What was the impact of british colonial rule on indian agriculture?

Colonial policies were responsible for the impoverishment of rural economy in

india.elaborate.

introduction
The British built in India the largest colonial empire anywhere in the world. But it was a different
kind of colony from most others. Many of the colonies especially in Latin America, with the
exception of Dutch East Indies (now called Indonesia), were built .with either slaves or
indentured labour.
The British built their colony in India with peasants and freely recruited labour. While the
peasant and the labour were coerced, the larger landowners and social notables were won over
to the British side; sometimes after wars but nonetheless most of them eventually came over to
the British side. They also created new groups to cooperate with them by granting them
Zamindaries or other land rights by displacing the old ones. India therefore was a colony built on
collaboration of "natives".
The British ruled India by drawing a lion's share of surplus out of the economy through heavy
exactions on peasantry in the shape of revenue demands and indirect taxation plus some
tribute.

Agriculture and colonialism

The British brought about important transformation in India's agricultural economy ??ut this was
not with a view to improving Indian agriculture but rather to obtain for hemse elves inthe form of
land revenue, all surplus available in agriculture and to force Indian agriculture to play its
assigned role in a colonial economy. Old relationships and institutions were destroyed and new
ones were born. But these new features did not represent a change towards modernisation or
its movement in the right direction.

Colonial policies that affected agriculture

The early colonial state's chief concern was to ensure the smooth appropriation and collection of
land-revenue (the main source of its income). A variety of land- settlements were introduced in
different parts of the country to achieve this aim.
● The Permanent Settlement of Cornwallis (1 793) assigned the right to collect revenue,
as an inheritable, transferable right of ownership of the estates. to the Zamindars of
Bengal. The revenue demand was fixed in perpetuity. The Zamindars were expected to
collect rent from the cultivators and remit a part of it as revenue to the Company's
treasury.
● The Charter Act of 1813 ended the Company's monopoly of trade in India. China's tea
and silk now substituted Indian textiles as the most profitable item of the Company's
trade. The East India Company financed its China trade by forcing Indian cultivators to
grow indigo and by establishing a state monopoly over opium cultivation in India.
● the British introduced two major land revenue and tenurial systems. One was the
Zamindari system. (Later, a modified version of the same Zamindari system was
 introduced in North India under the name of the Mahalwari system). The other was the
Ryotwari system.

Characteristics of agriculture during colonial period:

1 Small and fragmented land holdings-Land holdings in India were not only small but scattered
as well.Small and scattered land holdings were very difficult to cultivate.
2 Use of outdated and old technology-There was insufficient use of fertilisers and other
machines.
3 Dependence on rainfall
4 Low level of productivity and production- low productivity implied a low level of output. Low
output could be produced due to fragmentation despite large areas being under cultivation.
5 Subsistence farming
6 A wedge between owners of the soil and tillers of the soil-Owners were seldom the tillers of
the soil, and they never shared the cost of output. Instead, they shared the output. They were
only interested in maximising their rental income

Impact on agriculture

● the Peasantry and Its Impoverishment -It has been estimated that the total revenue
collected fiom the Bengal Diwani in the first few years of British rule doubled
whereas for the last 100 years it had remained the same. This was a huge increase.
It is important to remember that this led to severe famines, a third of the population
perished, but it is important to note that the revenue collected continued to grow.
● No development of agriculture-under the Mughals a part of the revenue collected
was reinvested to help the economy and the growth of local product but very little
came back under the British.
● Excessive cesses and dues-They were forced to pay very high rents and for all
practical purposes functioned as ' tenants-at-will. They were compelled to pay many
illegal dues and cesses and were aften required to perform forced labour or begar.
● emergence of the moneylender- greatest evil that arose out the British policies with
regard to Indian agricultural economy was the emergence of the moneylender as an
influential economic and political force in the country. Because of the high revenue
rates demanded and the rigid manner of collection, the peasant cultivator often had
to borrow money to pay taxes. In addition to paying exorbitant interest, when his
crops were ready he was invariably forced to sell his produce cheap. The
money-lender, on the other hand could manipulate the new judicial system and the
administrative machinery to his advantage.
● Sub- infeudation grew- Intermediate rent receivers increased.The new landlords and
zamindars had even less of a link with land than the old zamindars. Instead of taking
the trouble to organise a machinery for rent qollection, they merely sublet their rights
to intermediate rent receivers.
 ● Regressive agrarian relations-The new system did not at all permit the development
of agriculture. New social classes appeared at the top as well as at the bottom of the
social scale. There arose landlords, intermediaries and moneylenders at the top and
tenants-at-will, share-croppers and agricultural labourers at the bottom. The new
pattern was neither capitalism nor feudalism, nor was it a continuation of the old
Mughal arrangement. It was a new structure that colonialism evolved. It was
semi-feudal and semi-colonial in character.
● Prolonged stagnation of agriculture- Agricultural practices remained unchanged.
Better types of implements, good seeds and various types of manures and fertilizers
were not introduced at all. The poverty-stricken peasant cultivators did not have the
resaurces to improve agriculture; the landlords had no incentive to do so, and the
colonial Government, behaved like a typical landlord; it was interested only in
extracting high revenues and did not take any steps to modernise and improve and
develop Indian agriculture. The result was prolonged stagnation in agricultural
production. Agricultural statistics were available only for the 20th century; and here
the picture was quite dismal. While overall agricultural production per head fell. by 14
per cent between 1901 and 1939, the fall in the per capita production of foodgrains
was over 24 per cent. Most of this decline occurred after 1913.

Conclusion
As a result of British rule, India was transformed by the end of the 19th century into a classic
colony. It was a major market for British manufacturers, a big source of. raw material and
food-stuffs, and an important field for the investment of British Background of Social md capital.
.agriculture was highly taxed for the benefit of imperial interests. The Political thought bulk of the
transport system, modem mines and industries. foreign trade, coastal and international
shipping, and banks and insurance companies were all under foreign control. India provided
employment to thousands of middle-class Englishmen and nearly one-third of its revenues was
spent in paying salaries to Englishmen.
Above all, Indian economy and social development were completely subordinated to
British economy and social development. Indian economy was integrated into the
world capitalist economy in a subordinate position international division of labour.
During the very years when Britain was developing into the leading developed.
capitalist country of the world, India was being underdeveloped into a backward,
colonial country of the world. In fact, the two processes were interdependent in
terms of cause and effect. The entire structure of economic relations between Britain
and India involving of trade, finance and technology continuously developed India's
colonial dependence and underdevelopment.

Q. Colonial policies were responsible for the impoverishment of rural economy in

india.elaborate.
Intro same
Impoverishment of rural eco
It can be understood by understanding how colonial policies impoverished the bloodlines of rural
economy one by one, which ultimately led to the devastation of peasantry and economy.
Colonial policies and their Impact on agriculture (same as above if comes)
Colonial policies and their Impact on industry
Colonial policies and their Impact on ecology
Colonial policies and their Impact on land relations
Impoverishment of the peasantry
Conclusion

Colonial policies and their Impact on industry and trade

As with agriculture, the British Indian Government controlled trade and industry purely with a
view to foster British interests. India, no doubt, underwent a commercial revolution, which
integrated it with the world market, but she was forced to occupy a subordinate position.
● Foreign trade took big strides forward especially after 1858 and Rs. 213 crores in 1899.
It reached a peak of Rs. 758 crores in 1924. But this growth did not represent a positive
feature in Indian economy nor did it contribute to the welfare of the Indian people,
because it was used as the chief Colonial Intervention in Society. instrument through
which the Indian economy was made colonial and dependent on Economy and Polity
world capitalism. The growth of the Indian foreign trade was neither natural nor normal; it
was artificially foskred to serve imperialism. The composition and characts ef the foreign
trade was unbalanced. The country was flooded with manufactw goods from Britian and
forced to produce and export the raw materials Britain and other foreign countries
needed.
foreign trade affected the internal distribution of Income adversely. The British policy
only helped to transfer resources from peasants qnd craftsmen to merchants,
moneylenders and foreign capitalists.
● constant excess of exports over imports. These exports did not represent the future
claims of India on foreign countries, but the drain of India's wealth and resources. We
must also remember- the bulk of foreign trade was in foreign hands and that almost all of
it was carried on through foreign ships.
● One of the most important consequences of British rule was the progressive decline
and destruction of urban and rural handicraft industries. Not only did India lose its
foreign markets in Asia and Europe, but even the Indian market was flooded with cheap
machine-made goods produced on a mass scale. The collapse of indigenous handicrafts
followed.
● The ruin of the indigenous industries and the absence of other avenues of employment
forced millions of craftsmen to crowd into agriculture. Thus, the pressure of the
population on land increased.
● India was entirely dependent on the imperialist world in the field of technology. No
technological research was carried out in the country.There was almost a complete
absence of heavy capital goods and chemical industry without which rapid and
 autonomous industrial development could hardly occur. Machine-tool, engineering and
metallurgical industries were virtually non-existent.
Conclusion
Thus, it will be seen that industrial development in India till 1947 was slow and stunted and did
not at all present in industrial revolution or even the initiation of r, one. What was more
important, even the limited development was not independent but was under the control of
foreign capital. the structure of industry was such as to make its further development dependent
on Britain.
Add the general conclusion

Colonial policies and land relations

Land tenure system
In the initial years, East India company faced following problems:

1. Demand for British goods in India=negligible. (Because East India company was yet
to destroy our handicraft and artisans)
2. Under the Mercantilism policy of British: one country’s gain required another
country/colony’s loss. Therefore, British Government prohibited East India company
from exporting gold and silver from England to pay for Indian goods import.
3. Company needed truckload of ca$H to maintain an army for defeating and
subjugating native rulers.

East India company came up with following solution:

1. start collecting revenue from Indians

2. Use that Revenue to buy Indian raw material- export to England
3. Import finished goods back to India=> make profit.

But this solution had a problem: the revenue system under Mughals and Native rulers=too
complex for the British to understand, Lord Cornwallis comes with a novel idea: just
‘outsource’ the tax collection work to desi-middlemen: Zamindars, Jagirdar, Inamdars,
Lambardar etc. Consequently, British introduced three land tenure systems in India:
1. Permanent settlement-
 1. Cornwallis + John Shore. In Bengal + Bihar. 1793
2. All the land belonged to the state and was thus at their disposal.
3. British designated zamindars (local tax collectors) , as owners of the land in their
district. This system was adopted in several forms such as Zamindari, Jagirdari,
Inamdari, etc. These zamindars had to collect revenue from farmers and deliver
to the British.
4. Converted Zamindars into landlords. The right to the land conferred on the
zamindars was Revenue amount was fixed at the beginning and remained the
same permanently.Zamindar were given freedom to decide how much to
demand from the cultivators. Stiff penalties on defaulters.there was a provision
of keeping a portion of taxes for the zamindar himself.
5. Zamindar’s right over land was
1. Alienable: meaning British could take it away and give it to another
Zamindar, if first Zamindar did not meet the Revenue collection
‘targets’.
2. Rentable: meaning Zamindar himself could further outsource his
work among more smaller zamindars
3. Heritable: meaning Zamindar dies, his son/brother etc would get it.
6. Farmers became tenants. Two types
1. Tenants-at-will: farmers who cultivated on Zamindar’s land. They
had no rights. They could be evicted as per whims and fancies of
Zamindar.
2. Occupancy Tenants: farmers who owned land. Their occupancy
rights were heritable and transferrable and were not tampered with
as long as they paid their taxes.

impact/consequences
1.Farmers lose bargaining power

● Textile industry was the driver of industrial revolution in Britain. = raw cotton imported
+ finished textile exported to India.
● To prevent any ‘competition’ from Desi textile industries, the British imposed variety of
taxes and tariffs on them=>desi textile business collapsed. Lakhs of weavers became
unemployed, migrated to villages in search of work.
● Since they did not own any land, they had to become tenants-at-will for Zamindars.
● Now Zamindars had the monopoly of controlling livelihood of thousands of people.
They extorted more and more taxes.
● Moreover, the “begar”, unpaid work which the tenants were forced to perform on the
zamindar’s land, took larger proportions. On the average, it amounted to 20-25 % of the
lease.
● Western Bengal: Farmers got divided into two categories i) Jotedars (Rich farmers)
ii)Bargadar (Sharecroppers)
● Eastern Bengal: Jute cultivation. Independent farmers with small to middlesize land
holdings

#More outsourcing

● Permanent settlement system created landed aristocracy for the first time in
India. Zamindars used to chow down part of the land Revenue collected. Thus
they became wealthy and lazy. They ‘outsourced’ their work to more
intermediaries / sub-tenants.
● It became quite common to have 10 to 20 intermediaries, more or less without
any specific function, between the government and the farmers, And they all had
a share in the cultivation yield + other illegal taxes.
● As a result, 70-80% of farmer’s produce went to just Revenue and commissions
only=> poverty, debts.
● None of these middlemen or Zamindars invest money in agricultural
improvement or new technology. They just kept increasing rents. Hence
traditional agriculture did not shift to capitalist agriculture, unlike other
economies.

Ryotwari System

By Sir Thomas Munro at first in Madras State and then adopted in Bombay, and Assam.

In permanent settlement areas, land Revenue was fixed. But over the years, agriculture
prices/exports should increase but government’s income did not increase. (Because
middlemen-zamindars chowed it down)
 1. Zamindars were oppressive- leading to frequent agrarian revolts in the
permanent settlement areas.
2. In Bihar, Bengal, there existed Zamindar/feudal lords since the times of Mughal
administration. But Madras, Bombay, Assam did not have Zamindars / feudal
lords with large estates. So, hard to ‘outsource’ work, even if British wanted.
3. No middlemen in tax collection=> farmer has to pay less taxes=>increased
purchasing power=>will improve demand for readymade British products in
India.

Consequently, all subsequent land tax or revenue settlements made by the colonial rulers
were temporary settlements made directly with the peasant, or ‘ryot’ (e.g., the ryotwari
settlements).

This model was based on English yeomen farmers.

Ryotwari System: Features

1. government claimed the property rights to all the land, but allotted it to the
cultivators on the condition that they pay taxes. In other words, It established a
direct relation between the landholder and the government.
2. Farmers could use, sell, mortgage, bequeath, and lease the land as long as they
paid their taxes. In other words Ryotwari system gave a proprietary rights upon
the landholders.
3. IF they did not pay taxes, they were evicted
4. taxes were only fixed in a temporary settlement for a period of thirty years and
then revised.
5. government had retained the right to enhance land revenue whenever it wanted
6. Provided measures for revenue relief during famines but they were seldom
applied in real life situation.

Ryotwari System: Consequences

● Farmers had to pay revenue even during drought and famines, else he would be
evicted.
 ● Replacement of large number of zamindars by one giant zamindar called East
India Company.
● Although ryotwari system aimed for direct Revenue settlement between farmer
and the government but over the years, landlordism and tenancy became
widespread. Because textile weavers were unemployed= they started working as
tenant farmers for other rich farmers. In many districts, more than 2/3 of
farmland was leased.
● Since Government insisted on cash revenue, farmers resorted to growing cash
crops instead of food crops. And cash crop needed more inputs=>more loans
and indebtedness.
● After end of American civil war, cotton export declined but government didn’t
reduce the revenue. As a result most farmers defaulted on loans and land was
transferred from farmers to moneylenders.

Mahalwari System

● Location: Gangetic valley, north-west provinces, parts of central India and

Punjab. But why?
● In North India and Punjab, joint land rights on the village were common. So,
British decided to utilize this utilize this traditional structure in a new form
known as Mahalwari system.

Mahalwari System: Features

1. unit of assessment was the village.

2. taxation was imposed on the village community since it had the rights over land.
3. The village community had to distribute these tax collection targets among the
cultivators
4. Each individual farmer contributed his share in the revenue.
5. Everyone was thus liable for the others’ arrears.
6. Farmers had right to sell or mortgage their property.
7. The village community did not necessarily mean entire village population. It was
a group of elders, notables of high castes.
8. A village inhabitant, called the lambardar, collected the amounts and gave to
the British
 9. British periodically revised tax rates.

Mahalwari system: Consequences

● Since Punjab, Northern India = fertile land. So British wanted to extract

maximum Revenue out of this region. Land Revenue was usually 50% to 75% of
the produce.
● As generations passed- fathers would divide land among sons=>
fragmentation=>farms became smaller and smaller and productivity declined.
● But still British demanded Revenue in cash. So, farmers had to borrow money to
pay taxes in the case of crop failures.
● As a result, more and more farms passed into the hands of moneylenders. When
farmer failed to repay debt, Moneylender would take away his farm but he has
no interest in self-cultivation so he’d leasing it to another farmer.
● Thus, sub-leasing, indebtedness and landlessness became more and more
common in Mahalwari region

Impact on land relations/consequences of colonial land tenure

system/ impoverishment of peasantry
Land becomes a property- ntroduced private ownership of land .this divided village into
1) landlords 2)tenants 3)labourers.This this material transformation the agrarian society in
India witnessed profound social, economic, political, cultural and psychological change.
with generations- land kept dividing among sons=>land fragmentation, diseconomies of
scale, lower production.

Panchayat lost Prestige

Earlier and matters and civil disputes were adjudicated by Panchayat within the

village.Farmer had to approach British courts for matters related to Revenue,

property attachment, debt-mortgage etc.Panchayats lost their power and prestige
and matters and civil disputes were adjudicated by Panchayat within the village.
Food insecurity

Since British demand revenue in CASH, farmers resorted to growing cash crops: indigo,
sugarcane, cotton=> Area under foodcrop cultivation declined.Then, Lacks of People would
die of starvation during famines. Even after independence, and before green revolution-
India was not self-sufficient in grain production.Between 1946 and 1953 about 14 million
tonnes of foodgrains worth Rs 10,000 million had to be imported = this was nearly half of
the total capital investment in the First Five Year Plan (1951–56).

Canals

British did construct new canals.Positive: more area brought under cultivation, particularly
in Punjab.but most canals caused salinity and swamps=>declined productivity over the
years.Taxes on Irrigation were quite high. Therefore Canal irrigation was used to grow
sugar, cotton and other cash crops, instead of food crops=>food insecurity, starvation and
death during famines.

Cash economy & indebted farmers

British obliged the farmers to pay revenue in cash and not in kind.

The land revenue was increased arbitrarily to finance British wars and conquests. But The
farmers had no right to appeal in the court of law. Farmers had no understanding of cash
economy + frequent droughts and famines. Hence they had to borrow money from
unscrupulous grain traders and money-lenders=> compound interest rate, perpetual
indebtedness. Eventually, the typical Indian villager was stripped of all savings, caught in
debt trap, mortgaging almost everything-whether personal jewelry, land and livestock, or
tools and equipment.
Farmers shifted from food crop to Cash crops. But cash crops need more inputs in terms of
seeds, fertilizer, and irrigation, hence farmer had to borrow more.This brought
moneylenders, Shroff, Mahajan, Baniya, into limelight- they were in control of village land
without any accountability.Thus British land revenue system transfered ownership of land
from farmer to moneylender. towards about the end of the colonial period, The total
burden on the peasant of interest payments on debt and rent on land could be estimated
at a staggering Rs 14,200 million.

Serfdom

slavery/bonded labour/Begari almost non-existent. But During British raj Zamindars gave
loan to farmers/laborers and demanded free labour in return.This practice prevented
farmers/laborers to bargaining wages.Begari, Bonded labour, or debt bondage became a
common feature in large parts of the country.Even in ryotwari areas, upper caste controlled
the land. Lower caste was reduced to sharecroppers and landless laborers.

Rural Industry destroyed

de-urbanization and de-industrialization of India.This led to even greater pressures on

agriculture since large categories of highly skilled artisans and non-agricultural workers
were thrown out of work.When the British left, India had become a village-based
agricultural economy.With an enormous population pressure on agriculture and an
adverse land–man ratio of about 0.92 acre per capita at independence.
Trade tariffs and excise duties were set so as to destroy Indian industries, and squeeze
domestic trade.Bihar and Bengal: severe restrictions were placed on the use of inland
water-ways — causing fishing and inland shipping and transportation to suffer.