Talk:Permanent Settlement

Sheer bias

This a very one-sided article. How is this "reform" when it caused some of the deadliest famines in history? And if anything, the permanent settlement was responsible for the extreme communal discord in Bengal during the 19th and early 20th century. There is hardly a sub-continental point of view here. Hence the POV tag.--Bazaan (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Transfer of Tribute and the Balance of Payments in the CEHI

Was it really the case that the British came to India to build railways and telegraph, stimulate economic growth through their demand for primary commodities (which, we are told, it was in India's interest to specialise in given her factor endowments), initiate large scale industry, promote a reduction in land concentration, and withdraw gracefully, after incurring sterling debts which were of benefit to India?

— Utsa Patnaik, Social Scientist, Vol. 12, No. 12 (Dec., 1984), pp. 43-55

See discussion on British Empire, the Cornwallis, Mountbatten page etc. The point above is valid. When a colonial occupation "reforms" administration to more "efficiently raise land revenue " we are looking at it purely from the side of the British East India Company. For the people of Bihar and Bengal that had just suffered the great Famine of 1769 what was the magnitude of increased suffering from the Company when it increased its demand on taxes, where is that discussion? Mughal administration temporarily reduced or forgave the payment of taxes after a famine. Germsteel (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)