DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68024#0395
387
ness of Mr. Grant s calculations, there is no doubt that these fraudulent alienations were very extensive. There
can be as little doubt under the circumstances of the case that they were due, not to any praiseworthy intention
of supporting religion or promoting learning, but to purely selfish motives of personal gain. It is unnecessary
here to enumerate the various occasions from the time of Mr. Hastings to that of Lord William Bentinck, on
which Government asserted its right and declared its intention to assess revenue on these alienated lands. From
time to time efforts were made to carry this intention into effect, by prescribing a system of registration, designed
to protect rent-free holdings and to identify invalid grants. These measures, however, proved ineffectual, and it
was not until the financial pressure caused by the Burmese War compelled recourse to taxation, as well as to
retrenchment, that effective steps were taken to make good the Government claim. The choice before Lord
William Bentinck’s Government lay between the introduction of a general measure of taxation and the enforce-
ment of the incontestable rights of Government to share in the produce of these invalid lakhiraj grants. What-
ever may be said by writers to whose sympathies vicissitudes of families appeal more forcibly than the financial
necessities or the just claims of an empire, the Lieutenant-Governor believes that no impartial man will deliberate-
ly maintain that the choice of the Government of the day was wrong.
It has been stated in a recent article published in the Nineteenth Century by the Hon’ble Amir Ali, the
Secretary to the Association, that the harshness of the resumption proceedings has left behind a legacy of bitter-
ness, has entailed widespread ruin on the Mussulman gentry, and has destroyed the Muhammadan educational
system. No details in support of this statement were furnished at the time, and the author of the article in
question has since confessed himself unable to supply the omission. Desirous of ascertaining whether official
records, lent colour to the writer’s assertions, the Lieutenant-Governor consulted the Board of Revenue, who have
reported that the assertions in question admit of no verification from the revenue records of Government. On
this subject more than one writer has drawn on his imagination for his facts : fanciful references to decaying
muniments and moth-eaten title-deeds, which have no existence in fact, take the place of substantial arguments •
and the fact is always either forgotten or ignored that the result of even the harshest resumption case was not
the dispossession of the holder, but the assessment of revenue on his holding, and eventhat, in no case, at more
than half the prevailing rates. When the admitted leniency of the assessment of revenue rates in Bengal is
remembered, and when it is understood that a resumption proceeding meant nothing worse than the imposition
on lands previously rent-free of half those rates, the charges of harshness and ruin inflicted wholesale through
the action of the resumption laws will be estimated at their true value. The resumption literature is uninterest-
ing reading at the present day ; but an examination of it will show to those who take the trouble to make a dry
and. laborious enquiry that those proceedings were conducted with as much moderation and regard for private
interests as the nature of the case permitted. The holders of rent-free grants possessing titles from the former
rulers of the country were, of course, exempted from the operations of the law. As, however, the “ ravages of
white-ants ” might possibly render it difficult for lakhirajdars of this description to prove their titles, the Govern,
ment came to their aid, by decreeing that if only they could prove possession for twelve years before the transfer
of the sovereignty of the country to the East India Company, their holdings should be exempted from assess-
ment. The first effective resumption law having been passed in 1819, all that these “ ancient families ” were
called upon to show was that the lands in question had been in their possession for little more than a single
generation. For an “ ancient family,” rooted in the soil, this was no difficult or oppressive task.
If the provisions of the resumption laws were thus tempered in the case of the holders of large grants, the
procedure was, so far as the Government was concerned, even more lenient in that of petty lakhirajdars. Parcels
of land not over 50 bighas in extent were altogether exempted, and the Government of the day intimated its
willingness to increase that limit should such a course seem desirable to the local officials. The character of these
proceedings can hardly be summed up more accurately than in the terms employed by the Court of Directors in
the review of the results of the resumption proceedings, contained in their Despatch No. 2, dated February
1854
“ The result is satisfactory, and the means employed have been in the majority of instances fair and equit-
able. In the progress of the resumption proceedings, we have had occasion to animadvert in some cases as in
that of Chittagong, on the sweeping measures of the resumption officers ; but in the general conduct of the
proceedings the principles of liberality and justice, which we advocated from the commencement, have been on
the whole adhered to.
“ Where ascertainable rights have been invaded, redress has been afforded ; but it is only justice to those
who contribute to the expenses of Government that immunities and privileges resting on no foundation of right
should be gradually and considerately eradicated.”
Under any circumstances it may be noticed that the Muhammadans were not exceptionally treated in the
working of the resumption laws ; and if irretrievable injury was done to Muhammadan progress by their opera-
tion, the enquiry naturally suggests itself why Hindus, equally subjected to the same laws, have survived their
evil effects.
So far as the Presidency of Madras is concerned, the allegations of the memorialists
appear to be equally based upon misapprehension. Every endowment for charitable and pious
uses was scrupulously investigated by the Inam Commission some 20 years ago, and wherever
the validity of the grant was satisfactorily established, a title deed was conferred by Govern-
ment in the name of the holders of the grant and their successors, ensuring its continuance to
them and declaring it not to be subject to further interference so long as the institutions and
services, the objects of the grant, were efficiently maintained and performed. Nor is there any
evidence that such endowments as were then confirmed for educational purposeshave been since
wasted or abused. There were, it is reported, extremely few endowments of an educational
kind.
The report from the North-Western Provinces and Oudh is of a similar character. The
allegations regarding waste or confiscation of charitable endowments or scholastic foundations
are stated not to accord with any specific facts known to the Government of those Provinces.
49 a
ness of Mr. Grant s calculations, there is no doubt that these fraudulent alienations were very extensive. There
can be as little doubt under the circumstances of the case that they were due, not to any praiseworthy intention
of supporting religion or promoting learning, but to purely selfish motives of personal gain. It is unnecessary
here to enumerate the various occasions from the time of Mr. Hastings to that of Lord William Bentinck, on
which Government asserted its right and declared its intention to assess revenue on these alienated lands. From
time to time efforts were made to carry this intention into effect, by prescribing a system of registration, designed
to protect rent-free holdings and to identify invalid grants. These measures, however, proved ineffectual, and it
was not until the financial pressure caused by the Burmese War compelled recourse to taxation, as well as to
retrenchment, that effective steps were taken to make good the Government claim. The choice before Lord
William Bentinck’s Government lay between the introduction of a general measure of taxation and the enforce-
ment of the incontestable rights of Government to share in the produce of these invalid lakhiraj grants. What-
ever may be said by writers to whose sympathies vicissitudes of families appeal more forcibly than the financial
necessities or the just claims of an empire, the Lieutenant-Governor believes that no impartial man will deliberate-
ly maintain that the choice of the Government of the day was wrong.
It has been stated in a recent article published in the Nineteenth Century by the Hon’ble Amir Ali, the
Secretary to the Association, that the harshness of the resumption proceedings has left behind a legacy of bitter-
ness, has entailed widespread ruin on the Mussulman gentry, and has destroyed the Muhammadan educational
system. No details in support of this statement were furnished at the time, and the author of the article in
question has since confessed himself unable to supply the omission. Desirous of ascertaining whether official
records, lent colour to the writer’s assertions, the Lieutenant-Governor consulted the Board of Revenue, who have
reported that the assertions in question admit of no verification from the revenue records of Government. On
this subject more than one writer has drawn on his imagination for his facts : fanciful references to decaying
muniments and moth-eaten title-deeds, which have no existence in fact, take the place of substantial arguments •
and the fact is always either forgotten or ignored that the result of even the harshest resumption case was not
the dispossession of the holder, but the assessment of revenue on his holding, and eventhat, in no case, at more
than half the prevailing rates. When the admitted leniency of the assessment of revenue rates in Bengal is
remembered, and when it is understood that a resumption proceeding meant nothing worse than the imposition
on lands previously rent-free of half those rates, the charges of harshness and ruin inflicted wholesale through
the action of the resumption laws will be estimated at their true value. The resumption literature is uninterest-
ing reading at the present day ; but an examination of it will show to those who take the trouble to make a dry
and. laborious enquiry that those proceedings were conducted with as much moderation and regard for private
interests as the nature of the case permitted. The holders of rent-free grants possessing titles from the former
rulers of the country were, of course, exempted from the operations of the law. As, however, the “ ravages of
white-ants ” might possibly render it difficult for lakhirajdars of this description to prove their titles, the Govern,
ment came to their aid, by decreeing that if only they could prove possession for twelve years before the transfer
of the sovereignty of the country to the East India Company, their holdings should be exempted from assess-
ment. The first effective resumption law having been passed in 1819, all that these “ ancient families ” were
called upon to show was that the lands in question had been in their possession for little more than a single
generation. For an “ ancient family,” rooted in the soil, this was no difficult or oppressive task.
If the provisions of the resumption laws were thus tempered in the case of the holders of large grants, the
procedure was, so far as the Government was concerned, even more lenient in that of petty lakhirajdars. Parcels
of land not over 50 bighas in extent were altogether exempted, and the Government of the day intimated its
willingness to increase that limit should such a course seem desirable to the local officials. The character of these
proceedings can hardly be summed up more accurately than in the terms employed by the Court of Directors in
the review of the results of the resumption proceedings, contained in their Despatch No. 2, dated February
1854
“ The result is satisfactory, and the means employed have been in the majority of instances fair and equit-
able. In the progress of the resumption proceedings, we have had occasion to animadvert in some cases as in
that of Chittagong, on the sweeping measures of the resumption officers ; but in the general conduct of the
proceedings the principles of liberality and justice, which we advocated from the commencement, have been on
the whole adhered to.
“ Where ascertainable rights have been invaded, redress has been afforded ; but it is only justice to those
who contribute to the expenses of Government that immunities and privileges resting on no foundation of right
should be gradually and considerately eradicated.”
Under any circumstances it may be noticed that the Muhammadans were not exceptionally treated in the
working of the resumption laws ; and if irretrievable injury was done to Muhammadan progress by their opera-
tion, the enquiry naturally suggests itself why Hindus, equally subjected to the same laws, have survived their
evil effects.
So far as the Presidency of Madras is concerned, the allegations of the memorialists
appear to be equally based upon misapprehension. Every endowment for charitable and pious
uses was scrupulously investigated by the Inam Commission some 20 years ago, and wherever
the validity of the grant was satisfactorily established, a title deed was conferred by Govern-
ment in the name of the holders of the grant and their successors, ensuring its continuance to
them and declaring it not to be subject to further interference so long as the institutions and
services, the objects of the grant, were efficiently maintained and performed. Nor is there any
evidence that such endowments as were then confirmed for educational purposeshave been since
wasted or abused. There were, it is reported, extremely few endowments of an educational
kind.
The report from the North-Western Provinces and Oudh is of a similar character. The
allegations regarding waste or confiscation of charitable endowments or scholastic foundations
are stated not to accord with any specific facts known to the Government of those Provinces.
49 a