Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:00:50.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

System v. Expediency: The Reality of Land Revenue Administration in the Bombay Presidency, 1812–1820

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Neil Rabitoy
Neil Rabitoy
Affiliation:
California State University at Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historians of early British administration in India have traditionally focused their attention upon the two major ‘systems’ of that administration—the ryotwari and zamindari land revenue settlements, or variations thereof. This is understandable: these systems provide a convenient framework within which to measure variations in administrative policy and consequent social and economic results. This preoccupation seems further justified by the attention that was given to the merits of these systems by officials high in the Company's administration in India and London in the early nineteenth century.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , July 1975 , pp. 529 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For an example of the use of this generalization see Percival, Spear, India: A Modern History (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1961), p. 238.Google Scholar

2 Philips, C. H., The East India Company, 1784–1834 (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 2nd ed., 1961), pp. 200–4;Google ScholarMisra, B. B., The Central Administration of the East India Company, 1773–1834 (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1959), pp. 204–13.Google Scholar

3 This is described in, among other sources, Baden-Powell, B. H., The Land Systems of British India (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1892), III, 207–10;Google ScholarModak, D. S., The Bombay Land System and Village Administration (Poona: Oriental Watchman Publishing House, 1932), pp. 6–9;Google ScholarPatel, G. D., The Land Revenue Settlements and the British Rule in India (Ahmedabad: Gujarat University, 1969), pp. 380–6;Google ScholarRavinder, Kumar, Western India in the Nineteenth Century: A Study in the Social History of Maharashtra (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968), passim.Google Scholar

4 In this respect Bombay was going through an anti-‘native’ stage which seems generic to British administration; Bengal had gone through it some thirty years earlier. Marshall, P. J., ‘Indian Officials under The East India Company in Eighteenth Century Bengal’ Bengal: Past & Present, 84 (1965), 95.Google Scholar

5 Pamela, Nightingale, Trade and Empire in Western India, 1784–1806 (Cambridge: University Press, 1970), pp. 175–214.Google Scholar

6 The only common policy shared by both Duncan's and Nepean's administrations was the necessity to increase the revenue. However, they went about this task in quite different fashions.Google Scholar

7 Nepean was a product of the modernization which took place in British government in the 1780s and 1790s. Long before he arrived in India he had gained a reputation for being ‘highly efficient,’ ‘very active,’ and as one who insisted on behaving according to the letter of the law and with ‘absolutely correct’ deportment.Google ScholarVincent, T. Harlow, The Founding of the Second British Empire, 1763–1793 (London: Longmans, Green and Co., Ltd, 1964), I, 573;Google ScholarTaft, Helen Manning, British Colonial Government after the American Revolution, 1782–1820 (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1966), pp. 84, 93–4.Google Scholar

8 Van Aalst, Frank Daigh, ‘The British View of India, 1750 to 1785’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1970), p. 166.Google Scholar

9 Only two civil servants elected to quarrel with this assumption during this period. Both were ultimately demoted.Google Scholar

10 There were many such examples. M.S.A., R.D.D., 44:33, Walker to Government, 8 April 1804; M.S.A., R.D.D., 44:329–30, Resolution of Government, 12 January 1805; M.S.A., R.D.D., 59:184–85, Broach Revenue Commission to Duncan, 31 May 1807.Google Scholar

11 M.S.A., R.D.D., 85:1019, Resolution of Government, 14 May 1813; M.S.A., R.D.D., 85:880–81, Minute of Nepean, 1 April 1813.Google Scholar

12 See, for example, I.O., Rev. Letters to Bombay, 1:116, Ct of Dirs to Bombay, 10 January 1810; M.S.A., R.D.D., 76:1990, Resolution of Government, 11 December 1811; M.S.A., R.D.D., 79:1285–88, Minutes of 11 August 1812. Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, 2:487.Google Scholar

13 M.S.A., R.D.D., 80:1509–15, Ct of Dirs to Governor-General-in-Council, 15 January 1812.Google Scholar

14 M.S.A., R.D.D., 84:777, Minutes of 1 May 1813.Google Scholar

15 M.S.A., R.D.D., 90:2854–70, Morison to Newnham, 5 October 1813.Google Scholar

16 M.S.A., R.D.D., 90:2886–87, Minutes of 25 November 1813.Google Scholar

17 M.S.A., R.D.D., 100:1487–88, Morison to Newnham, 17 April 1815. Author's italics.Google Scholar

18 For the details of his settlement, see M.S.A., R.D.D., 113: 946–48, Morison to Warden, 28 July 1816.Google Scholar

19 At least none appears in the official records. If there was any controversy over this question it is very unlikely that it could have altogether escaped these documents. Certainly the records are replete with extensive arguments on other questions.Google Scholar

20 M.S.A., J.D.D., 91:900, Morison to Warden, 13 March 1817.Google Scholar

21 M.S.A., R.D.D., 100:1497, Minutes of 3 June 1815.Google Scholar

22 M.S.A., R.D.D., 113:946–48, Morison to Warden, 28 July 1816.Google Scholar

23 M.S.A., R.D.D., 79:1174–76, Rowles to Warden, 22 September 1811.Google Scholar

24 M.S.A., R.D.D., 96:2557, Rowles to Warden, 21 October 1814.Google Scholar

25 I.O., Rev. Letters from Bombay, 2:298–99, Bombay to Ct of Dirs, 10 June 1815.Google Scholar

26 M.S.A., R.D.D., 108:1716–17, Barnewall to Rowles, 1 August 1816. The terms ryotwari and amani continued to be used interchangeably in the Kaira collectorship for several years.Google Scholar

27 M.S.A., R.D.D., 143:3272, Dunlop to Newnham, 13 August 1819.Google Scholar

28 East India Co., Selection of Papers, 3:703, Minute of Prendergast, 29 06 1821.Google Scholar

29 East India Co., Selection of Papers, 3:699, Minute of Elphinstone, 6 05 1821;Google ScholarI.O., Rev. Letters to Bombay, 2:168–70, Cr of Dirs to Bombay, I4 July 1819; M.S.A., R.D.D., 121:4183, Minutes of 24 October 1817. A baugdari village was one divided into several shares (baugs), each of which was headed by a patel.Google Scholar

30 I.O., MSS Eur. F 88, box 6, #39, Robertson to Elphinstone, n.d.Google Scholar

31 These factors were not isolated to the Bombay Presidency during this period.Google Scholar

32 Bombay Regulation II, 1814.Google Scholar

33 M.S.A., J.D.D., 115:2680, Government Resolution of I November 1819.Google Scholar

34 M.S.A., R.D.D., 59:209, Revenue Commission Broach to Duncan, 31 May 1807; M.S.A., R.D.D., 79:1174–76, Rowles to Warden, 20 September 1811; M.S.A., 87:1788, Diggle to Warden, 23 July 1808; M.S.A., R.D.D., 81:2057–58, Morison to Newnham, 13 November 1812.Google Scholar

35 M.S.A., R.D.D., 81:2131–32, 2135, Rowles to Warden, 22 October 1812.Google Scholar

36 M.S.A., R.D.D., 151:1059, Morison to Farish, 3 February 1820; M.S.A., R.D.D., 112:720, Shubrick to Warden, 4 February 1817; M.S.A., J.D.D., 110:756, Minute of Sutherland, 19 December 1818.Google Scholar

37 Thomas, Alfred Etheridge, Narrative of the Bombay Inam Commission: Vol. 132 of the Bombay Selections (Bombay: Government Central Press, 1874), PP. 20–2.Google Scholar

38 M.S.A., R.D.D., 92:854–55, Minute of Bellasis supplementary to the Revenue Committee of Survey report, 20 March 1814.Google Scholar

39 M.S.A., R.D.D., 118:2971–72, Shubrick to Warden, 9 July 1817.Google Scholar

40 M.S.A., R.D.D., 143:3221, Morison to Newnham, 25 September 1819; I.O., Bombay Revenue Proceedings, 61: 445, Gujarat Wuttun Commission to Revenue Commissioner, 15 February 1865.Google Scholar

41 See, for example, I.O., Bombay Revenue Proceedings, 36: item # 79, para. 41, Minute of Malcolm on Gujarat, n.d. [1830]; M.S.A., R.D.D., 111:327–28, Shubrick to Warden, 17 January 1817.Google Scholar

42 I.O., Home Misc. Ser. 438:73, Ewer to H. Dundas, n.d. This was a principal justification for the employment of military officers, who appear to have been more linguistically motivated, in civil positions.Google Scholar

43 I.O., Mountstuart Elphinstone Collection, MSS Eur. F 88, box 6, #I, letter #109, Warden to Elphinstone, 17 February 1821. Morison was a frequent source of frustration for his superiors.Google Scholar

44 I.O., Bombay Civilians: Record of Services of Civil Servants in the Bombay Presidency from the Year 1740 to the year 1858, p. 371; M.S.A., R.D.D., 48A:72, Court of Circuit and Appeal to Warden, I January 1806.Google Scholar

45 I.O., Bombay Civilians, p. 352a; I.O., Elphinstone Collection, MSS Eur. F 88, box, #I, letter #109, Warden to Elphinstone, 17 February 1821. Shubrick was apparently appointed by Nepean as a favor to a member of the Court of Directors. I.O., MSS Eur. D 166, Nepean to Inglis, 23 Augusy 1813.Google Scholar

46 Percival, Spear, ‘Twilight of the Mughuls: Chapter 5, “The British Administration”’, in Modern India, ed. Thomas, R. Metcalfe (Toronto: Collier-Macmillan Limited, 1971), pp. 145–6;Google Scholar see also: Howard, Spodek, ‘On the Origins of Gandhi's Political Methodology: The Heritage of Kathiawad and Gujarat’, Journal of Asian Studies, 30 (1971), 362.Google Scholar

47 M.S.A., R.D.D., 145:3702, Morison to Simson, 8 October 1819.Google Scholar

48 There was a constant flow of complaints to Bombay against Sukaram's abuse of his power between 1809 and 1820.Google Scholar

49 M.S.A., R.D.D., 44:413, Walker to Grant, 26 – 1804; M.S.A., R.D.D., 44:420–21, Shastri to Walker, n.d.; M.S.A., R.D.D., 44:64–65, Gangader Shastrie to Purbhooram Assaram, 10 January 1804.Google Scholar

50 M.S.A., J.D.D., 87:3301–02, Rowles to Warden, 17 September 1816.Google Scholar

51 M.S.A., R.D.D., 96:2751–54, Muccanjee Bhoyjee to Governor-in-Council, 19 December 1814; M.S.A., R.D.D., 101:2233–34, Wilkins to Warden, 10 August 1815; M.S.A., R.D.D., 102:2451, Petition from Mucondjee Bhyjee to Government, 18 September 1815; M.S.A., R.D.D., 107:954–59, Minutes of Government of 14 June 1816.Google Scholar

52 See also: M.S.A., R.D.D., 112:582, Jones to Newnham, 10 February 1817; M.S.A., R.D.D., 112:733–34, Newnham to Shubrick, 14, March 1817.Google Scholar

53 M.S.A., J.D.D., 108:4024, Shubrick to Newnham, 21 November 1818.Google Scholar

54 M.S.A., R.D.D., 48:1954–56, Walker to Diggle, 24 June 1805; M.S.A., R.D.D., 65:158–59, Diggle to Warden, 11 January 1809.Google Scholar

55 M.S.A., R.D.D., 39:988, Dessobhai to Duncan, 18 November 1803; M.S.A., R.D.D., 39:966, Government to Walker, 30 November 1803.Google Scholar

56 M.S.A., R.D.D., 44:154, Steadman to Walker, n.d.; M.S.A., R.D.D., 44:224, Walker to Government, 23 May 1804.Google Scholar

57 M.S.A., R.D.D., 44:240–46, Dessoo's Replies to Enquiry of MrSteadman, 4 January 1805. This is dated January 1805 but must have been submitted by Dessobhai at a much earlier date. M.S.A., R.D.D., 44:236–39, Government to Walker, 8 January 1805.Google Scholar

58 M.S.A., J.D.D., 29:23, Walker to Grant, 3 January 1805.Google Scholar

59 N.L.S., Walker of Bowland Papers, 1805.b.3, Alexander Walker, ‘India Administration’ [c. 1820].Google Scholar

60 A good example is the case of George Corsellis who was appointed as the Kaira judge and magistrate in 1805. Shortly after his arrival he ordered that all human waste had to be deposited outside of the city. He also ordered that all dogs and cattle had to be tethered and that a court order was necessary for any Kaira inhabitant to travel beyond a certain distance from the city. The result was a strike by Kaira's shopkeepers and, ultimately, Corsellis's removal five months after his appointment. M.S.A., J.D.D., 31:1613–26, Walker to Corsellis', 29 September 1805; M.S.A., J.D.D., 32:2084–96, Corsellis to Duncan, 2 October 1805; M.S.A., J.D.D., 32:2475, Minutes of Government of 27 December 1805.Google Scholar

61 Quoted in Donald, C. Gordon, The Moment of Power: Britain's Imperial Epoch (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), p. 115.Google Scholar See also Frykenberg, R. E., ‘Traditional Processes of Power in South India: An Historical Analysis of Local Influence,’ Indian Economic and Social History Review, I (1963), 138.Google Scholar

62 Reinhard, Bendix, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1960), p. 433;Google Scholar see also: Frykenberg, R. E., ‘Village Strength in South India,’ in Frykenberg, R. E. (ed.), Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), p. 243;Google ScholarBeaglehole, T. H., Thomas Munro and the Development of Administrative Policy in Madras, 1792–1818 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), pp. 16, 30;Google ScholarHunter, W. W., The Indian Empire: Its History, People, and Products (London: Trübner & Co., 1882), p. 332.Google Scholar

63 Barrier, N. Gerald, Review of The Administrative History of India 1834–1947Google Scholar by Misra, Bankey Bihari, Journal of Asian Studies, 31 (1972), 434; Van Aalst, ‘The British View,’ p. 8.Google Scholar

64 Burton, Stein, ‘Integration of the Agrarian System of South India,’ in Frykenberg, (ed.), Land Control, p. 204.Google Scholar

65 Behramji, M. Malabari, Gujarat and the Gujaratis: Pictures of Men and Manners taken from Life (Bombay: Fort Printing Press, 1889), p. 32.Google Scholar

66 Stein, ‘Integration’, p. 197; see also: Beaglehole, Munro, p. 29.Google Scholar

67 O'Malley, L. S. S., The Indian Civil Service, 1601–1930 (London: Frank Cass & Co., Ltd, 1965), pp. 162–3.Google Scholar

68 This was unlike the situation in Benares where, consequently, the results were different. Bernard, S. Cohn, ‘The British in Benares: A Nineteenth Century Colonial Society,’ Comparative Studies in Society and History, 4 (1962), 170–3.Google Scholar

69 Malabari, , Gujarat, p. 108.Google Scholar

70 This idea is also suggested in Van Aalst, ‘The British View,’ p. 14; Embree, Ainslie T., ‘Landholding in India and British Institutions,’ in Frykenberg, (ed.), Land Control, p. 36; Misra, Central Administration, pp. 210–11.Google Scholar An excellent fictional account of this same phenomenon can be found in Iltudus, Prichard, The Chronicles of Budgepore; or, Sketches of Life in Upper India (2 vols London: Wm. H. Allen, 1893).Google Scholar