Title: Article 253
Volume: Volume IX (30th July to 18th September 1949)
Date: 05/08/1949
Participants: Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Mr.
Mahavir Tyagi, Srijut Gopinath Bardoloi, Mr. B. Das, Mr. Tajamul Hussain, Mr.
Nazirudin Ahmad, Shri Raj Bahadur, Rev. J. J. M. Nichols-Roy, Sardar Hukum Singh, Shri Shibban Lall
Saksena, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, The Chairman (Dr. Rajendra Prasad)
Constituent
Assembly of India Debates (Proceedings) - VOLUME IX
Friday the 5th August 1949
_________
The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at
Nine of the Clock, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the
Chair.
_____________
DRAFT CONSTITUTION-(contd.)
Article 249-(contd.)
Mr. President : We shall take up the discussion of the article which we
were dealing with yesterday.
Shri B. Das (Orissa:
General): Sir, the House is discussing Chapter 1, Part X which deals with “the
distribution of revenues between the Union and the States”. Article 249 and the
subsequent articles up to article 260 deal with the collection and assignment
of taxes between the Centre and the Provinces. Article 255 deals with
grants-in-aid from the Union to the States and article 260 deals with the
appointment of a Financial Commission to enable the making of independent
grants to the Provinces without interference by the Finance Department of the
Central Government.
Sir, this House had no opportunity to discuss this subject which concerns the social
well-being of the entire population of India. In July 1947, Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru, the President of the Union Constitution Committee, reported and gave a
small Chapter (Part VII) on Finances and Borrowing Powers. It was discussed
later in the House and was incorporated in the report in the Second Series. In
the July-August 1947 discussions, the question was left hazy. But, Sir, you at
least appointed an Expert Committee to go into this question of the financial
provisions of the Union Constitution. That Expert Committee reported sometime
early in 1948. This sovereign House never discussed that report of the Expert
Committee. The Drafting Committee must have taken into account the report of
the Expert Committee and modified the articles under discussion. But, Sir, I
must say that these articles remind me of similar articles in the Government of
India Act, 1935. They do not show any tendency of the Finance Department of the
Government of India to part with the resources arbitrarily commandeered, so that
the Provinces can live happily and prosperously and do their duty by the people
under their charge. Sir, the Expert Committee in paras 27 and 28 have spoken
about the needs of the provinces and the Centre. They say :
“The needs of the provinces are in contrast, almost unlimited, particularly in
relation to welfare services and general development. If these services, on
which the improvement of human well-being and increase of the country’s
productive capacity so much depend, are to be properly planned and executed, it
is necessary to place at the disposal of Provincial Governments adequate
resources of their own, without their having to depend on the variable
munificence or affluence of the Centre.”
Sir, I have watched the Finance Department of the Government of India from
1925. It has always maintained its mood that it will give some charity to the
provinces. They think that their primary responsibility is the defence of
India, and not bringing about social and economic justice to the teeming millions
of India after we have attained independence. Sir, this Expert Committee was
appointed by you in accordance with the wishes of this House, so that their
recommendations could be given effect to. But what is the attitude of the
present Finance. Department ? It goes on merrily with its colonial pattern
expenditure, without realising its primary obligation to the people of India
and without giving a share of the revenues -of India to the provinces so that
they can develop the social and economic well-being of the people of India.
Sir, I would have been happy if articles 249 to 260 had incorporated at least
some of the recommendations of the Expert Committee Report. Sir, the attitude
of the Finance Department has been the same since 1925. Why is it that the
Finance Department of the, Government of India is so heartless ? We may be
thinking that we are an independent nation now, but the Finance Department of
the Government of India still lives in the days of 1925 and 1935. Perhaps it
has become more authoritative than it was under the alien rulers, and does not
think of the responsibility it has to discharge to the millions of this
country. Here in this Constitution we are, going to say in the Preamble that we
will secure social and economic justice to tile people of India. The House has
heard thousands of speeches about political justice to the people, but when has
the House heard during the last two and a half years anything about economic
justice to the teeming millions of this country that are living in the
provinces? Sir, the House appointed the Expert Committee, but why is it that
the Government of India have not brought forward any proposals so that the
provinces ‘could get a share of the revenues of the country and spend it for
the development of the undeveloped conditions of the people and for the social
well being of the people ? The Expert Committee on pages 13 & 14 of their
Report recommended the division of the proceeds of revenue between provinces,
but the principle governing the award of Sir Otto Niemeyer is sought to be.
continued. Sir Otto Niemeyer came here to see that British rule was perpetuated
in India. It was not his duty, it was not necessary for him to see that the
provinces developed, to see that the people were happy and contented. The
Government of India now seeks to perpetuate the award of Sir Otto Niemeyer even
two years after independence was achieved I would have been pleased if
paragraphs 50-58 of the Expert Committee report with slight modifications had
been incorporated in the Constitution. I do not find the Finance Minister here.
I believe my honourable Friend, Dr. John Matthai, is a Member of this House. It
is his responsibility, it is his obligatory duty to come here and explain why
his Government has not come forward with assistance to the provinces in the
last two years. He is not present here, but I hope some member of the
Government who is a Member of this House will come forward with an explanation
of this dilly-dallying and shilly-shallying policy of the Finance Department of
the Government of India. Sir, the recommendations of the Expert Committee,
which was appointed by you, made their recommendations as a whole. They are one
piece of recommendation. The Government of India have accepted nothing, nor has
their spokesman here explained why they are so inattentive to the
recommendations of the Expert Committee appointed by you with the concurrence
of this House. In Paragraph 71 of the report, it is stated:
“We
would further recommended. in order to save time, that the Finance Commission
may be set up in advance of the coming into effect of the Constitution, and its
status regularised after the Constitution comes into effect.”
In article 260, it is stated that-
“The
President shall at the expiration of five years from the commencement of this
Constitution and thereafter at the expiration of every fifth year or at such
other time as the President considers necessary, by order constitute a Finance
Commission. . . .”
What is the use of this Commission and what is the use of this Constitution
when the Finance Department of the Government of India maintains its autocratic
independence and spends most of the revenues of India on the so-called defence
of India, spends it on the inflated staff of the Government of India. The staff
of the Government of India can be retrenched by half or more than half and
considerable savings can be made. What is the condition of the finances of the
Government of India ? It is already running at a loss. Its revenues do not
cover its normal expenditure, and yet the Finance Department goes on merrily
spending as it likes, without caring for the primary responsibility imposed on
it by the Constitution that it should render social and economic justice to the
people Sir, this is a charge against the Government of India, and the
Government of India must justify their position by explaining on the floor of
this House why it has rendered no social an economic justice to the people of
India during the last two years of out independent existence. It is no use
saying that the Constitution will be promulgated on The 26th January 1950. and
thereafter the Finance Department will formulate proposals with this end in
view and put them before this House. That is not the real attitude of the
Finance Department. The Finance Department has become too powerful. From six or
seven departments, the Government has come to consist of nineteen Ministries,
each Ministry as an autonomous body, each Ministry functioning and spending as
it likes. Who are these finance officers ? They are the traditional careerists
who worked under Sir Basil Blackett in 1925, who Worked under Sir James Grigg
in 1936 and 1937. Such are the men who are guiding the financial affairs of the
Government of India and they are, arch-bureaucrats and arch autocrats, and if
any of them has any democratic spirit, I will bow to him. I know none of them
have that; otherwise they would have shown it by their action in the last two
years and I will say this, Sir. they have defied the Constitution. They have not
understood the spirit of the independent Constitution that we are framing in
this House and they will carry on in their autocratic way until we collapse.
Mr. President : I do not like to interfere with the honourable Member’s
Speech, but here we are discussing a particular article of the Constitution.
Shri B Das : Yes, Sir.
Mr. President : It
deals with duties levied by the Union but collected and appropriated by the
States. I do not think that criticism of the policy of the Government comes at
all under this article. I will therefore suggest to him to confine himself to
the merits of the article as it is and not to criticise the general policy of
the Government of India for which he has got another platform and another
place, where he can give expression to his views. Shri B. Das : Sir, I bow to
your ruling. This Constitution has three main aspects, namely, the political
aspect, the social and economic aspects. The bed-rock of economic justice is
based on the distribution of finances between the Centre and the provinces. I
wish we had initiated a debate yesterday as soon as ,article 247 was taken into
consideration. Sir, I did not like to talk on article 247 because it dealt with
the interpretation of the term “Finance Commission” and ,others. I bow to your
ruling but at the same time I suggest article 249 and the subsequent articles
deal with the assignment of the revenues and taxes between the Centre and
provinces. Although article 249 deals only with one aspect of duties levied by
the Government of the Union but collected and appropriated by the States. It
deals with one ambit of the recommendations but the Committee recommended that
there should be an immediate division and allocation of resources between the
Centre and the provinces. Is it not legitimate on my part to question why they
have not been incorporated in the Constitution and why a representative of the
Government has not come forward and opened the debate and told us if the
portions of the recommendations I have referred have been accepted by them and
what relief the Government of India contemplate to give to the provinces ? If I
was a little harsh on the Finance Ministry of the Government of India, it is
because I know worst things of the financial structure of India,
Sir, I do hope the provinces will not be treated as charity boys of the North
Block of the Secretariat. Somehow it has happened that people have to come with
begging bowls. Whether it is in regard to the Food Commission or the Bengal
food problem of 1943, nobody wants charity. We put forth the just demands of
the people of India and the Centre which was an autocratic Government intended
to maintain the British Raj in the past should give up that mentality and
should part with the legitimate resources to the provinces. I do not ask any
further and I do not at present ask anything more. The Expert Committee has put
forward its recommendations. Let the spokesman of the Government of India stand
up here and say : “We have accepted in too or with certain modifications the
recommendations of the Expert Committee.” That will give certain relief to the
provinces. We can look forward to the development of the provinces and towards
giving better public Health standards to the people. I read in papers that our
Public Health Minister has been approached and she wants to build fabricated
hospitals in Delhi while the provinces have not got even a lakh of rupees to
build their hospitals; while undeveloped provinces like Orissa, Assam-I will
include even Bihar-have very few beds in their hospitals, the Centre goes
merrily and talks of prefabricated: hospitals at Delhi costing crores and
crores of rupees. Is that the way to develop the provinces ?
I will again join in the discussion when the jute duty in article 254 comes up
for discussion and when article 260 is taken up where the Finance Commission
will have to be appointed five years after the Constitution. It is a very
heartless and insincere draft. Is it the spirit of democracy working in the
Finance Ministry of the Government of India that it will obstruct at every
stage in order to maintain its hold on the finances and to spend it in the best
way it likes ? I am giving out no secret when I say that in 1946 the Government
of India decided that the Army expenditure should be reduced to one hundred
crores. We know today it is one hundred and fifty-eight crores and that too
after the partition. I cannot see why the Government of India should grab the
wealth of the provinces and dispense it in the way they like. This sovereign
House framing this sovereign Constitution is not going to allow the Finance
Ministry of the Government of India to play ducks and drakes with the resources
of India according to its fancy and whimsicality and thus let the provinces
starve. Sir, on behalf of the provinces, particularly the undeveloped provinces
of Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and Assam, I plead before this August House for
justice for the undeveloped I provinces; I plead that the pose of the Finance
Ministry that no steps should be taken With speed and haste should be condemned
and this House must accept the recommendations of the Expert Committee which
had on it such expert financiers, namely, Sir Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, Mr. V. S.
Sundaram, Mr. M. V. Rangachari (who was member Secretary). This officer is
still a Deputy Secretary in the Finance Department of the Government of India.
Why has the Finance Department overruled the decisions of this Committee? I
plead before the House that justice should be rendered to the teeming millions
of India and to the helpless provinces by giving them what is their due.
Mr. President : Any one, else who wishes to speak? (No Member rose. Dr.
Ambedkar, do you wish to say anything ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay:
General): There is nothing to be said.
President : I shall now
put the amendments to vote.
The question is :
“That in clause (2) of article 249, the words ‘in that year’ be deleted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President : The question is :
“That in clause (1) of article 249, after the words ‘such stamp duties the
words ‘as are imposed under any law made by Parliament’ be inserted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President : The question is:
“That in clause (2) of article 249, for the words ‘revenues of India’ the words
‘Consolidated Fund of India’ be substituted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President : The question is:
“That article 249, as amended, stand part of the Constitution.”
The motion was adopted.
Article 249, as amended, was added to the Constitution.
---------
Article 250
Mr. President : The
motion is:
“That article 250, form part of the Constitution.”
(Amendments Nos. 2842 to 2850 were not moved.)
Shri R. K. Sidhva (C. P. & Berar: General): Mr. President, I move:
“That at the end of article 250, the following be added :-
‘The net proceeds of said distribution shall be assigned by the States to the
local authorities in the jurisdiction.”‘
I have got another amendment to this amendment, No. 201. Shall I move that
also, Sir ?
Mr. President : That has also the same effect.
Shri R. K. Sidhva : I want to move the second part.
“That with reference to amendment No. 2851 of the List of Amendments, in
article 250, the following proviso be added at the end :-
‘Provided that the proceeds collected by the Government of India under clause
(c) shall be assigned to local authorities in the jurisdiction of the States.”‘
Sir, this article has been more or less borrowed from the Government of India
Act, Section 137. This article refers to the collection of four kinds of taxes
: One is in respect of succession to property; the other is estate duty; the
third is terminal taxes and the fourth is taxes on railway fares and freights.
My amendment is to the effect that the taxes collected under clause (c) by the
Government of India should be assigned to the local authorities in the jurisdiction
of the States.
My object in moving this amendment is this. Tolls, octroi and terminal taxes
are the major sources of revenue of the local bodies. Before the Government of
India Act of 1935, these terminal taxes were a provincial subject; but under
the Government of India Act, 1935, this has been put down in the Central List.
Unless the Centre agrees to levy a terminal tax, no provincial Government can
increase or put an additional item for terminal tax, which has created a great
deal of difficulty to the local bodies. There have been a great many references
on this matter to the Government of India.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar :
I am very sorry, Sir, I should have requested you at the very outset to allow
this article to stand over.
Mr. President : It is suggested that this article be held over.
Shri R. K. Sidhva : I would request, Sir, that my amendment also may be
held over.
Mr. President : If the article is held over, your amendment also will be
held over.
Shri R. K. Sidhva : All right, Sir.
---------
Article 251
Mr. President : Then we take up article 251.
(Amendments Nos. 2852 to 2857 were not moved.)
Shri Upendra Nath Barman (West
Bengal: General) : Sir, I beg to move:
“That in clause (2) of article 251. after the words ‘such percentage’ the words
‘not being less than sixty per cent,’ be inserted and the words ‘or the taxes
payable in respect of Union emoluments’ be deleted : and the following proviso
be added to clause (2) of article 251 :-
‘Provided that for a period of five years from the commencement of this
Constitution, of the net proceeds assigned to the States, thirty-three and
one-third per cent., shall be distributed among the States on the basis of
population, fifty-eight and one-third per cent. on the basis of collection and
the remaining eight and one-third per cent. shall be distributed in such manner
as may be prescribed.”‘
Mr. President, Sir, my amendment resolves itself primarily into three
proposals, firstly, that the Central emolument should not be excluded in
computation of the tax on income for distribution to provinces. The Centre will
have a large amount out of income-tax and it is only proper that the Central
emolument as described in clause (4) sub-clause (c) should also be computed in
that allocation.
The next proposal is that some minimum percentage should be fixed here and now.
It is a fact that after five years a Commission will be appointed which will go
into all the factors under which a province is to work the Constitution viz.,
its requirements, commitments and its future advancement, but during this
interim period it is not provided in the Constitution as to how this allocation
is going to be made. I understand the Finance Department is going to appoint a
Committee in order to make some interim arrangement but this Committee also
will find the same difficulty as the ultimate Commission which is going to be
appointed after five years is going to face then. This is a very controversial
matter and the subcommittee to be appointed now will be troubled with various
considerations and claims from different provinces. It will be extremely
difficult for them to adjust different claims of different provinces. During
the period before which the Finance Commission makes its recommendations of the
principles on which allocation is to be made, the various provinces are to do
several things, and they have to undertake several development measures. If
they are in the dark as to what would be their income from this allocation, it
will be very difficult for them to adjust their budget from year to year. If
certain minimum of this distributable tax be fixed here and now, then the
provinces will know how much they are going to get out of this tax, because
every province from past experience knows what is the collection every year in
their province and also what is going to be the collection in the year under
question. So they shall know, at least roughly what amount they are going to
get out of this Central distribution of income-tax. If that is not fixed and it
is left to the Committee’s recommendation, it will be very difficult for them
to launch upon any permanent development scheme. It is for that reason that a
certain minimum should be fixed. My proposal is that at least 60 per cent.
should go to provinces and States and my main argument is that some minimum
should be fixed.
Then in their allocation I have indicated that there should be some settlement
about the different claims of the different provinces for the interim period
because the committee will be nonplused by the different claims of different
provinces. Some provinces having large population ask that this allocation
should be on population basis whereas other provinces want on collection basis.
Other provinces that are backward say that this should be not on population
basis or collection basis but on some other basis. Now the Committee will be
confronted from different provinces and so if we can set this controversy at
rest by fixing some percentage here and now and leave something for general
allocation to the Committee, then the Committee will find it much easier. I
submit that the provinces must be given a fixed minimum percentage so that they
will be able to adjust their budget and launch upon any development schemes
which shall continue for a number of years.
The Centre of course needs revenue in a much greater degree, but my submission
is that the Centre has got several sources which can bring them a large amount;
but the scope of the provinces is very limited and those scopes are very
closely connected with the interests of the masses. As we find from List II of
Seventh Schedule, the taxes which are given to provinces are of such a nature
that they shall always be resisted by the people of the States. Those taxes are
un- popular and their scope is very much limited. So at least this income-tax
which will be substantial a certain minimum percentage should be fixed here and
now so that the provinces may adjust their budgets in that light. That is my
submission.
(Amendments 2859 to 2878 of Vol. II and 75 of the
Supplementary List were not moved.)
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar :
Sir, I beg to move,
“That in clause (2) of article 251, for the words revenues of India the words ‘Consolidated
Fund of India’ be substituted.”
(Amendments Nos. 75, 77 and 78 were not moved.)
Mr. President : No. 244.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United
Provinces : General) : Sir, I beg to move :
“That for amendment No. 2875 of the List of Amendments, the following be
substituted:-
‘That in sub-paras. (i) and (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (4) of article
251, for the words ‘by the President by order’ the words ‘by Parliament by law’
be substituted.”‘
Sir, in this sub-clause (b) (i) it is said .
“‘Prescribed’ means-until a Finance Commission has been constituted, prescribed
by the President by Order,”
and in sub-clause (ii) it is said-
“after
a Finance Commission has been constituted, prescribed by the President by order
after considering the recommendations of the Finance Commission.”
Sir, this article deals with the allocation of income-tax collected by the
Central Government in the various provinces and it is said that “such
percentage, as may be prescribed, ‘of the net proceeds in any financial year of
any such tax, etc. etc. shall be distributed among those states in such manner
as may be prescribed.” Now “prescribed” means, before the Financial Commission
has been constituted, “prescribed by President by order and after the report
also “prescribed by the Order of President, after considering the
recommendations of the Commission.” Now I want to substitute this, that instead
of ‘President by Order’, we should substitute Parliament by law’. Sir, this is
very important article by which Income-tax is to be distributed to the various
states. Just now Mr. Barman moved his amendment that the percentage should be
60 per cent. and he suggested how it should be distributed. He suggested all
the three methods according to which it should be distributed, some percentage
to the provinces from which it was collected, again on population basis and so
on. So this is a contentious subject and in fact if we study the report of the
Expert Committee on the Financial Provisions of the Union Constitution which
you appointed, you will find that they have given the history of the tax and
have pointed out as follows :-
“On
the question of apportionment of income-tax among Provinces also, the provinces
differ widely in their views. Bombay and West Bengal support the basis of
collection or residence, the United Provinces that of population and Bihar a
combined basis of population and origin (place of accrual); Orissa and Assam
want weightage for backwardness. East Punjab, while sugggesting no basis, rents
her deficit of Rs. 3 crores somehow to be met.
So we find there are different basis on which the apportionment is desired and
we know that income-tax is one of the most important sources of Central
Revenues. The whole thing in this article is how this adjustment between the
claims of provinces and Centre is to be made, and it has been said that such
percentage as are prescribed shall be distributed by order of President. I
think such an important matter as distribution of revenues between Centre and
States should not be in the discretion of the President alone. Of course it
will be by the executive. But I want that it should be done by Parliament by
law. Before the Finance Commission has reported, the Government must bring
forward a Bill showing how they wish to allocate the proceeds of income-tax and
it shall be for the Parliament to approve of it. Similarly, after the
recommendations of the Commission, the Government must bring forward a Bill and
must say which recommendation they accept and how the allocation should be
made. When that Bill is brought then the Parliament should be able to decide
how the allocation is to be made. I do not think that such wide powers of
distribution of hundreds of crores of rupees between the provinces and the
Centre should be vested in the President. This must be within the province of
the Parliament. The Parliament must not be deprived of its right to allocate
the finance between the Center and the provinces. This is a very important
question and I wonder how the Drafting Committee missed this point. I do not
know why they want to centralise all powers in the President. At least the sovereign
Parliament of the nation should have a say in the matter. If it comes before
the Parliament the needs of the provinces will be known ,and we shall know what
adjustment is justified. My amendments are very simple and I do not know would
not accept them.
But they are the very essence of democracy. If the President can by order
allocate crores of rupees I do not know what the Parliament is for. If
Parliament is not to distribute the Income-tax to the provinces, what are its
functions. It is something extraordinary. When the Finance Commission makes a
report on principles. Parliament should after discussing those principles bring
forward a Bill suggesting how it wants them to be implemented and it must be
able to allocate the proper shares to the various provinces. It is a very
important matter and I do think that these provisions giving the President, by
order, the power to allocate these crores of rupees should not remain.
In fact, the remaining portion of the article deals with the way the amount is
to be calculated. It has been said that taxes on Union emoluments should be
excluded. There is a view that they should not be. Even the Expert Committee
has said that they should not be. Anyway, even if I do not object to that. I do
object to the other thing about allocation. It should be done by Parliament by
law and not by the President by order.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras
: General): Mr. President, Sir, I have to move a formal amendment and it
follows the scheme that the House has adopted all along, namely, substitution
of the words “Consolidated Fund of India” for the words “revenues of India.” I
find there is an omission in subclause (c) of clause (4) of this article where
the words “revenues of India” have been used. With your permission, therefore,
I move :
“That in sub-clause (c) of clause (4) of article 251, for the words ‘revenues
of India .he words ‘Consolidated Fund of India be substituted.”
Shri Biswanath Das (Orissa:
General) : Sir, the, consideration of this article takes me to the
consideration of the recommendations of the Sarker Committee appointed by you
to recommend the financial relationship between the Centre and the provinces.
Due to certain difficulties the report of the Committee could not be discussed
in this Assembly. Necessarily therefore along with this article you will please
allow us to discuss fully and frankly the contents of the Sarker Committee
Report.
I expected that the terms of the Sarker Committee would be wide enough to
include more things than have been undertaken for investigation. I plead with
you and with the honourable Members of this House that the time has come when
attempts should be made to find out means for evolution of a proper system of
finance both for the Provinces and the Centre. Our finances have been allowed
to develop without taking care to develop them properly and in a scientific
manner. In the result, they have grown in their own way without any
consideration of the scientific evolution of such an important question as
this. The Sarker Committee Report has nothing in it to face the problem
squarely and well. All that it has done is to recommend to this House in what
manner certain items of revenue have to be distributed both between the Centre
and the provinces as also among the provinces themselves. The limited scope of
recommendations therefore makes me confine myself to the recommendations
themselves. Considering this article I cannot go beyond the terms of this
article, namely, the allocation of the proceeds of the Income-tax. The Sarker
Committee proposes that 60 per cent. of the proceeds should go to the provinces
while 40 per cent. should go to the Centre. I had expected that sufficient
explanation should have been given why the Centre should have 40 per cent. In
this connection let me refer to the report of Professor Adarkar and Mr. Nehru
wherein they have shown that in Australia the Commonwealth retains to itself
only 25 per cent. of the Income-tax. Why should you have 15 per cent. more than
what Australia keeps for herself is a matter on which the Committee ought to
have given us an explanation. True it is that the Centre requires more money
under the present circumstances. But the present difficult circumstances are
not to be perpetuated. I have little complaint with any one who pleads for some
more expenditure for the Centre in the first three or five or ten years of its
existence, but to have a permanent allocation of 40 per cent. out of Income-tax
seems to me not very justifiable.
Having stated so far regarding the allocation of the proceeds between the
provinces and the Centre, I come to the principle of distribution among the
provinces themselves. On this question again I must join issue with the
recommendations of the Sarker Committee. Till 1935, Income-tax was not a
provincial source. Under the Government of India Act, 1935, Income-tax was kept
with the Centre. Though its levy, assessment and distribution is kept in the Centre,
yet it was clearly laid down that 50 per cent. of the net proceeds will be
distributed among the provinces. Sir Otto Niemeyer’s Award stood till 15th
August 1947. Unreasonable as the principles of distribution are, it has
crippled the smaller provinces. I must in this connection state that provinces
under the British. Government have had their peculiar existence. The British
started, not to develop India in a distinct and defined manner, but wanted to
have their own conveniences and set up administration and trade centres with a
view to help British trade, with the result that the three presidencies have
been propped up with a certain amount of prestige and convenience, all attached
to the British administration and attached to the then conveniences of British
trade. That being the position, all the business houses had been concentrated
in the three presidency towns, and if they are in any other province it is in a
few fortunate provinces like the United Provinces. That being the position, the
proceeds of Income-tax have unfortunately been allowed by Sir Otto Niemeyer to
be distributed mainly an the basis of collection, which is a very unfair and
artificial method, for Income-tax or tax on income accrues out of consumption
and utilisation of goods by the generality of the masses. Therefore, in
whatever manner trade-foreign or internal-may proceed from certain definite and
established trade centres, it is unfair to say that the provinces having in
their areas the business firms as the centrally distributing agencies or
manufacturing centres should alone earn the profits. And therein lay the
unfairness and unscientific method of the basis of distribution.
As I have already said, the British never attempted to evolve a national system
of finance. The business view and the business propensities of the Britisher
necessarily told him to took at it from the point of view of collection of
taxes because in their country the various local areas have been uniformly
developed. If one area has developed its trade the other area is developed in
agriculture. So both the areas get the benefits in their due proportions and in
due course. In our country unfortunately this is not the case. Therefore, the
point of view taken up by Sir Otto Niemeyer cannot be regarded as justifiable.
The failure of it can be seen from the recommendations of another Committee. I
am referring to the expert enquiry, the Federal Finance Committee that
submitted its report in 1933 as a result of the Round Table Conference. Therein
you find a decision has been taken that the principal basis ought to be
population. Of course it was only an expert enquiry.
In this connection I again refer you to the recommendations of Professor
Adarkar and Mr. Nehru wherein they have laid down three principal basis,
namely, the basis of population, the basis of area, as also the basis of
collection. They have given the last place to the basis of collection and
rightly so because collection is after all an artificial process. True it is
that centres like Calcutta, Bombay and Madras need attention. Let them have
something. But it is unfair to claim the major share from the distribution of
Income-tax, Friends from the three presidencies will excuse me if they feel
that I am hard on them. It is nothing of the kind. I want a uniform process of
development-I do not want any province to be inconvenienced. In fact, I always
feel as an Indian and speak primarily from the point of view of an Indian.
While thinking of the three developed and advanced provinces I also want them
to see that their brothers and sisters in other provinces also follow them. Let
them be behind them but let them follow them. Otherwise they will be left
singularly alone to themselves. Therefore I do not agree with the principle of
distribution on the basis of collection.
The Sarker Committee committed the same blunder-mainly though not exactly as
the blunder committed by Sir Otto Niemeyer. The Sarker Committee has taken a
step forward by recommending 60 per cent. for the provinces and 40 per cent.
for the Centre. I claim that they should have given more to the provinces who
are in charge practically of all the nation-building activities of the country.
Severe condemnation of the report comes on another count also, and that is on the
recommendation regarding the distribution of the proceeds on the basis of
collection to the extent of 35 per cent. out of the 60 per cent. That means
practically about 60 per cent. of the proceeds to be distributed on the basis
of collections. This to me is very unfair. As I have already stated, I repeat
that the Income-tax or tax on income accrues from the incomes of the people and
that is measured in terms of consumption or production. The agricultural
provinces produce raw materials. The industrial provinces undertake the process
of industrialisation and produce the finished goods. There again there is a
round-about process. There again those industrial goods are taken and the
proceeds are distributed to the same fortunate provinces with the result that
the business houses are all located in those three provinces and the
agricultural provinces are being deprived of the benefits of the Income-tax,
though they have -rightly earned the Income-tax. Under these circumstances I do
not agree that the basis of 35 per cent. out of the 60 per cent. is fair to the
smaller provinces.
I further request the honourable Members of this House to think of a certain
reserve fund. When I speak of a reserve fund I have before me certain
precedents. You have got the Petrol Cess Fund, commonly known as the Road Cess
Fund. That has been distributed on a certain specified basis. About 15 per
cent. of it or 9’0 is kept with the Centre to develop the undeveloped areas.
Therefore, let the Centre keep something to itself and distribute it properly
and equitably, keeping in view the interests of the whole of India. With these
words, I request the House to give due consideration to the aspects that I have
raised in my speech.
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United
Provinces: General): Mr. President, the issue raised by Mr. Upendra Nath Barman’s
amendment is of a vital character and requires the careful consideration of the
House. In order to understand what the effect of this amendment will be it is
necessary to go back to the past and consider the relations that exist between
the Government of India and the provinces in regard to the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Income-tax. Under the Government of India Act an
Order-in-Council was passed in 1936 fixing 50 per cent. as the share of the
provinces in the net proceeds of the Income-tax, excluding the proceeds
attributable to Chief Commissioners’ province and the tax on Federal
emoluments.
Till the war broke out or rather till three or four years after the break of
the war, the Government of India was unable to make over to the provinces their
maximum share as fixed by the Order-in-Council. The Order-in-Council laid down
that during the first of the two periods referred to in that Order, the
Government of India might retain such an amount from the share of the provinces
as, taken together with the contribution of the Railways to the Central
revenues, would raise the total to Rs. 13 crores. During the war, when the
railway surpluses increased considerably, it was not necessary for the
Government of India to take any amount out of the provincial share in order to
make up the total of Rs. 13 crores that I have just referred to. I do not know
exactly what the share of the provinces at the present time is, but I believe
that they are getting 50 per cent. of the net proceeds of the income-tax
calculated in the manner explained by me. We have to see whether the position
of the Central Government has improved so much since, say, the termination of
the war as to enable it to give a larger share of the net proceeds of the
income-tax to the provinces. Anyone that is familiar with the Budgets of the
Government of India for the years 1947-48 and 1948-49 knows how parlous the
position of the Central finances is. Some of us ventured to draw attention to
the very unsatisfactory financial condition of the Centre during the last
Budget debate. The Finance Member thought that the arguments that had been
advanced on their point were puerile but I trust that even he is now convinced
that our position is far more serious than even the most pessimistic amongst us
had imagined three or four months ago. Can we, when we appear to be faced with
a huge deficit, when our credit has fallen so low that we cannot accept to
raise large loans, say that it would be advisable to accept the amendment moved
by Shri Upendranath Barman ? His proposed is based on the recommendations of
the Expert Committee which was presided over by Mr. N. R. Sarker. He has not
gone as far in claiming a share in the income-tax for the provinces as the
Expert Committee had recommended, but so far as the proportion of the net
proceeds of income-tax to be assigned to the provinces goes, he follows the
recommendation of the Expert Committee. The Expert Committee has pointed out in
its report that if its recommendations were accepted, the Central revenues
would lose about Rs. 30 crores less 40 per cent. of the net proceeds of the
Estate and Succession duties. Even granting that Shri Upendranath Barman’s
proposal is more moderate than that of the Expert Committee, it is obvious that
the House should not accept the principles laid down by a Committee that
thought that the Centre could without difficulty make over nearly Rs. 30 crores
to the provinces. Our financial position at present is as serious as it can
well be. I do not therefore think that it will lie in the interests of India as
a whole to accept Mr. Upendranath Barman’s proposals. It may benefit the
provinces, but the financial and administrative stability of the provinces
depends to no small extent on the position of the Centre. It would be
short-sighted of the provinces to demand a larger share from the Centre,
regardless of the effect that their claims would have on the position of the
Central Government. I repeat therefore that, in my opinion, the state of our
finances at the present time does not allow us to accept a proposal like that
placed before us by Mr. Barman.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General): I am sorry to interrupt
my honourable Friend, but I would like to ask one question : What is the data
in possession of the honourable Member ? Paragraph 59 on page 4 of the Sarker
Committee report says that it will not be beyond the capacity of the Centre to
part with these Rs. 30 crores. So what data has my ho-nourable Friend to
contradict the finding of this Committee except saying, of course, that the
finances have gone down ?
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : Well, that is a very important consideration to
be taken into account. This Expert Committee reported in December 1947. Is the
position the same as it seemed to be then or has it deteriorated to such an
extent as to be alarming ? My honourable Friend took part in Budget debate....
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: But it is only a temporary phase.
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : Well, he was no more optimistic about the
financial position of the Government of India than any other Member. But today
he comes forward with the argument that the position of the Central Government
will not always be as unsatisfactory as it is now.
If it improves, then the financial relations between the Centre and the
Provinces can be reconsidered. That is one of the purposes of the Government in
recommending the appointment of a Finance Commission. My honourable Friend, I
am sure, has read the Draft Constitution carefully and knows that provision has
been made for the appointment of a Finance Commission, in order that the
provinces may not be starved of the funds required for the development of the
social services. But when he or any other Member of the House says that we
should imagine that the position of the Central Government has already
improved, I part company with him. If this is not my honourable Friend’s point,
then I cannot understand the purpose of the question that he put to me. All
that I was saying before he put his question was that, even admitting that the
provinces would be responsible in the main for the development of the social
and other services on which the welfare of the people depended, we could not at
the present time agree that the Centre was in a position to make over 30 crores
or even 20 or 15 crores to the provinces.
Sir, Mr. Upendra Nath Barman’s amendment does not merely propose that the share
of the provinces in the net proceeds of the income-tax should be greater than
what it is today. It also suggests a method of distribution of the provincial
share between the provinces. The criteria laid down by him are those
recommended by the Expert Committee. These criteria are population, place of collection
and certain other factors. He suggests, following the recommendations of the
Expert Committee, that 58 and one-third per cent. of the provincial share
should be distributed on the basis of collection. With all respect to the
Expert Committee, I do not think that the basis of collection can in an
circumstance be accepted as a sound basis for the calculation of the share of
any province. The Government of India sent out a committee to Australia to
consider how the Commonwealth Government assisted the State Governments in
maintaining their solvency and in developing the social services; That
committee which consisted of Mr. B. K. Nehru and Mr. Adarkar, has in its
recommendations expressly ruled out the basis recommended by the Expert
Committee and accepted by Mr. Barman. The test proposed by that committee for
distribution are, population, area, and per capita income. According to
the last test a more prosperous province should receive proportionately less
financial assistance from the Centre than a province living from hand to mouth.
These are the tests that the Commonwealth Grants Commission in Australia has
worked out on the basis of the experience that it has gained. The reasons for
trying these tests are perfectly simple. A province may have reached a large
degree of industrial development and a large amount of income-tax may therefore
be collected in that province. But the goods produced in that province are not
all consumed there. The industries in that province can be in a flourishing
condition only when their products are taken by people living largely in the
rest of India. There is no reason therefore why the place of production or the
place of collection of the income-tax should be taken as a test for the
distribution of the provincial share. It is as unsatisfactory as any test can
be.
Apart from this, if federation means anything, it means that there should be a
transfer of wealth from the richer to the poorer provinces; just as the very
concept Of social welfare implies that there should be a transfer of wealth
from the richer to the poorer people, so the concept of federation, the concept
of national solidarity implies that the richer provinces, should part with a
portion of what may in strict theory be due to them, for the benefit of the
poorer provinces. Otherwise it will not be possible to raise the less developed
provinces to the level of the more, fortunate provinces It will not even be
possible to guarantee that the social services in the less developed provinces
will reach a minimum standard.
For the reasons that I have given, I think that it would go against the very
principles underlying the establishment of a federation if Shri Upendra Nath
Barman’s proposals were accepted. It is true that the Expert Committee
recommended it. But, even before the Government of India rejected the proposals
of the, Expert Committee, I personally found myself in I complete disagreement
with it. I was amazed to find that any committee of experts could propose such
a basis for the distribution of the provincial share. I think that it is a
matter for satisfaction that the Government of India have rejected the
recommendations of the Expert Committee which would have placed them in a
dangerous position.
Now, Sir, I should like to say a few words about what fell from my honourable
Friend Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena. He suggested that the division of the
financial resources of the country between the Centre and the provinces should
be made by Parliament by law.
I do not think that the suggestion made by him is a very happy one. In
Australia, the Commonwealth Grants Commission does not owe its existence, to
any Parliamentary statute. It is the result of an agreement between the
Commonwealth Government and the States. Its recommendations have not to be
placed prior to their acceptance before Parliament. If we divide the financial
resources between the Centre and the provinces on a statutory basis, it would
introduce a very undesirable element of rigidity in the financial relations
between the Central and the Provincial Governments. I believe that my
honourable Friend, Mr. Saksena, has recommended that any recommendations that
the Finance Commission might make should also be given effect to by Parliament
by law. I do not at all see why this should be necessary. If the Finance
Commission inspires general confidence, if the provinces and the Centre feel
that its members do not allow themselves to be influenced by the opinions of
any authority, I have no doubt that a convention will grow up in this country
as it has in Australia that the recommendations of the Commission should
broadly speaking be accepted by the Central Government. I say broadly speaking
because in times of stress, it may not be possible for the Government of India
to accept the Finance Commission’s view of its position, but barring
emergencies, I should think that in course of time both the Central Government
and the provincial Governments would come to place confidence in the judgment
of the Finance Commission and accept its proposals. Sir, the method of
distribution of the financial resources of the country between the Centre and
the Provinces as proposed in the Draft Constitution seems to me to be more
elastic, based on a better principle and in every respect preferable to the
amendment moved by Shri Upendra Nath Barman I personally think that the powers
given to the Finance Commission are wider than they should be but that is a
different matter and I do not propose to deal with it at this stage.
Sir, my only purpose in taking part in this debate was to make it clear to the
House how undesirable it would be not merely from the point of view of the
Centre but also from that of the provinces, if Mr. Upendra Nath Barman’s
proposals were accepted. Provinces like Assam, Orissa and the C. P. which are
starved for want of funds and whose condition is such as to extort the sympathy
of all fair-minded people, would remain for ever in the backward condition that
they occupy now. Their only chance of getting more funds for their development and
for raising their standard of social services is that the basis of collection
should not be the basis of the distribution of proceeds of the income-tax. I
hope therefore that the House will unhesitatingly reject Mr. Upendra Nath
Barman’s amendment.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras : General) : The question may not
be put.
Mr. President : There has been only one speech so far on the subject.
Shri B. Das : Mr.
President, Sir, I am very grateful to my Friend, Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru, for
emphasising the distress of the provinces of Orissa and Assam. The income-tax
collected is frittered away in useless expenditure by the straps of the Finance
Department. The Expert Committee recommended that 60 per cent. of the
income-tax including all sources of income-taxes-super tax, corporation tax and
everything, should go to the provinces. The Premier of the United Provinces in
his memorandum to the Expert Committee laid emphasis that not only personal
income-tax but all kinds of income-tax should be distributed to the provinces.
Sir, there is a legitimate demand by the Premiers of the various provinces that
sixty per cent.-somebody demanded fifty per cent., but I claim sixty per cent.
as has been recommended by the Expert Committee-should go to the provinces. The
question arises as to the basis of distribution. Should it be on collection
basis or should it be on population basis or should it be on some other basis ?
Bombay naturally collects the largest amount of income-tax because most of the
companies have their headquarters in Bombay. My honourable Friend, Pandit
Kunzru, just now stated that Bombay is not a consumers’ province. Yet Bombay
very much likes to get something for nothing, to get some percentage on a
collection basis. Mr. N. R. Sarker, who today happens to be the Premier of West
Bengal, knowing that Calcutta has the headquarters of many Companies,
recommended that thirty five per cent. should be on the basis of collection and
twenty per cent. on a population basis. This is a very wrong system of
allocation and we protest against it and I am glad this has been supported by
my honourable Friend, Pandit Kunzru. We undeveloped provinces such as Orissa,
Assam particularly and Bihar, we do not accept that some people will get
something for nothing because the foreign rulers concentrated trade and
commercial activities in Calcutta and Bombay. We do not subscribe to this
method of allocation. I do claim that 60 per cent. of the income-tax and not
personal income-tax as it is now done at present, should go to the provinces.
Ten per cent. may be kept in the hands of the Central Government to meet the
special needs of the State. The other 50 per cent. should be distributed on
population basis. Sir, I have. to point out that my province which bad 9 lakhs
of population before the merging of so many states has now got a population of
I crore and 40 lakhs. These States have very primitive forms of administration,
primitive sources of taxation, and they have been merged into -the Orissa
Province and have been incorporated to a standard of administration as is
prevalent in the provinces, and the Government of Orissa have ensured that
these merged States should have similar standard of administration as exists in
Orissa Province, and yet the income that accrues from the States is very
little. The allocation of income-tax, which the Otto Niemeyer Award ‘gave about
which I have said on a previous occasion this morning, was arbitrary. It
awarded two per cent. out of this allocation of income-tax, and later the
Government of India,-not this Government of India-changed into three points and
Orissa got 3 per cent of the income-tax allocated to the provinces.
I am surprised that the Government of India is a party to the draft article
251. Under the changed conditions this sovereign House has altered the position
of many States. Why do not the Members of the Government of India who also
Members of this House advise the Drafting Committee to change the system of
allocation of income-tax, so that provinces like Orissa, which is more than
doubly handicapped by the merging of the States, get an equitable share of
income-tax. The only equitable share is allocation on population basis.
I am grateful to Pandit Kunzru and my honourable Friend, Mr. Biswanath Das, for
referring to the Adarkar-Nehru Report of 1947. The report was printed some time
ago but it saw the light of day in March 1949. I had only a chance to glimpse
through it. Why is it that the Government should pick holes with such weighty
opinions, such weighty views and shelve it? Why should it not raise discussion
in the country or even on the floor of this House ? I think that as long as the
Government of India remains blank on the subject and it follows a policy of
grab and hold; nothing can be done. The Adarkar-Nehru Report provides a
solution to develop the provinces. Provinces which are undeveloped, which are
backward must get weightage by special grants as in Australia. Based on per
capita income, undeveloped provinces should receive financial grants. Is it
not the function and duty of the spokesmen of the Government of India hero to
take the House into confidence and to tell what they have in mind ? Is their
mind blank or have they been thinking and thinking these two years and cannot
decide to part with resources ?
Sir, I went through the memorandum that the Government of India submitted to
the Sarker Committee. It is a heartless, colourless memoranda. It deals with
its own difficulties; it never assume that the Finance Ministry of the Central
Government has sovereign responsibilities to India and to the provinces at
large. Nowhere in that long memorandum is there any mention that the provinces
must develop, or the provinces must get more resources, more share of the
income-tax so that they can develop. I had never seen a more cruel document
drafted by the foreign rulers that ruled us up to August 1947. I have seen the
memorandum in 1936-37. I have seen the notes of the financial satraps and
bureaucratic rulers in 1924 and 1925 and I never read such a heartless document
and Sir, that was, the considered views of our Finance Department, the
Department of the independent Government of India-which now plays ducks and
drakes with the resources of the provinces and overawes the provincial
financial ministers. It is a shameless Government. It is a shameless Government
I again say, and poor provinces, poor Premiers of the provinces have to plead
their own case, they have to plead their poverty, their backward conditions Of
course, Bombay need not plead. Why should Bombay plead with a per capita
revenue of Rs. 25 ? Why should Madras plead with a per capita income of
Rs. 19 ? Why should U. P. plead with income of Rs. 21 ? But Orissa, poor as we
are with a per capita revenue of Rs. 4 or 5, should ask for something nearer a
basic level. Assam spends much less after the partition of Assam; and is it not
the sovereign duty of this House to ensure adequate and minimum basic
expenditure for the development of these provinces ? That can only be ensured
if 60 per cent of all sources of income-tax goes to the provinces, based by
allocation on population basis and on no other basis.
Mr. President :
Before Dr. Ambedkar speaks on this article, there is one which has struck me as
requiring a little clarification and I would like you to consider that. In
sub-clause (2) of this article 251 we find:
“Such percentage, may be prescribed, of the net proceeds in any financial year
of any such tax, except in so far as these proceeds represent proceeds
attributable to States for the time being specified in Part II of the First
Schedule or the tax payable in respect of Union emoluments, shall not form part
of the revenues of India, but shall be assigned to the States within which that
tax is leviable in that year, and shall be distributed among those States in
such manner and from such time as may be prescribed.”
It is not clear to me what the significance of the expression “within which
that tax is leviable in that year” is. Does it mean the States where the taxes
resides or does it mean the States where the income on which the tax is levied
is earned, or does it mean anything else ?
Shri B. Das : Sir, when these financial matters are being discussed, it is
necessary that the Finance Minister must be present on the floor of the House
in view of the fact that he is a Member of this House. We are not discussing
academic issues here when the Finance Minister need not be present here.
Mr. President : I trust some one will communicate the desire of the Member
to the Finance Minister.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : May I mention, Sir, that the wording has
borrowed practically word for word from section 138 of the Government of India
Act, 1935 ? I can only say at this moment that it is sought to deal with that
portion of the tax that would be collected from such Part III States as have a
special arrangement with the Union Government.
Shri Biswanath Das : May I request you, Sir, to convey to the Honourable
the Finance Minister who is also a Member of the House not to be present as the
Finance Minister of the Government of India, but to be present as a Member of
this House so that we will have the benefit of his wise counsel and advice.
Mr. President : That is why I said that the wishes of the Members might be
communicated to him.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar :
Sir, I can explain the thing now. I do that, I will take up the
other amendments.
There is an amendment by Mr. Barman and there is another amendment by Prof.
Saksena. I am sorry to say that I cannot accept either of the amendments.
This question whether the percentage of revenue collected by way of Income-tax
should be prescribed in the Constitution itself either as sixty per cent. or
any other percentage or should be left to the President to decide is a matter
over which considerable thought has been bestowed both by the Central
Government as well as by the provincial Governments in the Conference which
took place the other day to discuss this matter. It was agreed that the best
thing would be to leave the matter to be prescribed by the President and that
no proportion should be fixed in the Constitution itself.
With regard to the other question raised by Prof. Saksena, that instead of the
word “prescribed”, the wording should be “prescribed by Parliament”, again I am
sorry to say that I cannot accept the amendment. Our scheme is to allow the
President to prescribe the proportion in the first instance by himself and in
the second instance after a consideration of the recommendations of the Finance
Commission. We do not propose to bring the Parliament in. Because, in that
case, there would be a great deal of wrangle between the representatives of the
different provinces and great injustice may be done by reason of the fact that
certain provinces, may have a very large majority in the Parliament and certain
other provinces may have a small representation. Consequently, to leave the
matter to Parliament practically means leaving it to the voice of those
provinces who happen to have a larger representation at the Centre, and that I
think would cut at the root of the justice which you want to be done to the
various provinces.
Now, Sir, coming to the difficulty that you have raised, the words “States
within which that tax is leviable in that year” are necessary. They occur in
the Government of India Act, 1935. The reason why these words were then
introduced was because Income-tax was not to be levied in the Indian States
which were to come within the Indian Union. In lieu of the Income-tax, the
Indian States were required to make certain contributions. Therefore, if the
tax was not to be levied in that State would not be entitled to obtain a share.
We do not know what is going to be the procedure under the present
Constitution. This matter is being examined by a Committee which has been
appointed to investigate into the finances of the Indian States. If the
recommendation of that Committee is that Income-tax should be leviable in all
the States whether they originally constituted Indian Provinces or Indian
States, then naturally these words would have to be altered. While moving this
article, I retain liberty to the Drafting Committee to suggest to some
amendment in that respect when the report of that Committee to suggest to
before us. That is the reason why these words are here.
Mr. President : Just one thing more. May I take it that it is not intended
to cover cases within what used to be British India?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No, no; States in Part III.
Shri B. Das : Dr. Ambedkar has referred to decisions of a Conference of
Prime Ministers of Provinces and the Drafting Committee. This House has no knowledge
of what passed between them and what the result of their discussions is. Unless
a Minute of those discussions is laid on the table of the House in the form of
a Note or otherwise, we are not in a position to come to any conclusion as to
the action of the Drafting Committee.
Mr. President : I take it, if there had been any question raised by any of
the Premiers of the Provinces, they would be hear to raise them if they did not
agree with the draft. Therefore I take the draft as now placed before the House
has the concurrence or the consent of the Premiers.
Shri B. Das : The House is not bound by what the Premiers and Finance
Ministers did outside this House. If any decision was taken, it is the
privilege and prerogative of this House to have copies of those documents.
Mr. President : No one is bound here by any decision taken by the Premiers
and the Drafting Committee. The House is free to cast its vote in any way it
likes.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra :
I would like to ask for clarification from Dr. Ambedkar on one point. The point
is this. This article provides that the revenue shall be distributed among the
States in such a manner and from such time as may be prescribed. Now, the word “Prescribed”
has been defined in clause (4) sub-clause (b) and means, “Until a Finance
Commission has been constituted, prescribed by the President by order, and
after a Finance Commission has been constituted, prescribed by the President by
order after considering the recommendations of the Finance Commission.” This
Finance Commission comes at a later stage. As has been settled so far, this
Finance Commission, mentioned in sub-clause (b) (ii) of clause (4), is going to
be appointed within a period of two years from the late of the commencement of
the Constitution. Prior to that immediately with the commencement of the
Constitution, what is going to be the criterion by which this allocation is to
be guided ? We have been told recently by the Honourable the Prime Minister that
apart from this Commission, another Commission-call it a Commission or a
Committee or whatever it may be something like an ad hoc committee is
going to be appointed. How does that fit in with this ? This word ‘prescribed’
in sub-clause (b) does not mean that the President will be acting on the
recommendation of the ad hoc committee which will he appointed within
three or four months time. Will the interim allocation be decided on the
recommendations of the Finance Committee ? It is not clear as to what is going
to happen with regard to the period immediately following the coming into
operation of the Constitution, and before the appointment of the Commission
envisaged in a subsequent period.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar :
Sir, the explanation is very simple. If we wanted that there should be no
interim enquiry before the President made an order of allocation, we would have
merely said that such allocation as existed before the commencement of the
Constitution shall continue until they are redetermined by the President on the
recommendation of the Commission. We have not said that, and we have not said
that deliberately, because we want that an enquiry should be made and on the
basis of the enquiry the President may prescribe by order. That is the reason
for the difference in language.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : That is to say, the interim Commission will
be appointed straightaway now and on the recommendation of that Commission the
President will prescribe by order ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes. Otherwise we would have merely
said that the existing allocation will continue until the President issued the
new order ?
Mr. President : I will now put the various amendments to vote. I will first
put amendment No. 2858, moved by Shri Upendra Nath Barman.
Shri Upendra Nath Barman : Sir, in view of the statement of Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
The amendment was, by leave of the
Assembly, withdrawn.
Mr. President : Then
I put amendment No. 76, moved by Dr. Ambedkar. That is a verbal amendment.
The question is:
“That in clause (2) of article 251, for the words ‘revenues of India’ the words
‘Consolidated Fund of India’ be substituted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President : Then there is the amendment of shri T. T
Krishnamachari. The question is:
“That in sub-clause (c) of clause (4) of article 251, for the words ‘revenues
of India’ the words ‘Consolidated Fund of India’ be substituted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President : Then there is Professor Saksena’s amendment.
The question is :
“That for amendment No. 2875 of the List of Amendments, the following be
substituted:
‘That in sub-para (i) and (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (4) of article 251,
for the words ‘by the President by order’, the words ‘by Parliament by law’ be substituted.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President : Then I put article 251 as amended.
The question is :
“That article 251, as amended, stand part of the Constitution.”
The motion was adopted.
Article 251, as amended, was added to the Constitution.
--------
Article 252
Mr. President : Then we take up article 252. But there are two new articles
proposed, 251-A and 251-B. Do you wish to move them, Mr. Krishnamachari ?
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : No.
Mr. President : Then we come to article 252 and to it there is amendment
No. 2881 standing in the name of Shri Santhanam.
(Amendments Nos. 2881 and 2882 were not moved.)
Mr. President : Then there is amendment No. 79 in the name of Dr Ambedkar.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari :
Sir, it is also in my name, and I may be allowed to move it. I move:
“That in article 252, for the words ‘revenues of India’ the words ‘Consolidated
Fund of India’ be substituted.”
Mr. President : Does any one wish to say anything about this article (No
Member rose). Then I will put amendment No. 79 to vote.
The question is :
“That in article 252, for the words ‘revenues of India’ the words ‘Consolidated
Fund of India’ be substituted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President : Then I
put the article as amended, to vote.
The question is :
“That article 252, as amended, stand part of the Constitution.”
The motion was adopted.
Article 252, is amended, was added to the Constitution.
____________
Article 253
Mr. President : Then we take up article 253.
(Amendments Nos. 2883 and 2884 were not moved.)
Mr.
President : What
about amendment No. 2885 ? Do you wish to move it, Dr. Ambedkar ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No; Mr. Tyagi will move his amendment.
(Amendments Nos. 2886 to 2896 were not moved.)
Mr. President : Do you move your amendment No. 2897, Mr. Bardoloi ?
The Honourable Shri Gopinath Bardoloi (Assam: General): I do not want to
move the amendment, but I would like to speak on the article.
(Amendments Nos. 2898 to 2902 were not moved.)
Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces : General): Sir, I had an amendment.
Mr. President : I have not finished all the amendments. I am taking them in
order and will come to your amendment later. Amendment No. 81.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedksr :
Sir, I move:
“That in clause (2) of article 253, for the words ‘revenues of India’ the words
‘Consolidated Fund of India’ be substituted.”
Mr. President : Then amendment No. 214, in the name of Shri Mahavir Tyagi.
Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Sir, I move:
“That with reference to amendment No. 2886 of the List of Amendments, clause
(1) of article 253 be deleted.”
Sir, clause (1) of -article 253 runs as follows :-
“No duties on salt shall be levied by the Union.”
Sir I am one of those who had participated in that great movement of salt satyagraha,
and I appreciated then, as I do appreciate today the argument that since the
salt tax tells on the pockets of the poor it should not be levied. I still
stick to that old opinion of mine. I also confess that it is on account of that
conviction that most of the Members of this August House have preferred to
bring in through this clause, the prohibition of any duties on salt. But, Sir,
to levy a duty, or not to levy it is the business of the State and the
Parliament. We are sitting as the Constituent Assembly. I object to this clause
being here, not because I am in favour of salt duties being levied, but because
I do not want to tie down the hands of future generations for ever. Once we put
it down in the Constitution there shall be no salt duties for centuries to
come; and so long as there does not come into being another Constituent
Assembly, the government’s hands shall remain tied, and even if they want to
levy any salt duty and even if circumstances are so changed that salt duty is
warranted, they will not be able to levy it. That is the kind of thing we
should always avoid. That is the only reason why I wish to commend this
amendment to the House.
Sir, at present, after the division of India, we are having most of our salt
supply from foreign countries. From Pakistan, in the year 1948-49, we imported
about 40,000 tons of salt, from Egypt about 25,000 tons and from other
countries, about 34,000 tons. This foreign supply of salt-ordinary crude salt
and not the table one-was about 300,000 tons. There are agreements between one
country or the other. Sometimes, while discussing our import-export problems
with Pakistan our future Government may feel the necessity of levying a duty on
salt imported from Pakistan. It may also be necessary to levy an import duty on
foreign salt in order to protect our own indigenous industries of salt against
competition. There are so many other advantages of the duty. Sir, this is a
very simple case, and I do not want to dilate on it and waste the time of the
House in pressing tile issue. I only want that the hands of the future
Generations and of future Parliaments should be free to act. If to-day the
Parliament were to decide the issue about levying the salt duty, like many of
my Friends I will put up a strong opposition. We have only lately, and
deliberately, given up this income. The income from this source was not less
than one to ten crores. For the sake of the principle we have already sacrificed
nine crores. If ever the Government feel that instead of resorting to other
direct taxes, it is convenient to have some income from salt, must be free to
take advantage of and tap this source of revenue. With only these words, I
commend this amendment and I hope I shall not be misunderstood. Although this
amendment obviously seems to be unpopular, but I want to make it clear that by
this amendment, I do not mean to ask the Government to levy any salt duty. Here
it is not a question of levying or not levying the duty. It is a simple
question of not shutting the door for future governments to exercise their
discretion. That is the only question. I hope the House will rise above
sentiments and exercise a free vote. Let the future Governments be as free in
the matter as we are today.
Mr. President : Amendment No. 215, do you move it, Mr. Bardoloi ?
The Honourable Shri Gopinath Bardoloi : I do not propose to move the
amendment, but as I said, I would like to speak on the article.
Mr. President : Yes, let me first get through the List. Amendment No. 216 ?
The Honourable Rev. J. J. M. Nichols Roy (Assam : General) : I do not
propose to move it, but I should like to speak.
Mr. President : Amendment No. 217 ?
The Honourable Shri Gopinath Bardoloi : That forms part of the same thing.
Mr. President : These are all the amendments. Mr. Bardoloi can speak now.
The Honourable Shri Gopinath Bardoloi : Mr. President, Sir, it is with considerable hesitation
that I am proposing to make certain observations in regard to article 253, of
the Drift. I must take this opportunity of conveying my thanks to the Chairman
and the Members of the Drafting Committee for having given be Premiers an
opportunity to discuss this and other questions, and also forgiving me an
individual interview for the purpose of explaining0 the special difficulties of
the Province of Assam. I must say, however, that while I am not satisfied with
what they have proposed, I am surely grateful for their courtesy, I also want
to mention in this connection, Sir, the courtesy which I received from the
honourable Member for Finance of the Government of India in respect of reply to
certain questions which I had raised in connection with these financial
arrangements, deserves grateful acknowledgement.
Now, I think I will not be doing my duty to myself, I will not be doing my duty
to my people, if I did not place before this House the real financial situation
of the province. To put it, in a word it is facing a financial crisis and
unless the Government of India by a short-term measure and the Constitution by
a long-term measure did something for pulling this Province up, the situation
as it appears to me is very dark in the future. I want to lay special stress on
this on account of the special difficulties of the Province, on account of its
being now a border Province of India, on account of it being a sort of a
guardian of the eastern gates of India.
Sir, talking about the history of the financial arrangements from which this
Province is suffering, I do not propose to take the time of the House; but I
would like to observe that even from 1919 this Province has been suffering from
grossly unfair treatment in the matter of financial arrangement. In 1919, although
the Province had not even anything which would go by the name of social
service-not even educational institutions enough for giving education to
students, when even 10 per cent. of the school-going students had not the
opportunity of going to primary schools-even then this Province was put under
the obligation of contributing Rs. 15 lakhs to the Centre under the Meston
Award. The result was. that the finances of the Province broke down and within
seven or eight years the whole thing had to be revised. I think in 1927 or 1928
, Sir Alexander Muddiman revised this scheme and exonerated Assam from the
payment of this contribution. Soon after that there was a proposal for the
revision of the financial arrangements but things went on like that till the
picture of the new Constitution under the Government of India Act of 1935
loomed large before the country. At that time, the Percy Committee thought that
the arrangement under which Assam was suffering must be removed and a fair deal
must be meted out to the Province. I do not propose to repeat the various stages
through which the final award given by Sir, Otto Niemeyer had to be accepted,
but all that the Otto Niemeyer award gave us was only Rs. 30 lakhs of
subvention. The result was that the situation which existed in the Province in
1919 continued; no social service whatsoever could be possible with the
finances available and no educational institution worth the name. I do not
think the Government of the time was very anxious for that either. It was a
planters’ raj. It cannot be the object of an alien Government to educate
the people; and when things could run so smoothly possibly without education
and other social service to pay, they thought that things would go on like
that.
This was the position of Assam before partition. The period of deficit
continued in the budget of the Province excepting perhaps in those two years of
war when some revenue was obtained on account of sales-tax on petrol etc., and
which brought in an amount Of about a crore or more each year. But all these
years the provincial budget had to run at a deficit although as I said just now
the social services were nil, and there were no educational institutions
where you could educate your children, and although in every sphere of
development we were held up. This was the pre-partition position. With
partition, is thrown a responsibility which I hope we have all been able to
realise. We are cut off from India, and though most of the linking work is
being done under the provision of Central grants, a lot of provincial
expenditure had also to be incurred in order that from the link up to the areas
within the Province some kind of communication is possible. But the most
important fact in regard to communications is this. All the four hundred miles
of border area verges on Pakistan, China or Burma and the border with Pakistan
runs through hills. The entire economy of this Hills area was disturbed and
these poor people in the border areas, particularly the hill people, have to
depend entirely upon supplies from the Province of Assam instead of Sylhet or
Mymensingh as it formerly used to do. The necessity therefore of linking these
areas with road communications has become very imperative and the Government
had to undertake the work. Some money was provided in the post-war grant for
that purpose; but I regret to say that on account of the curtailment of the
post-war budget, these activities had, most unfortunately, to be curtailed.
Then, on account of the creation of the border, and I must add, the
difficulties created by the communists, we had to increase the number of the
provincial police force to an extent which bears no proportion whatsoever to
the provincial revenue and expenditure. We had to increase our expenditure on
police by more than 120 per cent. Those frontier areas which were formerly
looked after by the Centre through the Assam Rifles which were entirely paid by
the Government of India, had also to have provincial police force. The result
was that about five districts had to be immediately posted with police forces,
on account of which, formerly, the Province did not have to pay anything.
Sir, I want specially to stress the mischief from which the Province is
suffering and is likely to suffer from the communist activities in that part of
the country. You know that an attempt is being made by this party to connect
themselves with people of the same profession in Burma and China. Already a
recrudescence of violent actions has taken place;-and if you go through the
newspapers you will see that the tactics they have adopted at Dibrugarh are the
same as they adopted in Calcutta, namely trying to occupy places of Government
by violent means like acid-throwing, bombing, hand-grenading, pistol-firing
etc. Now, the police might show you one way of putting down some of these
activities; but my point of view is-and I hope this view is shared by all of
us-that if we want to root out the evils of communism it can ever be done with
the police force alone. We have to take recourse to ameliorative measures to
raise the standard of the people and give them training in a -sort of
self-government which I suppose is being preached by these communists also.
That can be done only by having a very much more per capita expenditure
on the people than the Province is able to give today from its finances.
What I want to point out, Sir, is that these circumstances have made the
financial position of the Province very difficult. Its original revenue was Rs.
31/2 crores just before partition. It is almost the same
today. Today we have time over 5 crores with the Government of India grants.
But we cannot definitely manage with that income of Rs. 5 crores and over.
Already the budget is suffering a deficit of Rs. 70 lakhs; I understand Rs. 30
lakhs will come in as a supplementary demand in the coming session. So it is
absolutely necessary that there should be an increase in the provincial
revenues by Rs. 11/2 crores if the Province is to run in
the most normal level, according to the prepartition standard. In the
meanwhile, through the kindness of the Finance Ministry, we, as all other
Provinces, have got some development grant. It has been calculated’ that that
grant will throw a recurring expenditure of about Rs. 21/2
crores a year on the Provincial finance. In other words for the immediate
requirements of the Province we shall require Rs. 4 crores 11/2
crores immediately and 21/2 crores in the course of the
next four or five years.
The point therefore is, how to meet this demand. I have tried to examine the
benevolent provisions that have been put in the Draft, one of which we accepted
just now-article 251. According to the present distribution, on the basis of
which money is given to Assam, we will get only 3 per cent. of that revenue and
it does not come to more than 11/4 crores. There is of
course, the subvention of Rs. 30 lakhs. I do not know what will be proposed in
the future by the Financial Commission. We have also been given about Rs. 40
lakhs on jute duty. But when I am speaking about the deficit of the Province, I
want to say that all this income has been taken into consideration and the
deficit is there in spite of them. The fact, therefore, is how are you going to
get the money? I am prepared to believe that the Financial Commission would be
very charitable to the Province and will be able to find some more money, but
will that be enough to meet the requirements of the Province even to the
minimum ? That is the reason why I think, Sir, that a share of the excise
duties, particularly on products which are produced in the Province, might very
well be allocated to us and that was the reason why I had proposed two
amendments. The existing, provision is to the effect that “if only Parliament
passes the law, the duty will be distributable”. I wanted that that clause
should be substituted by a positive clause by which the duty would be
distributable as a matter of fact without any reservation as to legislation by
Parliament. In that connection I want to say that for the last twelve years the
same provision has been there in the constitution, but no Province has got any
benefit out of it because the Parliament in the meantime did not pass any law.
What, therefore, I want in order that the Province might get a little benefit
is that the excise duty on tea which is produced in Assam-and the total produce
of Assam is two-thirds that of India,-petroleum which I suppose is produced
only in Assam and kerosene, should be distributable immediately after the House
passes this provision.
The second point was that I wanted that of this duty 50 per cent. should be
allotted to the Province. I should like to point out in this connection that
the Government of India gets on petroleum and kerosene about Rs. 2 crores of
revenue from the produce of Assam. I want you also to consider that the mineral
Wealth of this Province is being depleted every day by the extraction of
petroleum and when it is exhausted the Province will have to suffer a big loss
of revenue, even on crude petrol, and ground rent. If at least a fair portion
of the duty is given to us it would not only be helpful but equitable. Then as
regards tea, two thirds of tea that is produced in India comes from Assam. The
Government of Assam gave a special concession to the tea planters in the matter
of land revenue and many other things for bringing this industry into
existence. Now that sphere has been taken by the Centre and the Province has
suffered a lot and should be entitled to obtain compensation on account of
that. I thought therefore that I was making only a fair proposition when I was
putting these facts before the House. When the Centre was getting Rs. 8 crores
I could see no reason why 50 per cent. of the duty could not be allotted to the
Province so that it might be saved from the difficulties which it is facing
today. Against that argument, it may possibly be advanced that the overriding
needs of the Centre should overweigh the considerations of a particular
Province. I am no less an appreciator of the overriding needs of the Centre;
mine is a frontier Province and I should realist it more than any other man.
But after all Assam is India also, it is a very important part of India today
on account of the frontier; and therefore if you wanted that it should function
as a province it should have a level of administration which should at least be
able to stand in such a manner as you could keep the people contended, you
could have a little development and be able to do away with those evil forces
which are out to destroy society today. I was therefore not claiming anything
extraordinary. I again plead that I am not asking for anything extraordinary,
but only for a fair deal.
Then, Sir, I would like you to consider the expenditure which provincial
revenues have been able to incur per head of the population. In that
connection, if I want to compare with a province like Bombay, I should not be
mistaken. I wish well to any other province, but it does us good to have that
comparison. The poor province of Orissa has been able to spend only Rs. 3 per
head of the population for their social service including Government
expenditure also. Assam is able now to spend only Rs. 5. But Bombay spends, I
think, Rs. 22 per head of the population and that does not include, I am sure,,
the food grains concessions that the Government of India make to keep up supply
to the deficit areas. If all that is taken into account, I am sure the
expenditure per head will come to Rs. 30 in the case of Bombay. I do not want
to cast any reflection on anybody. When passing the Objectives Resolution, we
had high hopes of the future of India. When passing the clauses on Fundamental
Rights, we thought that poverty, distress, disease and ignorance will be
dispelled from the face of India. Now, I want to ask : How are you going to do
it ? Well. I am personally not saying that my amendments are sacrosanct. All
that I plead to you is that unless you look at the whole thing from that
standpoint, India is not going to be the India of the Objectives Resolution or
according to the Fundamental Rights that we have passed. I further want to
point out to you that Bombay possibly imposes a sort of taxation for all
exports of textiles that go out of Bombay. On the other hand, look at Assam with
Rs. 5 per head. Its sources of revenues from petroleum and tea are depleted in
every way and it is not able to give the necessary social services that the
State ought to give to the people who are so backward and lowly; I want to put
it to you whether this not a case of :
To him that hath, more shall be given, and
From him that hath not, even the little that he hath shall be taken away.
I
believe that this state of things will not be allowed by this House to be
continued and that if they are not able to accept my amendment, then at least
they will look at the questions of provinces like Orissa and Assam with
sympathy for adequate grants.
Shri B. Das : Sir,
the heart-rending speech of the Premier of Assam revealed in what way the
finances of India are being allocated or are being thought of being allocated.
Central Excise should mainly belong to the provinces. The Sarker Committee report
in para. 18 remarks :
“During the war, all provinces except Bengal and Assam, had surplus Budgets.”
We
have heard from the Premier of Assam in what distressful condition Assam is at
present, and that distress has been enhanced by the advent of Communists, both
from the East and from the West-from Burma and from East Bengal : both foreign
governments. Therefore, Assam’s needs deserve very careful consideration by
this sovereign House. If the Government of India is careless, if it has no idea
of helping the Provincial Units or observing the fundamental duty of the State,
if the Finance Department of the Government of India is adamant and
bureaucratic then this House must compel the Government of India to function as
a democratic government. In para. 40, page 9, the Sarker Committee has
discussed the Central Excise duties and it has reached the conclusion that at
least 50 per cent. of the Central Excise duties collected by the Centre must go
to the provinces. My honourable Friend Mr. Bardoloi has said that he would like
Assam to get 75 per cent. of the Petroleum and Kerosene excise duties. I think
on the ground that he has advanced, he is justified in claiming that percentage
Of Central Excise duty.
I am very grateful to him for referring to Orissa. Talking of Orissa. we are
entitled to the share of the excise duty on tobacco. Government or India is at
present adamant. It does not accept N. R. Sarker’s report where it says on page
10:
“We accordingly, recommend that 50 per cent of the net proceeds of the excise
duty, in tobacco should not form part of the revenues of the Federation but
should be distributed to the provinces.”
Sir,
the Government of India enjoys a superior position. It does not think it has
any responsibility to explain its conduct, or its attitude towards financial
disbursement to this sovereign House. A moment ago, we heard Dr Ambedkar saying
that a Special Officer or a Special Committee is going to be appointed to
examine bow resources can be re-allocated to provinces. That came out
incidentally in the course of his reply. Why was it that the spokesman of the
Government of India on the floor of this House did not feel it his
responsibility to take this House into confidence ? I wish to criticise again
the conduct of the Finance Ministry of the Government of India, that it is not
observing democratic principles. Excise duties are produced by the sweat and
toil of the citizens of the provinces. If my honourable Friend Mr. Bardoloi
referred to Communists threatening Assam, I may say that the, Central Excise
duty ought to be used for fighting them, as the very method of collection of the
Central Excise duties in the Provinces is strengthening communist activities.
The excise duty which is being collected in every province, in the United
Provinces, in Madras, in Orissa, etc., is done by an undemocratic method and
this is seized by the communists in their propaganda. We all know what is
happening in the north Madras districts in Nalgonda and in Chittoor. One of the
items in the agitation of the Communists among the peasants is : “You grow your
tobacco and the Government of India comes and charges duty”. The Government of
India are so silly that they stick to this method of collection. They do not
collect this revenue through the officers of the provinces. They have not their
own staff for the collection of the excise duty from tobacco from the
villagers. Who are the Central Excise officers? They are all urban people.
Talking of my own province, most of them come from Calcutta. Speaking their
Calcutta language, they adopt a highbrow attitude towards the villagers in
Orissa. They do not know how to talk as brothers to brothers. They irritate the
poor peasants who have grown the tobacco from which the Government of India
collect so much excise duty. Sir, this House has had no opportunity to discuss
the proper method of taxation and allocation of the taxes. If we had such an
opportunity we would have advised the Government not to follow the British
methods which they have, inherited. The provincial officers know and are in
constant touch with the local people and they are alive to the needs of the public
and handle problems with human sympathy. Let them collect the tobacco duty.
Incidentally I may say that the Government of India in the Finance Department
must mend its manners.
Sir, I support on principle my Friend Mr. Bardoloi’s demand that 75 per cent or
a higher percentage of the duty on petroleum and kerosene should go to Assam in
view of its great need and lack of expanding resources. I support also
wholeheartedly the recommendations of the Sarker Committee that 50 per cent. of
the Central Excise duty should go to the provinces.
I also hope that the point which I have raised, namely that the Central Excise
duty should be collected by provincial agencies and not through the alien
agency of the Central Government who have very little sympathy for the
villagers who produce the article on which this duty is charged, be immediately
given effect to.
Next I come to article 253 (1) which says : “No duties on salt shall be levied
by the Union”. This is a sentimental provision. Already in another place during
the last session my Friend Mr. Thirumala Rao advocated that salt duty should be
reimposed. The removal of the salt duty has benefited nobody. it has made the
black-marketeers and the salt manufacturers raise the price of salt. When the salt
duty existed we’ used to buy salt at one anna per seer, today I think we have
to pay five or six annas per seer. So, the provision contained in article
253(1) is a mere sentimental provision. I do not say anything more about it.
As regards sub-clause (2), the draftsmen including Shri T. T. Krishnamachari
may take pride, saying that they have included such a provision in the
Constitution. But what is the Constitution worth if it does not give the the
benefit of its provisions to the masses ? Therefore, although I did not move
any amendment to this sub-clause, I may say now that my intention was to compel
the Government of India to bring legislation before Parliament within six
months from the date of the commencement of the Constitution over such redistribution.
The subclause says that by law so much of the excise duty shall be
distributed. But who will compel Parliament to pass such a law ? This Draft
Constitution is so worded that it does not compel the Government of India
Finance Department to do anything or to part with the monopolised sources of
revenue. We are slowly giving all the powers to the Central Government and
taking away the little freedom and the little power that the provinces now
possess. In this matter of the Central Excise duty which is to be collected by
the Union I why this pious language here, ‘such duties as are mentioned in the
Union List’? We have not yet settled the Union List. If it wants, the Finance
Department of the Government of India will direct the Drafting Committee to omit
from or include in the Provincial List such items as they want. That is why the
sub-clause says: ‘if Parliament by law provides .... in accordance with such
principles of distribution as may be formulated by such law.’ I think this goes
against our principles. This august House has every right to demand from the
spokesmen of the Government of India what will be the principles of such
law-the principles of distribution. We see everywhere a lukewarm sympathy. I
find that no Government of India spokesman is present here. Always the Draft is
accepted; that is bow we are carrying on. How does it benefit the masses ? It
is no-use our passing a Constitution which cannot be implemented automatically
and the Government of India is not compelled to let go its hold on the finances
of India. This is a point on which I am shouting too much. I do ask you, Sir,
with all respect, to examine whether the Draft articles on the financial
distribution are fair to the mosses and whether they automatically provide for
the Government of India Finance Department disbursing the resources which the
British Government financiers from 1924 have commandeered from the provinces. I
hope in due course you will direct the Drafting Committee to examine the
aspects which have been brought to your notice.
Mr. Tajamul Husain (Bihar:
Muslim): Mr. President, I had sent in an amendment that clause (1) of article
253 be omitted. I was not present in the House at the time of the consideration
of that article and therefore somebody else moved the amendment. Sir, I do not
think it is right to incorporate in the Constitution that no duty on salt shall
be levied by the Union. I think this is an important matter and should be left
to the Parliament to decide. Parliament can make any law it likes. It is the
duty of the Parliament to tax or not to tax and so far Parliament has been
doing it, i.e., levying tax on salt. Why prevent Parliament from making laws ?
After all, Parliament is the representative of the people and if at any time
the Parliament feels that this tax should be levied, it should be free to do
so. If this provision remains in the Constitution, Parliament will be helpless
and the people will be helpless. You are binding the people by this article. If
the representatives of the people feel that in the interests of India this tax
should be levied, they should be at liberty to do so. It should be left to the
discretion of the Parliament. Now, Sir, the question is, who will benefit by it
? If there is no duty on salt, none will benefit. If foreign salt is imported
into India, are we then to lose money and not tax the salt which is imported ?
Who will be the loser in that case ? It will be the people only. No doubt we
have pot to respect the wishes of Mahatma Gandhi. He was at one time of the opinion
that there should be no duty on salt, but the time has changed. In those days
we were a subject people and we used to do many things in order to turn out the
British from this country. The British are no longer here; we are now
completely independent and it is for us to increase our income without
detriment to the country at large. I hope that the honourable the Law Minister
will consider the position and accept the amendment that has been moved.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West
Bengal: Muslim): Mr. President, Sir, I wish to confine my remarks to the
deletion of clause (1) of article 253, to the effect that no duties on salt
shall be levied by the Union. The amendment of Mr. Mahavir Tyagi seeks to
delete it and I desire to support his amendment. I may inform the House-as they
will find from the printed blue book of amendments -that my honourable Friend, Sardar Hukam Singh, Mr. Tajamul Husain,
I and some others gave notice of this very amendment long before. We did not
move the amendment so that Mr. Mahavir Tyagi who has suffered in the last
noncooperation movement, especially in connection with salt, may have the
honour of moving it.
Sir, I shall discuss the amendment purely on a statistical basis. Speaking, of
pre-partition figures, the salt tax brought to the Central Government nine
crores of rupees per annum. That amounted, on a pre-partition basis, to a tax
of three annas per head per year, i.e. three pies per month per head,
which actually works out at one tenth of a pie per head per day. The amount per
head is so infinitesimal that if this tax is remitted, it is impracticable to
pass on this small exemption to the poor consumer, and the result has been that
the poor consumer for whose benefit this remission was intended, could not be
benefited. The result of this remission has been that some middlemen in the
salt trade got the entire benefit. It was practically a gift from the
Government to some big salt dealers and therefore the pious purpose for which
this salt tax was remitted has been entirely frustrated, and there is
practically no means of giving effect to this laudable object. I therefore
suggest that the tax should not be abolished by an article in the Constitution.
It should be left to the legislature to deal with this subject in the way best
suited for the benefit of the poor. I would suggest that this tax should be
imposed and the amount collected should be reserved for the benefit of the poor
who are the real object of Mahatma Gandhi’s solicitude. Sir, there is no point
in retaining clause (1) in the Constitution. We have violated the sacred
principles of Mahatma Gandhi so often in this Constitution that the deletion of
clause (1) should not be objectionable on that account. One of the principles
of Mahatma Gandhi was that there should be decentralisation, that power should
be taken away from the Centre and made over to the Provinces and States.
Instead of that, we find that so long as Mahatma Gandhi was alive, there was
some amount of sympathy for that view, but after his death, the idea of
decentralisation has been given up and excessive centralisation is our object
today. I think Mr. Mahavir Tyagi’s amendment should be accepted by tile House.
Shri Raj Bahadur (United
State of Matsya): Mr. President, Sir, I regret I do not find myself in
agreement with the amendment which has been moved by my honourable Friend, Mr.
Mahavir Tyagi. He has urged only three or four points in support of his
amendment, He says that we should not tie down the hands of the future
generations in this respect, and he goes on to say that we have been importing
huge quantities of salt from Egypt, Pakistan and other foreign countries to the
tune of one hundred thousand tons annually. The last thing he said was that the
deletion of the salt duty has resulted in a loss of rupees nine crores to the
revenues ‘of India. These are mainly his arguments.
I think, Sir, that on a closer scrutiny these arguments would be found to hold
no water. It is true that human memory is proverbially short. But I would still
remind my friend, that the glorious salt satyagraha under the leadership of the
Father of the Nation constitutes a glorious chapter in the history of our
nation, which can hardly be forgotten or ignored on the mere question of tying
down the hands of the future generations. On the other hand, we should embalm
the memory of this heroic struggle in our Constitution itself so that it may
serve as a source of inspiration for the coming generations. It is a
short-lived consideration to say that loss has resulted to the revenues of
India. Objection has also been taken by certain other friends that the
abolition of salt duty came as a free gift to the black marketeers in the
country. I say that black market does not prevail in the salt market alone; it prevails
elsewhere also. The, remedy is not to deny the principles, to deny the heroic
struggle by which we stood during the course of the struggle for Independence;
the remedy lies elsewhere. We should abolish the black market entirely not only
from the salt market but from other commodities also. It is obvious that after
food grains and cloth, salt constitutes the third most important commodity for
human consumption and is required by human beings to the greatest extent. As
such the effect of abolition or retention of salt duty would fall on the masses
in general. I would submit that I stand for the retention of this clause not on
purely sentimental grounds, and yet I say that I do not, in any way, intend to
minimise the importance of sentimental grounds. National sentiments, I think,
every Member of this House must covet and for them every member of the nation
must lay down his life. This provision should therefore, be enshrined in the
Constitution in memory of the glorious salt satyagraha under the leadership of
the Father of the Nation. How can we forget the famous Dandi march ? If not for
anything else let it remain at least as a tribute of the nation, a homage of
the country, to the memory of that heroic struggle and to the memory of the
Father of the Nation. We must preserve something in our Constitution which may
reflect the tone and temper of our struggle, which may serve as a proud
reminder of the glorious struggle against foreign domination. As I said earlier
it is not a question, merely of national sentiments alone. I oppose it on
ground of national economy also. As I said, if in the past the abolition of
salt duty constituted a gift to-the black marketeer, then that black market may
properly and effectively dealt with elsewhere. But somehow this question brings
to the forefront of the present discussion another problem. The problem of how
our salt industry was suppressed by the British and what we should do to revive
it. Coming, as I do, from one of the Indian States which have suffered heavily
on account of the suppression of this industry, I have got a special feeling in
this respect. In my own province. Rajasthan and in my own state, the Bharatpur
State, several lakh mounds of salt were manufactured annually by way of a
well-developed cottage industry, but in the year 1879 the British suppressed
that industry for their own purposes and for their own ends. The result was
that the population of that State dwindled and the people migrated to other
places. It resulted in the loss of employment to hundreds and thousands of
people. Have we not to rehabilitate that industry once again ? While we may
lose by the abolition of salt duty a few crores of rupees as revenue to the
Union, we shall be providing employment to hundreds and thousands of people if
we try to establish the industry once again. At the same time we shall become
self-sufficient so far as the salt supply for our country is concerned. It is a
shame that even at the present day We have got to important as much as one lakh
of tons of salt from other countries. If we take certain steps so that our
industry is revived and if it flourishes, we can eliminate these imports of
salt entirely. Meanwhile we can impose added customs tariff for such imports.
We can devise means and ways by which the industry may thrive once again and in
that case what little we may lose by way of revenue, we shall gain in other
ways.
The third point which also is as material as the previous ones is the
psychological factor which the deletion of this clause involves. Supposing we
delete this clause. People rightly or wrongly already accuse some of us that
although we profess loudly from the house tops the principles by which Mahatma
Gandhi stood, the principles which he preached to the nation, not only preached
but practised himself, we have abjured all those principles. In case we delete
this ,clause from the article the charge will come : It is hardly two years
that Mahatma Gandhi is not amidst us and we have denied ourselves even the
remembrane of his great deeds. We have refused the retention of a clause in our
Constitution, which could have made immortal the cause for which he once
sacrificed so much and on the basis of which he aroused millions of our
countrymen. I would submit therefore that the psychological effect on the
masses would be very bitter in case we remove the clause and we would come in
for criticism at every doorstep and at every street corner. It is therefore
proper that at this state of our nation’s existence, we must see that we do not
do anything which may result in bitterness amongst the masses. Salt is a thing
which comes in for daily use by everybody, particularly the Kisans of our
country require salt for their cattle and for their own selves. It may be true
that the duty on salt may be very little per capita but the
psychological effect would be great and as such it is necessary that this
clause must be retained.
While giving my opinion for the retention of this clause, I would submit that
it requires certain amendments. We cannot use the word “salt” alone here,
because from Calcium Chloride to Platinum. Chloride there are a thousand and
one salts and it would be better if the word “common salt” is used. Similarly
it would have been better if we use the words “produced in India” after the
word “salt”. If these amendments are incorporated the clause would have nothing
to be desired I think. With these remarks, I submit Sir, that this clause must
be retained in our Constitution.
The Honourable Rev. J. J. M. Nichols Roy : Mr. President, though I have not moved the amendment
which stood in my name, yet the feeling is that there must be certain
adjustments regarding the excise duty between the Union and the Provinces or
the States, so that the States might have enough money to carry on their own
administration. I realize that there is an opinion that the excise duty belongs
to the Centre and must not be considered as a duty which should be as a vested
interest to a province or a State. But at the same time, Sir, we must also
realize that the States which produce the commodities from which these duties
are realized feel that they have a right simply because these commodities are
produced from their areas. For example, petroleum is produced in Assam as the
Honourable the Premier of Assam has already stated, and the Centre realizes
about two crores, of rupees from that petroleum and kerosene as the Central
Revenue. Moreover, Sir, this House and the country know that two-thirds of tea
produced in India is produced in Assam and the Central Government gets excise
duty plus export duty on tea, about which I shall have occasion to speak
afterwards, of about more than 6 crores of rupees. We in Assam do not get
anything from that. We surely feel that we have a right to got something, at
least some percentage and our claim is not less than 50 percent. of the amount
of duty that has been realised from the commodities produced in Assam. That
feeling is there, it has been there for many years from the very beginning when
petroleum was produced in Assam. Now, Sit, we have got our own Government and
we realise that it is no use fighting against the ideas of the Central
Government which is also sympathetic to all the States and especially to our
backward Frontier Province of Assam. We expect that some kind of adjustment
will be made and aid given to the States so that the States may be able to run
their own administration.
The reason why we are so much troubled on this question is this. As the
Honourable the Premier of Assam has stated, we are in a very bad financial
condition. We have a revenue of three and a half crores. We get from the
Central Government one crore and twenty lakhs by way of Income-tax. We also get
from the Central Government as share of jute duty about forty lakhs and a
subvention of thirty lakhs. In spite of all that we are now in deficit and the
deficit runs to about one crore. This will be more when our institutions which
we have just started will be carried on and maintained by the provincial
Government. We have calculated that that deficit would come to about two and a
half crores, may be about three crores. This is the position in a province
which is a frontier province and not well developed. We need, as the Honourable
the Premier of Assam has stated, four crores just now in order to balance. our
budget and also to carry on those institutions which we have started. We hope
that immediatly a Finance Commission will be set up and that the President will
give us at least four crores. If four crores are given, we shall be getting
about what we demand, that is fifty per cent. of the excise and export duties.
For this reason, we believe that immediately the Finance Commission must be set
up which must give relief to the provinces of Assam, Orissa and other provinces
which are running in a deficit.
Sir, I want to speak on one point more, that is, clause (1) of article 253. I,
myself have always considered that the fight against the old regime was
strengthened by this great weapon of abolishing the salt duty, and stirring up
the masses of India against the then ruling Government. That seemed to me to be
the cause of the abolition of the salt duty and the sentiment in India against
the salt duty. But, I see no reason why we should bind the future generation by
putting it in the Constitution at all that there shall be no salt duty realised
in the Union of India. The word “Duties” in this clause will include also
import duty. Parliament can make law if they want regarding this. But, once we
put it in the, Constitution it becomes almost a permanent fixture. Therefore, I
should say that we should not bind the power of Parliament to make laws
regarding this. Parliament may easily help a place like Rajasthan as my
honourable Friend Mr. Raj Bahadur has stated and encourage the people in that
State and give them some financial help in order to bring up the salt industry,
and I wish that Parliament would do something of the kind. Therefore, I
consider that it is unwise for this House to put this in the Constitution
itself. It may be the sentiment of many people on account of our great respect
and admiration for Mahatma Gandhiji; but the cause that produced the sentiment
that stirred us at that time against the old regime is now different
altogether. Now, we must have a sentiment for helping the poor to get as much
money as possible in order to raise the condition of the poor people. We should
not tie up the hands of the Government and tie up the hands of Parliament to
impose a duty on this commodity if it is necessary to do so. I believe members
of Parliament will be able to decide whether to impose a tax or not impose a
tax according to the conditions that exist at the time. Therefore, Sir, I would
like, to leave out altogether clause (1) of article 253.
Finally, I would also request that this House will realise the position of the
deficit States and render them help as far as possible and strengthen the hands
of Government also to help these deficit States like Assam, Orissa, and others.
With these words, I resume my seat.
Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab: Sikh) : Mr. President, Sir, I
have come here to support the amendment moved by my honourable Friend Mr.
Tyagi. I congratulate him on moving this amendment because I feel that such a
strong congressman, a staunch supporter and believer, in Mahatma Gandhi should
take a realistic and practical view of the whole thing. Even after hearing, my
honourable Friend Mr. Raj Bahadur I have not been convinced of the utility of
this clause and I do not find any reason except sentimental ground, for keeping
this clause. I had myself sent in this amendment and if I am permitted, I might
say that this amendment to amendment is only a repetition of the old amendment
itself. As it has been moved now, I heartily support it.
As I was
saying, I do not find any grounds other than sentimental ones on which this
clause can be supported by anybody. It has been said that it would be a fitting
memory to our revered Mahatma Gandhi if we were too retain this clause. My
submission is that in other places and other respects, we have disregarded many
desires of our great leader. If we really want a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi we
have other ample opportunities and I would remind my honourable Friends that
there are amendments proposed to article (1) where some honourable Member of this
House wants to propose that the great name should be introduced in our
Constitution itself. I agree that that would be a proper place for a fitting
memorial.
So far as I
can make out, I think it would not have looked nice to keep, a provision here
in the Constitution itself binding an future Parliaments not to levy a
particular tax. In my humble opinion it is not justified on any grounds
whatsoever. This has been urged here by me of my Friends that it would have a
psychological effect. I fail to understand what that effect would be. It is
already remitted, we are not levying that; but I do not see any psychological
effect. Rather we have suffered a heavy loss in our revenues and I do not feet
any justification for such a loss under the present circumstances when our
finances are so scanty and we are rather in an awkward position at this moment.
Besides this heavy loss, I do not find any appreciable relief to the poor which
was our real intention. My Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad has referred to this aspect
of the question that 9 crores of rupees distributed over our population-though
I do not agree that he worked out the calculation rightly that means 4 annas
per individual per month, which will come to 2 pies per man per day. This
reduction has not produced any psychological effect but it has lost us a great
amount of revenue; and then the prices have even gone higher and so the effect
has been rather reverse of what we desired. Then again there is a third thing
that I wish to impress i.e., this refugee problem is causing a very
great headache to our Government and so far it has baffled any solution. In the
last meeting that was convened where the officials And non-officials all
assembled, it was discussed that the refugees could be given bonds for the present
and payments could be made by instalments or even if they could be paid
interest on those bonds they would be satisfied. I now find a solution of the
whole refugee problem in this. If we were to levy this duty and to earmark this
for rehabilitation purposed we could liquidate the bonds given to our refugee
brethren and then there would be no additional burden on the State revenue as
well. So in my estimate there is no justification on any ground in retaining
this clause and I support wholeheartedly the amendment moved by my honourable
Friend Mr. Tyagi.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Mr.
President, Sir, that is another very important clause in the Draft
Constitution. The first part deals with salt duty. My Friend Mr. Tyagi has
moved an amendment for its deletion. I humbly beg to oppose his amendment. I do
not appreciate why this clause should have been kept in the Draft and should
now be sought to be deleted. Was it when Mahatma Gandhi was alive that this
clause was put in and after him we want to remove it? In fact I notice that the
Drafting, Committee did not move the amendment, but got it moved by Mr. Tyagi,
It has been said by Mr. Tyagi and other friends that the removal of the clause
does not mean that we want to impose duty on salt, and what we want to see is
only that we should not bind the future Parliament. They say it is only
sentimental. I personally feel even sentiment has a great value in life. Salt
has a history in our freedom movement and I think we shall not be doing
anything harmful if we keep this clause as a memento to the great part which
salt played in our freedom movement in the Constitution. I am therefore deadly
opposed to the removal of this clause about salt. There is no sense, in saying
that because it is there that all future Parliaments will be bound by it. If
there is an occasion when it is necessary to do it, then they can change the
Constitution also; but why do you want to first remove it from here and then
say in Parliament “we want revenue and so we must impose salt duty.” It is not
only on sentimental reasons that I object to its removal, in fact the reasons
are mainly economic. It is even the poorest of the poor who have to pay duty on
salt and therefore Mahatma Gandhi wanted that the poor man’s salt must not be
taxed. That was the principle on which that great movement of salt satyagraha
was launched. I think by removing this clause we are denying all the arguments
which we advanced at that time, for which we suffered and fought. I am
therefore deadly opposed to the removal of this clause from this article.
Removal of the clause would be really an outrage on the sentiments of the
people and on the history of our freedom movement.
Coming to the second part, about excise duties, I think a very strong case has
been made out by our Friends Mr. Bardoloi and Rev. Nichols Roy. They have shown
that the present distribution of finances is wholly lop-sided. In fact I was
surprised to learn that Assam contributes about 6 crores in excise on tea and 4
crores in export duty. Similarly we have 2 crores on excise on petroleum so
that from these two products only Centre gets about 12 crores and yet we pay
only thirty lakhs subsidy to Assam. I think a frontier province whose needs
should be paramount should not be so badly treated. There must be some
amendment of the present system of distribution of finances and at least Assam
must get some share of the huge revenue that we get from Assam products. He has
demanded 11/2 crores for meeting his normal budget
deficit and 21/2 crores for development purposes. I
endorse his demands and I think we must be able to help Assam financially so
that it may become fully competent to be our Eastern Frontier.
Then I want to raise another question of principle in this connection. This
question is distribution of excise duty not only for Assam but to other
provinces also. United Provinces contributed about 6 crores on sugar excise.
There should be some system by which the provinces should get a share out of
their contributions. I realise that the principle of allotment out of these
duties is not very fair.
The Next clause deals with jute export duty. We have to pay several crores as
share to some provinces. I therefore think that all these clauses must be
reconsidered. There must be some rational method of allocation of finances of
the country. I suggest that all the collections from income-tax or excise etc.
must be pooled and whatever the Centre requires must be set apart, but out of
the remainder there must be an equitable distribution based on many things, on
the needs of the provinces, secondly, on their backwardness, thirdly, on
population, fourthly, on sources of origin of the revenue and all these facts
must be taken into consideration and an equitable distribution made on an
examination of these things.
Only then can our provinces be run properly. At present the financial award of
Sir Otto Niemeyer has been condemned by everybody, and yet it has continued and
will continue. Of course there will be the report of the proposed Finance Commission
and then a revision of the present arrangement, will take place but for two or
three years just now, which are most crucial in the history of the nation, we
shall have to continue under the same arrangement. I feel this question is a
most urgent one and must not be delayed. The Centre also must be strong,
financially. We have listened to the remarks of Pandit Kunzru about the burdens
that the Centre has to bear. All these things have to be considered and so from
the very commencement of the new Constitution, we should have, a proper system.
To say that when the Commission reports, we shall revise the arrangement, will
not do. This part of the Constitution should be reconsidered and we must have a
proper system of distribution of finances between the Centre and the provinces.
Shri T. T. Krishnamchari : The question be put.
Shri R. K. Sidhva : There has pot been any discussion on the amendment
moved by Mr. Tyagi.
Mr. President : There has been discussion on that amendment. About four or
five Members have spoken on that clause.
The question is :
“That the question be now put.”
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President : Dr. Ambedkar, do you wish to say anything?
The Honoumble Dr. B. R. Ambedkar :
Sir, I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by Mr. Tyagi, and I think it
is necessary that I should offer some explanation on behalf of the Drafting
Committee as to why it has proposed to accept this amendment.
Before I begin with the main points, which justify the acceptance of the
amendment, I should like to meet the point of criticism which has been levelled
against the Drafting Committee by my Friend Professor Saksena.
Professor Saksena said that it was not proper for the Drafting Committee to
have originally put clause (1) in the article, and now be ready to accept the
amendment moved by Mr. Tyagi. I should like to state that clause (1), which the
Drafting Committee put, does not have its origin in the deliberations of the
Drafting Committee itself. That clause was suggested, if I remember correctly,
in the report of the Union Powers Committee where a decision was taken that
there should be no imposition of any salt duty. As the Drafting Committee was
bound by the directions and the principles contained in the Report of the Union
Powers Committee, they had no option except to incorporate that suggestion in
the article which deals with this matter. Therefore, there is really no
question of vacillation, so to say, on the part of the Drafting Committee.
I now come to the practical difficulties that are likely to arise if that
clause was retained. It will be recalled that in List I, we have two entries,
entry 86 which permits the levy of excise by the Central Government, we have
also entry 85 which permits the levy of a duty of customs. Now, if sub-clause
(1) of article 253 remained as part of the Constitution, it is obvious that the
Central Government would not be entitled to employ either entry 86 or entry 85
for the, purpose of levying an excise or custom on salt. That is quite clear,
because clause (1) takes away legislative power with respect to salt duty which
was other wise levied by entry 86, or entry 85. Now, it was represented that
while the non-employment of the powers given under entry 86 to levy excise may
not cause much difficulty to the country, the embargo, if I may say so, on the
utilisation of the power, given under entry 85 to levy a customs duty may cause
a great deal of difficulty, because that would permit the importation of
foreign to be brought into India without the Government of India being in a
position to apply any kind of legislative remedy to stop such influx of salt
which may practically destroy the Indian salt industry. It was, therefore, felt
that the better thing would be to remove the embargo and to leave the matter to
the future Parliament, to act in accordance with circumstances that might arise
at any particular moment. That is the reason why the Drafting Committee is
prepared to accept the amendment of my Friend Mr. Tyagi.
Shri R. K. Sidhva : May I know why the item of prohibition was entered in
the directive policy? If clause (1) of this article is to be deleted, may I
know why the item regarding prohibition was inserted in tie Directive
Principles of the Government, and may I also know why the wearing of Kirpans
was also put in the Fundamental Rights ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Oh, Kirpans stand on quite a different
footing.
Mr. President :
Before I put the amendments to vote, I desire to say a few words about the
amendment moved by Shri Mahavir Tyagi. I was considerably surprised by the
attitude which has been adopted by the Drafting Committee in regard to this
amendment. It was not without reason that salt was selected by Mahatma Gandhi
as the one tax out of so many taxes which the poor people of this country paid,
for disobedience, when he started this movement of disobedience. It was because
he felt that even the poorest beggar, when he took his morsel of food, perhaps
once in a day, he had to pay a share of this tax, that he selected this
particular tax, and it was for this reason that when he made his appeal it
caught everybody throughout the country. There were people then who felt that
this civil disobedience would not be a success because he had selected a tax
which after all, was such a small tax, and which had such small incidence. But
we saw the result. Within three weeks, from one end of the country to the other
there was hardly a village, there was hardly a place where the law was not
disobeyed.
I say that even today if you are, going to reimpose this tax you will leave the
same kind of movement which convulsed the whole country from one, end to the
other. I would therefore suggest to the House to consider carefully whether it
should not have this clause in the Constitution as a memento of that glorious
struggle which we had. My advice- and deliberate advice-to this House is to
reject the amendment of Mr. Mahavir Tyagi. But that is left to the Members of
the House.
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar: General): I formally move that the
consideration of this article should be held over.
Mr. President : I think I had better put it to the House to vote.
Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Sir, if you will kindly permit my putting a question
Honorable Members : (No questions) do you think the deletion of this clause (1)
will mean that the salt tax will be levied ?
Mr. President : It opens the door for it, and in our present financial
difficulties I am not sure that it would be taken advantage of.
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras : General): It refers not only to
the excise duties on salt but also duties on salt coming from abroad. That is
why we wanted the deletion of this clause. Otherwise the will mean the
Government of India cannot impose any duties...
Several Honourable Members : No speeches now.
Mr. President : Let, there be no speeches. If the Members so desire, I may
allow the article, to be held over for further consideration.
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : The article may be held over.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The article may be held over.
Shri Mahavir Tyagi : The article may be held over.
Mr. President : This article will stand over. The House stands adjourned
till 3 P.M. on Monday.
The Assembly then adjourned till Three of the Clock on Monday, the 8th August
1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*[Translation of Hindustani speech]*
Related Documents:-
1) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 3
2) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 10
3) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 13
4) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 22
1) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 3
2) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 10
3) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 13
4) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 22
5) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 37
6) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List
7) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 67
8) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 67 (Contd)
9) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 102
10) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 131
11) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 135-A
12) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 149
13) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Government of India (Amendment) Bill
14) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List 2
15) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Report Of Advisory Committee On Minorities
16) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 196
17) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 205
18) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Draft Constitution (Contd.) Article 289 - (Contd.)
19) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 148-A
20) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 172
6) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List
7) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 67
8) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 67 (Contd)
9) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 102
10) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 131
11) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 135-A
12) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 149
13) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Government of India (Amendment) Bill
14) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List 2
15) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Report Of Advisory Committee On Minorities
16) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 196
17) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 205
18) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Draft Constitution (Contd.) Article 289 - (Contd.)
19) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 148-A
20) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 172
No comments:
Post a Comment