Do you think that the new land revenue system under the permanent settlement was beneficial or an exploitative one?
Answers
it has bot advantages and some disadvantages....
somewhere it is very good also and with other points of view it is bad also ... for some ppl
Answer:
Explanation:
Soon after introducing the Permanent Settlement, the Company realised that the zamindars (local landlords) were not improving the farmlands because the amount they had to pay to the Company was so high that they had little money left to improve the farmlands.
By 1810, the Company also started feeling unhappy with the Permanent Settlement, because rising market prices and increased cultivation increased the income of the zamindars, but not of the Company.
Despite the increased revenues, few zamindars showed any interest in improving the lands of their farmers. This was because many zamindars had lost their lands to the Company and had lost interest in improving them, whereas others who had made big losses during the beginning of the Permanent Settlement now saw the chance to make up for their losses instead of spending on improving farmlands.
The cultivators in the villages also found the system unreasonable, because sometimes they had to borrow money from moneylenders to pay the high rents to the zamindars, and if they were unable to pay the money back, they lost their lands that they had cultivated for generations, effectively making them and their families jobless and homeless.
so, the new land revenue system under the permanent settlement was exploitative one