Colonial Rural India: 39 MCQs with answers

Lord Cornwallis

The Permanent Settlement was introduced by Lord Cornwallis in 1793 in Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha.

Permanent Settlement

The Permanent Settlement (1793) is also known as the Zamindari System because Zamindars were recognized as owners of the land.

Thomas Munro

The Ryotwari System was introduced by Thomas Munro in South India, and later in Bombay.

Holt Mackenzie

The Mahalwari System was introduced by Holt Mackenzie in 1822.

Mundas

The Mundas revolted in Chotanagpur from 1831 to 1900.

Assam

The Khasis revolted in Assam in 1829.

Kukis

The Kukis revolted in Manipur from 1829 to 1850.

1846

The Khonds revolted in Orissa in 1846.

1855-1856

The Santhals revolted in 1855-1856 in Uttarakhand and West Bengal.

True

The Permanent Settlement was indeed introduced by Lord Cornwallis in 1793.

1/11

The Zamindar kept 1/11 of the collected rent and passed 10/11 to the Company.

Ryotwari System

Under the Ryotwari System, the ryot (cultivator) was recognized as the owner and paid tax directly to the government.

1820

The Ryotwari System was introduced in 1820 by Thomas Munro.

Holt Mackenzie

Holt Mackenzie introduced the Mahalwari System in 1822.

Indigo

Indigo was one of the cash crops mentioned; wheat, rice, and millets are food grains.

Manipur, 1829–1850

The Kukis revolted in Manipur from 1829 to 1850.

Village (mahal)

Under Mahalwari, the village (mahal) was the unit responsible for paying tax.

Khonds

The Khonds revolted in Orissa in 1846.

10/11

The Company received 10/11 of the collected rent, while the Zamindar kept 1/11.

They were forced to become labourers

The British reserved forests, cutting off tribal livelihoods, and many tribals were forced to become labourers.

10/11

In the Permanent Settlement, the land revenue was fixed: 10/11 went to the East India Company and 1/11 to the Zamindars.

Direct settlement with the cultivator (ryot)

In the Ryotwari System, there was direct settlement between the government and the ryot (cultivator).

Soil fertility

Under the Ryotwari System, the revenue depended on soil fertility and could be increased accordingly.

Gangetic Valley, North-West Province, Central India, and Punjab

The Mahalwari System was introduced in the Gangetic Valley, North-West Province, Central India, and Punjab.

Mahalwari System

The Mahalwari System was a modified version of the Zamindari System, where villages were responsible for tax.

To serve the commercial interests of the British

Peasants were forced to grow cash crops like indigo, cotton, and opium for the British commercial interests, which led to famines.

Wheat

The cash crops mentioned are sugar, pepper, indigo, cotton, raw silk, opium, and tea. Wheat is not mentioned as a cash crop.

Tribals' livelihood was destroyed

The British reserved forests, and tribals were not allowed to hunt, live, graze, or cut trees, which destroyed their livelihood and made them labourers.

False

Under the Ryotwari System, the revenue depended on soil fertility and could be increased, so it was not fixed permanently.

In the Permanent Settlement, the revenue was fixed permanently, while in the Mahalwari System, the revenue could be increased.

The Permanent Settlement fixed the revenue permanently, giving Zamindars ownership, whereas the Mahalwari System made the village the unit and allowed revenue to be increased. This is a key difference in flexibility of taxation.

Because the tax rate was based on soil fertility and could be increased, so peasants never knew the exact amount in advance.

In the Ryotwari System, the tax rate was based on soil fertility and could be increased, meaning the peasant did not know the exact amount he would owe in future years, creating uncertainty.

Tribals were completely cut off from their livelihoods by being barred from hunting, grazing, and cutting trees, while peasants faced revenue demands.

The British reserved forests and prohibited tribals from hunting, grazing, and cutting trees, which destroyed their entire way of life. Peasants, in contrast, were affected by revenue demands and forced cash crop cultivation.

To export these raw materials to England for British industries.

The British forced peasants to grow cash crops for export to England or for British industries, a process known as commercialisation of agriculture, which was exploitative and led to food shortages.

The oppression and disruption of tribal life were persistent and severe, leading to prolonged resistance.

The long duration of the Munda revolt (1831–1900) reflects the persistent and severe oppression by the British, including forest restrictions and loss of livelihoods, which drove sustained resistance.

Because the revenue was fixed, any extra rent collected beyond the Company's share was the Zamindar's profit.

Since the revenue payable to the Company was fixed permanently, the Zamindar could keep any additional rent he collected from peasants as his own profit, creating a strong incentive to maximize extraction.

In Ryotwari, the individual cultivator was the owner; in Mahalwari, the village was the unit of revenue.

The Ryotwari System recognized the individual cultivator (ryot) as the owner and taxed him directly, while the Mahalwari System made the village (mahal) the unit of revenue, with the village collectively responsible.

Because peasants stopped growing food grains and had to buy food, but often couldn't afford it, leaving no food reserves during harvest failures.

Peasants were forced to grow cash crops instead of food grains, so they had to buy food. With low incomes and high prices, they couldn't afford food, and when harvests failed, there were no reserves, leading to famines.

Santhals of Uttarakhand and West Bengal

The Santhals revolted in Uttarakhand and West Bengal, which is in the same region as Chotanagpur (where the Mundas revolted) – both are in eastern India. The other revolts were in different regions (Manipur, Assam, Orissa).

To extract the maximum possible revenue from the rural population.

All three settlements were designed to extract maximum revenue for the British East India Company, regardless of the welfare of peasants or the long-term health of the land.