how was the mahalwari system different from the permanent settlement
The Mahalwari system was different from the Permanent Settlement mainly in who paid revenue, how much they paid, and how often it was revised.
Quick Scoop
Core differences in one glance
| Feature | Permanent Settlement | Mahalwari System |
|---|---|---|
| Who dealt with the British? | Zamindars (big landlords) were responsible for paying a fixed revenue to the Company. | [5][7][9]Village headmen or the whole village (mahal) were responsible for paying revenue. | [7][9][5]
| Revenue rate | Fixed permanently; no regular revision planned. | [9][3][5]To be revised periodically based on reassessment of land and produce. | [3][5][9]
| Ownership of land | Zamindars effectively became hereditary owners; peasants were tenants under them. | [1][5][3]Land rights remained largely with cultivators or village communities, not powerful zamindars. | [1][5][3]
| Middlemen | Strong intermediary class of zamindars between peasants and Company. | [5][1][3]Intermediaries were village bodies or headmen; more direct link between cultivators and the state. | [9][3][5]
| Where used? | Mainly Bengal, Bihar, Odisha, Varanasi and nearby regions. | [3][5]Parts of North-Western Provinces, Punjab, and Central/North India. | [8][5][3]
In simple terms
- Under Permanent Settlement , the British fixed a permanent land revenue with zamindars, who collected from peasants and paid the government, and the rate was not meant to increase in future.
- Under the Mahalwari system , revenue was assessed for a village or mahal , and the amount could be revised periodically , with village headmen or communities responsible for paying it.
So, Permanent Settlement strengthened big landlords and fixed revenue forever, while Mahalwari tied revenue to the village, allowed revision, and kept land rights closer to the cultivators or village community.
Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.