DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68026#0087
KOYAL COMMISSION UPON DECENTRALIZATION.
81
work, and where investigations are carried on of
more than provincial importance.
Several Governments touch in their memoranda
on their relations with the Heads of Departments
under the Government of India. The Government
of Bombay have on this as on other questions taken
up a more extreme position than any other Govern-
ment and recommend that “Inspectors and Directors-
General should be restricted to advising the Govern-
ment of India and the Local Governments when their
opinions are asked. They should therefore reside at
headquarters and not be permitted either to visit the
province of a Local Government unless invited, or to
correspond with their officers unless approached by
the Government concerned and authorised to corre-
spond with such officers for any particular purpose.”
The Bombay Government also express strong views
as to the uselessness of tours by Heads of Depart-
ments of the Government of India. I differ on both
points. Whether regarded from the point of view of
Local Governments, or from the point of view of
the Government of India, I hold that, so far as my
department is concerned, great value attaches to the
tours of the Inspectors - General of Forests, the
Veterinary Department and Agriculture. The Heads
of those Departments possess the necessary technical
knowledge to explain, to support, and if necessary to
criticise the proposals submitted by. Local Govern-
ments, and the information they derive from their
tours often enables them to appreciate better the
reasons for the proposals made by Local Governments.
It is possible that, so far as the Government of India
are concerned, the Inspector General of Agriculture
will not always be necessary, but he will be required,
for the benefit of the provinces themselves, to co-
ordinate their work and to enlighten them as to what
is being done in other countries. Generally speaking,
I hold that an Inspector General should be just as
useful to a Local Government as to the Government of
India. Months of correspondence may contribute less
to the clearing up of some doubtful question than per-
sonal intercourse or a day’s inspection. There is the
danger that in the case of the Head of a. Department
of the Government of India advice may insensibly pass
into orders, but this is a minor difficulty which Local
Governments should always be able to deal with.
There is, perhaps, more danger that an Inspector
General may get the ear of the Government of India,
and may induce that Government to press his views on
the Local Government. On the other hand, the
Government of India must have expert advice in
dealing with experts, and though this may occasionally
lead to schemes being blocked, it is very difficult to
force any scheme on an unwilling Local Government.
In practice the Government of India could not force
on an .unwilling Local Government any measure to
which it strongly objected unless with the active
support of the Secretary of State.
A minor point is the question of correspondence
between Heads of Departments of the Government of
India and officers belonging to Local Governments.
Personally, I would allow them to correspond freely
with Provincial Heads of Departments. This, however,
is a matter which each Local Government must be
allowed to decide for itself.
Sir Thirkell White suggests in his memorandum
that powers conferred by statute upon a Local Govern-
ment should not be limited by executive orders. The
Government of India have not in the past contem-
plated the exclusion of their control in such cases,
and, if this view were now accepted, it would be
necessary to go through the Statute Book and see in
what cases the existing law might need amendment so
as to restore to the Government of India their present
powers of control.
44054*. Is it necessary for the Government of India
to intervene in such matters as the appointment and
recruitment of tahsildars or other officers of like
status ?—I do not think that the Government of India
should ordinarily interfere in such matters, and in
practice they never do so unless they are directly
brought to their notice by a Local Government or
Administration. Even in such cases moreover, if they
interfere at all it is by way of suggestion, and I con-
sider it one of the most important functions of the
Supreme Government to give Local Governments in
this way the benefit of its wider knowledge and
experience. As a case in point, I may mention that
33383
the Government of Madras recently submitted pro-
posals to increase the number of taluks in the Presi-
dency and to revise the grading of the tahsildars. Some
remarks in Mr. Meyer’s report upon which the pro-
posals were based led to an examination of the existing
system under which tahsildars are appointed in the
Presidency. The practice of making the pay of these
officers depend not only on personal grading but on
the taluks to which they are posted, appeared to the
Government of India to be open to objection, and it
was also thought that the system of grading officers of
this class on a general provincial list which works satis-
factorily in every other province might be equally
successful in the Madras Presidency. These sugges-
tions were accordingly made to the Local Government,
but there is no intention of forcing them upon the
Government of Madras, and as this appears to have
been misunderstood, the Local Government has been
informed demi-officially that the suggestions are merely
for their consideration.
44055*. Would it be desirable to allow the larger
provinces the same powers in respect to the appoint-
ment of Conservators of Forests as are possessed by
the Governors of Madras and Bombay, and complete
powers, outside general financial restrictions, in respect
to the cadres of the Provincial and Subordinate Forest
Services ?—I do not think it is desirable to allow the
larger provinces the same powers in respect of the
appointment of Conservators of Forests as are pos-
sessed by the Governors of Madras and Bombay. In
my opinion none of the provinces, with the exception
of Burma, have a sufficiently large cadre to be com-
pletely self-sufficing for their highest appointments.
It is also desirable that officers who have natural apti-
tude for appointments in the Imperial Research
Institute and officers who are likely ultimately to
become Inspectors-General of Forests should gain ex-
perience in more than one province. As regards the
question whether complete powers, outside general
financial restrictions, might be given to the larger pro-
vinces in respect of the cadres of the Provincial and
Subordinate Forest Services, I see no objection to such
powers being given. At present the Forest Code
contains rules regarding such points as-
(a) suspension and dismissal of members of the
Provincial and Subordinate Services ;
(5) the institution of prosecutions ;
(c) the acceptance of resignations of officers of
Provincial and Subordinate Services ;
(rf) postings and transfers of officers of such
services ;
(e) their leave ;
(/) forest office establishments in provinces ;
(.9) examinations.
These restrictions are in the main due to the fact that
there is one Forest Code for the whole of India out-
side Madras and Bombay. I think that each Local
Government might be empowered to frame rules for
itself regarding the appointment, dismissal, educa-
tional qualifications, etc., of its own Provincial and
Subordinate Services.
44056*. Speaking generally, does the Forest Code
tend to undue centralization ? Might not the strin-
gency of a number of its provisions be relaxed ?—
When the Forest Department was originally established
there were very few trained officers, and it was necessary
to lay down, in the form of a Code, provisions generally
applicable outside the Madras and Bombay Presidencies.
Moreover, for many years the whole of the education
of the subordinate establishment was concentrated at
Dehra Dun. This is gradually ceasing to be the case,
but even now the forest education of all Indian officers
of and above the rank of ranger is carried on at Dehra
Dun, except that in Burma there is a subordinate
Forest School for subordinates up to the rank of
ranger. The conditions of recruitment and education
were also originally uniform throughout India. Con-
ditions are now altering, and a free hand has been
given to Local Governments in matters relating to the
recruitment of their subordinate establishments, and
as their facilities for educating officers increase, they
will no doubt get a free hand as regards training.
Another reason for uniformity lay in the fact that the
audit of forest accounts was in the hands of the
Comptroller General, and Local Governments had not
the same powers in forest matters as in other branches
of the administration. The audit has now been pro-
vincialized, and in the last edition of the Forest Depart-
ment Code the authority of Local Governments as
L
Mr. R. W.
Carlyle.
4 Apr., 1908.
81
work, and where investigations are carried on of
more than provincial importance.
Several Governments touch in their memoranda
on their relations with the Heads of Departments
under the Government of India. The Government
of Bombay have on this as on other questions taken
up a more extreme position than any other Govern-
ment and recommend that “Inspectors and Directors-
General should be restricted to advising the Govern-
ment of India and the Local Governments when their
opinions are asked. They should therefore reside at
headquarters and not be permitted either to visit the
province of a Local Government unless invited, or to
correspond with their officers unless approached by
the Government concerned and authorised to corre-
spond with such officers for any particular purpose.”
The Bombay Government also express strong views
as to the uselessness of tours by Heads of Depart-
ments of the Government of India. I differ on both
points. Whether regarded from the point of view of
Local Governments, or from the point of view of
the Government of India, I hold that, so far as my
department is concerned, great value attaches to the
tours of the Inspectors - General of Forests, the
Veterinary Department and Agriculture. The Heads
of those Departments possess the necessary technical
knowledge to explain, to support, and if necessary to
criticise the proposals submitted by. Local Govern-
ments, and the information they derive from their
tours often enables them to appreciate better the
reasons for the proposals made by Local Governments.
It is possible that, so far as the Government of India
are concerned, the Inspector General of Agriculture
will not always be necessary, but he will be required,
for the benefit of the provinces themselves, to co-
ordinate their work and to enlighten them as to what
is being done in other countries. Generally speaking,
I hold that an Inspector General should be just as
useful to a Local Government as to the Government of
India. Months of correspondence may contribute less
to the clearing up of some doubtful question than per-
sonal intercourse or a day’s inspection. There is the
danger that in the case of the Head of a. Department
of the Government of India advice may insensibly pass
into orders, but this is a minor difficulty which Local
Governments should always be able to deal with.
There is, perhaps, more danger that an Inspector
General may get the ear of the Government of India,
and may induce that Government to press his views on
the Local Government. On the other hand, the
Government of India must have expert advice in
dealing with experts, and though this may occasionally
lead to schemes being blocked, it is very difficult to
force any scheme on an unwilling Local Government.
In practice the Government of India could not force
on an .unwilling Local Government any measure to
which it strongly objected unless with the active
support of the Secretary of State.
A minor point is the question of correspondence
between Heads of Departments of the Government of
India and officers belonging to Local Governments.
Personally, I would allow them to correspond freely
with Provincial Heads of Departments. This, however,
is a matter which each Local Government must be
allowed to decide for itself.
Sir Thirkell White suggests in his memorandum
that powers conferred by statute upon a Local Govern-
ment should not be limited by executive orders. The
Government of India have not in the past contem-
plated the exclusion of their control in such cases,
and, if this view were now accepted, it would be
necessary to go through the Statute Book and see in
what cases the existing law might need amendment so
as to restore to the Government of India their present
powers of control.
44054*. Is it necessary for the Government of India
to intervene in such matters as the appointment and
recruitment of tahsildars or other officers of like
status ?—I do not think that the Government of India
should ordinarily interfere in such matters, and in
practice they never do so unless they are directly
brought to their notice by a Local Government or
Administration. Even in such cases moreover, if they
interfere at all it is by way of suggestion, and I con-
sider it one of the most important functions of the
Supreme Government to give Local Governments in
this way the benefit of its wider knowledge and
experience. As a case in point, I may mention that
33383
the Government of Madras recently submitted pro-
posals to increase the number of taluks in the Presi-
dency and to revise the grading of the tahsildars. Some
remarks in Mr. Meyer’s report upon which the pro-
posals were based led to an examination of the existing
system under which tahsildars are appointed in the
Presidency. The practice of making the pay of these
officers depend not only on personal grading but on
the taluks to which they are posted, appeared to the
Government of India to be open to objection, and it
was also thought that the system of grading officers of
this class on a general provincial list which works satis-
factorily in every other province might be equally
successful in the Madras Presidency. These sugges-
tions were accordingly made to the Local Government,
but there is no intention of forcing them upon the
Government of Madras, and as this appears to have
been misunderstood, the Local Government has been
informed demi-officially that the suggestions are merely
for their consideration.
44055*. Would it be desirable to allow the larger
provinces the same powers in respect to the appoint-
ment of Conservators of Forests as are possessed by
the Governors of Madras and Bombay, and complete
powers, outside general financial restrictions, in respect
to the cadres of the Provincial and Subordinate Forest
Services ?—I do not think it is desirable to allow the
larger provinces the same powers in respect of the
appointment of Conservators of Forests as are pos-
sessed by the Governors of Madras and Bombay. In
my opinion none of the provinces, with the exception
of Burma, have a sufficiently large cadre to be com-
pletely self-sufficing for their highest appointments.
It is also desirable that officers who have natural apti-
tude for appointments in the Imperial Research
Institute and officers who are likely ultimately to
become Inspectors-General of Forests should gain ex-
perience in more than one province. As regards the
question whether complete powers, outside general
financial restrictions, might be given to the larger pro-
vinces in respect of the cadres of the Provincial and
Subordinate Forest Services, I see no objection to such
powers being given. At present the Forest Code
contains rules regarding such points as-
(a) suspension and dismissal of members of the
Provincial and Subordinate Services ;
(5) the institution of prosecutions ;
(c) the acceptance of resignations of officers of
Provincial and Subordinate Services ;
(rf) postings and transfers of officers of such
services ;
(e) their leave ;
(/) forest office establishments in provinces ;
(.9) examinations.
These restrictions are in the main due to the fact that
there is one Forest Code for the whole of India out-
side Madras and Bombay. I think that each Local
Government might be empowered to frame rules for
itself regarding the appointment, dismissal, educa-
tional qualifications, etc., of its own Provincial and
Subordinate Services.
44056*. Speaking generally, does the Forest Code
tend to undue centralization ? Might not the strin-
gency of a number of its provisions be relaxed ?—
When the Forest Department was originally established
there were very few trained officers, and it was necessary
to lay down, in the form of a Code, provisions generally
applicable outside the Madras and Bombay Presidencies.
Moreover, for many years the whole of the education
of the subordinate establishment was concentrated at
Dehra Dun. This is gradually ceasing to be the case,
but even now the forest education of all Indian officers
of and above the rank of ranger is carried on at Dehra
Dun, except that in Burma there is a subordinate
Forest School for subordinates up to the rank of
ranger. The conditions of recruitment and education
were also originally uniform throughout India. Con-
ditions are now altering, and a free hand has been
given to Local Governments in matters relating to the
recruitment of their subordinate establishments, and
as their facilities for educating officers increase, they
will no doubt get a free hand as regards training.
Another reason for uniformity lay in the fact that the
audit of forest accounts was in the hands of the
Comptroller General, and Local Governments had not
the same powers in forest matters as in other branches
of the administration. The audit has now been pro-
vincialized, and in the last edition of the Forest Depart-
ment Code the authority of Local Governments as
L
Mr. R. W.
Carlyle.
4 Apr., 1908.