History, asked by honey167, 1 year ago

you are in the 18th century as a Governor of Madras Presidency what reason would be advocate to the governor general of Bengal for not extending the permanent settlement system in a Presidency

Answers

Answered by writersparadise
43
The Madras Presidency, also known as the Presidency of Fort St. George, or Madras Province, was an administrative subdivision or Presidency of British India. This presidency included most of southern India, like the whole states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and parts of Odisha, Kerala, Karnataka, and Lakshadweep.

The most probable reasons that can be considered for not extending the permanent settlement system of Bengal in the Madras Presidency are:-

1. The highly successful zamindari settlement was established in Bengal by Lord Cornwallis. When the Company did not reach the expected profit levels, a new system, known as the "Village Settlement" was implemented. This involved the leasing of land to the principal cultivators, who in turn leased the land to ryots or peasant farmers. However, as a village settlement had few differences compared to a permanent settlement, it was eventually discarded.

2. Between 1748 and 1895, as with the Bengal and Bombay armies, the Madras Army had its own Commander-in-Chief who was subordinate to the president and later to the Governor of Madras. However, the 1857 Mutiny quickly led to drastic changes in the Bengal and Bombay armies and it had no effect on the Madras Army.

3. In the Ryotwari system, the land was handed over directly to the ryots who paid their rent directly to the government. The land was assessed and paid revenue fixed by the Government. A new system was implemented called the "Mahalwari" or village system under which landlords, as well as the ryots, entered into a contract with the Government.
Answered by shilpa85475
0

The most possible reasons that can be considered for not expanding the permanent conclusion system of Bengal in the Madras Presidency are:

Explanation:

1. The system was helpful only for the landlords. There was no development in the state of the farmers. They sustained to be broken by the landlords.  

2. It harmfully affected the income of the company. Due to lack of correct measurement of land, the revenue was fixed at a minor level.  

3. There was no development in the agricultural produce. The landlords led luxurious lives. They did not make any efforts to get better agriculture.

To learn more:

1. Why bombay, madras and bengal were called presidency cities:

https://brainly.in/question/5712961

2. What are the terms of treaty of madras?:

https://brainly.in/question/3022796

Similar questions