z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-02.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 2
2 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
that would follow if these two items in the revenue system varied in the same direction. If they did, then I think they will land him into a ditch of more than one crore. I do not know whether such a system of revenue is a system on which the Honourable the Finance Member should rely. But it is for him to see that and not for me, because he is in charge of the finances of this country.
Now, Mr. President, taking the same items of revenue into consideration and judging them from the standpoint of the taxpayers, I think the revenue system of this presidency is inequitable and undefensible. Take first of all the land revenue. Whatever may be the quibbles, whether it is tax or whether it is rent, I may say that there is no doubt that this land revenue is a tax on the profits of the businessman. If these two levies are the same, I want to know from the Honourable the Finance Member as to why there should be difference in the methods of levying the two. Every farmer, whatever may be his income, is brought under the levy of the land tax. But under the income-tax no person is called upon to pay the tax, if he has not earned any income during the year. That system does not exist as far as land revenue is concerned. Whether there is a failure of crop or abundance of crop, the poor agriculturist is called upon to pay the revenue. The income-tax is levied on the recognised principle of ability to pay. But under the land revenue system, a person is taxed at the same rate, whether he is a owner of one acre of land, or a jahagirdar or an inamdar. He has to pay the tax at the same rate. It is a proportionate tax and not a progressive tax as it ought to be. Again under the income-tax holders of income below a certain minimum are exempted from levy. But under the land revenue the tax is remorselessly collected from every one, be he rich or poor.
Take again the “Excise”. This is an item from which a large revenue is derived. There can be no two opinions that this is public legal monopoly. This was not meant for the purpose of enabling the Government to raise revenue, but the monopoly was enacted because the Government would be in a better position to put a stop to demoralisation of the people by spread of the habit of drink. If collection of revenue is the only aim there is no necessity for a Government monopoly. How has this monopoly been managed by Government ? If you take the figures as to how much the people of each Presidency spend in drinking, you will find that the Bombay Presidency stands first so far as the drinking habit is concerned. I find in Madras every individual spends Re. 1-3-7 (Re. 1.22), in Bengal Re. 0-7-1 (Re. 0.45), in United Provinces Re. 0-4-7 (Re. 0.28), in Punjab Re. 1-7-8 (Re. 1.48), in Burmah Re. 1-4-0 (Re. 1.25), Bihar and Orissa Re. 0-8-7 (Re. 0.58), in Central Provinces and Berar Re. 0-15-0 (Re. 0.94), in Assam Re. 0-13-3 (Re. 0.83), but in Bombay we have the appalling figure of each individual spending Rs. 2-2-9 (Rs. 2.18). I ask my honourable friend the Finance Member whether this is a defensible system. Mr. President, Government has accepted the policy of prohibition and has adopted certain measures for carrying out that policy to fruition. But they have not done so. The first