The Road Cess,Civilizing Missions and the World of the Landholders in Nineteenth-century Bengal

Was There Really a Cess in Shahabad?

I begin by trying to understand the system of road taxation in Shahabad district as noted by Buchanan. This story is an archival fragment. We come to know how the idea of ‘cess’ evolved in a certain region of eastern India. In the early part of the nineteenth century, when roads and river routes were congested by customs chowkies and toll tax bars, taxation on land for the construction of roads was almost unknown. The Shahabad case generated curiosity among revenue officers of Bengal, who eagerly embarked on an enquiry to provide a satisfactory explanation. The news of the existence of such a tax stimulated the officers to popularize it beyond the boundaries of Shahabad district. The revenue officers in Bengal undertook a thorough investigation of government records to trace some written documents on the concerned road tax. At least in their own portrayal in the Revenue Proceedings, these officials had great success in piercing together an understanding of the road cess in Shahabad. This section will tell the story of tracing these written documents, which were used as a justification for road cess in the early years of the nineteenth century, when the institution of road taxation had not yet been contemplated by the British.

There were several references to 1 per cent road tax on the annual jumma of land in several districts in northern India, not just Shahabad. In 1802, J. Barton, the Collector of Benares, talked of the zamindars of Pergunnah Lucknessur who were already subjected to this tax. ⁵ The first reference to the Shahabad road tax came in 1811 when a landlord called Nurkoo Singh filed a complaint against Mr Trower and Sands, the previous Collectors of Shahabad, for ‘allegedly’ extracting 1 per cent tax from him. ⁶ Subsequently, the revenue officers began the protracted investigation to prove that this extraction was legal, and not ‘illicit or unwarranted exaction’. The Governor General mentioned that the terms of this settlement were concluded with the zamindars by W. A. Brooke and expressed the wish to know more about the imposition.

Though, at the initial stage, the officials could not meet much success, subsequently a bunch of records was traced. D. Burges, the Collector of Shahabad, forwarded a letter in February 1811 from H. Wood, the Acting Agent of the Board of Revenue, that no record could be found on the aforementioned subject. ⁷ Burges, who was deputed to conduct the enquiry, was completely ignorant of the matter in the beginning. But his claims of subsequent discovery of documents on the subject helped construct a clear picture of the history of the Shahabad road cess. Burges came to know from local enquiries that just after Clive’s conquest in 1757, a local supervisor of the military roads entered into an agreement with the zamindars of Shahabad that they would take the responsibility of making and repairing the roads. ⁸ It was arranged that the zamindars would pay 1 per cent on their revenue to the nearest tehsildar who would attend to the road-making and repair works. From oral accounts and limited written sources, Burges concluded that the rule of 1 per cent road allowance commenced at the time of the construction of the Military Road from Calcutta to Benares, which sufficiently touched the district of Shahabad. He called it ‘voluntary contribution’ from the landholders.

The mystery of the ‘voluntary contribution’ was gradually revealed. Welland described how W. A. Brooke impressed the zamindars with his lucrative scheme of future roads and bridges in Shahabad. ⁹ In Welland’s narrative, the zamindars ‘voluntarily’ entered into an agreement and signed an ekrarnamah ¹⁰ promising to subscribe 1 per cent on their annual jumma. Thus, a system was established to construct and maintain roads with monetary grants from landholders, an arrangement that was almost unknown in other parts of the country. In order to justify the system, Burges specifically reported that six roads, covering a length of 134 kos, were made from this special fund in Shahabad.

Dowdeswell took efforts to search for the ekrarnamah as it appeared to be the only written document available on the subject. ¹¹ W. A. Brooke, who by that time had shifted to Benares, was contacted, and his obvious response was that he was ‘very sorry’ not to find out any related document. But he remembered that the money was spent mostly for the maintenance of two roads, one from Culwar Ghaut to the Karrumnassa, and the other one from Sassaram to Moka. Burges later traced a number of ‘public vouchers’ and letters relating to the issue. ¹² The earliest record available in the Shahabad treasury account was of 5 December 1795. Rajah Buramjeet Singh contributed ₹93 for the year 1203 (ad 1796), which was followed by donations from a host of landholders.

Burges eventually claimed to have found an ‘original’ ekrarnamah, proposed by the zamindar Bhoopnarain Singh and signed by Brooke. ¹³ He even found an English version of the ekrar that had to be compared to the ‘original’ one. Some other ekrars were also traced by him though he was doubtful of their ‘originality’ and speculated that they were prepared later to replace ekrars that may have been lost. The ‘original’ ekrar delivered by Singh, the zamindar of Pergunnah Peero and Nonore [sic?], declared on 21 Magh 1197 (22 January 1790) that the zamindar entered into a voluntary agreement to pay 1 per cent on his annual jumma for keeping up the construction and repair work of the roads in the vicinity.

Once these written documents could be presented as proof, the Government did not delay justifying the extraction of the 1 per cent amount. Petitions that complained of the imposition were dismissed and landlords were forced to make the negotiated contribution. To collect the due in a more systematic way, the Vice President of the Board of Revenue suggested the involvement of local agents under the Regulation 19 of 1810. ¹⁴ A separate account was proposed for keeping records of the ‘voluntary contribution’. It was planned to extend the system beyond the boundaries of Shahabad. ¹⁵

In the next step, a sharp shift can be noticed in the Government’s stand. The ‘contribution’ began to be mentioned as ‘tax’ or ‘cess’, marking an era that saw the subtle entry of colonial governmentality. ¹⁶ The ‘voluntary’ donation was now subjected to compulsion. ‘Exemplary steps’ were taken against landholders unwilling to pay the amount. Ramkissen Laul, a landlord of Ekory Jahanabad in Pergunnah Cheenpoor, declined to concur with the agreement. His muktear was called upon and forced to unite with other landlords in signing the agreement. A balance was due from Ramkissen on account of the ‘road tax’ from 1220 to 1222 bs or ad 1815. A further enquiry into the matter revealed that the Mouza Jehanabad was actually the property of Bydenauth Sahoo, the shroff at Patna, who had appointed Ramkissen to oversee the property. The Government, eager to extract ‘road tax’ from the Estate, now found ways to interfere into the internal affairs of the zamindari.

Their main intention was to convert the ‘voluntary contribution’ to a compulsory taxation that would have to be extracted from zamindars on a permanent basis. The Mouza Jehanabad fell into the trap. Baboo Bydenauth Sahoo, the proprietor, showed evidences of eleven original deeds executed by him, and by his late brother Juggernauth Sahoo, engaging to pay the road tax at the usual rate. ¹⁷ The documents showed that he paid ₹91 on that account from 1207 to 1212 bs (1805), leaving an amount of ₹217-14-1 which was due until 1222 bs (1815). In 1788, Bydenauth purchased an Estate, a former property of Ram Bhurjun Singh, yielding an annual jumma of ₹50,805. The tussle began with the engagements of this new Estate to pay for the road fund. A. Campbell, the Acting Collector of Shahabad, complained that Bydenauth was reluctant to conform to the agreement signed by the previous proprietors to pay the amount. He forced Bydenauth to enter into fresh engagements to continue the tradition. Thus, hardly any room was left for the landlords to make the contribution on a ‘voluntary’ basis. It was converted to a tax that they could not escape.

After 1813, the collection started to be mentioned as ‘cess’ in the Revenue records. It was an imposition in addition to regular taxation. Discussions began whether the cess would be confined within Shahabad or extended to other districts as well. Dowdeswell decided that the Soane River on the east should be the limits of this cess. ¹⁸ W. Money, the Collector of Bihar, cited the cases of the six pergunnahs that were transferred from Shahabad to Bihar and then were re-transferred to Shahabad in 1802. ¹⁹ This ‘peculiar’ form of taxation was maintained as an exclusive feature of the Shahabad district. Even as late as 1831, G. Mainwaring, the Commissioner of Sarun, made mention of the collection, ‘which Fund is I believe peculiar and confined to the District of Shahabad’. ²⁰

In order to justify road taxation, the revenue officers had to provide proof of the utilization of funds collected through it. Burges calculated that a regular collection of 1 per cent would make the annual road fund equal to ₹8 lakhs, which in 12 years would be equal to ₹1 crore, which he considered ‘sufficient to form post Roads and Bridges with a variety of cross roads from Calcutta to Agrah Meerut and Delhe or a distance equal to that from London to Vienna…’ ²¹ He proposed similar road funds in Madras and Bombay Presidencies and ‘throughout British India’. The amount of 1 per cent appeared to him so ‘trifling’ that he did not anticipate opposition from landholders anywhere. However, he considered his suggestions for a pan-Indian road fund an impossible idea: ‘I trust the Gentlemen of the Road committee will forgive my saying so much on a business that they themselves must be so much better able to speak of’. ²²

Much before Burges’ dreams came true in the 1870s, voluntary or compulsory road funds were maintained in many districts. In the Twenty-four Pergunnahs, the zamindars bargained with the Collector over the exact expense for roads in 1824. ²³ The zamindars made an overall subscription of ₹6,500 for building a road to Russapuglah. The Government intended to make the road 25 feet wide with two layers of bricks, which would incur an expense of ₹2,000 per mile. The zamindars, instead, wished for a less expensive road of 16 feet width, for which the overall expense would be ₹13,000, half of which they had already contributed. The logic of the road cess was strengthened gradually against previous cess imposed by the zamindars on their subjects. In Section 9 of Regulation 7 of 1822, all additional cess collected by the landlords from ‘time immemorial’ were declared illegal, though the Regulation added an appendage that if the cess had been especially sanctioned by the Government, then it ought to be considered ‘legal’. ²⁴ The next section will illustrate how this exceptional cess sanctioned by the Government was placed on a firm footing everywhere in India, far beyond the limits of Shahabad district. The road cess was established as the only method of taxation on roads, drastically limiting the previous system of toll collection.

Rejecting Toll Tax and Justifying Road Cess

The previous section explored how a ‘peculiar’ tax imposed on roads moved beyond the boundaries of Shahabad district and was proposed to be adopted on a pan-Indian scale. This section will discuss how a range of arguments were placed in favour of a road cess against the common custom of collecting toll tax. Primarily, this debate aimed to address the point of the incidence of taxation: was this tax to be collected from travellers for the maintenance of roads on which they traversed, or would it be collected from settled landholders from whom it was easier to extract regular dues. This debate can be placed in a broader historical background in which arguments in favour of land taxation were strengthened, as we shall see in the following discussion. The Government’s negative experience regarding collection of customs and toll taxes in the early part of the nineteenth century induced them to speak in support of Free Trade. The consequence was that travellers were exempted from all kinds of taxation except the occasional toll bars on roads and bridges and on water routes, while a system of land taxation affirmed its grip everywhere in the country. ²⁵

Earlier, the prevalent practice of drawing the expense for maintaining roads was to collect toll taxes at the fixed toll bars placed on the roads. This mode of taxing the traveller was a common feature of the precolonial era as well. The well-known rahadari tax of the Mughal period promised the maintenance of roads on the funds extracted from traders and pilgrims. ²⁶ The British policy was influenced by both Indian and European instances. In England and France, the roads on which toll tax was applied were known as turnpikes. There were multiple instances of local riots by villagers unwilling to pay the amount. ²⁷ The tradition of toll tax was retained by the Company Government in the early part of their rule. But the irregularity of travellers and the impossibility of constant vigil forced them to rethink the possibilities of a land taxation to carry on road works. From the beginning of the nineteenth century, such taxation was juxtaposed with the extractions prevalent in the zamindari estates.

The debate over cess and toll intensified by the 1850s when it was realized that carrying on road work on a massive scale would be nearly impossible without a stable flow of funds maintained exclusively for that purpose. But the dichotomy of toll and cess had made its complicated appearance in several government records even before the mid-nineteenth century. The term ‘poolbundy’ that stood for ‘embankments’ was generally used by the British as a tax for public works imposed by the zamindars on ryots and tenants. There were frequent suggestions that the Government was often willing to appropriate the collection of the poolbundy fund, though it was never explicitly expressed. In the 1810s, C. Trower, the Collector of Burdwan, was criticized by the Board of Revenue for his express wish to draw expenses from the poolbundy fund maintained by the Raja of Burdwan. But Trower was determined to use the fund:

[A] fund from which Government might without feeling the expense, confer a great Public benefit; for if ₹60,001 was considered only a fair remission in the Rajah’s Jumma for keeping the Embankment in repair, every Rupee saved in the Estimate, is an unexpected gain. ²⁸

As the Board of Revenue did not approve, Trower rethought the possibilities of a range of taxes on travellers rather than on the settled agrarian population.

Before a general rule was introduced on road cess, there were visible shifts back and forth. The officers made good points for either argument. Trower suggested three taxes, all of which were impositions on travellers; the first was a simple toll tax on all carts and loaded bullocks, while the other two proposed a license system for proprietors of carts and bullocks, respectively, that had to be obtained on stamped paper. He could foresee the prospects of these systems, as the number of carts in Burdwan and Canchunnagore alone was around 600–700, though he was aware of the problems of the license system, ‘for a Bullock may one day be employed in carrying a load, the next in a cart, the third in a plough’. ²⁹ The large number of bullocks in a certain district did not assure the project’s success.

The practical problems of introducing a toll tax induced the Government to seriously consider a tax on landholders that would confirm a steady fund for the maintenance of roads. The argument in favour of toll tax glorified it as a great source of funds, while the contrary argument repeatedly cited the problems travellers and traders would face in their regular journeys. Lord Elphinstone, the Governor of Bombay, supported toll only in those localities ‘where great natural impediments to intercourse have heretofore existed and for the removal of which an unusually large expenditure has been incurred’, rather than its universal application. ³⁰ He thought it would be ‘next to impossible’ to establish a system of toll collection throughout ‘the whole length and breadth of the land’. But simultaneously he felt the need of good roads everywhere, which only a stable collection of toll tax could assure. ³¹

Advocating for a toll tax was not rare. However, in most reports, officers contradicted themselves by both recognizing the desirability of toll tax, while acknowledging its impracticability. Lumsden, a member of the Board of Revenue, first supported this indirect tax: ‘the trader is no more than repaid for his contributions in the shape of tolls by greatly increased profits, desirable from cheaper, more expediting and safer carriage’. ³² However, he confessed that the collection of such a tax throughout the territory would be ‘intolerable’ and would generate ‘more serious grievances’ than transit duties. He feared that a forceful imposition of toll might cause the desertion of the roads by poorer traders. Another strong argument against toll tax was the maligned and corrupted system it could generate in the name of its collection. ³³ The system of toll collection was represented as a serious threat to smooth administration: ‘[t]he time of the nearest European officer would be taken up investigating complaints against them and perhaps occasionally in the pursuit of a defaulter who had absconded with his own collections’. ³⁴ Even the date for the final abolition of tolls was declared. Dickens, in his letter to the PWD (3 May 1860) wished that toll taxes be abolished within ‘two months’ from the date on which the letter was written. ³⁵

All these arguments against toll tax directed the discussion towards taxing land for the maintenance of roads. The main intention of the Government was to assure the stability of the tax against various uncertainties cited in the discussions on toll. It was strongly argued that in a country like India, where ‘the property in the soil is vested in general and the revenues are principally from the soil’, it would be the best policy to incur the charges of road-making from public revenues, as ‘this is simply lending out money to one self to be returned with ample interest’. ³⁶ The landholders were considered the chief beneficiaries of roads. The Court of Directors in the PWD suggested to the Government of India a cess of 1 per cent on the annual jumma for this purpose. ³⁷

However, the Government was apprehensive of the practical problems posed in the implementation of such taxation. The village tehsildars who were assigned to collect the amount were often ignorant about the road-building activities in the region. Communication between districts and localities was necessary to make the system successful.

The duty of collecting road cess was diffused among a number of officers. It was proposed that the Committee of Control, the District Committees and the Sub-Committees would be invested with road works and the collection of road cess on a hierarchical basis. At the bottom of the system in each Sub-Division, there were to be Sub-Committees consisting of the Assistant Magistrate, Police Officer, Public Works Officer and of a number of representative landholders to decide the road projects and their repair costs. ³⁸ The District Committees were directed to gather the members of Sub-Committees to integrate the various projects proposed and to prepare a coherent map of the road projects of the district, such that the roads would no more be ‘allowed to terminate at the border of one District’. The Committee of Control, at the top, consisting of the Commissioner, Superintending Engineer, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Magistrate, Executive Engineer and the landholders, were to take the final decisions. Thus, the entire system was created for an efficient execution of the road cess collections and its proper usage.

H. Leonard, the Officiating Secretary to the Government of Bengal in the PWD, supported his report in favour of land taxation with detailed statistical evidence. ³⁹ He estimated that in Patna, there was one mile of road of any kind in each six square miles of the country. The general proportion in Bengal Presidency was 1 mile in each 20 square miles, which meant that about 29,000 miles of road still needed to be constructed. The proportion of metalled and unmetalled roads was 1:26, and there was a requirement of 2,700 miles of the former. Therefore, it appeared to Leonard most practical to arrange for a fixed land tax to raise this fund. Thus, most of the officers of the Revenue Department began to argue in favour of a fixed system of road taxation. It was thought that it would prevent the peons and chowkidars from extorting bribes, ‘nor should it cause a man … to lose the time of his cattle and himself while debating as to how much he should pay, as is often the case at toll bars and ferries’. ⁴⁰

Leonard, in order to justify road cess, denied that it posed a ‘breach of faith’ by compelling the landholders to pay for road construction. He was determined to prove that the landholders were incurring genuine benefits from the roads. ⁴¹ As the trader would also have to pay the road cess in his capacity as a landowner, it was not necessary for him to pay the same as a trader, ‘nor I think that any complicated arrangements to catch him are at all necessary’. ⁴²

The road cess was juxtaposed with municipal taxation, already widespread in the urban areas. It was noticed that only the rural population was exempted from such a taxation, and ‘every countryman and woman coming into town uses the roads and pays nothing’. ⁴³ So to bring the whole population under such taxation, a road cess on landed property was necessary. The argument of ‘public good’ was strongly employed to justify road cess. It was argued that such taxation would invigorate trade, unlike the system of transit duty.

Examples from Europe were cited, where toll bars were completely ‘swept away’. In Ireland, Prussian Germany and northern Italy, the act of removing toll bars was complete while in England, Scotland and France, the process was underway in the 1860s.

As an immediate consequence of these discussions, the already established toll bars were removed in various places of the country. A general rule was imposed that all roads classified as ‘imperial’ should be exempted from toll collection while the practice continued on ferries and bridges. ⁴⁵ Although strong opinion prevailed against toll tax, requests continued to pour in from various places to insist on its necessity. A toll bar was requested by Montresor on the road from Raneegunge to Doobrajpore, which was important for coal traffic, to meet the regular expenses of its repair. ⁴⁶

In a parallel move to the abolition of toll posts, the Government began enquiring about the already established collections of cess and toll under several zamindaris. J. D. Sim, the Secretary to the Government of Fort St. George, wished to know whether the cess collected in the ‘permanently settled’ estates in Bengal were voluntary or arbitrary in nature ⁴⁷ and whether the deeds of the Permanent Settlement allowed any provision for such taxation or not. In reply, H. L. Dampier, the Secretary to the Board of Revenue of the Lower Provinces, stated that the Permanent Settlement did not leave space for any such taxation. ⁴⁸ Only in some districts police jummas were prevalent. In addition, zamindari dak cess was established as a legal tax over the zamindars by the Act VIII of 1862. The 1 per cent cess for the road fund was a new system that would hopefully exempt the Government from spending £145,000 per annum on road-building activities. ⁴⁹

This section illustrated the debates around the prospects of toll tax and road cess and traced the shift of the general argument in favour of cess. A fixed amount of taxation on landholders was considered more secure than irregular collection from travellers. We have seen how the road cess was justified by the officers in various ways. The next section will narrate the history of its justification in another context. It was argued that roads and education were the two main carriers of civilization. Road cess, along with the cess on education, was placed within the discourse of the ‘civilizing mission’ that already appeared to be a strong idea in the colonial imagination. We will see how an argument coloured by financial profits was converted to one about the empire’s civilizing mission.

The Burdens of Taxation and Civilization

The early justifications for road cess presented it as only an addition to the numerous taxes ryots were already subjected to within the respective zamindaris. It was argued that road cess would not burden the ryots with a heavier load. Rather, it would assure good roads, ultimately returning the favour to the villagers. The second and the most argued justification for road cess was that it was a step towards ‘civilization’. Roads and education were seen as the principal means to connect the native to the wider world. This section will discuss the emergence of the category of ‘cess’ and assess the importance of road cess in relation to a range of other cess imposed in various places of India.

An attempt was made to define the category ‘cess’ in the 1870s. ‘Cess’ was justified strongly because it was not taxation. The Lieutenant Governor of Bengal cited James Mill’s argument in favour of the imposition of cess:

[T]he so-called cesses in Northern and Western India are really not taxation proper at all, but only portions of the imperial demand, which the Government might have taken entirely to itself, but which it has preferred to set aside for local purposes. ⁵⁰

By taxation, Mill meant an imposition strictly to meet demands of the central government. On the contrary, cess was imposed at the local level to meet the administrative and infrastructural expenses of the region. Support in favour of this idea was evident. Mr Schalch, a revenue officer, opined, ‘It was intended that the application of the tax should be entirely and wholly local’. ⁵¹ But while road and education cess were being contemplated in Bengal, the officers were not quite sure how to differentiate them from taxation. ⁵² As land revenue was repeatedly declared as rent and not a tax, cess was categorized as an instance of tax.

Cess in Bengal was decided to be imposed on two spheres: roads and education. To assemble these two apparently unconnected categories on the same platform, officials employed the argument of the civilizing mission. ⁵³ H. G. Turner proposed good roads in the countryside in order to unburden the people. ⁵⁴ Sir J. Lawrence proposed of its imposition on the zamindars alone, though gradually this argument was overshadowed by universal support for levying the tax generally on all landholders. Instances from other provinces were cited where cess on roads and education were already prevalent. The discussions in the Legislative Department to some extent explain the logic behind the choice of these two sectors for taxation. ⁵⁵

Parallel to this ongoing struggle to define ‘cess’, officials set out to gather information on already established cess in other regions. ⁵⁶ The amounts of several other cess were compared to decide a justified amount for the road cess. The general average of the imposition for roads appeared to be ⅝ per cent on the annual jumma. Road and dak cess were most common. Municipal cess was often merged with chowkeedaree or village police cess. In Bengal, the only cess imposed until the 1860s was the zamindary dak cess. Table 1 gives an idea of the various cess prevalent in several regions of India. ⁵⁷

The Government was no longer willing to incur the expenses for improving roads and education from the imperial exchequer. Local sources were to be appropriated for these purposes. The Governor General thought of a tax of 2 per cent on net assets or gross rental of the land. He cited the example of the Central Provinces and concluded that ‘at least as heavy a tax may fairly be imposed in Bengal’. ⁵⁸

W. Muir’s Memorandum (30 June 1859) supported the view that all varieties of cess, whether it was chowkeedaree or educational or road or district dak cess, should be imposed as an addition to the jumma. ⁵⁹ Another widely accepted proposal was the ‘half asset’ principle, which divided the burden between the Government and the zamindars on almost an equal basis. Under the system of taxation then current, Muir calculated that the zamindar could easily be burdened with 47¾ per cent of the resources needed for local improvement.

Though the argument in favour of the civilizing mission was widely used to envelop the cess on road and education together, the Governor General proposed to separate these two categories. He feared that it would be a ‘matter for regret’ if the fund sanctioned for education would in any way be used for roads. ⁶⁰ The Governor General may have been influenced by the representative landlords of the British Indian Association, who had already launched a protest against the common cess. Therefore, a separate road cess that would not interfere with the funds raised for education was contemplated. Further, strong protests from the British Indian Association motivated the Government to confine its plans only to road cess. The idea of an education cess remained a more controversial affair, vehemently contested by indigenous landlords.

Apart from the road cess, another similar taxation on zamindars for the maintenance of roads was much discussed and debated in the official discourse. The zamindary dak, a postal network maintained by the zamindars, had been subjected to taxation since the middle of the nineteenth century. The gradual takeover of the zamindari dak by the British pushed the zamindars to a passive position. In 1862, the zamindary dak cess was legalized. Though the zamindars were still responsible for its maintenance, they were to supply funds for the construction of the roads required for the running of the system. ⁶¹

This section examined how the act of imposition of road cess was defended by the Government on the ground of financial gains. Though the argument was often camouflaged by citing civilizational motives, the cess invariably burdened the poorest peasants, for whom the logic of ‘civilization’ would remain a superficial one. In the next section, we will see how various legislations were adopted for the ‘proper management’ of the road cess system and how indigenous society responded to such schemes.

The Road Cess Legalized

This section will trace how road cess was legitimized through a series of debates. The implementation of road cess stirred the indigenous community of landlords who conveyed their protest through the British Indian Association. Here I will discuss the arguments in favour of and in opposition to road cess. While the newly emerging nationalist accent could be heard in the voices of the zamindars, the British tended to justify the road cess by citing the numerous dues the zamindars used to collect from the ryots. The rules of the Permanent Settlement were considered as a major entry point for these arguments. The zamindars and the British interpreted the rules in various ways to strengthen their respective stands. The road cess was ultimately systematized and regulated through these debates.

The road cess was a means to make all landholders pay for road-building activities. In discussions, phrases such as ‘proprietors of the land’, ‘proprietors of the soil’ and ‘landholders’ recurred frequently. The revenue officers and members of the Law Assembly sought an explanation of each of these phrases. It was not clear whether only the zamindars were targeted as cess-payers or generally all the landholders, tenants and ryots. The Lieutenant Governor of Bengal assumed that the phrase ‘landholder’ meant the zamindars and talookdars who were subjected to a tax of 2 per cent on their net assets. ⁶²

The explicit clarifications of the term ‘landholder’ agitated the community of zamindars in Bengal. The British Indian Association, the representative body of the zamindars, conducted several meetings in the 1870s to prepare an agenda to protest the imposition of road and education cess. A report of such a meeting roundly summarized the points. ⁶³ The meeting was attended by people from various classes and communities. The British and the zamindars formed arguments on either side by forging polemic interpretations of the clauses of the Permanent Settlement. The same clauses were explained in various different ways. Baboo Rajendralal Mittra vehemently opposed a cess solely on zamindars as, in his observation, very few zamindars in Bengal were wealthy enough to afford it. The British cited examples from other regions like Oudh where cess was already levied and argued that as cess was not a ‘tax’ but a ‘rent’, it would not violate the terms of the Permanent Settlement. The terms ‘cess’, ‘tax’ and ‘rent’ were used and manipulated according to the needs of the moment.

A range of arguments were made against the proposed road cess. It was looked at as ‘a raging thirst’ of the Government that had ‘broken its promise made in the Decennial Settlement’ and ‘the engagements of the Queen in her Proclamation’. ⁶⁴ Rajah Shuttchurn Ghosaul Bahadoor of Bhookoylass found the very idea of road cess unnecessary. He thought that the already established collections, such as the ferry fund, district and other municipal taxes and private contributions, were sufficient to carry on the road works. Baboo Issur Chunder Ghosaul expressed concern that the collected fund was not always used for intended public works. He complained that the only major road work achieved by the British Government through the plains of northern India, the Grand Trunk Road, would not have been possible if there had not been an old alignment existing on that route. ⁶⁵ The road was made to facilitate easier passage for the military,

[T]hen through sheer military urgency, and not from any love to us, they opened the Imperial Exchequer and constructed a chord line from Pulta Ghat in Hooghly, carried it through Burdwan and joined the old Trunk Road at the Dhunwa Pass. ⁶⁶

The repeated complaint that the road cess was violating the terms of the Permanent Settlement was often not given much importance. ⁶⁷

However, the arguments posed by the zamindars carried inherent contradictions. On the one hand, the zamindars complained of the absence of roads and hence the injustice of a tax imposition. But on the other hand, the impracticability of roads was continually stressed:

As regards roads, Bengal is peculiarly situated. Your memorialists are humbly of opinion that in a country, which is under water for nearly seven months out of twelve months in the year, roads, where necessary, must be constructed on high and massive embankments, and if they are unmetalled, they are liable to be swept away every year, or considerably damaged, so as to be of no use. ⁶⁸

The village paths were declared ‘sufficient’ for the rural population, who would be extremely oppressed if cess were to be imposed upon them. But the British emphasized ‘the comfort of traversing a good road’ that nullified all other excuses against such taxation.

The landlords’ association asserted that the officers of the Public Works Department were corrupt and that the fund allotted to them was hardly utilized for the intended purposes. The large-scale expansion of railways increased the need for feeder roads which, according to the members of the British Indian Association, were supposed to be built using the central imperial funds. But the apparently benevolent steps towards the formations of local self-governments brought with it a range of local taxation that was looked at as means of exploitation. The debate over the liability of feeder roads, whether they were to be built by the central government, local governments or the railway companies, was merged with the debate on the imposition of the road cess. The Lieutenant Governor of Bengal was of the opinion that a stable collection of road cess could add to the central imperial funds, thereby ensuring efficient construction of feeder roads.

The unwilling zamindars expected the Government to provide the funds for road building from the central or provincial revenue, as they felt that the Permanent Settlement exactions were quite sufficiently high. They were vehemently against any imposition on the agricultural population. The main thread of debate around road cess was twofold. For the British officials, the challenge was to prove the logic of taxing the rural agricultural population for roads. For the zamindars, the argument ran in reverse. The zamindars further argued that without finishing the already undertaken projects, the government should not draw money for new ones. ⁶⁹

Moreover, the landlords were unwilling to allow a transfer of their wealth to other provinces in the form of road cess: ‘…we protest against the applications of her [Bengal] revenues towards the purchase of comforts for ragged Madras or undeveloped Assam’. ⁷⁰

From the available statistics, it was not difficult to prove the ‘inefficiency’ of the Government in carrying out road works. The following is an estimate of expenditure from 1861–62 to 1866–67. ⁷¹

It was observed that out of this huge sum, only ₹7,593,002 was allotted for the repair and improvement of old roads. Almost ₹44 lakhs were spent annually on new roads, which appeared to the zamindars as a ‘sheer wastage of money’. The members of the British Indian Association enthusiastically passed a resolution that

[I]t is the duty of the Government of every civilized country to improve the roads and communications for the promotion of the material well-being of the people, and that a special road cess in addition to imperial or municipal taxes is inexpedient and uncalled for. ⁷²

The argument of civilization was thus reversed in the statements of the landlords.

In reply to the query of the Secretary to the State for India, who asked for a valid explanation of the terms of the Permanent Settlement, the Government of India cited Article VII of the Settlement, that

…not only does not bar such taxation, but may fairly be interpreted to contemplate it, always having regard to the fact that such special and additional taxation be not for Imperial purposes, but for the benefit of the agricultural classes only. ⁷³

But they also mentioned that there were ‘binding’ promises made with the landowners that no additional tax would be levied on them. To justify the road cess under the Regulations of the Permanent Settlement, the Government drew attention to phrases such as ‘protection and welfare’ of various agricultural classes and ‘funds for expenditure on objects of local public utility and improvement’. The usage of these phrases indicated possibility of future taxation, ‘the levying of such rates upon the holders of land, irrespective of the amount of their land assessment, involves no breach of faith on the part of the Government, whether as regards holders of permanent or of temporary tenures’. ⁷⁴

The arguments of welfare and public good were often employed to justify the ‘breach of faith’, if there was any at all. The utility of roads and education for ‘civilizing’ the population was repeatedly stressed to overshadow the breach of faith. The specific problems to levy additional tax in the permanently settled regions were discussed. The question of income tax was dragged into the cess question and the Advocate General keenly justified the Income Tax scheme quoting from former officers. ⁷⁵ It was easier to carry out such measures in other regions as the regulations there did not debar the Government from increasing the land assessment. ⁷⁶ The curse of fixity was to be overcome by going beyond the established rules. ⁷⁷

All these debates reaffirmed by the early 1870s the inevitability of road cess. The British called for the formation of a Committee to decide matters over the new taxation. The British Indian Association nominated Baboo Digumber Mittra as their representative in the Government Committee to convey their dissent towards the principles of cess. ⁷⁸ The Lieutenant Governor invited V. H. Schalch, C. T. Buckland, A. R. Thompson, J. Pitt Kennedy, Degumber Mittra, Isserchunder Mittra and J. Westland to form the Committee. ⁷⁹ The Committee ultimately decided the various principles of the tax, despite consistent opposition from members of the British Indian Association. The tax was levied on houses and roads. It was applied not only on the rateable value of property but equally on all classes who benefitted from that property. The assessment of rates was left negotiable with local inhabitants.

The Committee established branches in several districts where representation from ‘respectable ryots’ was sought. ⁸⁰ In the absence of such ryots, the work had to be carried out by ‘inferior landholders’ or ‘subordinate talookdars’. The Branch Committees were formed in various Sub-Divisions of each district. In Jessore, the Branch Committees were formed in Jhenidah, Magoorah, Narail, Khoolna and Bagirhat Sub-Divisions. ⁸¹ The local zamindars, talookdars, jotedars, ‘respectable ryots’, naibs and planters joined as members. For efficient collection of cess, able pyadas were to be appointed. ⁸² The members had to get along with each other ‘to infuse a little life into the proceedings where A declines to vote for a road which will benefit Z unless Z will vote for a road that will benefit A’. ⁸³ Comparative significance of each ‘rival road’ was to lead to the ultimate decision.

The selection of members in the District Road Cess Committees was a crucial factor. The Committee in the Twenty-four Pergunnahs preferred to select those landlords who resided in their property rather than absentee landholders who left the responsibility of administration on their gomastahs and naibs. ⁸⁴

The process of legislation began. A. O. Hume, the Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Agriculture, Revenue and Commerce, asserted the importance of the Bill, saying that ‘a more important measure never came before an Indian legislature’. ⁸⁵ Enquiries were made to investigate the various circumstances and situations under which property was held in Bengal. Even the railways were brought under the ambit of road cess operations, owing to the support of several British officers.

The road cess was leviable on the following sectors:

Road cess on lands, Part II of the Act

The decision to include railways and canals within the operations of the Road Cess Act was contested several times, including by the Governor General in 1889. In a discussion on the Sone canals, it was decided that the Lieutenant Governor would be vested with the power to exempt the canals from paying cess under the provisions of Section 2 of Act X of 1880. ⁸⁶ But in the case of the ‘high level and tidal canals’ of Midnapore, the District Collector was in favour of imposing cess. Gradually, the rule was established that all lands held by the Government, whether it was canal, railway or tramway, would be exempted from paying road cess.

In the twenty-four Pergunnahs and Jessore, the amount of road cess was first decided to be 2 pice in a rupee, which still appeared to be scanty as the central imperial exchequer almost completely withdrew from the responsibility of local roads, ‘throwing so many miles of metalled Public Works Department roads on the hands of the local funds’. ⁸⁷ But a rule evolved that ‘the districts which raise money locally are to spend it locally’. ⁸⁸ The money raised was meant for feeders and other categories of local roads. Clear classifications were made of roads that were to be brought under the operations of road cess. ⁸⁹ The following list was suggested by the Lieutenant Governor:

District roads already existing and enlisted in the following manner:

Metalled and bridged

In large parts of Bengal where water routes were considered the main arteries of communication, there was not really a need for roads. As D. R. Lyall, the Officiating Collector of Dacca, stated:

[T]here are no local roads in this district for them to take charge of, and that to make roads is so expensive in a district like this, which is yearly under water, that the Committee have determined to content themselves with the existing roads and to spend the money collected on khalls. ⁹⁰

Besides tending to the feeders, the Road Cess Fund was largely meant for the maintenance of the village tracks. ⁹¹ The village matabbars and munduls were to be made aware of their respective assignments and funds from the Road Cess Committees.

There were several cases where proprietors of land denied paying road cess with the excuse that roads were not used very much in that region. T. M. Robinson, the Managing Director of Bengal Coal Company, expected to be exempted from cess as the coal trade in the Ranigunge area was ‘free from any necessity of using roads made for public purposes’. ⁹² He claimed that his coal company had already spent ₹6,446 for building the road from Burrakur Station to Sanktoria village, which should exempt them from any future road cess. But an exceptional rule was introduced for such cases, where cess was imposed on profits. ⁹³ As the profit of Robinson’s coal company was already at ‘so low an ebb’, the Government promised to rethink the issue of exemption. ⁹⁴

In 1872, arrangements were made for the collection of 1 per cent road cess, though the rule was not universally applied. ⁹⁵ In the estates held by the Government, the general amount of road cess collected was 6 pice in a rupee. The rules were later revised in several districts such as Burdwan, Hooghly, Twenty-four Pergunnahs, Nuddea, Jessore, Moorshedabad, Rajshahye, Dacca, Furreedpore, Monghyr, Bhagalpore, Purneah, Cuttack, Poore, Balasore and Hazareebagh. The confusion had to be eroded and the methods standardized. The following quote from the late 1870s summarizes the problems faced by the officers assigned to collect cess:

The Deputy Collectors were new to the work and made many mistakes. The landowners and people generally did not fully understand what was required of them. Many estates were valued without the submission of proper returns; some were valued twice over; some got off with a very inadequate assessment. ⁹⁶

The road cess operation faced intense problems in evaluating the lakheraj lands or lands that were traditionally freeholds. The title of the ‘original proprietor’ was often uncertain. ⁹⁷ Many of these rent-free holdings were legally owned by non-resident co-sharers whom it was impossible to trace and ‘most of whom are altogether unknown in the village’. ⁹⁸ Act X of 1871 considered all rent-free lands as part of the estates within which they were situated. The District Collectors were endowed with the power to collect cess directly from all rent-free holds. The problem they faced was that the lakhirajdars were not directly attached to the ryots, who were considered the zamindars’ direct subjects. The zamindars often chose to keep these lands outside their accounts as it was easier for them to evade tax. ⁹⁹

Areas where roads were rare and hence a tax for road construction seemed to be worthless often saw protests against the road cess. A petition from Baboo Peary Mookerjee of Sagur Island, within the fiscal jurisdiction of the Twenty-four Pergunnahs, argued that the ‘small isolated community’ there, disconnected from the mainland, hardly made use of the roads:

They are totally unconcerned with the condition of the roads and bridges in the main land, as they have no occasion to use them. Their concern is to prevent their houses and crops from being inundated by breaches in the embankments, and to protect their lives and crops from ravages made by wild hogs and stray tigers which infest the island. ¹⁰⁰

The Baboo complained that in spite of repeated requests, the Government never sanctioned any grant for roads there. He therefore sought exemption from the Road Cess Act.

A. W. Paul, the Chairman of the Road Cess Committee of the Twenty-four Pergunnahs, confessed that the bulk of the funds deriving from road cess collections were spent on the railway feeder roads. But he defended the levy of cess as a general tax and not as a local tax, the money from which would not be necessarily utilized for that area:

It seems to me impossible to concede the principle, for which the memorialists contend, that all the money raised in any particular tract must be actually expended within that particular tract, and that if it be found necessary for a time to neglect one particular tract, that tract shall be exempted from taxation. ¹⁰¹

In this section, I have elaborated the rules and regulations adopted to form the system of road cess. The clauses of the Permanent Settlement were interpreted in various ways to strengthen the arguments on both sides. Once the imposition of cess was confirmed, many other excuses were brought to the fore to avoid its payment. However, protests could not prevent the enactment of successive legislation to regularize cess and to assure its collection. In the next section, we will review the various aspects of the working of the system, how the collection of road cess was facilitated and how much successful the system ultimately turned out to be.

How the Road Cess Was Collected

The legal rules that were intended to extend the tight grip of taxation through road cess were often violated. Difficulties at the local level repeatedly frustrated the implementation of the original scheme. The gradual steps of land survey, valuation and negotiation that led to the collection of road cess were coloured by various influences that prevented the intended steady extraction. The most significant feature of the reports on cess collection was that they hardly mentioned any resistance from the landholders, a common feature noticed and discussed in the earlier sections. The reports on cess collection were the best examples of its justification. They represented the landholders and the ryots as most cooperative and peaceable during the process of valuation.

Sir Richard Temple in 1874 toured several districts of Bengal in which the road cess operation was in various stages of completion. ¹⁰² Though he provided a positive picture of cess collection, there are occasional mentions of interventions and resistance from the zamindars and ryots in his report. He noticed that the average amount of cess collected was either 4 pice in a rupee or two-thirds of the full rate. If the Cess Act could be operated in all districts ‘regularly and smoothly’, he ventured that it would yield an income of £224,000. Added with the collections from houses, mines, quarries, ferries, cattle-trespass fees and other miscellaneous sources, the income was expected to be as high as £300,000.

The rules of the Act were gradually extended to several districts such as Noakhally and Bukhergunge. ¹⁰³ In his survey of the Bukhergunge District, C. Bernard, the Secretary to the Government of Bengal, collected oral and written statements from the residents of different parts of the district. He gathered a general idea of their demands and noted the places where roads, foot-bridges and water channels were required. In his report, the cess-paying people appeared to be ‘well-off all over the district’, which was understood to be justification for the extension of the Act to Bukhergunge. The Cess Act slowly subjected places such as Madareepore Sub-Division in Furreedpore District, Tipperah, Maldah and Champaran.

The process of valuation of land for road cess often deviated from the prescribed methods and the standard amount of collection was not always maintained. In the Twenty-four Pergunnahs, F. B. Peacock, the Officiating Collector, counted the total number of rent-rolls at 1,292. ¹⁰⁴ Of these rent-rolls, 1,208 were valued at three times, fifty-three at twice their revenue, and thirty-one lakheraj estates at a rate per bigha. Overall, 150 objections were received in response to these valuations, of which twenty-three were considered, ten were rejected and for the rest the assessments were revised after cancelling the previous valuations. It appears that there was hardly any uniform rule followed in any of the districts regarding the evaluation of land.

Some arrangements were made to facilitate the collection of cess. The Accountant General preferred its collection together with land revenue. ¹⁰⁵ It was reported that the Collector of Balasore had already succeeded in this regard. The valuation of sixteen districts was finally completed. A positive picture derived from Dampier’s report, which did not mention any opposition or resistance from the ‘intelligent ryots’ while valuation was going on. ¹⁰⁶ He appreciated the firm steps taken to popularize the tax by widely circulating proclamations in every district that ‘[w]hether they appreciate it as for their good or not cannot be so exactly known, but that the tax is accepted and paid by the country at large is certain’. ¹⁰⁷

The Commissioners and Collectors undertook long preparations to reach the ryots directly, with an intention to keep them away from the influence of the landholders. Abbott was eager to let the ryots know about their exact ‘liabilities’. The proclamations were printed in both English and Bengali, though mainly in English, and were pasted and distributed at the cutcherries, police stations, public offices, bazaars, hauts and at places frequented by people. ¹⁰⁸ The vernacular editions were largely meant for the villages to be distributed through the village chowkidars frequenting the police stations. They were given the duty to inform and convince the ryots that the road cess payable was half a pice on the rupee of the rent. In cases of completely illiterate villagers, this sort of ‘verbal communication’ deemed to be very important.

Grave difficulties were faced in collecting the cess from rent-free lakheraj tenures in several districts. The responsibility was first given to the zamindars, who complained of hardship. But the revenue officers argued that as these tenures were actually the creation of the zamindars, ‘the allegation of hardship loses much of its weight’. ¹⁰⁹ Though direct collection was proposed several times by the District Collector, the idea was abandoned using the excuse of his overwhelming workload. To bring some balance, H. H. Risley, the Secretary to the Government of Bengal, suggested that in places where rent-free tenures were few and where the zamindars made requests, the Collectors should take up the responsibility of collection. He thought that only a revised cadastral and settlement survey could address the problems deriving from these tenures.

Complaints of irregularities in road cess valuation were a common feature in almost all districts. Repeated surveys were made to confirm the real value of land. In Hooghly, valuations in many cases did not match with those in the previous records. ¹¹⁰ Numerous intentional and unintentional alterations were pointed out. Frequent arithmetical mistakes were committed in calculation of cess. The inspection report produced by R. C. Dutt, the Collector of Hooghly, on 18 September 1895, supported these facts. Once these rules were fully or partially implemented and the collection process was regulated, the reports on the statistics of road cess collection began to pour into the Revenue office. However, the statistics did not always show a positive picture of cess collection. In most districts, huge amounts of fine were imposed for non-payment, and frequent requests for remission often weakened the pace of regular collection. ¹¹¹

A. Mackenzie, the Officiating Secretary to the Board of Revenue of the Lower Provinces, reported that the collection varied from 100 per cent (in Pooree district) to 80.31 per cent (in Balasore district). In Hooghly district, the rate of collection was as low as 33.53 per cent. In Bancoorah district, the collection of house cess was only 3.41 per cent in 1874–75. ¹¹² Some enquiries were made to find out the reasons for these low collections. The collection was generally conducted by the canoongoe. Later, a separate collecting agency was formed and directed to collect through the headmen of villages. It was noticed that the headman’s job was impeded because of the various factions in the village, a problem that was often difficult to settle.

The huge amount of fine incurred from the non-payment of road cess raises the question of the efficiency and utility of the system. ¹¹³ W. Wavell, the Officiating Collector of Berhampore, identified the lack of connectivity to the ryots as the principal reason for such huge amounts of fine. The lakheraj or revenue-free estates were considered major defaulters. Some of the revenue officers suggested that notices should be circulated in a better way in all these lakheraj estates and also in the estates paying revenue less than ₹100. As there was no cutcherry in those estates, the notices on road cess payments had to be affixed in a conspicuous place. ¹¹⁴

Recurrent complaints against the zamindars demanding excessive amount of cess was common. In his tour diary, Baboo Dwarka Nath Roy, the Sub-Division Officer of Patuakhally in Buckergunge, remarked about the excessive levy of road and public works cess from the ryots. Though the standard rate of road cess in Buckergunge was halved, the zamindars invariably extracted the full rate. He called it ‘oppression under guise of the levy of a Government due’. ¹¹⁵ He stressed on a wider circulation of notices to reach the ryots and to make them aware of their exact liability.

The narrative of road cess collection, lower than expected, merged with that of the districts’ poor conditions. In 1874–75, cess was suspended in Hooghly and Burdwan owing to successive crop failure. In Dinajepore and Rungpore, the levy of road cess was deferred until October 1874. ¹¹⁶ In the high dry parts called ‘barran’ situated in the Rajshahye district, road cess collection was postponed because of the ‘great crop failure’, and in Moorshedabad because of ‘deficiency of rains’. Numerous petitions poured in with the request for postponement or suspension of cess collection. In Hooghly, the Collector recommended suspension of cess in the estates paying revenue less than ₹100. ¹¹⁷

Revenue officers were often not in support of remission. They argued that the proceeds from the cess would help in relief. But F. H. Pellew, the Officiating Collector of Hooghly, was in favour of remission. He reported in 1874 that around 2,163 estates in that district paid less than ₹100 in revenue. Hooghly was affected by malarial epidemic and two consecutive bad harvests. He observed that the small zamindars and putneedars were struggling through two years of short rents. ¹¹⁸ The necessity of roads and road cess seemed completely superficial.

Baboo Opendra Narain Nundy gave an overall negative picture of the situation in his petition:

[I]n consequence of the absence of rain in the month of Assin last, the Amun crops on the fields are becoming dry and will soon die out. The Ouse of Bhadoo crops have not yielded their harvest as abundantly as before; and rubbee, or pulses, are very much stinted in their growth on account of absence of rain in the beginning. ¹¹⁹

He requested that road cess be remitted for 2 years. In Hooghly, though remission was made of the second half-yearly instalment, the collection of the first was still done, except in places deeply affected by bad harvest. ¹²⁰

Investigations were conducted to spot the exact villages distressed by famine and fever. Mr Grant, the former Covenanted Deputy Collector of Howrah, in a careful inspection of the villages on the frontier between Hooghly proper and Howrah, ascertained in 1874 that the villages in the thanas Jugutbullubpore and Khanacool were especially distressed and recommended the suspension of road cess. ¹²¹ Baboo Jotendro Mohun Tagore, the Secretary to the British Indian Association, proposed the suspension of cess in Dacca, Burdwan, Bhagalpore, Rajshahye, Cuttack, Chittagong and Chota Nagpore, all affected by floods. ¹²²

But often the revenue officers suspected the reports that described the poor conditions of the districts. The inability of the poor district to pay cess was sometime challenged. S. C. Bayley, the Officiating Secretary to the Government of Bengal, replied to Tagore that the districts in eastern Bengal including Dacca were ‘extremely good’. ¹²³ He inferred that the flooded districts would suffer less than initially assessed. In reply to this response, Tagore directed a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in solidarity with the zamindars, talookdars, aymadars, lakhirajdars and ryots of Hooghly and Burdwan districts. ¹²⁴

A Memorial from Baboo Shreenath Chuckerbutty and other zamindars and talookdars of Serampore provided specific details of Hooghly district, which had experienced an annual epidemic fever for the previous 10 years, with a large number of fatalities. The fever and ‘destructive cyclones’ left the villages depopulated. The compulsion for extracting road cess in this context seemed absurd, since

the levy of the cess itself would be the last insupportable straw on the back of a people who have been reduced to such a state of destitution of present means and resources as to be unable to take care of their own lands, or even to provide means for procuring medical aid. ¹²⁵

The Government of Bengal strongly argued in favour of the collection of road cess as they could be employed for relief. ¹²⁶ The repeated petitions from residents of different districts was not given much importance as,

[t]he Lieutenant Governor desires me to say in reply that as the petition does not appear to emanate from the British Indian Association, it is not quite clear to His Honor what the precise function of the Association in the matter is. ¹²⁷

J. Ware Edgar argued that the much talked-of epidemic fever spread ‘only to a small portion’ of Hooghly district. The only part seriously affected was Jehanabad Sub-Division, which had already been transferred to Burdwan. Hooghly appeared to him ‘not suffering’ as much as large parts of Burdwan were. But he was not at all in favour of exemption. He strongly recommended the resumption of road cess valuation in both districts, as nineteen roads in Burdwan and thirty-three in Hooghly were to be maintained from the money drawn from road cess. ¹²⁸

This section tried to piece together the process of road cess collection and through that examined how the system worked and how rules were implemented. Intense protests and invigorating nationalist fervour meant to prevent the levy of the road cess. While none of these resistance methods worked, the history of cess collection and the available statistics show that the scheme was not successful in all districts. The failure to collect even the stipulated amount, frequent requests and sanctions for remissions, and huge amounts of uncollected fines often brought the efficiency of the system into question. Yet, road cess survived as a local tax. The emergence of road cess with the simultaneous rise of local self-government forms an important aspect of the economic history at the high noon of the colonial era.

Conclusion

The ‘cess’ question had a wider context; so did the question of the ‘local’, which this article could not discuss. While the provisions of the Permanent Settlement were cited by landlords to oppose further taxation, the colonial government juxtaposed the situation with that of England, where people ‘don’t cry to heaven for help’, but are accustomed to help themselves by means of local taxation and local administration. ¹²⁹ Thus, the theoretical question of the Permanent Settlement was bypassed. Practical problems were foregrounded in which the ‘local’ loomed large. Old theories were reinterpreted to accommodate the practical experience. ¹³⁰ The last section of the article details ‘field’ experiences. The Utilitarian logic of taxing the landed gentry was resurrected in a new garb. This time, all the landholders and cultivating ryots that constitute the ‘mass’ were taxed. This is how the class question ran into the cess question. The colonial state tried to justify their stand through the prism of the civilizing mission. Further, it would be interesting to note what kind of role road cess played in ‘civilizing’ the colonized people, an essential condition on which it was once justified.