2
*ON BUDGET : 2
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, the budget is no doubt an unsatisfactory budget in so far as it is really a deficit budget. But if it was only unsatisfactory on account of the fact that it discloses a deficit, I do not think it would have been necessary for me to take any serious notice of it. The budget however is not merely unsatisfactory but it is, I think Sir, a deplorable budget and the state of affairs is indeed a very serious state of affairs.
You know, Sir, that we are practically coming to a close of the first decade of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. That being so, it is certainly worth our while to take stock of the situation as from the year 1921 up to now. Now, Sir, these Reforms were introduced in order that the transferred subjects may receive greater consideration at the hands of the Government than the subjects which are called “Reserve”. But, Sir, if you analyse the expenditure of this presidency from the year 1921 up to now, what do we find ? We find that the hopes that were entertained, that under the new regime objects of expenditure which help progress will receive preference over subjects which merely help the maintenance of law and order, have failed to come true.
I shall now show how it is so. I have collected some figures of expenditure incurred in various provinces on the “transferred” and “reserved” departments and with your permission, Sir, I beg to present those figures to this House, so that the House may know how deplorable the situation is. The figures I am giving show the percentage increase or decrease of expenditure in 1925-26 as compared with the year 1921-22 over the transferred and reserved departments in the various provinces. These figures are as under : —
Reserved Department Transferred Department
Increase, Decrease, Increase, Decrease, per cent. per cent. per cent. per cent.
Madras . . . 1.21 . . . 14.26 . . .
Bombay . . . 6.33 . . . 5.82 . . .
Bengal† . . . . . . . . . 6.11 . . .
†Decrease of expenditure on Reserved Department.
*B.L.C. Debates, Vol. XXII, pp. 167-70, dated 21st February 1928.