Abstract
In regard to the British Indian public expenditure, the conclusion of the study was that no significant liability arose for the princely states. But the government of British India still exacted revenues out of the states, ‘the indirect and uncovenanted contributions’ (The British Crown, 1929, p. 183), through its taxes, monopoly price policies and profits on currency and mints. To the extent that the states were making these contributions without being liable, there was taking place a net transfer of resources from Princely India to British India. The ‘peoples of Indian States are at present subjected to a considerable burden of taxation for which they receive no return and for which there can be no justification’ (The British Crown, 1929, p. 215).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the case of landlocked Mysore, with a level of development similar to British India, a calculation of total yield performed at British Indian customs rate on all rail-borne imports turned out to be a gross overestimate compared with the computation on per capita basis (Tirumalachar, 1929, p. 431).
- 2.
Shah (1927, p. 524).
- 3.
See Report (1929, p. 45).
- 4.
No figures for the states’ own import duties were given by the Robinsons. According to the Butler Committee, these stood at Rs. 450 lakh (Report, 1929, p. 43), 64 per cent of their estimated contribution to British Indian customs.
- 5.
Aslanbeigui and Oakes (2009, p. 32, n.24).
- 6.
225 × 85/(22.5 × 85) + (77.5 × 100) = 20%
- 7.
See Coyajer (1929) for the details of the controversy on the exchange ratio.
- 8.
References
Published Works
Aslanbeigui, N., & Oakes, G. (2009). The Provocative Joan Robinson: The Making of a Cambridge Economist. Duke University Press.
Bagchi, A. K. (1972). Private Investment in India 1900–39. Cambridge University Press.
Coyajer, J. C. (1929). The Ratio Controversy in India: A Retrospect. Asiatic Review, 25, 405–412.
Morison, T. (1911). Economic Transition in India. John Murray.
Naik, D. A. (1930). The Indian States and Mints and Coinage. Calcutta Review, 34, 305–309.
Report of Indian States Committee 1928–29. (1929). H.M.’s Stationery Office.
Shah, K. T. (1927). Sixty Years of Indian Finance. P.S. King and Son.
The British Crown and the Indian States. (1929). P.S. King and Son.
Timmalachar, B. (1929). Fiscal Relations between the Indian States and the Government of India. Indian Journal of Economics, 9, 413–440.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tahir, P. (2022). Revenue Contributions. In: Joan Robinson in Princely India. Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10905-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10905-8_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-10904-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-10905-8
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)