Why the zamindars defaulted on payments under the ‘Permanent-Settlement’? Identify the incorrect statement from below:
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 3
The correct answer is Option (3) → The revenue was variable, in accordance with the harvest, and could be remitted in case of crop failure
In the early decades after the Permanent Settlement of 1793, zamindars regularly failed to pay the revenue, for several reasons.
Option (1) The initial demands were very high — A real reason (not the answer). Because the demand was fixed for all time, the Company pegged it high, so as not to lose the share of rising income later.
Option (2) This high demand was imposed at a time when the prices of agricultural produce were depressed, making it difficult for the ryots to pay — A real reason (not the answer). In the 1790s prices were low; if the ryots could not pay the zamindar, he could not pay the Company.
Option (3) The revenue was variable, in accordance with the harvest, and could be remitted in case of crop failure — Incorrect statement (the answer). It was the opposite: the revenue was invariable, regardless of the harvest, and had to be paid punctually. Under the Sunset Law, if it was not paid by sunset of the fixed date, the zamindari could be auctioned.
Option (4) The ‘Permanent-Settlement’ initially limited the power of the zamindar to collect rent from the ryot and manage his ‘zamindari’ — A real reason (not the answer). The Company had cut down the zamindars’ power, so they found it hard to collect rent from the ryots.
NCERT (2025-26): “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. … 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.…” |