DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68026#0102
Mr. 11. IF.
Carlyle.
4 4pr.,1908.
96
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE :
44420. You would not suggest putting one or more
thanas under special subordinate Sub-Deputy Col-
lectors ?—No, I have not thought of it, but I do not
think you would gain very much by that.
44421. (Chairman.) Mr. McIntyre states in the
evidence for Bengal that he thinks the issue of direct
instructions by the Inspector-General to Conservators
under Article 86 of the Forest Department Code
should be stopped. Do you know what those in-
structions are about?—They relate to the technical
instructions for drawing up working-plans.
44422. (Mr. Meyer.') It has been represented to us
in some other provinces, and especially in Bengal, that
the tendency of the Revenue and Agriculture Depart-
ment of late years, under the influence of what has
been called the Punjab school, has been to prescribe
measures for other provinces taken direct from the
Punjab procedure, but which were not necessarily suit-
able for transportation, and complaint was especially
made with regard to the record of rights in Bengal.
It was said that they had had to alter the record of
rights with reference to what was thought good in the
Punjab. As a Bengal officer, what is your opinion ?—
I think there is no doubt there have been some ex-
tremely able Punjab officers in this department, and
largely owing to their influence in some cases Punjab
views have been put before the Government of Bengal
very strongly, but the Local Government have gene-
rally been able to hold their own, in the way of
objecting to anything which was unsuitable to their
province. It was not, however, mainly due to Punjab
officers that the questions regarding the record of
rights were pressed.
44423. Then the tendency has been to thrust Punjab
ideas upon them ?—I think Punjab procedure has in
some cases been suggested to the Bengal Government,
very strongly.
44424. Which procedure was not suitable to the
province ?—Which perhaps was not suitable.
44425. (Chairman.) There was a point raised by
Mr. Lyon at Dacca with regard to his proposal that
the Board of Revenue should be replaced in Eastern
Bengal by two officers who should sit as a Board for
appellate work ; what do you say as to that ?—I do not
approve of his proposal to abolish the Board as an
executive body. I do not know whether the Commis-
sion has been informed of the Bengal system which
has been adopted lately. I approve of that, but I would
not approve of abolishing the executive functions of
the Board.
44426. A suggestion was made as to whether the
forest audit under the existing Civil Account Code
should be in any way relaxed ; what do you say as to
that ?—That is purely a financial matter on which I
could not express an opinion.
44427**. Is it desirable that the Inspector-
General of Forests should issue instructions to
Conservators under Article 86, Forest Code, as
regards the preparation of working plans ?—It
seems necessary that the Inspector-General of
Forests should have power to issue directions re-
garding the technical part of the preparation of
working plans if he is to continue to exercise the
same control as at present. Mr. McIntire, in
Bengal, desires that the Inspector-General should
no longer issue instructions to Conservators, but
that the Conservator should submit his working
plans to his Local Government which would send
them on to the Inspector-General of Forests for
advice. This might lead in many cases to great
friction, if the Inspector-General of Forests found
occasion severely to criticise the technical details
of a working plan forwarded to him by a Local
Government. At present the criticism is offered
before the Local Government has made itself in
any way responsible for the working plan.
44428**. Is there any objection to Provincial
Governments having a free hand as regards legis-
lation to prevent friction between landlords and
tenants? Why was the Bengal proposal to legis-
late regarding “ char ” lands delayed in order to
be put in the form of an amendment to the Criminal
Procedure Code ?—I am not sure that I quite
understand the first part of the question. Neither
the Imperial Government nor the Provincial Gov-
ernment have a free hand regarding any import-
ant legislation. No proposed law can be intro-
duced. in either the Imperial or Provincial Legis-
lative Councils until the Bill has been submitted
to the Secretary of State and he has had an
opportunity of objecting. Agrarian legislation is
in India so important that 1 cannot conceive of
the Government of India abdicating, or being
allowed to divest itself of, its powers of control in
this matter, and I hold that it would be impos-
sible without a revolutionary change in the rela-
tions between the Government of India and the
provincial Governments to allow the latter a freer
hand as regards such legislation than it possesses
in regard to other legislation. As regards the
second part of the question, the Bengal proposal
to legislate regarding “ char ” lands was never
submitted by the Bengal Government to the
Government of India. The Bengal Government
consulted the Calcutta High Court, which dis-
approved of the legislation proposed, and sub-
mitted proposals of its own to the Government
of India. Those proposals are under considera-
tion.
44429**. Why should the inception of district
survey settlements require the sanction of the
Government of India?—I understand the question
to refer to surveys and records of rights made under
Chapter X. of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Under
Section 101 of that Act, the previous sanction of
the Governor-General in Council is required to an
order directing the making of a survey and the
preparation of a record of rights except in certain
comparatively unimportant classes of cases. I think
it is very probable that a proposal to relax the
control of the Government of India in this matter
would meet with strong opposition from the Bengal
zamindars, and considering the strong feeling
which agrarian legislation usually arouses, I would
deprecate any alteration of the Bengal Tenancy
Act, except in regard to really vital matters.
Moreover the Secretary of State, in his despatch
No. 30 (Revenue), dated 9th February, 1906, while
approving generally of the programme for carrying
out survey and settlement operations in Bengal
and Eastern Bengal has directed that whenever
it is proposed to extend the operations to any
large portion of a district or group of districts,
the reasons for the proposal should be stated as
hitherto in detail to the Government of India,
and that operations should not be commenced
until sanction has been obtained. The expendi-
ture on the operations, which it is estimated will
exceed 3J crores, is advanced in the first instance
from Imperial revenues, and nearly a crore of the
sum is paid by the Government of India. It
seems desirable on this ground alone that the
sanction of the Government of India should be
obtained before any considerable extension of the
operations is undertaken.
44430**. What is your opinion of the proposal
that the Board of Revenue should be replaced in
Eastern Bengal by two officers to sit as a Board
for appellate work, but having no executive
authority except as the Lieutenant-Governor’s
agents, and that these officers should relieve the
Lieutenant-Governor of detailed correspondence,
and of the supervision of Commissioners and
Heads of Departments? Would such a change pre-
vent junior officers of the Secretariat having undue
influence, a,nd is it necessary in order to attain the
latter object?—I do not approve of the proposal
to replace the Board of Revenue in Eastern Bengal
by two officers to sit as a Board for appellate
work but without executive authority. I think that
this would be a means of centralizing instead of de-
centralizing authority, as the result would almost
certainly be that many important cases which are
now disposed of by the. Board would be submitted
to the Local Government for orders. I approve of
the Bengal system described by the Chief Secre-
tary to the Bengal Government and other Bengal
witnesses, under which most of the references
between the Board of Revenue and Government
are unofficial. The Board of Revenue does now
very largely supervise the work of Commissioners
and of several Heads of Departments. I am not
aware of the fact that junior officers of the Secre-
tariat have undue influence, and I do not think the
change proposed is necessary to prevent this.
Carlyle.
4 4pr.,1908.
96
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE :
44420. You would not suggest putting one or more
thanas under special subordinate Sub-Deputy Col-
lectors ?—No, I have not thought of it, but I do not
think you would gain very much by that.
44421. (Chairman.) Mr. McIntyre states in the
evidence for Bengal that he thinks the issue of direct
instructions by the Inspector-General to Conservators
under Article 86 of the Forest Department Code
should be stopped. Do you know what those in-
structions are about?—They relate to the technical
instructions for drawing up working-plans.
44422. (Mr. Meyer.') It has been represented to us
in some other provinces, and especially in Bengal, that
the tendency of the Revenue and Agriculture Depart-
ment of late years, under the influence of what has
been called the Punjab school, has been to prescribe
measures for other provinces taken direct from the
Punjab procedure, but which were not necessarily suit-
able for transportation, and complaint was especially
made with regard to the record of rights in Bengal.
It was said that they had had to alter the record of
rights with reference to what was thought good in the
Punjab. As a Bengal officer, what is your opinion ?—
I think there is no doubt there have been some ex-
tremely able Punjab officers in this department, and
largely owing to their influence in some cases Punjab
views have been put before the Government of Bengal
very strongly, but the Local Government have gene-
rally been able to hold their own, in the way of
objecting to anything which was unsuitable to their
province. It was not, however, mainly due to Punjab
officers that the questions regarding the record of
rights were pressed.
44423. Then the tendency has been to thrust Punjab
ideas upon them ?—I think Punjab procedure has in
some cases been suggested to the Bengal Government,
very strongly.
44424. Which procedure was not suitable to the
province ?—Which perhaps was not suitable.
44425. (Chairman.) There was a point raised by
Mr. Lyon at Dacca with regard to his proposal that
the Board of Revenue should be replaced in Eastern
Bengal by two officers who should sit as a Board for
appellate work ; what do you say as to that ?—I do not
approve of his proposal to abolish the Board as an
executive body. I do not know whether the Commis-
sion has been informed of the Bengal system which
has been adopted lately. I approve of that, but I would
not approve of abolishing the executive functions of
the Board.
44426. A suggestion was made as to whether the
forest audit under the existing Civil Account Code
should be in any way relaxed ; what do you say as to
that ?—That is purely a financial matter on which I
could not express an opinion.
44427**. Is it desirable that the Inspector-
General of Forests should issue instructions to
Conservators under Article 86, Forest Code, as
regards the preparation of working plans ?—It
seems necessary that the Inspector-General of
Forests should have power to issue directions re-
garding the technical part of the preparation of
working plans if he is to continue to exercise the
same control as at present. Mr. McIntire, in
Bengal, desires that the Inspector-General should
no longer issue instructions to Conservators, but
that the Conservator should submit his working
plans to his Local Government which would send
them on to the Inspector-General of Forests for
advice. This might lead in many cases to great
friction, if the Inspector-General of Forests found
occasion severely to criticise the technical details
of a working plan forwarded to him by a Local
Government. At present the criticism is offered
before the Local Government has made itself in
any way responsible for the working plan.
44428**. Is there any objection to Provincial
Governments having a free hand as regards legis-
lation to prevent friction between landlords and
tenants? Why was the Bengal proposal to legis-
late regarding “ char ” lands delayed in order to
be put in the form of an amendment to the Criminal
Procedure Code ?—I am not sure that I quite
understand the first part of the question. Neither
the Imperial Government nor the Provincial Gov-
ernment have a free hand regarding any import-
ant legislation. No proposed law can be intro-
duced. in either the Imperial or Provincial Legis-
lative Councils until the Bill has been submitted
to the Secretary of State and he has had an
opportunity of objecting. Agrarian legislation is
in India so important that 1 cannot conceive of
the Government of India abdicating, or being
allowed to divest itself of, its powers of control in
this matter, and I hold that it would be impos-
sible without a revolutionary change in the rela-
tions between the Government of India and the
provincial Governments to allow the latter a freer
hand as regards such legislation than it possesses
in regard to other legislation. As regards the
second part of the question, the Bengal proposal
to legislate regarding “ char ” lands was never
submitted by the Bengal Government to the
Government of India. The Bengal Government
consulted the Calcutta High Court, which dis-
approved of the legislation proposed, and sub-
mitted proposals of its own to the Government
of India. Those proposals are under considera-
tion.
44429**. Why should the inception of district
survey settlements require the sanction of the
Government of India?—I understand the question
to refer to surveys and records of rights made under
Chapter X. of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Under
Section 101 of that Act, the previous sanction of
the Governor-General in Council is required to an
order directing the making of a survey and the
preparation of a record of rights except in certain
comparatively unimportant classes of cases. I think
it is very probable that a proposal to relax the
control of the Government of India in this matter
would meet with strong opposition from the Bengal
zamindars, and considering the strong feeling
which agrarian legislation usually arouses, I would
deprecate any alteration of the Bengal Tenancy
Act, except in regard to really vital matters.
Moreover the Secretary of State, in his despatch
No. 30 (Revenue), dated 9th February, 1906, while
approving generally of the programme for carrying
out survey and settlement operations in Bengal
and Eastern Bengal has directed that whenever
it is proposed to extend the operations to any
large portion of a district or group of districts,
the reasons for the proposal should be stated as
hitherto in detail to the Government of India,
and that operations should not be commenced
until sanction has been obtained. The expendi-
ture on the operations, which it is estimated will
exceed 3J crores, is advanced in the first instance
from Imperial revenues, and nearly a crore of the
sum is paid by the Government of India. It
seems desirable on this ground alone that the
sanction of the Government of India should be
obtained before any considerable extension of the
operations is undertaken.
44430**. What is your opinion of the proposal
that the Board of Revenue should be replaced in
Eastern Bengal by two officers to sit as a Board
for appellate work, but having no executive
authority except as the Lieutenant-Governor’s
agents, and that these officers should relieve the
Lieutenant-Governor of detailed correspondence,
and of the supervision of Commissioners and
Heads of Departments? Would such a change pre-
vent junior officers of the Secretariat having undue
influence, a,nd is it necessary in order to attain the
latter object?—I do not approve of the proposal
to replace the Board of Revenue in Eastern Bengal
by two officers to sit as a Board for appellate
work but without executive authority. I think that
this would be a means of centralizing instead of de-
centralizing authority, as the result would almost
certainly be that many important cases which are
now disposed of by the. Board would be submitted
to the Local Government for orders. I approve of
the Bengal system described by the Chief Secre-
tary to the Bengal Government and other Bengal
witnesses, under which most of the references
between the Board of Revenue and Government
are unofficial. The Board of Revenue does now
very largely supervise the work of Commissioners
and of several Heads of Departments. I am not
aware of the fact that junior officers of the Secre-
tariat have undue influence, and I do not think the
change proposed is necessary to prevent this.