Land and Law in Colonial India
Anand V. Swamy
Forthcoming in Debin Ma and Jan Luiten Van Zanden eds. Long-term Economic Change in Eurasian Perspective, Stanford University Press.
The East India Company’s conquest of various territories in India typically brought one issue to the forefront right away: How would land taxes, the principal source of governmental revenue, be collected? But taxation was not a thing unto itself; it was inextricably linked with “ownership” and indeed with the entire structure of land rights. For this reason, among others, the Company also created/adapted legal systems that would adjudicate the disputes that, inevitably, followed in the wake of its land-rights interventions. The legal and land tenure arrangements chosen also affected credit markets: to the extent land ownership is secure and transferable, land can be used as collateral, or seized in lieu of repayment of debts or other contractual obligations. Land, law, and credit in colonial India generated a huge (and ongoing) discussion: debates preceding policy choices; later commentary within the colonial administration; “nationalist” criticisms from the late 19th century onwards; and current research linking present-day economic outcomes to colonial era choices. In this paper we provide an overview of this literature, focusing on the period 1765-1900. In the interest of brevity and coherence we focus two regions, Bengal, which was first conquered (1757-64), and the Bombay Deccan, which was annexed in 1818, though we make references to other regions as well.
From the very beginning, Company rule in India generated an extraordinary amount of documentation. Policy discussions characterized the nature of pre-colonial regimes and land tenure systems, invoked the theories of contemporary economists and philosophers in Europe, and might even use surveys to gather information. Much of the discussion was conducted in terms that would be familiar to contemporary economists: secure property rights and contract enforcement, and, more generally, good governance, would promote investment, trade, and economic growth. The Company would (it was argued) provide this essential support for economic development far better than the despotic and mutually hostile regimes that had preceded it. However, the intellectual sophistication of the discussion notwithstanding, the Company (and later the Crown) continually struggled with the three related problems: (i) A lack of understanding of existing institutional arrangements, (ii) Limited administrative capacity, and (iii) Especially after the “Mutiny” of 1857, concerns with political stability. Decision-making was also complicated by the fact that there were three key players: the administration in India, the Court of Directors in London, and the British government’s “Board of Control,” whose relative influence varied over time.
Given the complex and evolving interplay of these factors, it is difficult to classify the policy choices made by the colonial administration.
However, at the risk of over-
simplification, we can identify three broad phases. The first, which is closely identified with the Permanent Settlement in Bengal, was overwhelmingly concerned with one task: tax collection. The second, which we illustrate with the experience of the “mature” Raiyatwari system in the Bombay Deccan and tenant protection in Bengal, reflected the increasing administrative capacity of the colonial state, and its ability to intervene more extensively at lower levels of the agrarian structure. In the third phase, after the rebellion of 1857, political concerns repeatedly came to the fore: the state was willing to abandon cherished notions of political economy and curb market transactions, thereby altering some of the rights granted earlier. The next three sections of the paper sequentially describe these phases. In the final section we take stock, and...
References: Banerjee, Abhijit V., Paul J. Gertler, and Maitreesh Ghatak. 2002. “Empowerment and
Efficiency: Tenancy Reform in West Bengal,” Journal of Political Economy 110, 2: 239280.
Banerjee, Abhijit V. and Lakshmi Iyer. 2005. “History, Institutions, and Economic
Performance: The Legacy of Colonial Land Tenure Systems in India,” American
Barrier, Norman G. 1964. “The Formulation and Enactment of the Punjab Alienation of
Land Bill,” Indian Economic and Social History Review, 2: 145-165.
Basu, K. 1997. Analytical Development Economics: The Less Developed Economy Revisited.
Besley, Timothy and Robin Burgess. 2000. “Land Reform, Poverty Reduction and Growth:
Evidence from India,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 389-430.
Bhaduri, Amit. 1973. “A Study in Agricultural Backwardness under Semi-Feudalism,”
Economic Journal 83, 329: 120-137.
Bhattacharya, N. 1985. “Lenders and Debtors in the Punjab Countryside, 1880-1940,”
Studies in History, 1: 305-342.
Bose, Sugata. 1993. Peasant Labour and Colonial Capital: Rural Bengal since 1770.
Cohn, Bernard. S. 1961. “From Indian Status to British Contract,” Journal of Economic
History, 21, 4: 613-628.
Catanach, I. J. 1970. Rural Credit in Western India 1875-1930: Rural Credit and the Cooperative Movement in the Bombay Presidency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Charlesworth, Neil. 1972. "The Myth of the Deccan Riots of 1875," Modern Asian Studies, 6,
Charlesworth, Neil. 1985. Peasants and Imperial Rule: Agriculture and agrarian society in
the Bombay Presidency, 1850-1935
Chatterjee, Partha. 1984. Bengal 1920-47: The Land Question. Calcutta: K.P. Bagchi and
Chowdhury-Zilly, A.N. 1982. The Vagrant Peasant: Agrarian Distress and Desertion in
Bengal 1770 to 1830
Coats, T. W. 1823. “An Account of the Present State of the Township of Lony: An
Illustration of the Institutions, Resources and c
Finucane, M. and Rampini, R.F. 1886. The Bengal Tenancy Act: Being Act VIII of 1885,
with Notes and Annotations, Judicial Rulings, and the Rules Made by the Local
Gandhi, B. M. 2003. Hindu Law. Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.
Government of Bombay. 1882. The Survey and Settlement Manual, Being a Compilation of
All Acts, Rules, Discussions in the Legislative Council and Official Correspondence
Guha, Ranajit. 1963. A Rule for Property in Bengal: An Essay on the Idea of the Permanent
Guha, Sumit. 1985. The Agrarian Economy of the Bombay Deccan 1818-1941. Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Hatekar, Narendra. 1996. “Information and Incentives: Pringle’s Ricardian Experiment in the
Nineteenth Century Deccan Countryside,” Indian Economics and Social History Review,
Islam, Mukhafurul.M. 1995. “The Punjab Land Alienation Act and the Professional
Moneylenders,” Modern Asian Studies 29, 2: 271-91.
Islam, Sirajul. 1979. The Permanent Settlement in Bengal: A Study of Its Operation 17901819. Dacca: Bangla Academy.
Kapur, S. and Kim, S. 2006. “British Colonial Institutions and Economic Development in
India,” NBER Working Paper 12613.
Kranton, Rachel E. and Anand V. Swamy. 1999. “The Hazards of Piecemeal Reform:
British Civil Courts and the Credit Market in Colonial India,” Journal of Development
_______. 2008. “Contracts, Hold-Up, and Exports: Textiles and Opium in Colonial India,”
American Economic Review 98, 3: 967-989.
Kumar, Ravindar. 1965. "The Deccan Riots of 1875," Journal of Asian Studies 24: 613-633.
Marshall, Peter J. 1987. The New Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol. 2.
McAlpin, M. B. 1980. “The Impact of Trade on Agricultural Development: Bombay
Presidency, 1855-1920,” Explorations in Economic History 17: 26-47.
McLane J. R. 1977. "Revenue Farming and the Zamindari System in Eighteenth-Century
Bengal," in R.E
Misra, B.B. 1977. The Bureaucracy in India: An Historical Analysis of Development up to
Neale, W. 1969. “Land is to Rule,” in R.E. Frykenberg ed. Land Control and Social
Structure in Indian History
Oak, M. and Swamy, A. 2007. “Only Twice as Much: A Rule for Regulating Lenders,”
Mimeo, Williams College.
Price, Pamela. 1983. “Warrior Caste ‘Raja’ and Gentleman ‘Zamindar’: One Person’s
Experience in the late Nineteenth Century,” Modern Asian Studies, 17, 4: 563-90.
Mitra, D.B. 1978. The Cotton Weavers of Bengal, 1757-1833. Calcutta: Firma
Mukherjee, N. and Frykenberg, R.E. 1969. “The Ryotwari System and Social Organization
Please join StudyMode to read the full document