Vol. 15 · pages 886–890

867PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES find out deaths ? It would be with very considerable difficulty. That, I find, is one lacuna in this Bill. The second thing that I found in this Bill is this. The hon. member has provided in clause 17 of the Bill as to who should pay the estate duty. If the interest of the deceased is in a controlled company, then somebody representing the controlled company shall pay; if it is others, then, some other persons may pay. All the same, the question remains : how is a Controller to know that the deceased person had a share in the controlled company or that the deceased person had other property ? I should think that this Bill should have a clause like the one that I am suggesting, requiring every successor, whether the deceased left a will or not, to go to the Court and to make a declaration of the property left if there is no will, so that the Controller would know from the declaration that so much property has been left. He can then proceed to find out whether there had been any concealment of the property that the deceased had left. Otherwise it would be a sort of a roving enquiry that the Controller will have to make in order to find out what is the exact amount of property. In the present circumstances in which we exist and in which we find so much corruption, I am very greatly doubtful whether a law of this kind leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the Controller would not result in much more corruption than what exists today. These are the two things which, I find, require to be rectified so that the law which is bound to cause harshness—and every law causes harshness—does not cause unnecessary harassment to the people who are to pay this duty. The second question to which I wish to draw the attention of the house is the question of the amount that is likely to be realised by this estate duty. I have been following the speeches of the hon. Member, which he has made on various occasions with regard to the Estate Duty Bill and I find that he has been very cautious not to commit himself to any particular figure. I think last time when he introduced the Bill in 1952 he said to the House that he was quite unable to even make a guess of what was likely to be the yield of this tax. Well, I think that with regard to a measure of this

868 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES sort which spreads so widely, the Hon. the Finance Minister ought to have at least made a guess with the figures that are available, or at least asked the Board of Revenue to make some investigation and to give him an idea as to whether the yield of this tax would be commensurate with the troubles that he was taking. I have been looking into the report of the Board of Revenue and I find that there are certain figures which the Finance Department could have used for the purpose of telling us, now that the rates of duty are fixed and attached to the Bill, as to what is likely to be the yield. The Board of Revenue does give figures about income tax. It also gives figures as to the total number of joint families that exist in India; it not only gives the total amout of the income tax that was collected from joint families but also the figures of the total number of joint families which were assessed and the total amount of income which was shown by them in their returns. Sir, I think this tax is going to affect to a very large extent the joint families in this country and with the information which is shown in the report of the Board of Revenue for the year 1950-51, it would have been possible for us to know what exactly the Hon. Minister expects from this source as revenue. We would have been then in a much better position to say with all alacrity that no matter what the trouble is, the tax may be levied. But if in the end we find that the amount realised is not commensurate with the measure, the Hon. the Finance Minister himself may regret the trouble that he has taken in bringing forward this Bill. Shri B. C. Ghose (West Bengal): Then he will raise the duty. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Another thing to which I would like to make a reference is this. There is a feeling that there is a great deal of difference between the estate duty as such and income tax as such, and while there might be some feeling against the income tax there cannot be such a feeling against the estate duty, the difference being that the income tax is a tax on the income and the estate duty is a tax on capital. Superficially, this distinction no doubt is correct because when we levy the estate duty we do not take out of the income,

869PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES but we take out of the capital that the man has left. In the case of income tax we take something from the current income that he earns. Sir, I should like to say that this is a very superficial distinction, for ultimately there is no distinction between the income tax and the estate duty because the estate duty is merely nothing more than accumulated income which is taxed at one source, at one defined period, namely, when the man is dead. Now, it seems to me a matter of considerable importance as to whether the tax that you levy at the death of the man is likely to produce effects which would dry up the source of revenue, or whether it is so good, and the country is so resilient, that nothwithstanding the estate duty the country produces more and therefore it does not matter whether you levy the estate duty and it does not matter at what pitch you levy it. My hon. friend must be knowing the facts much more than I do, but I would like to tell the House some of the figures in Great Britain. I have taken them from the report of the Board of Revenue for 1951-52. They give relevant figures. In 1942-43 the total amount of income tax collected in Great Britain was 18 million pounds and in 1951-52 it was 20 million pounds. So far as the death duties are concerned, in 1942-43 the total collection was £93,340,343 and in 1951-52 the total collection was £182,600,643. I would like the house to consider similar figures so far as this country is concerned. Sir, my Hon. friend, the Finance Minister must be aware of the recent report that was made by one of the U.N.E.S.C.O. Committees. There are so many committees in the U.N.E.S.C.O. There was a Committee which investigated into the question of finding out why the South Asiatic Countries were so backward in the matter of their industrial and economic advancement. And the reason that they gave was that the saving in the country was so small that there was no capital formation at all. And in the absence of capital formation, there was the absence of industry and other things. Of course, if we were a Communist Country—and I have no doubt that we shall very soon become one—and our economic life or industrial life or agricultural life was taken charge of by the Government, for better or for worse, it would matter very little how much we save and how much we do not save.

870 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES If we save a little, probably the Government would make us save more. And there would be no difficulty on that account at all. But so long as we have not got a Communist Regime which takes complete responsibility for the welfare of the people and their education ........... Shri B, B. Sharma (Uttar Pradesh): And for their “ill- fare” ........... Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not know; there is always something wrong here and there; no system is perfect. Mr. Chairman: Go on, go on. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am sorry, he broke my chain of argument. So, what I was saying was this, that so long as we haven’t got a system of that sort which takes complete responsibility for the welfare of the people, and so long as we have got a system which makes people responsible for their welfare, well, that State, I suppose, only aids the people in their welfare, but it does not do welfare. It is very accessory that our taxing system should be such that it should leave sufficient for the purpose of creating capital. Every time the Government takes something from us and we are never allowed to carry on. Sir, this Bill which has been brought forward by my hon. friend, as I know it from experience, is not a new measure at all. I remember that the first time that such a Bill was adumbrated was in the year 1944-45. Sir Jeremy Raisman, who was then the Finance Member, said in the course of his Budget speech that he would introduce a Bill like the Estate Duty Bill as soon as Parliament had rectified omission which was contained in Schedule I. The Act of 1935 did not contain any such entry at all as an Estate Duty either to be levied by the Provinces or to be levied by the Centre. Then, in 1946. Sir Archibald Rowlands who succeeded Sir Jeremy Raisman brought forward a Bill. The curious thing about that Bill of 1946 was that it was opposed both by the Congress as well as by the Muslim League. The Congress members said, “You have no right to levy any tax like the estate duty”. And the Muslim Leaguers said, “If you levy such a tax, you would be affecting our Waqf, which is a trust, and which is partly for God and partly for man.” And

871PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES so, the Government, with no support from either the Congress or the Muslim League, could hardly do anything about the measure and the measure was dropped. Then again it was taken up in 1948 by Mr. Shanmukham Chetty, who introduced another Bill. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee and the Select Committee took the view that so long as the law of Mitakshara prevailed in this country—and it prevailed in a very large part of the territory of this country—it would be no use having an Estate Duty Bill. The result was that it was taken back—or rather put on the shelf. Mr. Shanmukham Chetty was succeded by Dr. John Matthai and Dr. John Matthai pressed for funds, recalled the session of the Select Committee and put the Bill again before them, and got a verdict from the Select Committee that notwithstanding the fact that the Hindu Code was hanging fire for four years— and nobody knows how long it is going to hang fire, probably permanently and perpetually—and no one is sorry for that except myself ............ Dr. Shrimati Seeta Parmanand (Madhya Pradesh): The hon. Member is not the only Member who is sorry, but there are other Members also. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I know that women Members are very helpful. I must say that last time when I was on tenter hooks. I called some of the ladies—I mean, the more bulky ones—and I suggested to them that if any one of them went on threatening a fast unto death, probably we might get the Hindu Code through. Sir, I tell you ............ Khwaja Inait Ullah (Bihar) : You are again giving a hint. Mr. Chairman: You were encouraging satyagraha, Dr. Ambedkar ! Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes, sometimes it is useful. If it could not bring this Bill through, it would have certainly reduced the weight of the ladies and would have improved their health also considerably. That was the position. Dr. Matthai had a verdict in 1949. There was a second report of the Select Committee and it said, “Never mind about the Hindu Code. Let us proceed with the Estate Duty Bill”, but for three years noting happened. One does not know why. The