What revenue system did Elphinstone introduce in Bombay Presidency ?

The correct answer is - Ryotwari system

Key Points

• Ryotwari system
  • The Ryotwari system was a land revenue system introduced by the British in India, particularly in regions like the Bombay Presidency, Madras Presidency, and parts of Assam.
  • Under this system, the cultivators (ryots) were recognized as the owners of the land, and they paid revenue directly to the British government.
  • This system was introduced by Mountstuart Elphinstone in the Bombay Presidency in the early 19th century as a move to bypass intermediaries like zamindars.
  • The revenue demand was fixed for a specific period, usually 20–30 years, and was based on an assessment of the land’s productivity.
  • The system emphasized direct interaction between the government and the farmers, removing intermediaries and thereby reducing exploitation.

Additional Information

• Comparison with other revenue systems
  • Permanent Settlement
    • Introduced by Lord Cornwallis in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa in 1793.
    • Under this system, revenue was collected through zamindars, who acted as intermediaries between the government and the peasants.
    • Revenue demand was fixed permanently, leading to exploitation of peasants by zamindars.
  • Mahalwari system
    • Introduced in North-Western Provinces, Punjab, and parts of Central India by Holt Mackenzie in 1822.
    • Revenue was collected from a group of villages (mahal) instead of individual farmers or zamindars.
    • The system was a mix of Permanent Settlement and Ryotwari system.
  • Talukdari system
    • Introduced in parts of Gujarat and other regions of western India.
    • Revenue was collected by talukdars, who were local landholders with administrative authority.
    • This system gave talukdars significant control over the peasants.
• Impact of Ryotwari system
  • It gave farmers a sense of ownership of their land but also made them vulnerable to high revenue demands.
  • The system led to indebtedness among farmers as they had to pay revenue even during poor harvests.
  • Despite its flaws, it was considered more equitable than the Permanent Settlement system.