A CRITIQUE OF THE CHANGE 287
expenditure. The main purpose of rejecting equal in favour of unequal contributions was to see that the burden of the contributions did not prevent any of the Provinces from meeting such extra expenditure as may be absolutely necessary. Indeed, no system of contributions can be said to be calculated to produce greater equity than the Indian system.
So far we have examined whether the new financial arrangement is administratively workable and equitable. What we have now to see is : Has the arrangement proved itself to be financially adequate? It will be recalled that the Financial Relations Committee held that the general resources of the country were abundant, and that it required only a wise
(In Thousands of Rupees)
| Province | Col2 | Standard Figures | Revised 1921-2 | Budget 1922-3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Madras ... Bombay ... Bengal ... United Provinces ... Punjab ... Burma ... Bihar and Orissa ... Central Provinces ... Assam ... | Revenue Expenditure Surplus and Deficit Revenue Expenditure Surplus and Deficit Revenue Expenditure Surplus and Deficit Revenue Expenditure Surplus and Deficit Revenue Expenditure Surplus and Deficit Revenue Expenditure Surplus and Deficit Revenue Expenditure Surplus and Deficit Revenue Expenditure Surplus and Deficit Revenue Expenditure Surplus and Deficit | 14,98,02 14,07,20 90,82 12,09,70 11,55,03 54,67 8,55,28 8,61,13 —5,85 12,29,88 12,06,56 1,23,32 9,73,51 9,10,69 62,82 8,24,28 7,84,78 39,50 4,30,39 4,20,70 90,69 4,35,37 4,38,80 —3,43 1,81,46 1,78,25 3,21 | 15,58,59 17.15.93 —1,57,34 13,67,13 16,52,80 —2,85,67 8,86,53 11,10,60 —2,24,07 13,34,31 14,59,87 —1,25,56 10,73,76 12,23,24 —1,49,48 9,99,33 10,27,51 —28,18 4,46,15 4,85,97 —39,82 5,14,80 5,41,76 —26,96 2,01,12 2,19,45 —18,33 | 16,76,50 17,18,55 —42,05 14,93,06 15,42,17 —50,11 10,55,86 10,36,90 18,96 13,58,67 13,85,65 —26,98 11,38,26 12,68,44 —1,30,18 10,00,57 11,90,70 —1,90,13 4,62,65 5,13,80 —51,15 5,35,23 5,72,17 —36,94 2,08,06 2,22,58 —14,52 |