Comparing present taxes with those of the past, we should certainly expect heavier imposts now, because the government furnishes today, as an equivalent of protection and blessing, infinitely more than former dynasties did. And yet Sir W. Hunter has ably shown from a comparison of taxes levied by the present government and by the Moghul government that the modern Hindu is vastly better off than was his ancestor of two and three centuries ago. Today, five and one half per cent. is collected in land tax; under the Moghul rule they had to pay from thirty-three per cent. to fifty per cent. Besides this, the Mohammedan imposed various other taxes, many of them upon non-Mohammedans as a religious penalty. Nor were the Hindu governments one whit better off; and even today the native states are much harder upon the people than is the British Raj.
The famine commission is the highest authority on the subject. In its exhaustive report of 1880 it writes:—“In the majority of native governments the revenue officer takes all he can get, and would take treble the revenue we should, if he were strong enough to exact it.”
If we pursue the comparison to that of European peoples, Indian taxation would seem but a trifle. Placing even English taxes side by side with India’s, we shall find instruction. The average income in the United Kingdom is £40, while the tax assessed is 44_s_, or five and one-half per cent. In India, alas, the average income is only 36_s_. But then the tax is only 1_s_, 9_d_ per capita which is a trifle smaller per capita than that for England. Here again we are impressed with the reasonableness of the tax imposed.
The opium and liquor traffic in India is one which has drawn forth much criticism. From the moral standpoint the critics have a very strong case. The evil which the opium traffic of India has inflicted upon China—against her will too—has been enormous. The large army of opium eaters which it has created, only to destroy with a terrible death, has long been an argument to which no nation of England’s position and pretensions can render satisfactory reply.
In like manner, the State monopoly of the drink traffic is neither honourable nor wise. It not only gives unwonted and unwarrantable dignity to a disreputable business, it also involves the State in the business of making a large army of drunkards in the land. To take up a traffic like this, for the revenue there is in it, is to trifle with the higher interests of the subjects and to become instrumental in the corruption and misery of the people whom it is bound to protect. It is questionable whether any other civilized government has involved itself in such unworthy means of creating a revenue. Doubtless, opium and drink represent, morally, the weakest part of this government. Of course, the all important defense lies in the revenue thus acquired. These two items of revenue flow more easily than any others into the depleted treasury of State. To give these up in behalf of what is termed sentiment, would necessitate the imposition of other heavy taxes. This is an aspect of the question which too easily silences and secures the acquiescence of the people of India. But, its evil is great and is spreading.