments was ruinous to the cultivator, exposing him to the demands of moneylenders as an alternative to the loss of his land and starvation when crops failed.
Other systems
In Bengal and Northern India the zamindari system was as follows:
To collect tax from a land, the British had zamindars bid for the highest tax rates; i.e., zamindars quoted a tax rate that they promised to obtain from a particular land.
The highest bidder was made the owner of the land from which they collected the taxes.
The farmers and cultivators who owned the land lost their ownership and became tenants in their own land.
They were to pay the landlords/zamindars the tax for the land only in the form of cash and not in kind.
If a zamindar was not able to collect the quoted amount of tax, he lost the ownership.
By comparison, this is the way taxes had been collected by the king:
The tax could be paid either in cash or in kind.
Payments in kind were mostly in the form of land which was given to the king.
The king never made use of those lands, which could be bought back by the farmers after they got back some money.
The farmer owned his land.
Tax rates were reduced in case of a famine, bad weather or other serious event.
The differences are these:
Since the farmer had to pay only in cash under the new system, he could only sell it to a fellow farmer who started using the land for cultivation of a different crop and therefore was not willing to return it.
The farmer eventually lost some part of his land to someone else and consequently retained a highly awkward remnant of land for cultivation.
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 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; and therefore the British easily could take over the administration.
