(a) Do you agree that the idea of permanent fixation of land revenue of 1793 in Bengal was highly influenced by the Physiocratic…

(a) Physiocracy and the Permanent Settlement (1793)

The influence was real but partial. Physiocrats such as Quesnay and Turgot held that land alone produced a net surplus, that the state should draw a single tax (impôt unique) on it, and that secure private property in land would encourage investment. Philip Francis, a member of the Governor-General's Council, absorbed these ideas and in his 1776 plan urged a fixed, permanent land tax and recognition of the zamindars as proprietors. Ranajit Guha's A Rule of Property for Bengal (1963) traced this Physiocratic lineage through Francis, Alexander Dow and Henry Pattullo to Cornwallis. Adam Smith's view that fixed taxes encourage improvement, and Whig faith in a landed gentry on the English model, pointed the same way. The settlement, however, was shaped at least as much by Company needs. Revenue collections had been erratic under the farming experiments of 1772–89 (the five-year and annual settlements). Cornwallis wanted certain revenue for war and trade, lower collection costs, and a loyal propertied class. John Shore warned against fixing the demand forever before land values were known, and the decennial settlement of 1789–90 was declared permanent in 1793 (Regulation I). The demand was set very high, about ten-elevenths of the rental assessed in 1790; the sunset law led to wholesale sales of estates, and regulations of 1799 (haptam) and 1812 (panjam) gave zamindars sweeping powers over ryots while tenant rights were left undefined until the Rent Act of 1859. None of this matched the Physiocratic ideal of an improving landlord class. Physiocracy thus supplied the language of property and a fixed tax, while fiscal and political calculation decided how the settlement worked.

(b) Freedom and control of the press

Colonial press policy oscillated between the two principles. Wellesley's Censorship of the Press Act (1799) imposed pre-censorship in wartime. John Adam's Licensing Regulations (1823) made a licence compulsory for any press; Rammohun Roy protested and closed Mirat-ul-Akhbar. Metcalfe's Press Act (1835), supported by Macaulay, repealed the licence and earned him the title "liberator of the Indian press". Control returned during 1857 with the Licensing Act. After 1857 the state distinguished between the English-owned press, seen as loyal, and the Indian and vernacular press, seen as seditious. Section 124A (1870) defined sedition, and Lytton's Vernacular Press Act (1878) allowed the government to demand securities and confiscate presses of vernacular papers. Amrita Bazar Patrika evaded it by becoming an English paper overnight. Ripon repealed it in 1882 under liberal and Indian pressure. With the rise of extremism, control tightened again: Tilak's trials (1897, 1908), the Newspapers (Incitement to Offences) Act (1908), the Indian Press Act (1910), repeal after the Press Committee of 1921 under Tej Bahadur Sapru, and the Press (Emergency Powers) Act (1931) during civil disobedience. The tug of war reflected a contradiction: British rule claimed legitimacy as liberal and lawful, so outright suppression was costly, yet the press was the main vehicle of nationalist opinion. Each nationalist upsurge (1857, the 1870s, Swadeshi, civil disobedience) produced control, and each lull or liberal Viceroy restored some freedom.

(c) Linguistic states and fears of Balkanisation

Congress had accepted the linguistic principle at Nagpur (1920) by organising provincial Congress committees on language lines. After Partition, however, leaders feared that redrawing boundaries on language would encourage further division, disrupt administration and harden regional loyalties. The Dhar Commission (1948) advised against immediate linguistic reorganisation, and the JVP Committee (Nehru, Patel, Pattabhi Sitaramayya, 1949) advised postponement, conceding only Andhra if the demand was pressing. Popular pressure changed the course. Potti Sriramulu died after a 58-day fast in December 1952, and Andhra State was created in October 1953. The States Reorganisation Commission (Fazl Ali, 1953–55) accepted language as a main but not sole criterion, and the States Reorganisation Act and the Seventh Amendment (1956) created 14 states and 6 union territories. Later came Maharashtra and Gujarat (1960) and Punjab and Haryana (1966). The fears proved largely unfounded. Linguistic states strengthened democratic participation and administrative efficiency in regional languages, while national unity was safeguarded by a strong Centre, all-India services and constitutional safeguards (Bipan Chandra, Paul Brass).