Hon. Speaker Sir, 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 rightly120 belong to all modern and civilized men.
The system of social services which has so far prevailed in European countries, 140
whereby the Government gives what are called doles or unemployment
benefits, maternity benefits, and so on, presupposes that a
majority160
of the people 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 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 of240 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. 280 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 Budget320
proposals which we have before us, is there anything to indicate that
this Government is aware of this problem, that it does take cognizance
of the fact that the one supreme aim must be to see that the national income of360
this country 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 view420 is held 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. 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 will insist upon480
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, all that needs to be done for the relief of poverty of the general mass
of people is to remit the land revenue.560
Let us examine and see what relief can be afforded by
this process. The total land revenue which we collect is about Rs. 3
crores and the total population of this Province is something like 2 crores.
Now, assuming for the600 sake of argument that this
Government was generous enough and could afford to remit the whole of the land
revenue, namely Rs. 3 crores, let us distribute this precious sum of Rs. 3
crores over the two crores of the640 population. Now, on a rough calculation
I find that the total addition to the income of one individual, under these
circumstances, would be around Rs. 1.5. Now, I want to ask whether anybody
would seriously contend that an addition of Rs. 1.5, which would be the
result of the remission of the whole of the land revenue, would increase our700
economic welfare in such a way that the problem of poverty would be
abolished. The problem needs different remedies. 720 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 cognizant
of this problem, a Government which does not have the ways and the
means of solving this problem, can bring no relief, can be a source of no
happiness to the people of800 this Province. 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.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is now the third840 Budget which the honourable
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. Probably
there were sufficient excuses for the unsatisfactory character of the first two
Budgets. The first Budget that was submitted by him was 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 the Government having had sufficient time to
prepare its plans and to digest the960 whole thing. But I am sure none
of these excuses or extenuations could apply to the present Budget which
has been980 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
needs to be more specifically scrutinized.
Everyone 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 this1080
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 side1120
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 and 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 think1200
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 proposes to continue for a year more, the additions made to
the stamp duties and the court fees sanctioned by the Bombay Finance Act.
Secondly, it increases the duty on1260 the consumption of electricity.
Thirdly, it increases the stamp duties in certain cities and urban areas on conveyances
of immoveable property. 1280 Fourthly, it levies a tax on leases of
immoveable property. Fifthly, it imposes a tax of 10 per cent on the annual
letting value of buildings in Bombay, Bombay Suburban District, and Ahmedabad
City. Sixthly, it imposes a sales tax not exceeding 6 per cent on three items,
namely, motor lubricants, manufactured cloth, and silk yarn. As I
said, I do not propose to go into the details of these proposals
of taxation. All that I am going to do now is to offer, in a summary way,
certain criticisms which occur to me on general principles.
Now with regard to the continuation of stamp and court
fees, I would like to remind the honourable Finance Minister that1400
this was a tax which has always been objected to by Congressmen in
the old Legislative Council. Sir, I do not remember a single Budget
Session, when Congressmen did not turn the Budget Session into a kind of hardy argument
between the1440
Finance Members on the one hand and the Congressmen on the other. A tax
which was fought tooth and nail every year, and where Congressmen themselves
were not prepared to give this tax a perpetual lease of life is now
thought by Congress Ministers as a tax which should be continued year
after year. This is a bit of the same policy which Congressmen have been
following now that they have got the office. The things which were then bad are
now good, because they are run by Congressmen. Many examples could be cited of
that kind of turn of mind. We know Congressmen who used to fight tooth and nail
because the Executive was not separated from the Judiciary. They thought that was a most
oppressive system and we have now the same Congressmen saying that it
was the most ideal system. I will not say anything more than that,
but I would like to point out that this is1600 certainly contrary
to the declared faith of all Congressmen.
