From the options given below, identify which was NOT the reason for the failure of zamindars to pay the revenue in the early decades of Permanent Settlement:
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 4
The correct answer is Option (4) → The zamindars deliberately refused to pay the revenue. This was a way used by them to oppose British rule.
Option (1) The initial demands of revenue were very high. — Correct statement. This was the first reason. The Company feared that a demand fixed for all time would never let it share in the increased income from land as prices rose and cultivation expanded, so it pegged the revenue demand high.
Option (2) The prices of agricultural produce were depressed. — Correct statement. The high demand was imposed in the 1790s, a time when the prices of agricultural produce were depressed. The ryots found it hard to pay their dues to the zamindar, and a zamindar who could not collect the rent could not pay the Company.
Option (3) The revenue collection was very strict and no relaxation was given. — Correct statement. The revenue was invariable, regardless of the harvest, and had to be paid punctually. Under the Sunset Law, if payment did not come in by sunset of the specified date, the zamindari was liable to be auctioned.
Option (4) The zamindars deliberately refused to pay the revenue. This was a way used by them to oppose British rule. — Incorrect statement. The zamindars failed to pay because of the high and rigid demand and the trouble they had in collecting rent; the fourth reason was that the Permanent Settlement initially limited the power of the zamindar to collect rent from the ryot. Deliberate delay is reported only of the ryots, who sometimes held back their payments to the zamindar.
NCERT (2026-27): “1.3 Why zamindars defaulted on payments … In the early decades after the Permanent Settlement, however, zamindars regularly failed to pay the revenue demand and unpaid balances accumulated. The reasons for this failure were various. First: the initial demands were very high. This was because it was felt that if the demand was fixed for all time to come, the Company would never be able to claim a share of increased income from land when prices rose and cultivation expanded. To minimise this anticipated loss, the Company pegged the revenue demand high, arguing that the burden on zamindars would gradually decline as agricultural production expanded and prices rose. Second: this high demand was imposed in the 1790s, a time when the prices of agricultural produce were depressed, making it difficult for the ryots to pay their dues to the zamindar. If the zamindar could not collect the rent, how could he pay the Company? Third: the revenue was invariable, regardless of the harvest, and had to be paid punctually. In fact, according to the Sunset Law, if payment did not come in by sunset of the specified date, the zamindari was liable to be auctioned. Fourth: the Permanent Settlement initially limited the power of the zamindar to collect rent from the ryot and manage his zamindari.… 1.3 Why zamindars defaulted on payments … But rent collection was a perennial problem. Sometimes bad harvests and low prices made payment of dues difficult for the ryots. At other times ryots deliberately delayed payment. Rich ryots and village headmen – jotedars and mandals – were only too happy to see the zamindar in trouble.…” |