What Is Permanent Settlement: Historical Context & Financial Impact

Key Takeaways
 

1. The Permanent Settlement fixed the land tax to zamindars. It was their duty to collect tax (by whichever means) and give it to the British.
    
2. Zamindars used inhumane ways to collect taxes. They gained the rights to sell and mortgage land, torture peasants and increase rents.
    
3. The system reduced incentives to improve land, kept agricultural productivity low, and widened rural inequality for decades.

The Permanent Settlement was a land revenue system introduced by the British in 1793, mainly in Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha. It fixed land taxes permanently and gave zamindars ownership rights. It gave a steady income to the British, but peasants had to endure long-term hardship.

If you are from Haryana or the Delhi NCR region, the probability of ‘zameen ke upar kalesh’ is too damn high. No one knows who owns that old land in the village, yet everyone claims it’s theirs. 

You’ll hear stories of families not speaking for years or farmers paying rent to a landlord who hasn't set foot on the land in decades. These aren't just family dramas; they are the result of the age-old land revenue system introduced by the British. We are talking about the Permanent Settlement of 1793.

Even today, in states like Bihar, Bengal, and Odisha, this old system decides who owns land, who cultivates it, and who takes the profits. So, before we answer today’s questions about farmer rights or land reforms, let’s first understand where it all began.

In this blog, you’ll explore what the Permanent Settlement was, why the British introduced it, and its impact.

What Was the Permanent Settlement?

Back in 1793, Lord Cornwallis introduced the Permanent Settlement in Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha. The main purpose was to simplify the tax collection process and for the British to get a fixed income over a tenure. 

Before this, zamindars were just revenue collectors. But the Permanent Settlement turned them into landowners, permanently. They now own the land and could pass it on to their children or even sell it. However, they had to pay a fixed tax every year. If they miss a payment as much as one, the land could be taken away. 

The tax amount was fixed. 

The table below shows how this one-sided system worked and benefited the British: 
 

Even in times of flood and drought, the British were assured of their stable revenue. But for farmers and zamindars, it was a risky deal.

Do you know about 19% of British India’s territory was under the Permanent Settlement?

Features and Mechanism of The Settlement

The British created a loyal landlord class to manage land on their behalf. But the real cultivators (peasants) had no rights or support. This decision still influences land ownership and rural inequality in eastern India today. Let’s see more features about this settlement in the table given below:
 

So, while the British called it a “settlement”, for farmers and peasants, it brought new rules, new stress, and very little support. They were the ones who suffered in the past and the present. 

Why Did the British Introduce the Permanent Settlement?

If you had to collect money from millions, wouldn’t you prefer dealing with a few reliable ones instead? That’s exactly how the British managed tax collection during colonial India. The Permanent Settlement let them collect taxes through zamindars, not directly from farmers. 

Here’s why they brought it in:

• ‘Kaam Aata Ho Ya Nhi, Paise Aane Chahiye!’
  The British East India Company wanted a predictable income every year. Fixing the land revenue permanently meant they didn’t have to worry about changing harvests or bad weather. The tax was collected no matter what.
   
• ‘Varna System Ke Subhead: Zamindars!’
  By giving zamindars ownership rights over land, the British turned them into a powerful class that would stay loyal to colonial rule. These elites had everything to gain by supporting the British.
   
• ‘System Hi Badal Diya!’
  Instead of dealing with millions of individual farmers, the British collected taxes from a smaller number of zamindars. This reduced the burden on their administration.
   
• ‘Tum Saath Ho, Toh Kya Fikr hai!’
  Since zamindars could now profit from land productivity, the British assumed they would invest in better farming methods. But this didn’t work out as expected in most areas.
   
• ‘Humara Neta Kaisa ho?!’
  Zamindars, now wealthy and powerful, helped the British control rural populations. Their authority acted like a middleman between angry peasants and British officials.

So, this is how the British controlled peasants, via the zamindars or middlemen.

Short‑Term and Long-Term Financial Impacts

When the Permanent Settlement was first introduced, its effects were felt quickly, mostly by the farmers. While the British gained fixed revenue, the rural economy and the daily lives of people started shifting in unexpected ways. Here are the immediate changes that took place:

• ‘Khaana < Kamana’
  Peasants were pushed to grow indigo, cotton, and other commercial crops to meet revenue demands. These demands were often met at the expense of food crops like rice and wheat. This caused a serious imbalance in what people grew and ate.
   
• ‘No Lagaan, No Land!’
  Many zamindars couldn’t pay their fixed revenue on time. Under the "sunset law", their lands were auctioned, and wealthy merchants or company officials ended up owning them.

For example, Zamindar Lalan had to pay ₹1,500 in tax but only managed to pay ₹1,200. His land was taken and sold for ₹10,000 to a British officer, and he lost his home and income.

• ‘Fasal Ka nahi, Malik Ka Mood Off hai! ’
  Since the revenue was fixed, landlords had no reason to invest in irrigation or better tools. Farming didn’t improve, and productivity stayed low for decades.

For example, between 1793 and 1850, zamindars’ rent collections rose from £2.6M to £5.8M per year. Yet, average farm yields have barely increased since there was no investment in land improvements.

• ‘Kisan to Gaya Kaam Se!’
  Farmers had no legal protection. Many were forced into debt, lost their lands, or faced famine due to rising pressure and falling incomes.

For example, Kisan Ramu took a ₹300 loan at 12% interest to pay his ₹500 rent. He couldn’t pay back the loan and lost his farming rights within a year.

• ‘Zamindar Safar Mein, Kisan Suffer Mein!’
  Zamindars started living in cities and hired middlemen to collect rent. These intermediaries often exploited peasants, while the landlords stayed away from rural life.

For example, for a ₹100 rent, the British received ₹89, and the zamindar got ₹11. It followed the 10/11 rule for the British and 1/11 for the zamindar. The peasants did not get much. This showed extreme revenue skew under the system.
 

Because of such unruly regulations and behaviours by zamindars, permanent settlement was abolished in 1947, after independence. 

Conclusion

The Permanent Settlement completely reshaped India’s agrarian system. Some individuals gained land and new responsibilities, while others lost their ancestral property. Many peasants were forced to work on others’ lands, regardless of weather or hardship. 

Though it ensured steady revenue for the British and created loyal landlords, it severely impacted farmers. It also affected agricultural growth and deepened rural poverty. 

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the difference between the Permanent Settlement and the Ryotwari System?
The Permanent Settlement made landlords (zamindars) the tax collectors, while the Ryotwari system dealt directly with the cultivators (ryots). The former was used in Bengal; the latter was popular in Madras and Bombay presidencies.

2. Did the Permanent Settlement apply to all parts of India?
No, it was implemented mainly in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. Other regions used systems like Ryotwari or Mahalwari based on local conditions.

3. How did peasants react to the Permanent Settlement?
Peasants often faced exploitation as landlords prioritised tax payments over crop welfare. With no legal protection or land rights, many fell into debt or lost land.

4. What role did the Sunset Law play in the system?
The Sunset Law stated that if zamindars failed to pay their dues by sunset on a particular day, their land could be auctioned. This caused frequent land transfers and instability.

5. Is the Permanent Settlement still relevant today?
Yes, its effects persist in today’s land ownership patterns and tenant-labourer relations, especially in eastern India. It also influenced early land reforms post-independence.

Apply for Loans Fast and Hassle-Free

Apply Now

About the Author

LoansJagat Team

We are a team of writers, editors, and proofreaders with 15+ years of experience in the finance field. We are your personal finance gurus! But, we will explain everything in simplified language. Our aim is to make personal and business finance easier for you. While we help you upgrade your financial knowledge, why don't you read some of our blogs?