DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68026#0084
78
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE:
Mr. B. W.
Carlyle.
4 Apr., 1908.
should retain its control in regard to the water rates
to be charged. In the United Provinces under the
recent settlement the irrigation revenues have been
provincialised except in the case of one canal. I am
not prepared at present to say whether this change of
system would justify legislation for the purpose of
removing the control of the Government of India in
regard to the fixing of water rates in the United
Provinces.
With regard to specific proposals of Local Govern-
ments, taking first the proposals of the Government
of Burma, the question of confirmation of settlements
has already been dealt with. It appears to be un-
necessary that the Government of 1 ndia should make
itself responsible for the details which are given in the
draft Resolutions which are now submitted by the
Local Government before settlements can be sanc-
tioned., With regard to the other proposals, they seem
unobjectionable, except in so far as the Government of
Burma desire to have a free hand in fixing the dura-
tion of settlements. The question of the term of
settlements in Burma is under consideration, and if
the Lieutenant-Governor is able to prescribe a mini-
mum term it may be possible to give him a freer hand
than he has hitherto enjoyed, but the Government of
India must, until this has been done, retain the power1
to prevent settlements being made for too short
periods.
As regards settlement appointments, I would wel-
come relaxation of the present rules in the direction of
giving greater powers to Local Governments.
It. is undesirable that the hands of the Settlement
Officer and the Local Governments should be tied by
too rigid an adherence to the forecast, or that it should
be treated as a standard which must of necessity be
worked up to, but it cannot be admitted that a fore-
cast is never of any real value. A forecast of the in-
crease of revenue anticipated is often necessary in order
to decide -whether a re-settlement should be undertaken
or not, though it is not the only factor which should
be taken into consideration.
With regard to the Local Government’s recommenda-
tions, I am strongly opposed to the delegation to the
Local Government of powers under section 112 of the
Bengal Tenancy Act. The section was amended last
year with the object of giving Government fuller
powers to settle rents in cases where they have been
improperly enhanced, and the opposition to the amend-
ment w'ould have been very much greater if it had not
been understood that the control of the Government
of India in the matter would not be relaxed. To with-
draw that control so shortly after the amendment of
the Act would, I believe, be regarded as a breach of
faith by the Bengal zamindars.
44051*. What are the reasons which led to the
supersession or restriction of the thathameda system in
Upper Burma by the system of Indian land revenue
assessments?—Under Burman rule the greater part of
the revenue in Upper Burma was realized in the form
of the thathameda, or tithe tax, which was a sort of
income-tax of comparatively recent origin and was
levied on agriculture, trades, handicrafts and even
menial labour, the total assessment of the village being
fixed generally at the rate of Rs. 10 per household.
Land was divided into two main classes, State land
and private land. The cultivators or owners of land
paid thathameda like other people. Cultivators of
State land also paid rent to the Crown, but private
land ordinarily paid nothing in the shape of rent or
land revenue.
The first idea of our administrators after annexa-
tion appears to have been to continue these arrange-
ments, and proposals to this effect wrere made in the
first draft of the Upper Burma Land and Revenue
Regulation which was submitted to the Government
of India in 1886. The Government of India recog-
nized that the thathameda. tax was suited to the
circumstances of Burma at that time, but they pointed
out that eventually it would probably be replaced by a
land revenue assessment, and they suggested that the
Regulation should be so drafted as not to prejudice
future action in this direction in the event of its being-
considered desirable. This suggestion was accepted by
the authorities in Burma, and was given effect to in
section 27 of the revised draft of the Regulation,
which passed into law as Regulation III of 1889. The
effect of this section was to declare private land liable
to land revenue subject to such adjustment of, or ex-
emption from, land revenue as might be authorized by
rule.
The reasons which led the Chief Commissioner to
frame section 27 of the Regulation are explained in
the following extracts from his letter to the Govern-
ment of India, No. 265-66R., dated the 9th May
1889, with which he forwarded the draft Regulation
for approval.
“ Another very important reason for recommending
legislation is that at present no land revenue is.
assessed upon land other than State land, and unless
the right of the State to levy land revenue from such
land is at once declared, it is apprehended that the
right may be called in question—more especially by
the class of speculators alluded to already, who will
claim to have purchased land on the understanding
that it was free from land revenue.”
“ The thathameda is undoubtedly a rough method
of taxation, which was rendered necessary by the
absence of an accurate or even approximate estimate
of the land under cultivation. All that can be said
in favour of it is that it is tolerably fair, that it can
be checked without extraordinary trouble and ex-
pense, and that the power of a thoroughly corrupt
body of officials to defraud the State was less, perhaps,
under this system of taxation than it would have been
under a system of land assessment unaccompanied by
an accurate survey. It is, however, an unsatisfactory
tax from a financial point of view. A household,
for example, may double the area of land cultivated
by it without paying an anna more to the treasury. Men
live in one district and own land in another, and
only pay the share of the thathameda assessed on the
village in which they reside. For example, there is a
very well-to-do European residing in the Ye-u dis-
trict who holds large areas of land in Shwebo and
elsewhere, for which he pays absolutely nothing ; and
having induced the people of the village where he
lives to make him a thamadi or assessor, he does not
pay even the average thathameda rate. Instances of a
similar kind are numerous. Again some of the
wealthiest persons, ex-officials and others, living in
Mandalay own lauds in Kyaukse and elsewhere, and
pay nothing at all to the State. Moreover, unless
the land is assessed to revenue, the spread of cultiva-
tion which must shortly take place will escape ade-
quate taxation, as the increase in the number of
households liable to thathameda need not be com-
mensurate with the increase of cultivation. In effect,
the assessment of the land is the only way in which a
fair and adequate revenue can be obtained from
Uppei1 Burma. It must be done gradually and with
care. The adjustment of the thathameda will require
much consideration. Until the facts are ascertained
by survey it is difficult to propose a satisfactory scheme
for the solution of the difficulty.”
It will be seen from the following extract from the
first draft of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the Regulation that the object of the section was
merely to take power to assess private land to land
revenue.
“ It is not intended to assess any land other than
State land at present, but it is desirable to assert the
right of Government to assess land in the occupation
of private owners. . . . The Chief Commissioner
desires to obtain power to do this, though it is not
expedient to exercise the power at present. . . .
No land revenue is payable on such land now ; and
when land revenue is assessed, it will be necessary to
consider whether an entire or partial remission of
thathameda should not be made in respect of persons
assessed to land revenue.”
In 1890 the Chief Commissioner obtained the ap-
proval of the Government of India to a tentative and
experimental set of rules under1 the Regulation, but
these rules merely declared that “ private land might
be assessed to the land revenue.” The question came
up again in 1892, in February of which year Sir A.
Mackenzie (who had meanwhile succeeded Sir Charles
Crosthwaite) represented that it was “ advisable once
and for all to settle the principles on which the future
land revenue of Upper Burma shall be established.”
The Government of India replied that it was prema-
ture to lay down general rules till the facts were better
ascertained, and they directed the Chief Commissioner
to submit separate proposals for the assessment
of each district as it came under settlement.
Five districts, however, were at this time awaiting
settlement, and as their conditions were believed to be
similar, the Chief Commissioner submitted for ap-
proval a draft of directions which he proposed to issue
for the guidance of Settlement Officers in Upper
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE:
Mr. B. W.
Carlyle.
4 Apr., 1908.
should retain its control in regard to the water rates
to be charged. In the United Provinces under the
recent settlement the irrigation revenues have been
provincialised except in the case of one canal. I am
not prepared at present to say whether this change of
system would justify legislation for the purpose of
removing the control of the Government of India in
regard to the fixing of water rates in the United
Provinces.
With regard to specific proposals of Local Govern-
ments, taking first the proposals of the Government
of Burma, the question of confirmation of settlements
has already been dealt with. It appears to be un-
necessary that the Government of 1 ndia should make
itself responsible for the details which are given in the
draft Resolutions which are now submitted by the
Local Government before settlements can be sanc-
tioned., With regard to the other proposals, they seem
unobjectionable, except in so far as the Government of
Burma desire to have a free hand in fixing the dura-
tion of settlements. The question of the term of
settlements in Burma is under consideration, and if
the Lieutenant-Governor is able to prescribe a mini-
mum term it may be possible to give him a freer hand
than he has hitherto enjoyed, but the Government of
India must, until this has been done, retain the power1
to prevent settlements being made for too short
periods.
As regards settlement appointments, I would wel-
come relaxation of the present rules in the direction of
giving greater powers to Local Governments.
It. is undesirable that the hands of the Settlement
Officer and the Local Governments should be tied by
too rigid an adherence to the forecast, or that it should
be treated as a standard which must of necessity be
worked up to, but it cannot be admitted that a fore-
cast is never of any real value. A forecast of the in-
crease of revenue anticipated is often necessary in order
to decide -whether a re-settlement should be undertaken
or not, though it is not the only factor which should
be taken into consideration.
With regard to the Local Government’s recommenda-
tions, I am strongly opposed to the delegation to the
Local Government of powers under section 112 of the
Bengal Tenancy Act. The section was amended last
year with the object of giving Government fuller
powers to settle rents in cases where they have been
improperly enhanced, and the opposition to the amend-
ment w'ould have been very much greater if it had not
been understood that the control of the Government
of India in the matter would not be relaxed. To with-
draw that control so shortly after the amendment of
the Act would, I believe, be regarded as a breach of
faith by the Bengal zamindars.
44051*. What are the reasons which led to the
supersession or restriction of the thathameda system in
Upper Burma by the system of Indian land revenue
assessments?—Under Burman rule the greater part of
the revenue in Upper Burma was realized in the form
of the thathameda, or tithe tax, which was a sort of
income-tax of comparatively recent origin and was
levied on agriculture, trades, handicrafts and even
menial labour, the total assessment of the village being
fixed generally at the rate of Rs. 10 per household.
Land was divided into two main classes, State land
and private land. The cultivators or owners of land
paid thathameda like other people. Cultivators of
State land also paid rent to the Crown, but private
land ordinarily paid nothing in the shape of rent or
land revenue.
The first idea of our administrators after annexa-
tion appears to have been to continue these arrange-
ments, and proposals to this effect wrere made in the
first draft of the Upper Burma Land and Revenue
Regulation which was submitted to the Government
of India in 1886. The Government of India recog-
nized that the thathameda. tax was suited to the
circumstances of Burma at that time, but they pointed
out that eventually it would probably be replaced by a
land revenue assessment, and they suggested that the
Regulation should be so drafted as not to prejudice
future action in this direction in the event of its being-
considered desirable. This suggestion was accepted by
the authorities in Burma, and was given effect to in
section 27 of the revised draft of the Regulation,
which passed into law as Regulation III of 1889. The
effect of this section was to declare private land liable
to land revenue subject to such adjustment of, or ex-
emption from, land revenue as might be authorized by
rule.
The reasons which led the Chief Commissioner to
frame section 27 of the Regulation are explained in
the following extracts from his letter to the Govern-
ment of India, No. 265-66R., dated the 9th May
1889, with which he forwarded the draft Regulation
for approval.
“ Another very important reason for recommending
legislation is that at present no land revenue is.
assessed upon land other than State land, and unless
the right of the State to levy land revenue from such
land is at once declared, it is apprehended that the
right may be called in question—more especially by
the class of speculators alluded to already, who will
claim to have purchased land on the understanding
that it was free from land revenue.”
“ The thathameda is undoubtedly a rough method
of taxation, which was rendered necessary by the
absence of an accurate or even approximate estimate
of the land under cultivation. All that can be said
in favour of it is that it is tolerably fair, that it can
be checked without extraordinary trouble and ex-
pense, and that the power of a thoroughly corrupt
body of officials to defraud the State was less, perhaps,
under this system of taxation than it would have been
under a system of land assessment unaccompanied by
an accurate survey. It is, however, an unsatisfactory
tax from a financial point of view. A household,
for example, may double the area of land cultivated
by it without paying an anna more to the treasury. Men
live in one district and own land in another, and
only pay the share of the thathameda assessed on the
village in which they reside. For example, there is a
very well-to-do European residing in the Ye-u dis-
trict who holds large areas of land in Shwebo and
elsewhere, for which he pays absolutely nothing ; and
having induced the people of the village where he
lives to make him a thamadi or assessor, he does not
pay even the average thathameda rate. Instances of a
similar kind are numerous. Again some of the
wealthiest persons, ex-officials and others, living in
Mandalay own lauds in Kyaukse and elsewhere, and
pay nothing at all to the State. Moreover, unless
the land is assessed to revenue, the spread of cultiva-
tion which must shortly take place will escape ade-
quate taxation, as the increase in the number of
households liable to thathameda need not be com-
mensurate with the increase of cultivation. In effect,
the assessment of the land is the only way in which a
fair and adequate revenue can be obtained from
Uppei1 Burma. It must be done gradually and with
care. The adjustment of the thathameda will require
much consideration. Until the facts are ascertained
by survey it is difficult to propose a satisfactory scheme
for the solution of the difficulty.”
It will be seen from the following extract from the
first draft of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the Regulation that the object of the section was
merely to take power to assess private land to land
revenue.
“ It is not intended to assess any land other than
State land at present, but it is desirable to assert the
right of Government to assess land in the occupation
of private owners. . . . The Chief Commissioner
desires to obtain power to do this, though it is not
expedient to exercise the power at present. . . .
No land revenue is payable on such land now ; and
when land revenue is assessed, it will be necessary to
consider whether an entire or partial remission of
thathameda should not be made in respect of persons
assessed to land revenue.”
In 1890 the Chief Commissioner obtained the ap-
proval of the Government of India to a tentative and
experimental set of rules under1 the Regulation, but
these rules merely declared that “ private land might
be assessed to the land revenue.” The question came
up again in 1892, in February of which year Sir A.
Mackenzie (who had meanwhile succeeded Sir Charles
Crosthwaite) represented that it was “ advisable once
and for all to settle the principles on which the future
land revenue of Upper Burma shall be established.”
The Government of India replied that it was prema-
ture to lay down general rules till the facts were better
ascertained, and they directed the Chief Commissioner
to submit separate proposals for the assessment
of each district as it came under settlement.
Five districts, however, were at this time awaiting
settlement, and as their conditions were believed to be
similar, the Chief Commissioner submitted for ap-
proval a draft of directions which he proposed to issue
for the guidance of Settlement Officers in Upper