Landlord Power and Rural Indebtedness in Colonial Sind by David Cheesman

Author:David Cheesman [Cheesman, David]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780700704705
Barnesnoble:
Goodreads: 11346536
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 1996-11-27T00:00:00+00:00

The settlement of 1869 had generated a substantial increase in revenue over the ‘rough’ settlement which had preceded it, but this was matched by an extension of the cultivated area, while the average rate of assessment per acre was less under Haig’s settlement than under the ‘rough’ settlement. Haig refused to blame the settlement for the Waderos’ misfortune, attributing it instead to their ‘neglect, dissipation and extravagance.’ He had evidently revised his earlier, favourable, opinion of them. The settlement, he felt, had pressed too lightly on them. It had produced the familiar ‘diffused rate’ pattern of declining revenue collections and a reduction in the occupied area, without any corresponding decrease in production. Haig replaced it with a ‘revision’ settlement. The rates, he insisted, were reasonable, but they enhanced the revenue collections by an average of forty-one per cent over the next decade.

Haig’s ‘revision’ settlement was given a trial in 1881–82. He had predicted that the revenue demand would be Rs 298,863, but it turned out to be Rs 330,160, over a lakh of rupees more than in the final year of the previous settlement. The increase was due to a good inundation and the growth of cultivation on the more highly assessed lands. The Government of Bombay believed the results proved that Haig’s rates were judicious and did not strain the resources of the zamindars. In 1882, his settlement was confirmed for ten years, although the rates on lands near the town of Larkana were reduced slightly.100

Government’s decision, so some zamindars alleged in a petition to the Governor of Bombay early in 1883, came as a shock to the inhabitants of Larkana. Over Rs 14,000 remained uncollected at the end of the year 1881–82 and they insisted it was beyond their capacity to pay Haig’s rates. They begged the Governor to order a revision. Not only did the petitioners object to the particular settlement, but they condemned the whole settlement system, in terms which would have struck a sympathetic chord in the heart of Evan James. They complained that they had been forced to pay assessment on uncultivated land. In fact, all land was encumbered with such heavy rates of assessment that even banias refused to accept it in settlement of debts except at disproportionately low prices. Unable to sell their land, zamindars had no alternative but to relinquish it, or mortgage it at nominal rates. In the long run, they would all be ruined. If the Governor did not believe them, they advised him to send for the report of Robert Giles, the Assistant Collector of Larkana.101

Giles was indeed strongly critical both of the settlement and the system. He agreed with James that, because Waderos had to batai their crops and were defrauded by their haris into the bargain, they could not compete with smallholders under a field-assessment. This explained why revenue was more forthcoming on the mail lands, where holdings were small.102 Other officials supported Giles. Thomas Hart-Davies, the Manager of Encumbered Estates in Sind, was adamant that,

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.