Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:20:30.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of Government Finance in British India: Taxation, Borrowing and the Allocation of Resources in the Inter-war Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Neil Charlesworth
Neil Charlesworth
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It isan axiom of India's economic history that government financial resources during the last half-century of the British period were inadequate. ‘The poverty of India was matched by the poverty of its government’ writes Dharma Kumar in The Cambridge Economic History and she estimates that ‘except during the two wars of the twentieth century, the tax revenues amounted to a mere 5 to 7 per cent of the national income'. Raymond Goldsmith's assessment is of an even lower proportion realized by taxation and he further believes that the scanty share of government expenditure in national product declined after the first world war. In most of the historiography, this situation is seen as a notable shortcoming created by imperial rule, the inevitable product of the passivity of the ‘night-watchman state’. Reviewing financial policy in 1939, P. J. Thomas described its predominant characteristic as ‘conservatism’, marked by ‘extreme reluctance to venture on new experiments in raising revenue’, ‘the low burden of public debt’ and ‘inadequate expenditure on social services’.3 These features could have played an important role in constricting India's economic and social development, particularly in the inter-war period of the twentieth century. Financial weaknesses then may have undermined the 'new industrial policy' of the post-first world war era4 and in the 1930s superficially present a crucial contrast with Asia's other major industrializing power, Japan, where government appeared to stimulate the economy impressively by massive borrowing and expenditure.5

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , July 1985 , pp. 521 - 548
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kumar, Dharma, ‘The Fiscal System’, ch. 12 of Kumar, Dharma (ed.), The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol. 2 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 905.Google Scholar

2 Goldsmith, Raymond W., The Financial Development of India, 1860–1977 (New Haven and London, 1983), p. 111.Google Scholar

3 Thomas, P. J., The Growth of Federal Finance in India (London, 1939), pp. 429–35.Google Scholar

4 On the history and problems of this, see Dewey, Clive, ‘The Government of India's “New Industrial Policy”, 1900–1925: Formation and Failure’, Chaudhuri, K. N. and Dewey, C. J. (eds), Economy and Society. Essays in Indian Economic and Social History (New Delhi, 1979), pp. 215–57Google Scholar; Lamb, Helen B., ‘The State and Economic Development in India’, Kuznets, S., Moore, W. E. and Spengler, J. J. (eds), Economic Growth: Brazil, India, Japan (Durham, N.C., 1955), pp. 464–95.Google Scholar

5 Allen, G. C., A Short Economic History of Modern Japan (London, Revised edn, 1972), ch. 9.Google Scholar

6 Thomas, P. J., The Growth of Federal Finance in India, p. 121.Google Scholar

7 For details, see the Statistical Abstracts of British India, available annually in the Parliamentary Papers. All other statistical material, unless specifically acknowledged, comes from these sources.

8 For discussion and statistical demonstration of this for Bombay Presidency, see McAlpin, Michelle B., Subject to Famine. Food Crises and Economic Change in Western India. 1860–1920 (Princeton, 1983), pp. 200–2.Google Scholar

9 Report of the Indian Taxation Enquiry Committee, 1924–25 (Calcutta, 1926), vol. 1, para. 92.Google Scholar

10 I(ndia) O(ffice) R(ecords), Public and Judicial Dept., vol. 1957 of 1928, no. 984, Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill, 1919, para. 11.

11 For these and other provincial discussions, see IOR, Government of India Confidential Land Revenue Progs., vol. 77A, March 1930.Google Scholar

12 Loc. cit. no. 2.

13 There is now a massive literature on Bardoli. For entree to it, see my dispute with David Hardiman over the causes in Journal of Peasant Studies, 7, 3 (04 1980); 8, 3 (04 1981); 9: 4 (07 1982).Google Scholar

14 See Broomfield, R. S. and Maxwell, R. M., Report of the Special Enquiry into the Second Revision Settlement of the Bardoli and Chorasi Talukas (Bombay, 1929).Google Scholar

15 IOR, Government of India Confidential Land Revenue Progs., vol. 77A, April 1930, no. 22.Google Scholar

16 IOR, MSS Eur. D 601, Sir Leslie Wilson to Sir John Simon, May 1928, App. C, Memo by G. W. Hatch, 26 April 1928, para. 6.Google Scholar

17 Ibid., para. 2.

18 IOR, Government of India Confidential Land Revenue Progs., vol. 77A, March 1930, no. 46.Google Scholar

19 Guha, Amalendu, ‘A Big Push without a Take-Off: A Case Study of Assam, 1871–1901. A Reply to Comment’, The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 11, 4 (12 1974), p. 475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Report of the Indian Fiscal Commission, 1921–22 (Simla, 1922), para. 25.Google Scholar

21 For his discussion of GNP trends, see Goldsmith, , The Financial Development of India, pp. 67–70.Google Scholar

22 Joshi, T. M., Bombay Finance 1921–1946 (Poona, 1947), p. 81.Google Scholar

23 For examples, see Government of India Land Revenue Progs., vol. 11862, A. March 1930, November 1930.Google Scholar

24 Kahan, Arcadius, ‘Government Policies and the Industrialisation of Russia’, Journal of Economic History, 27, 4 (12 1967), pp. 460–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Since the publication of Kahan's important article, however, the discussion has developed considerably. For a useful overview, see Trebilcock, Clive, The Industrialization of the Continental Powers 1780–1914 (London, 1981), pp. 231–56.Google Scholar

25 The figures given are for taxes. They do not include special items of revenue, such as the large indemnity secured from the Chinese after the war of 1894–95.

26 For a discussion of the process, see Oshima, H. T., ‘Meiji Fiscal Policy and Agricultural Progress’, ch. 8 of Lockwood, W. W. (ed.), The State and Economic Enterprise in Japan (Princeton, 1965).Google Scholar

27 British Parliamentary Papers, 1926, Cmd. 2687, Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Currency and Finance, para. 209.

28 IOR, Financial Dept. Collection no. 323, no. 28, no. 4572 of 1926.

29 Tomlinson, B. R., The Political Economy of the Raj 1914–1947. The Economics of Decolonization in India (London, 1979), p. 91.Google Scholar

30 Kumar, Dharma, ‘The Fiscal System’, p. 942.Google Scholar

31 Goldsmith, , The Financial Development of India, p. 114.Google Scholar

32 Ohkawa, K. and Shinohara, M. (eds), Patterns of Japanese Economic Development. A Quantitative Appraisal (New Haven and London, 1979), Table A46.Google Scholar

33 Computed from Ibid., Table A7.

34 Computed from Goldsmith, The Financial Development of India, Table 2–1.

35 SirSykes, Frederick, From Many Angles. An Autobiography (London, 1942), p. 354.Google Scholar

36 Overy, R. J., The Nazi Economic Recovery 1932–1938 (London, 1982), p. 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 IOR, Financial Dept. Collection no. 323, no. 31, Minute by V. Dawson, India Office, 2 July 1923, para. 7.Google Scholar

38 On the Montagu–Chelmsford decisions, see Loc. cit., no. 10.

39 Loc. cit., no. 10, no. 6782 of 1920, Report of the Financial Relations Committee, para. 5.

40 For further details, see Loc. cit., no. 14, no. 6267 of 1920.

41 Wheare, K. C., Federal Government (4th edn, Oxford, 1963), p. 109.Google Scholar

42 IOR, Financial Dept. Collection no. 323, no. 15, no. 12406 of 1920.

43 Loc. cit., no. 10, no. 11813 of 1919, Government of India Memorandum, 17 September 1919, para. 5.

44 IOR, Papers of Lord Meston, vol. 30, Note by Meston, 25 March 1919, para. 3.Google Scholar

45 IOR, Financial Dept. Collection no. 323, no. 10, no. 5456 of 1919, Minute by Meston, 31 August 1919.

46 Loc. cit., no. 15, no. 8902 of 1920, Minute by H. F. Howard, 15 July 1920, para. 2.

47 Loc. cit., no. 10, no. 11813 of 1919, Government of India Memorandum, 17 September 1919, para. 8.

48 Loc. cit., no. 15, no. 9185 of 1920, Government of India Finance Dept. to Secretary of State, 24 June 1920, para. 7.Google Scholar

49 IOR, Bengal Financial Dept. Progs., vol. 11158, April 1922, A no. 66, no. 1972 F, Secretary to Bengal Government to Secretary to Government of India.Google Scholar

50 IOR, Financial Dept. Collection no. 323, no. 20, no. 4903 of 1922.

51 Loc. cit., no. 20, no. 10881 of 1922.

52 Loc. cit., no. 13, no. 8627 of 1920.

53 IOR, Papers of Lord Birkenhead, vol. 14, Wilson to Birkenhead, 27 November 1924.Google Scholar

54 IOR. Financial Dept. Collection no. 323, no. 20, no. 4903 of 1920, Official Comparison of 1922/23 Budget figures with the Meston Committee figures.

55 Loc. cit., no. 10, no. 6782 of 1920, Legislative Council speech by B. N. Sharma, 23 February 1920.Google Scholar

56 IOR, Bengal Financial Dept. Progs., vol. 11158, April 1922, A no. 66, no. 1972 F, Secretary to Bengal Government to Secretary to Government of India.Google Scholar

57 IOR, Birkenhead Papers, vol. 14, Wilson to Birkenhead, 19 December 1924.Google Scholar

58 IOR, Financial Dept. Collection no. 323, no. 15, no. 11289 of 1921.

59 Loc. cit., no. 22.

60 Loc. cit., no. 26.

61 Loc. cit., no. 20, no. 4903 of 1922.

62 British Parliamentary Papers, 1932, Cmd. 4069, Report of the Federal Finance Committee, 28 March 1932, para. 12.

63 Kumar, Dharma, ‘The Fiscal System’, p. 913.Google Scholar

64 Joshi, , Bombay Finance, p. 37.Google Scholar

65 Kumar, Dharma, ‘The Fiscal System’, p. 914.Google Scholar

66 IOR, Financial Dept. Collection no. 323, no. 26, Notes on the Financial Situation, 2 April 1929, para. 2.Google Scholar

67 Loc. cit., no. 2, no. 434 of 1911.

68 Loc. cit., no. 33, no. 796 of 1927, Secretary of State to Viceroy, 30 June 1921, para. 10.

69 Loc. cit., no. 29, no. 2938 of 1936, Fund Report for 1934/35.

70 Loc. cit., no. 30, no. 1871 of 1933, Note by D. G. Harris, 19 November 1931, para. 1.

71 Ibid., para. 4.

72 Loc. cit., no. 37, no. 6605 of 1935, Memorandum by P. J. Grigg, para. 30.

73 Ibid., para. 30.

74 Loc. cit., no. 37, no. 6605 of 1935, Minute by Sir A. Carter, 23 November 1935.

75 Loc. cit., no. 37, no. 1192 of 1939, Government of India Finance Dept. to India Office, 31 March 1939, para. 2.Google Scholar

76 Loc. cit. no. 29.

77 Loc. cit. no. 29, Fund Report for 1925/26, para. 10.

78 Loc. cit. no. 29, Fund Reports for 1925/26 and 1934/35.

79 Loc. cit. no. 29, no. 4714 of 1931, Fund Report for 1929/30.

80 Loc. cit. no. 29, no. 4300 of 1935, Note by S. Turner, 1 August 1935.Google Scholar

81 Loc. cit. no. 37, no. 2246 of 1936, Government of India Finance Dept. to India Office, 21 April 1936.Google Scholar

82 Loc. cit., no. 29, Fund Reports.

83 Loc. cit., no. 29, no. 3059 of 1934, Report of Legislative Assembly Debates, 13 April 1934. P. 3080.

84 Loc. cit., no. 37, no. 6605 of 1935, Memorandum by P. J. Grigg, para. 25.

85 Mathias, Peter, ‘Taxation and Industrialization in Britain, 1700–1870’, The Transformation of England. Essays in the Economic and Social History of England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1979), pp. 116–30.Google Scholar

86 For Barsov's figures, see Ellman, Michael, ‘Did the Agricultural Surplus Provide the Resources for the Increase in Investment in the USSR during the First Five Year Plan?’, The Economic Journal, no. 85 (12 1975), pp. 844–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

87 Barsov's statistics are used as ammunition in a major debate over whether accumulation took place at the expense predominantly of the peasantry or the industrial working class. Whilst this debate makes an amusing hoop to make students of Russian economic history jump through, it has an air of unreality for outsiders unused to the sheer violence of the Russian scene. By any objective standards, the whole Russian people paid on a massive scale for the investment of the First Five Year Plan.

88 Report of the Indian Fiscal Commission, 1921–22, para. 76.

89 Rothermund, Dietmar, ‘The Great Depression and British Financial Policy in India, 1929–34’, The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 18, 1 (01–03 1981), pp. 16–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90 Peden, G. C., ‘The “Treasury View” on Public Works and Employment in the Interwar Period’, Economic History Review, 37, 2 (05 1984), pp. 167–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91 IOR, Papers of Edwin Montagu, vol. 24, Lloyd to Montagu, 18 March 1919.Google Scholar

92 IOR, Financial Dept. Collection no. 323, no. 10, no. 11813 of 1019, Government of India Memorandum, 17 September 1919, para. 5.

93 And it continued to hold sway, many would argue, even after Independence.

94 Darwin, John, ‘Imperialism in Decline? Tendencies in British Imperial Policy Between the Wars’, Historical Journal, 23 (1980), pp. 657–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar