History, asked by aayush11428b, 6 hours ago

C. Fill in the blanks : 1. After the Battle of the England East India company got the diwani rights of Bengal, Bihar and a part of Orissa. system was promoted in large parts of south and west India. 3. In 1793, introduced many reforms in India. a natural flue dye, is a plant extract which is used for colouring cloth. 5. was the founder of Farazi movement. D. State whether the following statements are 'True' or 'False'. 1. Before the advent of the English, Indian villages were self-sufficient, 2. Under the Ryotwari system, the zamindar became the hereditary owner of the land. 3. The mahalwari system had significant impact on the Indian peasantry. 4. There were two main systems of poppy cultivation. 5. In April 1860, the cultivators of Nadia district refused to sow any indigo, E. Match the following: 1. Treaty of Allahabad (a) 1859 5 2. Chuar uprising (b) 1804 (c) 1763 3. Sanyasis revolt 4. Orissa zamindars revolt (d) 1765 (e) 1766 5. Indigo revolt Things to do 1. Mark the areas that were under the permanent settlement, ryotwari system and the mahalwari system on a outline map of India.​

Answers

Answered by parwanijayesh25
1

Answer:

bla bla bla

Explanation:

geakjevqeeqfbtquawua3yt34u3vtbgwy

Answered by isaacchrislobo
0

Answer:

diwans

Explanation:

Earlier zamindars in Bengal, Bihar and Odisha had been functionaries who held the right to collect revenue on behalf of the Mughal emperor and his representative, the diwan, in Bengal. The diwan supervised the zamindars to ensure they were neither lax nor overly stringent. When the East India Company was awarded the diwani or overlordship of Bengal by the empire following the Battle of Buxar in 1764, it found itself short of trained administrators, especially those familiar with local custom and law. As a result, landholders were unsupervised or reported to corrupt and indolent officials[citation needed]. The result was that revenues were extracted without regard for future income or local welfare.

Following the devastating famine of 1770, which was partially caused by this shortsightedness, Company officials in Calcutta better understood the importance of oversight of revenue officials. Warren Hastings, then governor-general, introduced a system of five-yearly inspections and temporary tax farmers. They did not want to take direct control of local administration in villages for several reasons, one being that the Company did not want to upset those who had traditionally enjoyed power and prestige in rural Bengal.

The Company failed to consider the question of incentivisation. Many appointed tax farmers absconded with as much revenue as they could during the time period between inspections. The British Parliament took note of the disastrous consequences of the system, and in 1784, British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger directed the Calcutta administration to alter it immediately. In 1786 Charles Cornwallis was sent out to India to reform the company's practices.

In 1786, the East India Company Court of Directors first proposed a permanent settlement for Bengal, changing the policy then being followed by Calcutta, which was attempting to increase taxation of zamindars. Between 1786 and 1790, the new Governor-General Lord Cornwallis and Sir John Shore (later Governor-General) entered a heated debate over whether or not to introduce a permanent settlement with the zamindars. Shore argued that the native zamindars would not trust the permanent settlement to be permanent and that it would take time before they realised it was genuine.

The main aim of the Permanent Settlement was to resolve the problem of agrarian crisis and distress that had resulted in lower agricultural output. The British officials thought that investment in agriculture, trade, and the resources of the revenue of the State could be increased by agriculture. To permanently fix the revenue and secure property rights, the system which came to be known as the 'Permanent Settlement' was adopted. The British thought that once the revenue demands of the State were permanently set, there would be a regular flow of tax income. Furthermore, landholders would invest in their agricultural land as the producer can keep surpluses in excess of the fixed tax. The British officials thought that such a process would lead to the emergence of yeomen class of farmers and rich landowners who would invest their capital to generate further surpluses. This new emergent class would be loyal to the British, who were still gaining a foothold in the Indian subcontinent. While the policy was well-intentioned, it failed to identify individuals who were willing to contract to pay fixed revenue perpetually and to invest in the improvement of agriculture. After much discussion and disagreement between the officials, the Permanent Settlement was made with the existing Rajas and Taluqdars of Bengal who were now classified as Zamindars. They had to pay fixed revenue in perpetuity. Thus, zamindars were not the landowners but rather revenue collector agents of the State. Cornwallis believed that they would immediately accept it and so begin investing in improving their land. In 1790, the Court of Directors issued a ten-year (decennial) settlement to the zamindars, which was made permanent in 1793.

By the Permanent Settlement Act of 1793, their right to keep armed forces was removed. They remained just the tax collectors of the land. There were considerably weakened as they were now banned from holding any court, as it was brought under the supervision of a collector appointed by the company. British officials believed that investing in the land would improve the economy.

The system failed in the long run due to operational difficulty as well as because the Permanent Settlement did not take account of the seasonal and precarious nature of Bengali agriculture. The Company also did not understand the structural issues as well as the society.[2]

Similar questions