The Mahalwari system differed from the Permanent Settlement in several key ways: 1. Unit of Revenue Collection
- Mahalwari: Revenue was collected from the entire village or group of villages (the "mahal") collectively, with village headmen (lambardars) responsible for collecting and paying revenue on behalf of the community
- Permanent Settlement: Revenue was collected through zamindars, who were recognized as hereditary landowners responsible for collecting taxes from individual cultivators
2. Nature of Revenue Assessment
- Mahalwari: Revenue was assessed based on the produce of the land and was subject to periodic revision, allowing adjustments according to changes in agricultural productivity
- Permanent Settlement: Revenue was fixed permanently at the time of settlement (1793) and was not subject to revision, regardless of changes in productivity or economic conditions
3. Role of Intermediaries
- Mahalwari: Village communities and headmen had collective responsibility; there was no intermediary landlord class with proprietary rights akin to zamindars
- Permanent Settlement: Zamindars held hereditary rights over land and revenue collection, effectively becoming landlords with ownership rights and obligations to pay fixed revenue to the British
4. Flexibility and Impact on Peasants
- Mahalwari: The system allowed some flexibility in revenue demands, but the high rates (initially up to two-thirds of produce) and collective liability often led to exploitation and hardship for peasants
- Permanent Settlement: Fixed revenue demands often led zamindars to pressure peasants harshly to meet tax obligations, contributing to peasant distress and famines
5. Geographical Application
- Mahalwari: Implemented mainly in parts of Northern India, including the North-Western Provinces, Punjab, Central India, and the United Provinces
- Permanent Settlement: Introduced first in Bengal, Bihar, Odisha, and later extended to other areas like Varanasi and northern districts of Madras
In summary, the Mahalwari system emphasized collective village responsibility with periodic revenue revisions, while the Permanent Settlement fixed revenue permanently through zamindar intermediaries with hereditary land rights. These structural differences affected revenue collection methods, landlord-peasant relations, and the socio-economic impact on rural India under British rule
