Page 19 - DHIS204_DHIS205_INDIAN_FREEDOM_STRUGGLE_HINDI

Indian Freedom Struggle (1707–1947 A.D.)

Notes Revenue Reforms: The system of land revenue administration devised by Akbar and the great Mughal
Emperors had broken down in the early eighteenth century and what the Company inherited was
only confusion. Baden Powell remarks that “some theory or practice of revising the assessment,
some customary period for such revision might have been expected, but none was left us”.
In order to work out a satisfactory system of land revenue administration, Warren Hastings resorted
to the devise of experimentation and tried to evolve a system by the proverbial method of trial and
error.
In 1772 Warren Hastings made a five-year settlement of land revenue by the crude method of farming
out estates to the highest bidder. Acting on the presumption that the zamindars were mere tax-
gatherers with no proprietary rights, in the settlement of 1772 no preference was given to them and
in fact in certain cases they were actually discouraged from bidding.
In 1773 changes were made in the machinery of collection. The Collectors who had been found to be
corrupt and indulged in private trade were replaced by Indian Diwans in the districts. Six Provincial
Councils were set up to superwise the work of Indian Diwans. The overall charge rested with the
Committee of Revenue at Calcutta. The trend of Hastings’ mind was towards centralization and he
desired to ultimately centralise all functions into the hands of the Committee at Calcutta.
Warren Hastings tried to build up a framework of justice after the Mughal model. In 1772, a Diwani
Adalat and a Faujdari Adalat were set up at the district level. The Diwani Adalat was presided over
by the Collector who was competent to decide all civil cases including those concerning personal
property, inheritance, caste, marriage, debts etc. In case of Hindus, the Hindu law was applicable, in
case of Muslims the Muslim law. The Diwani Adalat could decide cases involving sums up to Rs. 500
above which appeals lay to the Sadar Diwani Adalat at Calcutta presided over by the President and
two members of the Supreme Council assisted by Indian officers.
The District Faujdari Adalat was presided over by Indian officers of the Company who decided cases
with the assistance of Qazis and Muftis. The Collector, a European officer, was authorised to exercise
some control and supervision over the Faujdari Adalat (i.e. to see that the evidence was duly submitted
and weighed and the verdict passed was fair and impartial and given in open court). The
Mohammadan law was followed in the Faujdari Adalat. This Adalat could not award death sentence
or order confiscation of property for which the confirmation of the Sadr Nizamat Adalat was necessary.
Appeals from the Faujdari Adalat lay to the Sadr Nizamat Adalat presided over by the Deputy Nazim
assisted by the Chief Qazi and the Chief Mufti and three Maulvis. The President and Council supervised
the proceedings of this Court.
Estimate of Clive: Robert Clive may justly lay claim to be the true founder of British political dominion
in India. He correctly read the intricacies of the political situation of the time and struck boldly and in
the right direction. He outdid his French adversary Dupleix and achieved more permanent results.
His successful conduct of the siege of Arcot (1751) turned the seales against the French in the Karnatic.
In Bengal he won the battle of Plassey (1757) against Siraj-ud-daula and reduced the new Nawab Mir
Jaffar to the position of a mere puppet of the English. With the resources of Bengal the English
conquered South India and routed their only political rival in India, the French. Above all, he
transformed a mere trading body that the East India Company was into a territorial power with the
role of’king-maker’ in Bengal. Coming back to Bengal in 1765, Clive consolidated the gains of the
Company and regulated the foreign relations on a secure basis. Clive fully deserved the praise of
Burke that “he settled great foundations”.
Percival Spear in a recent study of Clive and his work in India points out that the British empire in
India would have come into existence even without Clive, though in a different way and over a
different time span. He concludes that “Clive was not a founder but a harbinger of the future. He was
not a planner of empire but an experimenter who revealed something of the possibilities. Clive was
the forerunner of the British Indian empire”.
Clive’s weakness for money and Machiavellian methods found critics even in England and he was
charged for these in the British parliament. He exacted illegal presents and set a bad precedent for his
successors who in order to enrich themselves engineered revolutions in Bengal (1760 and 1764).
Clive joined in the general plunder of Bengal by organising the Society of Trade. In devising the

14 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY