Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:18:40.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Punjab Land Alienation Act and the Professional Moneylenders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

M. Mufakharul Islam
M. Mufakharul Islam
Affiliation:
Dhaka University, Bangladesh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Following its annexation by the British in 1847 the Punjab province witnessed several significant developments—individualization of property rights in land, fixation and rigorous collection of land revenue in cash, introduction of a new legal-administrative system, construction of a road and railway network, canal-building activities and a colonization programme, commercialization of agriculture and increased monetization of economic transactions. These developments created a situation which, in turn, gave rise to two related problems –agricultural indebtedness and land transfer.1 These problems were not entirely unknown in the province in the earlier period, but during the last quarter of the nineteenth century indebtedness became so widespread and land transfer increased to such an extent that these became a matter of concern and embarrassment to many officials. For the magnitude of these problems seemed to contradict the colonial government's claimthat under its paternal care the province was enjoying agricultural prosperity, and the land revenue rates were moderate. Simultaneously some officials warned that there was a political danger in the situation. For a substantial part of the land sold and mortgaged by the cultivators was going to the moneylenders, and this meant the dispossession of the peasant proprietors. If no remedial steps were taken, it was argued, the animosity of the peasant population towards the moneylenders (sahukar) would ultimately be direted against the government.2 Initially the government refused to take any steps, arguing that the facts were insufficient 'to warrant interference by legislature to restrict the transfer of land'.3 But ultimately the contention that the problem posed a political danger gained ground and the Punjab Land Alienation Act was passed in1900 (and came into effect in 1901).4

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , May 1995 , pp. 271 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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 These developments have been discussed by several scholars: Bhatia, Shyamala, Social Change and Politics in Punjab 1898–1910 (New Delhi, 1987)Google Scholar; Banerjee, Himadri, Agrarian Society of the Punjab 1849–1910 (New Delhi, 1982)Google Scholar; Sharma, Inderjit, Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab (New Delhi, 1985);Google ScholarAli, Imran, The Punjab under Imperialism 1885–1947 (New Delhi, 1989);Google ScholarPaustian, P. W., Canal Irrigation in the Punjab (New York, 1930);Google ScholarTalbot, Ian, Punjab and the Raj (New Delhi, 1988)Google Scholar and Kessinger, T. K., Vilyatpur 1848–1968) (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1974);Google ScholarHamid, Naved, ‘Dispossession and Differentiation of the Peasantry in the Punjab During Colonial Rule’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 10 (10 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 There was a communal dimension to the problem in the sense that while most of the borrowers were Muslims, most of the lenders were Hindus. This aspect of the problem was most emphasized by Thorburn, S. S., Musalmans and Moneylenders in the Punjab (London, 1886).Google Scholar

3 Cited in Sharma, , Land Revenue Administration, p. 177.Google Scholar

4 For details of the provisions of this Act and the rules framed under it see Aggarwal, Om Prakash, Agrarian Legislation in the Punjab, vol. I (Lahore, 1940)Google Scholar and SirDouie, J. M., Punjab Land Administration Manual (Lahore, 1931).Google Scholar

5 Initially there was a third category known as ‘statutory agriculturists’. This category was dropped as a result of the amendment of the Act in 1907. By 1940 the Act was amended ten times.Google Scholar

6 Sharma, , Land Revenue Administration, ch. 3; Bhatia, Social Change and Politics, pp. 227–35;Google ScholarBanerjee, , Agrarian Society, ch. 5;Google Scholarden Dungen, P. H. M. Van, The Punjab Tradition, Influence and Authority in Nineteenth Century India (London, 1972);Google ScholarBarrier, Norman G., Punjab Land Alienation Bill, 1901 (Duke University, 1966).Google Scholar

7 Barrier, Norman G., ‘The Formulation and Enactment of the Punjab Alienation of Land Bill’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 2 (04 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Shigemochi, Hirashima, The Structure of Disparity in Developing Agriculture: A Case Study of the Pakistan Punjab (Tokyo, 1974), p. 41.Google Scholar

9 Misra, S. C., ‘Commercialisation, Peasant Differentiation and Merchant Capital in Late Nineteenth-Century Bombay and Punjab’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 10 (10 1982).Google ScholarFor similar views about the effectiveness of the Act see Darling, M. L., The Punjab Peasant in Prosperity and Debt (New Delhi, 1977), p. 229;Google ScholarSaini, B. S., The Social and Economic History of the Punjab 1901–1939 (New Delhi, 1975), p. 224;Google ScholarDewey, Clive J., ‘Some Consequences of Military Expenditure in British India: The Case of the Upper Sind Sagar Doab, 1849–1947’ in his (ed.), The Arrested Development in India (New Delhi, 1988).Google Scholar

10 Talbot, , Punjab and the Raj, p. 56.Google Scholar

11 Administration Report of the Punjab and its Dependencies (annual) 1901/1902, p. 37.Google Scholar

12 Annual Report on the Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab, 1887/1888, p. 25 (henceforth LRARP)Google Scholar; Proceedings, Revenue and Agriculture,Land Revenue,October 1895, nos 72–73A, pp. 46–7.Google Scholar

13 From 1874 to 1887 statistics on land transfer were reported under two heads—agriculturists and non-agriculturists. From 1888 the latter category was replaced by ‘new-agriculturists’. There were certain defects in this categorization but it was claimed that despite this the reported statistics could be taken as reliable for the purpose of comparison. For details see Proceedings, 1895, p. 47.Google Scholar

14 Hirashima, , Structure of Disparity, pp. 37–53. Hirashima emphasizes the fact that he annual rate of return on land purchase was even lower than the rate of interest charged by the village Co-operative Credit Societies. But it is the rate (which was substantially lower) at which these societies borrowed that should be taken into consideration.Google Scholar

15 For the same view that the merchant-moneylenders were more careful of opportunity costs see Bhattacharya, Neeladri, ‘Lenders and Debtors: Punjab Countryside 1880–1940’, Studies in History, 1, New Series (1985). However, he speaks only about the opportunity cost of mortgage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Many contemporary observers of the Punjab agrarian scene also believed that land purchase yielded a low rate of return and was, therefore, unprofitable. For details see Assessment Report (henceforth AR) of the Kharian Tahsil of Gujrat District 1913/1914, p. 17; Punjab Provincial Banking Enquiry Committee Report, Evidence 1, pp. 148, 293–4, 447.Google Scholar

17 For details see Report on the Marketing of Wheat in India (New Delhi, 1937), p. 15;Google ScholarAnnual Report of the Indian Central Committee (New Delhi, 1945), p. 72.Google Scholar For sugarcane, see Pray, C. E., ‘The Economics of Agricultural Research in British and Pakistani Punjab 1905–1975’ (Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania University, 1978), p. 29.Google Scholar

18 LRARP 1908/1909, p. 2. In 1922 a record 87 per cent of the suits for enhancement was successful LRARP 1921/1922, p. 17.Google Scholar

19 Settlement Report (henceforth SR), Jullunder 1880–86 and 1913–17; SR Lundhiana 1878–83 and 1908–11, SR Ambala 1893 and 1910, SR Karnal 1872–80 and 1907–09. See also SR Hoshiarpur 1910–14, p. 26; SR Gurdaspur 1912, p. 19; SR Ferozepore 1910–14, p. 11; AR Mamdotjagir, Ferozepore District, 1913, p. 40; AR of the Hafizabad Tahsil, Gujranwalla District, 1925, p. 24; AR of the Wazirabad Tahsil Gujranwalla District, 1925, p. 19. Indeed, almost every Assessment Report does mention that rent was increasing. For more examples on the subject,Google Scholar see Calvert, H., The Wealth and Welfare of the Punjab (Lahore, 1922), pp. 116–17.Google Scholar

20 Batai was a cropsharing system and the proportion of land cultivated under this system increased from 29% in 1901/1902 to 36% in 1931/1932. Most of the Settlement Reports and Assessment Reports mention that batai rent was increasing.Google ScholarSee also Bhattacharya, Neeladri, ‘The Logic of Tenancy Cultivation: Central and South West Punjab’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 20 (04–06 1983).Google Scholar

21 AR of the Attack Tahsil of the Attock District 1925, p. 23; SR Hoshiarpur 1910–14, p. 18;Google ScholarKessinger, , Vilyatpur, p. 152.Google Scholar

22 SR Gujrat 1930, p. 13;Google ScholarPunjab District Gazetteers (henceforth DG) XXXIV-A, Muzqffargarh District 1929, p. 136.Google Scholar

23 AR of the Garhshankar Tahsil of Hoshiarpur District 1912/1913, pp. 17–18, 39; LRARP 1934/35, P. 30.Google Scholar

24 Howlader, S. R., ‘Portfolio Selection and Demand For Assets in a Peasant Economy: A Theoretical Analysis’, Dhaka University Studies, part C, 7 (12 1987).Google Scholar

25 The Punjab Provincial Banking Enquiry Committee was told, ‘… no Zamindar buys land with the idea that it will appreciate in value and he will then sell’. Evidence. 1, p. 94. There is a contradictory evidence which reports: ‘In few villages there has been land speculation … The purchasers are in many cases men who have emigrated to Bombay, China or East Africa and returned full of money’, AR Attock Tahsil, p. 21. But these were exceptional cases.Google Scholar

26 Calvert has shown that over a period of 21 years (1896/1897–1916/1917) there were, on average, 29 transactions per village. There were approximately 2½ million families directly supported by agriculture. Assuming that vendors and vendees were equal in number and separate people, this means that on average each family had a chance of buying a plot of two or three acres of cultivated land once in 27 years, Calvert, Wealth and Welfare, p. 110.Google Scholar

27 This explains why mortgage was preferred to sale, even though the common form of mortgage in the rural Punjab required the mortgager to surrender the use of the property to the mortgage in lieu of interest payments, meaning that the borrower lost the production of the land for the duration of the mortgage. Kessinger, Vilyatpur, pp. 148–56.Google Scholar

28 Bhattacharya, , ‘Lenders and Debtors’.Google Scholar

29 It is not relevant to refer to interest rates in the urban areas because non-agricultural classes of the rural areas (as also the peasant) had restricted access to the urban money market for loan or investment.

30 In this connection it may be mentioned that the export of raw cotton from the province increased from 75 thousand maunds in 1891/92 to 2146 thousand maunds in 1918/19. During the same period export of grains and pulses increased from 19,184 thousand maunds to 40,808 maunds.

31 Report of the Punjab Provincial Banking Enquiry Committee, 1929–1930, vol. I (Lahore, 1930), p. 22.Google Scholar

32 Census of India, 1921, vol. XV, Punjab and Delhi, part I, Report, p. 50.Google Scholar

33 The annual average during 1900/01–1917/18 amounted to Rs 15.8 million. For details see Calvert, , Wealth and Welfare, p. 163.Google Scholar

34 In 1910/11 (the first year for which reliable statistics are available) the non-agriculturists owed 14 per cent of the total cultivated area of the province, LRARP 1910/11, Statement 111. The fact that a part of this land was owned by the village menials is clear from the evidence available from Census of India, 1891 vol. XIX. The Punjab and Its Feudatories, Abstract 91. About the purchase of land by this class in the late nineteenth century see Proceedings 1895, p. 47.Google Scholar

35 Bhattacharya, Neeladri, ‘The Logic of Tenancy Cultivation’.Google Scholar

36 Ibid.; ‘Agricultural Labour and Production: Central and South-East Punjab 1870–1940’, in Raj, K. N. et al. (eds), Essays on the Commercialisation of Indian Agriculture (New Delhi, 1985);Google ScholarJurgensmeyer, Mark K., ‘Political Hope: The Quest for Political Identity and Strategy’, part I (Ph. D Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1974), p. 82.Google Scholar

37 Incidentally, the units of sale were normally small and this meant that even the marginal savers could afford to compete for land.

38 For details of the land grant policy of the government see Ali, Imran, The Punjab Under Imperialism, chs, 2–4.Google Scholar

39 The urban commercial classes were very careful when they were bidding for agricultural land in the auction market. Proceedings, Land Revenue and Agriculture (Rev.), April 1906, 6A. The same attitude is underlined by the fact that they increased their share of the purchase in the Nili Bar Colony during the Depression years when land prices declined, Ali, Imran, Punjab Under Imperialism, p. 89.Google Scholar

40 Calvert, , Wealth and Welfare, p. 109.Google Scholar

41 ‘He [moneylender] represents the richest single class. His profits probably exceed those of all the cultivators put together’. Ibid., p. 130.

42 Cited in Hamid, Naved, ‘Dispossession and Differentiation’.Google Scholar

43 Kessinger, , Vilyatpur.Google Scholar

44 AR Zira Tahsil of Ferozepore District, 1912/13, p. 23, AR Garhshankar Tahsil, 1912/13, p. 27.Google Scholar

45 LRARP 1928/29, p. 29. See also LRARP 1909/10, p. 14; LRARP 1910/11, p. 14; LRARP 1930/31, p. 28; LRARP 1937/38, p. 40.Google Scholar

46 LRARP 1930/31, p. 28.Google Scholar

47 Saini, , The Social and Economic History, p. 225.Google Scholar

48 The fact that the Land Alienation Act was contravened in this manner was also pointed out by committees and commissions of inquiry appointed by the government. For example, see Report of the Famine Inquiry Commission, 1945, p. 465.Google Scholar

49 DG Muzaffargarh, 1929, p. 38.Google Scholar

50 LRARP 1911/1912, p. 14.Google Scholar

51 LRARP 1915/1918. p. 13. This was facilitated by the fact that the immense variety of sub-tribal designations made the question of status indefinite.Google Scholar

52 LRARP 1931/1932, p. 33.Google Scholar

53 LRARP 1935/1936, p. 34.Google Scholar

54 Sharma, H. C., ‘Caste Mobility among the Artisan Castes of the Punjab,’ Proceedings of the Punjab History Congress,13th Session, 03 1971.Google Scholar

55 LRARP 1908/1909, p. 17.Google Scholar

56 LRARP, 1911/1912, p. 13. It was further reported that many people who had their application rejected by the collector went to the Civil Court and obtained a decree against a dummy adversary to the effect that they were Jats or Rajputs. But the Collector argued that since the government was not a party to the civil suit the decree was not binding. There was also a marked tendency among such Muslim menials as Lother (blacksmith), Tarkhan (carpenter), Fakirs (Muslim …) to try to get themselves included among the agricultural tribes, LRARP 1930/1931, p. 28.Google Scholar

57 LRARP 1914/1915, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

58 PBEI, Sales of Land, p. 16.Google Scholar

59 AR Multan and Shujabad Tahsils, 1919, p. 19.Google Scholar

60 Report of the Alienation of Land Inquiry Committee, West Punjab (Lahore, 1949).Google Scholar