What was "Raiyatwari" system?

Answer & explanation

Correct answer: option 3

The correct answer is Option (3) → The cultivators paid agricultural tax directly to the British government.

Option (1) The tenants could keep two-third of the agricultural produce. — Incorrect. A two-thirds share was the demand of the Tebhaga movement (1946-47), in which sharecroppers in Bengal fought for two-thirds of their produce instead of the customary half. It has nothing to do with the raiyatwari settlement.

Option (2) A situation of absentee landlords. — Incorrect. Absentee landlords played no part in agriculture other than claiming their rent. A landlord standing between the state and the tiller belongs to the zamindari pattern; raiyatwari dealt with the cultivator directly.

Option (3) The cultivators paid agricultural tax directly to the British government. — Correct. In areas under direct British rule, the raiyatwari system made the ‘actual cultivators’, rather than the zamindars, responsible for paying the tax. The colonial government dealt directly with the farmers or landlords, so the tax burden was lighter and these areas became more productive and prosperous.

Option (4) Buying land in the name of others after land ceiling. — Incorrect. This describes benami transfers, a trick landowners used after Independence to escape the Land Ceiling Acts. Raiyatwari was a colonial system of collecting land revenue.

NCERT (2025-26): “4.2 The Impact of Land Reforms … Many districts of colonial India were administered through the zamindari system. In other areas that were under direct British rule had what was called the raiyatwari system of land settlement (raiyat means cultivator in Telugu). In this system, the ‘actual cultivators’ (who were themselves often landlords and not cultivators) rather than the zamindars were responsible for paying the tax. Because the colonial government dealt directly with the farmers or landlords, rather than through the overlords, the burden of taxation was less and cultivators had more incentive to invest in agriculture. As a result, these areas became relatively more productive and prosperous.…”