“That it is wise expenditure but not ill-judged economy that will benefit India is a truism which applies to every country in the world as well as to India. But can the Government of India convince the public that within the last 20 years its administration has been guided by this wise and statesman-like principle? It is certainly no wise expenditure to have spent more than 70 crores of rupees in 20 years on wars with people beyond the natural boundaries of India”.
MAY 12, 1898
Wise expenditure and ill-judged economy
WHEN THE INDIAN PRESS CHARGES THE GOVERNMENT OF India with extravagance in the expenditure of public funds, it does not mean that the Government should go to the other extreme of ill-judged economy, which in the long run is no better than extravagance. It pleads for due economy in such expenditure as is incurred for purposes not directly beneficial to the people and for liberal expenditure on objects which will conduce to their mental and moral elevation and make them healthy, prosperous and contented. As a fact the Government of India is guilty of ill-judged economy as well as extravagance. It is worse than economical; it is parsimonious in regard to objects which virtually concern the internal administration of the country, objects such as education, judicial administration, sanitation, police and so forth, while in other matters, such as the army, foreign wars, railway construction, salaries of its European employees and others, it pursues a policy of reckless extravagance. That it is wise expenditure but not ill-judged economy that will benefit India is a truism which applies to every country in the world as well as to India. But can the Government of India convince the public that within the last twenty years its administration has been guided by this wise and statesmanlike principle? It is certainly no wise expenditure to have spent more than seventy crores of rupees in twenty years on wars with people beyond the natural boundaries of India. Lord Dufferin justified the annexation of Upper Burma on the ground that it will prove a paying addition to the Queen’s dominion in India. But far from having done so, Upper Burma has been a source of loss to the Empire and of heavy drain every year on the resources of the older provinces. It is true that Theebaw’s dominion is proving valuable to Great Britain inasmuch as it serves as a base from which fresh commercial relations can be opened with the border provinces of the Chinese Empire. But there is no wisdom in India being made to pay for the benefit of such a rich and powerful country as Great Britain. India supplied the men and the money with which the conquest and pacification of Burma were effected. But the gain to India has been literally nil. It is not the educated natives of India that are employed in the high and lucrative offices in the administration of that new province; nor do Indians enjoy a share in its trade. Both the advantages are monopolised by Englishmen, who only add insult to injury by misrepresenting Indians that they are unfit to exercise administrative authority in that country. In no sense can the annexation of Upper Burma be said to have involved a wise expenditure of the Indian taxes. Again the conquest of Upper Burma was effected with the addition that was made to the Indian army in 1885. When Lord Dufferin and Lord Randolph Churchill increased the Indian army by 10,000 British and 20,000 Indian soldiers and thus made a permanent addition of three crores to our expenditure, there were not wanting men of wisdom and experience who protested against the and experience who protested against the increase as not required for any Indian purpose and predicted that the army thus needlessly increased would be a standing danger to peace and would ceaselessly intrigue for the discovery of pretexts for war beyond the frontiers. And the fulfilment of the prediction has come with a vengeance. The Government of India was incited to a war with Theebaw and subsequently to expeditions and wars every year beyond our northwest frontier. Competent authorities, military as well as civil, have declared that this huge army is more than is required for the protection of India against internal dangers, and as her protection against danger from Russia or from any other foreign enemy is the concern of the great Imperial nation as well as of India, the cost should be partly borne by the Imperial Treasury but not solely by the poor tax-payers of this country. It is needless to elaborate this argument. Suffice it to say that to Britain her Indian possession is far more beneficial than British rule is to India, and therefore the present policy of making India pay for the whole cost of the large army, which consumes nearly a third of the net revenues, is unjust and unwise. When the Indian Government agreed to the increase in the army 13 years ago, they did not incur a wise expenditure of the taxes wrung from the starving people of India. Another flagrant instance of a most cruel misuse of Indian money is the so-called compensation allowance granted to the European employees of the Government. This allowance, which is a virtual addition to the salaries of these employees, was granted on the ground that they suffered loss in remitting money home on account of the depreciated rupee. If this allowance was granted from the British treasury, we would raise no objection. But it was granted at the expense of the Indian tax-payers who have in fact suffered far more from this depreciated rupee than the European employees of the Government ever did; and if anybody deserved help it was not the well paid officials but the neglected and the famishing ryots. Well, the crore of rupees which was the amount of the compensation allowance was by no means a wise expenditure of our revenues. Other instances of unwise and extravagance expenditure may be quoted, to show that the history of the Indian administration during the last 20 years, has been a continued series of errors due to the ascendency of official cliques and to most deplorable want of sympathy and touch with the people on the part of the Government. So much for unwise expenditure and we shall proceed to give a few examples of ill-judged economy. Only the other day, Sir James Westland justified in the Viceregal Council his refusal to allot money for the improvement of the judicial service, and spoke of our judicial officers in language the reverse of complimentary to them. He charged them with indolence, while as a fact they are the most hardworking class of officials in the country. A hard-worked, under-paid and discontented judiciary can be no good in any country, and in India, where the strength of British rule rests on the people’s conviction of the purity and efficiency of the administration of justice, such a judiciary is positively mischievous. To refuse to grant funds for such a purpose cannot be wise economy. It is certainly an ill-judged and mischievous economy. It is not only the administration of justice but numerous other branches of the public service that are most unwisely starved because the revenues of the country are swallowed up by the Supreme Government in the pursuit of its extravagant military policy and in meeting its foreign obligations. A civilised and benevolent Government like the Government of India, with magnificent resources as Sir James Westland would say, commanding a total revenue of nearly 100 crores, spends less than one anna per head per year on the education of the people! Can there be a more astounding instance of ill-judged economy? The same ill-judged economy is shown by Government in regard to a score of other needs and reforms which have been repeatedly urged on it and whose urgency has been more than once acknowledged. It was only the other day in the Viceregal Council that Sir James Westland brushed aside with the too familiar plea of want of funds Mr. Nicholson’s earnest appeal for funds in order that village banks might be established for the benefit of the starving and debt-ridden ryot population. Well might Mr. Nicholson express surprise at the ill-judged economy of a Government which derives a revenue of 26 crores from an agricultural population of 176 millions and which yet could not afford more than the pittance of five lakhs for the grand object of the improvement of agriculture. Can ill-judged economy go further?
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I