In the context of the 1856 Summary Settlement in Awadh, which assumption about the talukdars guided British policy?

Introduction / Context:
The Summary Settlement of 1856 in Awadh was an important step in the expansion of British land revenue administration in North India. The British sought to reorganise land rights, revenue collection and control over rural society. A crucial feature of this process was the attitude of colonial officials toward the talukdars, who were powerful intermediaries controlling large estates. Many exam questions test which assumption underlay British policy during this settlement, because this assumption explains why many talukdars lost their traditional authority.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The event is the Summary Settlement of 1856 carried out in Awadh just before annexation.
• The question asks about the core assumption regarding talukdars held by British officials.
• Options present different views: rightful owners, interlopers, power to evict peasants, guaranteed share of revenue or village officials.
• We must identify the historically accurate assumption that guided policy decisions.

Concept / Approach:
Colonial officials believed that talukdars in Awadh were recent usurpers who had taken control over land and revenue from village communities. As a result, British policy aimed to weaken them and establish a direct relationship with peasants or village level proprietors. Therefore, the correct option is the one that describes talukdars as interlopers without permanent rights, justifying their displacement from revenue management.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
An alternative way to verify is to consider the consequences of the settlement. After the annexation of Awadh, many talukdars were dispossessed or saw their authority drastically reduced, which supports the idea that they were not recognised as rightful proprietors. British official writings from that period often describe talukdars as oppressive middlemen rather than legitimate landlords, further confirming that policy was driven by the assumption that they were interlopers.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• The talukdars were the rightful hereditary owners of the land: If this had been the assumption, British officials would have strengthened talukdari rights instead of weakening them.
• The talukdars could legally evict peasants at will from their holdings: This describes power, not the assumption about their legitimacy, and does not match the guiding principle of the settlement.
• The talukdars were guaranteed a fixed share of state revenue: In fact, their revenue role was curtailed rather than guaranteed.
• The talukdars were village record keepers similar to patwaris: Patwaris are different local officials and this does not describe the colonial view of talukdars.

Common Pitfalls:
Students often confuse what talukdars actually did in practice with what the British administration assumed about them. Another pitfall is mixing up this policy with later attempts to conciliate talukdars after the revolt of 1857, when the British realised they needed their support. The question, however, focuses on the initial assumption at the time of the 1856 settlement, which was that talukdars were illegitimate intermediaries who had seized village lands.

Final Answer:
Correct answer: The talukdars were mere interlopers without permanent rights in the land.