Intermediaries, Absentee Landlordism and the Ruin of Old Zamindars
Modern History › Economic Impact of British Rule · Topic 28.4
By 1815, half of the land in Bengal had passed to new owners: merchants, moneylenders and other moneyed town dwellers. The new zamindars, with more powers but few outlets for investment, resorted to land-grabbing and sub-infeudation, creating chains of intermediaries and absentee landlordism that raised the burden on peasants and led to stagnation of agriculture and low productivity.
5 min read · UPSC Prelims · History · Economic Impact of British Rule
At a Glance
- Bengal by 1815 Half the land in new hands
- New owners Merchants, moneylenders and moneyed town dwellers
- Practices Land-grabbing and sub-infeudation
- Outcome Rising burden on peasants; low productivity
- Exam link UPSC Prelims, Modern History: Economic Impact of British Rule
Where Does It Fit?
This is the fourth topic of the category on the economic impact of British rule. The previous topic covered the impoverishment of the peasantry. This topic covers intermediaries and the stagnation of agriculture. The next topic covers commercialisation. Previous topic: Ruralisation and the Impoverishment of the Peasantry.
Who Were the New Zamindars?
By 1815, half of the total land in Bengal had passed into the hands of new owners: merchants, moneylenders and other moneyed classes living in towns. The new zamindars, with increased powers but little or no avenue for new investment, took to land-grabbing and sub-infeudation. The older landholders had been displaced, which is why the heading speaks of the ruin of the old zamindars. The settlement under which this happened is in Ruralisation and the Impoverishment of the Peasantry.
What Was Sub-Infeudation and Absentee Landlordism?
The increase in the number of intermediaries to be paid gave rise to absentee landlordism and a heavier burden on the peasant. Since demand for land was high, prices rose and so did the liabilities of the peasant. The zamindar, with no traditional or benevolent ties with the tenants, had no incentive to invest in improving agriculture. The interests of the zamindars lay only in the continuance of British rule and in opposing the national movement.
| Feature | Effect |
|---|---|
| Merchants and moneylenders as owners | Land became a source of income and not a trust, held by town dwellers |
| Sub-infeudation | Chains of intermediaries between the state and the cultivator, each taking a share |
| High demand for land | Prices and the peasant’s liabilities rose |
| No ties with tenants | No incentive to improve agriculture |
| Interest in British rule | Landlords supported the colonial order and opposed nationalism |
The British looking for allies among the landlords is in Administrative Policies: Divide and Rule, Zamindars, Social Services and Labour Laws.
What Did the Change of Landholders Mean?
The ruin of the old zamindars and the rise of the new ones was not only a change of names. The older landholders, whatever their faults, had often held land for generations and had some ties of custom, patronage and obligation with the cultivators who lived on it. The new owners, who had bought their holdings as an investment, saw the land as a source of income and looked for the highest possible return. With few other avenues for investing their money, they put it into land, which kept the demand and the price of land high and encouraged the sub-letting that led to sub-infeudation. At the base of the chain, the cultivator paid rent to one intermediary, who paid another, and the sum of what had to be paid grew with each link. The effect was a higher burden at the bottom of the chain without any gain in production. As an analytical point, this is the kind of change that the Permanent Settlement was expected to prevent, since it was meant to create a class of improving landlords; instead it created a class of rent-receivers, which shows the gap between the purpose and the result of the settlement. The landlords’ political role is covered in Administrative Policies: Divide and Rule, Zamindars, Social Services and Labour Laws.
Why Did Agriculture Stagnate?
The cultivator had neither the means nor the incentive to invest in agriculture. The zamindar had no roots in the villages, while the government spent little on agricultural, technical or mass education. These conditions, together with the fragmentation of land caused by sub-infeudation, made it difficult to introduce modern technology and led to a permanently low level of productivity.
As an analytical point, the stagnation had one cause at each level: the state wanted a fixed or rising revenue, the intermediaries wanted rent and had no reason to improve the land, and the cultivator, deprived of security and savings, could not invest even if he wished. The agrarian structure thus offered no one the incentive and means to raise output, which helps explain the recurrence of famines described in Famines and Poverty Under British Rule. The peasant risings of the period are in Early Peasant Movements: Indigo Revolt, Pabna Leagues and Deccan Riots.
Why Is This Topic Important?
- Absentee landlordism A defined term for Mains answers
- Stagnation of agriculture Causes at three levels
- Landlords’ politics Why zamindars supported British rule
What Came Next?
The next topic covers the commercialisation of Indian agriculture. Next topic: Commercialisation of Indian Agriculture.
Key People and Terms
- Intermediaries Rent-receiving persons between the state and the cultivator
- Absentee landlord A landowner living away from the land
- Sub-infeudation The creation of layers of rights below a landlord
- Old zamindars The earlier landholders displaced after the settlement
- Fragmentation of land Splitting of holdings into small plots
- Productivity Output per unit of land
Exam Corner
Points to Remember
- By 1815, half of Bengal’s land had passed to new owners.
- New owners: merchants, moneylenders, town dwellers.
- Sub-infeudation multiplied intermediaries.
- Zamindars’ interests lay in British rule.
- Low productivity from fragmentation and neglect.
Do Not Confuse With
- Old and new zamindars Older landholders were displaced by townsmen
- Absentee landlordism and sub-infeudation Owners living away versus chains of intermediaries
- Landlords and nationalism Landlords supported the colonial order
Memory Hook
Half of Bengal sold, a chain of rent-takers formed, and the farmer had nothing left to invest.
Mains Angle
Questions ask about the effects of the new land system. These points add depth.
- Ownership Transfer to moneyed townsmen
- Chains of intermediaries Higher burden
- Agriculture Stagnation
A Question You May Face
An original practice question, not a past paper question.
“Explain how the growth of intermediaries and absentee landlordism affected Indian agriculture.”
How to Answer
- Transfer Land to new owners.
- Intermediaries Sub-infeudation.
- Effects Rent burden and neglect.
- Conclude Stagnation.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
Who owned land in Bengal by 1815?
By 1815, half of the total land in Bengal had passed into the hands of new owners, merchants, moneylenders and other moneyed classes living in towns, who replaced many of the old zamindars. The older landholders were largely pushed out of ownership.
What was absentee landlordism?
It was the system in which land belonged to owners who lived in towns, with no traditional ties to tenants and no interest in improving agriculture. The growth of intermediaries to be paid increased the burden on peasants.
What was sub-infeudation?
The new zamindars, with increased powers and little scope for new investment, created chains of intermediaries below themselves who each took a share of the produce, raising rent and the liabilities of the peasant as land prices went up.
Why did Indian agriculture stagnate under British rule?
The cultivator lacked means and incentive to invest, the zamindar had no roots in the village, the government spent little on agricultural, technical or mass education, and fragmentation of land from sub-infeudation made modern technology hard to introduce.
Why did the zamindars support British rule?
Their interests lay in the continuance of British rule, which guaranteed their rents and privileges, and in opposing the national movement, which threatened the system on which they depended for their income and status. They therefore stood against the national movement.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 By 1815 half of the land in Bengal had passed to merchants, moneylenders and other moneyed town dwellers.
The old zamindars were ruined.
2 Sub-infeudation reduced the number of intermediaries.
It increased them.
3 The zamindars supported the national movement.
They opposed it.
4 Fragmentation of land made the use of modern technology difficult.
Productivity stayed low.
5 Absentee landlords invested heavily in improving agriculture.
They had no incentive to do so.
Related Topics
Browse the full Modern History index