Vol. 2 · pages 36–40

17ON BUDGET of this province but that the burdens would be so equitably distributed that those who could not bear would be relieved and those who could would be taxed. I am going to read to him certain passages from the speech which he delivered last year. In paragraph 14, this is what my learned friend— An Honourable Member: “Honourable friend”. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am used to the High Court where we call our friends “learned”. This is what my honourable friend said : “Lastly, we come to new taxation as a source of the much needed additional finance. In this connection, our first object is to make the necessary adjustments in the incidence of the existing taxes. Take the land tax first. Our ultimate object is to cease taxing the uneconomic holdings in which our land is at present divided. To begin with, however, we think it necessary to introduce a graded tax on the larger agricultural incomes. Through a process of the expropriation of the actual cultivator, a considerable portion of the lands has passed into the hands of non-cultivating, rent-receiving, absentee landlord. Are their incomes, large or small, to be treated in respect of immunity from or reduction of taxation in the same way as the actual cultivator of the soil ? Then there is a large class of income derived from alienated lands. These incomes are putting this province to an annual loss of nearly 70 lakhs of rupees. How are these incomes to be treated when we propose to tax the more well-to-do classes of our Khatedars ? The views of the honourable members on every side of this House on questions like these would be of immense use in the formulation of definite proposals by Government. Such resources as will become available by the adoption of policy of higher taxation on landed incomes which could bear the burdens should, we think, be largely utilised for making the burden of land tax easily bearable by the actual tillers of the soil and for making their lives better. Enquiries regarding the result of a graded tax on higher and equitably taxable agricultural incomes have already been set afoot. Similarly the other taxes from which we are at present deriving our revenues require to be carefully re-examined and readjusted both in reference to their incidence as well as in reference to their effects on public interests. We are proceeding with this work as expeditiously as possible and Government have every hope that our definite conclusions could be announced to this House by the time the next budget is ready for submission to it. “I hope that nothing that I have said this evening will countenance the belief that Government are not ready to propose new taxes for financing schemes of social utility. Such an impression would, I may say, be far from the truth. Although taxation in this province is very high, it is clear to us that most of this taxation is being borne by the poorer people in the province. The land tax, the excise tax, the stamps and court fees, the taxes on public conveyances, the tax on country grown tobacco—all these are being mostly paid by the poorer classes. The income-tax is the only tax paid by the rich and that at present is beyond the reach of the Provincial Government. Between the poorer classes who pay most of the provincial

18 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES taxes and the richer classes who pay the income-tax to the Central Government, there is a considerable body of people who ought to bear a portion of the financial responsibilities of their province. The wealthier classes whose contribution to Provincial Revenues is inadequate must also come forward to take their proper share in them. Pledged in as we are by numerous restrictions, it is no easy task to devise taxes which will affect only the taxable untaxed. Though today I am not in a position to anticipate the decisions of the future, I may state that we are exploring the possibilities of many proposals with a view to submit to this House proposals which may provide the necessary funds for not only recouping ourselves from the loss which a policy of prohibition may involve but will also enable us to undertake some expansion, though not all the expansion, that we desire in the many fields of social service, social service in the widest sense of the term.” Then, Sir, he also made this observation : “There is one other direction in which Government’s activities must be extended for the purpose of augmenting its resources. There are many public utility services which are at present being utilised for the benefit of a few at the cost of the community as a whole. There is no reason why the State should not nationalise these activities and appropriate the profits for the good of the community as a whole. The supply of electricity, for instance, to the public is carried on at present by private agencies under the protection which Government alone can give on behalf of the public. There is no valid reason why the profits of this public utility activity should not return to the pockets of the public as a whole through its accredited agency, the Government. Nothing has been hitherto done in this direction. Many other potential sources of income which could fairly be taken up by Government remain unutilised or are allowed to be exploited for the benefit of a few. There is a large field which we must explore, to which State activities could be extended, and Government will look forward with confidence to activities of this nature as possible sources of public benefit.” Is there anything of this in the new Budget speech which my honourable friend has made ? He has eaten up his very words : there is not even a passing allusion to any of the statements which he made in the course of his last Budget speech. I ask him this question : Why has he eaten up his words ? Who has compelled him to do it ? (Honourable Members : “Vallabhbhai!” “Shegaon !”). There must be somebody behind I will not go into that. But I do want to say one thing, and I want to say it with all the sincerity that I possess. My honourable friend has been congratulated, I think, on the ground that there has been no new taxation. I for myself have the greatest condemnation for the Government for not coming forward with taxation. This Budget, therefore, I say, is a rich man’s budget. It is not a poor man’s budget. The poor man wants more and more. The rich man can afford to be independent of the Government. A rich man needs no

19ON BUDGET school : he can keep a schoolmaster and give his son education up to B.A. or M.A. without sending him to school or college. A rich man needs no dispensary : he can call in a doctor, pay him Rs. 30 and get himself, his wife and his children examined if suffering from any disease. It is the poor man who wants Government to come to his succour ; it is the poor man that needs more service. No Government worthy of its name, no Government with any sincerity, can tell the poor classes that it cannot provide these amenities because it has not the courage to levy taxes. The sooner such a Government abdicates the better for all. The Honourable Mr. Morarji R. Desai: That is the rub. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: There is one other point to which I should like to refer. I do not know how many members of this House will agree with me in what I am saying, but I hold firmly to the view that the Governments in India, no matter what the province is, will never do any good if they confine their attention to what in European countries are merely called social services. I do maintain, and I state it emphatically, that one of the principal duties of this Government must be to tackle the problem of poverty. The Government must see that they do adopt ways and means whereby the national income of this province rises to some substantial level, whereby the majority of the people can live in amenities which rightly belong to all modern and civilised men. The system of social services which has so far prevailed in European countries, whereby the Government gives what are called doles or unemployment benefits, maternity benefits, and so on, presupposes one thing : it presupposes that a majority of the people are above want, are above the line of poverty, and that it is only those few who, either by the vagaries of the economic system or by any misfortune befalling them, fall below that line of poverty, that need, assistance from the Government. It is, therefore, perfectly possible, perfectly justifiable, for European governments not to bother with problems of general economic uplift of the people as a whole. But the problems with which we are faced in this country are of a totally different character. I have no hesitation in saying and I do not suppose there is anybody in this House who would quarrel with me if I state it, that we are all a nation of beggars and coolies. That is the description which one can give of all this mass of people. Therefore, no Government worthy of its name can sit silent and not take account of this grave problem. Now, Sir, having regard to the Budget proposals which we have before us, is there anything to indicate that this Government is aware of this problem, that it does take cognisance of it, that, after all, the one supreme aim must be to see that the national income of this country rises, that the national dividend rises ? I do not see anything. There seems to be one idea which is prevalent all over and which I really want to examine at this stage. The view is held by all that a large part of the poverty of the agriculturists arises out of what is called the heavy burden of land revenue. Therefore the view is held—and I have no doubt that that is the view of the Finance

20 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Minister—that all that needs to be done in order that the people’s income may increase would be to reduce that burden of land revenue. Now, Sir, I take the liberty of saying that nothing can be more fallacious than this view. That does not mean that I am opposed to the reduction of the land revenue : I am for it ; I will insist upon it, because I say that this Government has really no right to take what are called the profits of agriculture, as distinguished from mere rent for the use of land. But let me examine for the moment the idea that seems to be prevailing and the idea on which this Government seems to be proceeding, namely, that all that need be done for the relief of the poverty of the general mass of people is to remit the land revenue, to reduce it. Sir, let us examine and see what relief can be afforded by this process. The total land revenue which we collect is about 3½ crores and the total population of this Province is something like 2 crores, very nearly. Now, assuming for the sake of argument, and I am assuming it against myself, that this Government was generous enough and could afford to remit the whole of the land revenue, namely 3½ crores, let us distribute this precious sum of 3½ crores over the two crores of the population. Now, on a rough calculation I find that the total addition to the income of one individual, under these circumstances, would be 1 Rupee and eight annas. That is the highest Converting it into a monthly allowance I find that the addition that would be made to the income of each man would be of 2½ annas. Now, I like to ask whether anyobdy would seriously contend that an addition of 2½ annas, which would be the result of the remission of the whole of the land revenue, would increase our economic welfare in such a way that the problem of poverty would be abolished from our midst. Sir, the problem needs different remedies—altogether different remedies. I do not want to go into that now ; I have probably wearied the House enough. But I do want to say that this is something which this Government does not seem to be aware of, and I do say that a Government which is not cognisant of this problem, a Government which has not the ways and the means of solving this problem, can bring no relief, can be a source of no happiness to the people of this Province ; and, therefore, I will say, in conclusion, that this is a budget which is a most disappointing budget, a budget which is designed to relieve the rich and to starve the millions. (Applause.) zz

4 *ON BUDGET : 4 Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay City): Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is now the third Budget which the Honourable the Finance Minister has submitted to this House. I think it would not be an exaggeration to say that the first two Budgets which he submitted to this House were not of a very satisfactory character. And probably there were sufficient excuses for the unsatisfactory character of the first two Budgets. The first Budget that was submitted by him was, as a matter of fact, not his Budget; it was probably the Budget prepared by the interim Ministry and undoubtedly the Finance Minister could not be held responsible for whatever blemishes the first Budget contained. The second Budget had the excuse of having been made in a hurry, without Government’s having had sufficient time to prepare their plans and to digest the whole thing. But I am sure none of these excuses or extenuations could apply to the present Budget which has been presented to us. It must be said that this is a Budget which has been prepared after mature consideration. It undoubtedly embodies in it the full plan which the Ministry has with regard to the taxation and with regard to the proposals of expenditure which, from their point of view, are matters of urgency. I think that this Budget, therefore, needs to be more specifically scrutinised. Every one is aware that this Budget has been a Budget which has caused a great deal of agitation. Those who were expectant have been disappointed, and those who have been hit have called this Budget a revolutionary Budget. Speaking for myself, when I refer to the revenue side of the Budget as well as its expenditure side, my own view is that the proper description of this Budget would be that on the revenue side it is a reckless Budget and on the expenditure side it is a senseless Budget. This is, of course, no occasion to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposals which have been embodied in the Finance Bill which is a part of this Budget; the detailed criticism of those proposals must wait till the Finance Bill is presented to this House for consideration. However, it would not be unwise to say, in a general way, what I think of the proposals of taxation which have been embodied by the Minister in the Finance Bill. There are six different proposals in the Finance Bill. First of all, the Bill *B.L.A. Debates, Vol. 5, Part I, pp. 903-16, dated 21st February 1939.