Ryotwari System

The Ryotwari System was a land revenue system introduced by the British in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, primarily in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies, as well as Assam and Coorg. Unlike the Permanent Settlement, where revenue was collected through zamindars (landowners), the Ryotwari System involved direct taxation of individual cultivators, known as "ryots", who were recognised as the owners of their land.

There were many shortcomings in the system of Permanent Settlement, so it had more opponents than supporters. The problem became more serious when the Company started expanding its empire as it was not sure which settlement should be made in the newly annexed territory.

The pioneer of the Ryotwari Settlement was Thomas Munro. For him, the benefit to the people was the primary concern of any settlement. Under the Ryotwari Settlement, land revenue was collected directly from the peasant, as "ryot" itself meant peasant in Persian. It was implemented first in the Madras Presidency in the early nineteenth century. Interestingly, the reason given by Reid, an English officer in Madras, was that there were no big zamindars in Madras, unlike in Bengal, for the settlement. Different systems were prevailing in different parts of South India. Some lands were under the Jagir System, some Inam, and some captured. The Government wanted uniformity in tax collection and settlement, so it decided to make settlements directly with the peasants. The Ryotwari Settlement was implemented in Madras, Malabar, Kanara, Kurnool, Bellary, Coimbatore, and Kudappa.

After the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-18), a large part of the Maratha Kingdom, including Pune and Gujarat, was annexed into the Bombay Presidency. The Company had no hesitation in implementing the Ryotwari Settlement in the newly annexed areas. Elphinstone, the local commissioner, was responsible for this. This settlement was also implemented in Gujarat, the Central Provinces, Berar, Burma, Assam, and Coorg. The Ryotwari Settlement was implemented in 52 per cent of British India.

The peasants in this system were made owners of the land, and 50 percent of the net produce was fixed as land revenue.

Benefits to the Government

1. The settlement was not permanent but for a fixed tenure, normally for 30 years; therefore, in case of increased production, the government could also increase the land revenue, unlike in the Permanent Settlement.
2. The Government collected land revenue mainly in cash; therefore, in case of a price rise, the Government also benefited.
3. The Government had control over non-occupied and other community land, unlike in the Permanent Settlement area.

Benefits to the Peasant

1. The peasants were treated as owners of the land. They could sell or give their land on contract.
2. They were saved from any intermediaries.

Losses to the Peasant

1. In theory, the land revenue was collected on 'net income,' but in practice, it was difficult to estimate the total cost incurred in productivity. It was difficult for any peasant to maintain records of expenditure on seeds, animals, labour, manures, etc. Thus, in reality, the state was collecting land revenue from 'total income' instead of 'net income.'
2. Clever and corrupt revenue officials penetrated the political body of rural South India.
3. The high rate of taxation forced the peasant to borrow money from moneylenders (Mahajans). For other socio-religious purposes too, the peasant borrowed money. The rate of interest was quite high and arbitrary, which made it difficult for the peasant to settle their accounts with the Mahajans. They were not allowed to settle the debt even if they wished, because the papers of land were in the custody of Mahajans, who wanted to grab the land and were always looking for excuses and opportunities. The British police and judicial system also helped the Mahajans instead of the oppressed peasants. Thus, the Ryotwari Settlement brought great misery to the peasants. It is not surprising why maximum famine, drought, and unrest were noticed in parts of British India with the Ryotwari system.
4. The peasants failed to develop their agricultural land and crop patterns due to the high rate of taxation.

It is clear that the tall claim made by English officials like Reid proved false. The Government had announced in the late nineteenth century that land revenue would be collected only on 'net produce,' relief would be given to peasants during natural calamities, and concessions in revenue collection would be provided in the case of poor-quality land. The Deccan Agricultural Relief Act, 1879, clearly mentioned stopping land transfers, but all these promises remained on paper. The peasants were left free to face their bitterest enemies—the 'Nature,' the 'Officials,' and the 'Mahajans.'