i66 
THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST, [Jan. 1, 1900. 
$orrespGnd6nc;e. 
To the Editor. 
IRRIGATION IN CEYLON AND INDIA. 
Colombo, Dec. 8. 
Dear Sir, — Aa one \\\\^ lias for many years 
V)een connected witli iirigalion matters in Ceylon 
and had opportunities bdtli of visiting a few of 
the bij; works in India, a' d of becoming; familiar 
with a good deal of literature on the subject, I 
wouhl ask for room in your columns to add ilie 
results of my experience. In tlie first place, 
I would notice the recent local references to ilie 
returns from Indian works and poinc out not 
only that the figures quoted refer to a limited 
number of works, but further that no satis- 
factory comparison can be made as regards results 
of irrigation between Ceylon and India as our 
revenue and land systems are so radically 
different. In Ceylon all the land is consideied 
•private property and is now, where irrigation is 
provided by Government, only liable to a water 
rate of Jll per acre ; but Government has no 
claim on any share of the produce or of the 
increase due to improved irrigation. 
In India, on the other hand, the land is all 
owned by the State and the occupier is a tenant 
(or at most a lessee) paying a rent. This is 
generally " settlc<l " periodically (except in 
Bengal) and oiilinarily considered as the equivalent 
to the value of halt the )iet crop ; but, as laid 
down in the "Directions for Settlement" 
" under Indian Governments there is practically 
no oilier limit to the demand upon the land than 
the power of Government to enforce payment and 
the aliiliiy of tlie people to pay," I quote further 
as follows: — "The principle which now obtains 
is that the State determines the land tax from 
time to tiiUB retaining power to advance it upon 
fresh land rendiMcd irrigable by national works. 
In Madras especially, this has proved 
au adilitional source of income to the State which 
can be fairly credited to irrigation accounts." 
]{y this means the principle of a single tax is 
maintained and it is largely by taking credit 
for this increased land revenue that the Indian 
works can be considered as remunerative. But 
there are other considerations which help forward 
tiiis view, for instance, "Prior to 1854 all irri- 
gation works were constituted under a military 
board by military engineers and paid from out of 
revenue. It is difficult if not impossible to 
ascertain the exact outlay upon particular schemes 
or indeed upon the whole of them up to that 
time." So this outlay is excluded from con- 
sideration. 
Again in Madras there were ancient natire and 
British works which were utilised, to which 
"additions have been made at a very moderate 
cost, but the revenue produced cannot properly 
be compared with their recorded cost as they are 
very largely the result of the labour of years 
antecedent to British rule which cannot be 
estimated." (Strachey's famine and P.W. of 
India.) 
Further no account is in this connection taken 
of the sy.steni of State advances made to tenants 
for the purpose of permanent improvements to 
tlieir liolding.M under the Land Improvement Acts, 
in which the " first place is given to wells, tanks 
and other work.s for storage, supply and distri- 
bution of water." Under this, a land-holder can 
borrow to the extent of 75 per cent, of the value of 
his land on easy terms of interest and repayment 
extending in SDine cases over 40 years and up to 
a limit of KiO,000. Under this system there is 
annuoMy advanced a sum of R200,000 in each of 
the Pre.'iidencies of Madras and Bombay— of which 
no notice is taken in the Irrigation Department, 
Again iheie has been a lai'ie outlay in 
famine relief works which, I believe, "finds 
no place in tlie ordinary irriuation accounts. 
With ihe.se preliminary remarks I pass to an ex- 
amination of the last report of the Iirigation 
Branch of the P. W. Department of Madras (for 
the year ending 3i)ih June, 1898, but published 
in 1899), and add .some information to the figures 
put forward in thte newspapers, .so far as they 
refer to this Presidency. 
I find the results staled as folio w.s ; — 
(a) The net revenue to the State on capital outlay 
(not return as apparently slated in the papers 
q tinted at a recent meeting) amounted lo 7 88 p.c. 
on ten major (productive and protective) works — 
irrigaliii'j; '^'^ million of acres. 
(b) But ihis is exclu^sive of the " Interest 
charges" aiiiotinting toover26J lacs, and which 
reduces the net return to the State to 4 p.c. 
(c) Further out of these 10 works, four i isteatl 
of yielding any surplus snow a deficiency of about 
20 lacs on current outlay. While those which pay 
handsomely and make- up tor this deficiency 
are the Gauveiy, Godavery and Khristna delta 
pystems. When there were old native or early 
British works, the capital outlay on what is un- 
known ; and as it cannot be taken into account 
a deduction is made of a portion of the revenue 
" asmmed to be due to old irrigation less old 
maintenance charges " so as to arrive at the 
net revenue, which it is claimed is due to the 
extensions and additions made under the capital 
expenditure shown. 
(d) Other 2-5 " minor works for which capital 
and revenue accounts are kept," (irrigating 
5.35,000 aer»s) yielded a revenue of R16,59,000, 
of which "old irrigation" is credited with over 
nine lac=!, leaving 7^ lacs as surplus revenue due 
to outlay of Government capital. (Under this 
class the capital outlay on the Buckingham canal 
is shown at 89 lacs, though it cost the Government 
£2i millions sterling to buy out the original Com- 
pany.) No "interest charges" are shown under 
this head, and the percentage of net revenue, due 
to outlay of Government capital, is put at 4'44. 
(«) The two foregoing classes account for about 
3^ millions of acres, but there remain another 
three millions of acres served by "minor works 
for which neither " capital nor revenue accounts 
are kept P. W.D,'' and minor works revenue 
department," in whicli there was an expenditure 
during the year of over 19 lacs as against a gross 
revenue of 83 lacs, but it is not stated if this 
surplus represents any return on the original 
outlay on the works. 
[f) Finally, under head of Agricultural Work, 
there was an outlay of K587,922 against a re- 
turn of K42,185. 
I have not at present access to the official reports 
of recent years, relating to other parts of India, 
and in their absence must fall back on .some 
other sources of information, though they are not 
quite up to date. I find these in Mr. Deakin's 
Indian Irrigation (a work published about fire 
years ago), and who wrote as follows : — " Neither 
in Bombay or Bengal does irrigation pay the 
state ; but major works pay 5 per cent in 
Panjab, 12 per cent, in Sind, and 7 per cent, 
in Madras." As this last figure is very slightly 
