The Mahalwari System: Preserving Land Rights and Exploitation

To enhance tax collection, minimize corruption and strengthen the Company's economy, the Mahalwari system, a sort of land revenue system, was established in 1822 by the British East India Company. The system suggested splitting the land into many plots and charging taxes based on the production of each plot, which was dreadful for the farmers and wrecked the economy of the Indian population.

Condition of farmers under East India Company, Image Source- Environment & Society Portal

The British used cunning tactics to seize control of this wealthy nation as colonization in India got underway. The East India Company created several land revenues to increase its economic clout while maintaining strict control over Indian territory. The destiny of India was shaped for centuries by the British through meticulous preparation as they consolidated their dominance over the nation's lands and its people.

Under the British, India had three primary revenue systems: the Permanent Settlement started in Bengal in 1793; the Ryotwari system was introduced in Punjab, Awadh, Agra, parts of Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh in 1820; and the Mahalwari system was introduced in the North-West Frontier, Agra, Central Province, Gangetic Valley, and Punjab in 1822. The Mahalwari system, being the most recent one at the time, damaged the village's economic foundation, further impoverishing the already struggling farmers.

Under Regulation VII of 1882, Holt Mackenzie instituted the Mahalwari System in 1822 as a means of maintaining British control over the land. The word ‘Mahalwari’ is derived from the Hindi word ‘mahal,’ which means house, district, neighborhood, or sector. The system attempted to establish a more inclusive framework by combining the Ryotwari and Zamindari systems. Landlords, also known as Lambardars, were chosen to represent communities of villages as the land was divided into mahals. Individual accountability was not established, in contrast to the Zamindari System. The Lambardars collected taxes from villages and turned them over to the British on behalf of the village communities.

The lambardars, or landlords, were in charge of conducting all land surveys, allocating land income, addressing demand in the Mahals, keeping track of land rights, and making all other crucial suggestions. 80–90% of everything the peasants made went to the British. The state requirement was set at 95% of the rental in situations when estates were not held by landlords but rather by farmers under collective occupancy. The sum owed by the farmers was higher than what they could afford, which caused a significant issue and a lack of trust among them.

The Mahalwari System, Image source- Studyiq

The Mahalwari system was decidedly reviewed and altered because of the numerous flaws it possessed and the level of distress it caused among the peasants. This was done so that the peasants, who are the landowners, could share in some of the benefits of what they sow rather than giving everything to the British government. Following extensive deliberation, William Bentick's administration adopted a new regulation in 1833. The technique for creating production and rent estimations was made simpler. The settlement was made for 30 years, with the state's demand set at 66% of the rental value. Under James Thompson's leadership, the Mahalwari system of land revenue under the design of 1833 had been implemented.

Peasants' lives were deteriorated by the Mahalwari system throughout the nation, and they appear to have never really escaped it. Some British authorities were able to simply ignore the system's adjustments and manipulate the villagers in a way that served their interests. Near the end of colonialism, the peasantry had to bear a sizable amount of interest payments because of the flaws in the Mahalwari system, and the rent and debt amounted to roughly some million. In exchange for their free work, the zamindars gave loans to the farmers or employees. Hence, the Mahalwari system had no beneficial effects on village communities and by imposing astronomical tax assessments that could not be paid, it did the exact opposite and devastated them.