PEASANTRY AND NATIONAL INTEGRATION 5 of intermediaries had increased. Large numbers ofzamindars and landlords were new both in functions and personnel. High land-revenue demand., its rigidity, and the new legal and administrative system led to the expropriation of the older upper classes as well as the peasant-proprietors. Merchants, moneylenders, speculators, officials, professionals and other urban groups bought up zarnindaris or the peasant-owners' lands to become landlords. Most of the new zamindars and landlords were absentee and had little link with land. Not only were they. along with the older zamindars, not interested even in organizing the machinery for rent collection. They, therefore, readily took to sub-infcudation, thus increasing the number of rent receivers and hence the rent demand. The middlemen invariably had recourse to every conceivable legal or illegal mechanism to collect more from the actual tiller of tlie soil. In ryotwari areas too, land was gradually passing under the control of landlords and moneylenders. It is to be noted that the alienation of land by an owner-cultivator did not mean transfer of cultivation but interposition of a middleman between the previous owner and the new tenant and the state. By 1947, nearly 70 per cent of the total cultivated land was owned by zamindars and landlords. In ryotwari areas about 50 per cent of the land was in landlords' hands and the rest was heavily under'debt. The zamindars and landlords were not only recruited fi om among moneylenders but many of them increasingly took to moneylending. The United Provinces (U P) Banking Encmiry Committee reported in 1931 that landlords were the largest source of rural loans in U P, contributing neaily 40 per cent of all loans. Less Room at the Top Hie stagnant colonial economy witli its lack of economic opportunities in a period of increase in the number of proprietor-landlords produced sharp differentiation within the class ofzamindars and landlords. Thus, in U P in the 1930s, 0.4 per cent or 804 zamindars owned 25 per cent of the land while 1.5 per cent held 58 per cent of the land. In the Agra part of the province, 85.5 per cent of the proprietors paid less than Rs 25 per year as revenue, while another 13.2 per cent paid between Rs 25 and Rs 250 per year. In Bengal in 1893^85.4 per cent of the estates controlled 9.8 per cent of the area, with an average per estate of 49 acres of land, net rental of Rs 29, number of 4 shares, and net rental income of Rs 7 per share. The next 13.8 per cent of the estates controlling 39.3 per cent of the area had an average per estate of 1228 acres of land, net rental of Rs 1711, number of 6 shares, and net rental income of Rs 285 per share. This extreme differentiation among the landlords was to have a veiy significant impact on tlic Indian national movement. The majority of rent receivers wwc, in their incomes and even life styles, not distinguishable from the rich or even middle peasants. They were impoverished and were getting further impoverished. They weic becoming quite hostile