Minutes of evidence taken before the Royal Commission upon Decentralization in Bengal of witnesses serving directly under the Government of India, volume 10 ([London?]: [House of Commons?], 1908)

170

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE :

Sir Herbert
Risley.
7 Apr., 1908.

the defence of the country, general taxation, cur-
rency, tariffs, posts and telegraphs, and railways.
Ordinary internal administration, assessment and
collection of revenues, education, medical and
sanitary arrangements and irrigation, buildings
and roads, fall to the share of the provincial
Governments. But in all these matters the Gov-
ernment of India exercises a general and constant
control.” Can one take it in any sense that that
subdivision of administrative functions is a
modern-day compliance with this old instruction
of 1834?—I can only say that I think the Govern-
ment of India endeavours to act in accordance
with paragraph 83 of the despatch of 1834.
45587. That is not the point; I do not wish to
suggest any doubt but that they do. The point is
that in two paragraphs of that despatch you are
invited to consider “ to what extent and in what
particulars the powers of Government can Jbe best
exercised by the local authorities, and to what
extent and in what particulars they are likely to
be best exercised when retained in your own
hands. With respect to that portion of the busi-
ness of Government which you fully confide to the
local authorities, and with which a minute inter-
ference on youi- part would not be beneficial,” and
so on. Have you ever tried to divide the functions
of the two Governments in that way ?—I think
the “ Gazetteer ” statement is substantially cor-
rect, but the division cannot be carried to the
point of eliminating control by the Government of
India.
45588. You say “ I believe that at the present/
time the Government of India endeavour to pro-
ceed upon this principle.” What do you mean by
“ at the present time ” ; shall we say within the
last ten years, or do you mean actually to-day?—I
think that, let us say, three or four years ago the
policy of the Government of India was directed
rather more towards uniformity for its own sake
than it is now ; that is the implication suggested
by the words “at the present time.'
45589. May we take it that five years ago, in
these despatches which I have asked you to put
in, the Secretary of State was evidently rather
uncomfortable as to whether you were not entirely
going outside the sphere suggested for you in
1834?—You refer to the despatch in which he
made observations about decentralization ; that
is so.
45590. May we take it that your last letter to
Bombay of June, 1907, on the subject of the rail-
way police reorganization, and your last letter,
of December, 1907, on the subject of the district
police reorganization, are an exemplification of
your adherence to the principles of that despatch?
—The Secretary of State refused to allow the
Government of India to adopt a different method.
45591. I only ask you whether you consider that
those letters are in accordance with the principles
of this despatch of 1834 which, you say, is the
guiding despatch?—I do not think you can con-
sider that apart from the circumstances of the
particular case ; we had to deal there with a ques-
tion in which we have to find the money, and it
was for that reason that there was that minute
examination of the Local Government’s proposals.
45592. You say that “ one of the limitations on
the principle is because, when a. Local Government
has not to pay the bill itself, it is not unnaturally
tempted to use the occasion to raise its standard
of efficiency at the cost of the Government of
India ” ; and you have put a note to that which
purports to show that the ratio of expenditure to
population in Bombay is considerably higher than
in any other province in India. Now, what is
the object of that note?—The note illustrates the
suggestion that when a Local Government is not
finding the money for a certain class of expendi-
ture it is subjected to certain temptations.
45593. Is the suggestion that the Bombay Gov-
ernment is able to make its own reorganizations
at the cost of the Government of India without
control correct; is not the control of the Govern-
ment of India over the Bombay Government
exactly the same as it is over every other Local
Government ?—Yes.

45594. Then this is really a criticism of your
Finance Department ?—How so ?
45595. Simply because you say that they have
allowed the Bombay Government to be so ex-
tremely extravagant?—I fancy some of this dates
back to very ancient times, before the decen-
tralization of provincial finance.
45596. Then what is the Object of putting it in
now?—Simply to show that Bombay has a higher
standard of expenditure.
45597. Has it not all been sanctioned by the
Government of India and the Secretary of State?
—Presumably.
45598. Then it means to say that, with regard to
Bombay, either the expenditure was necessary or
else your own Finance Department has adopted
a different standard of treatment of that particular
Local Government?—It was always suggested in
the old days that the importunity of Bombay was
such that it got more than other Local Govern-
ments out of the Government of India ; that is a
matter of tradition.
45599. Even so, it is no illustration of your
point 1 (b)1-—‘It is intended to show that the Bom-
bay standard of administration is above the
normal standard.
45600. And they have made out a good case for
that to the Government of India and the Secretary
of State?—They have succeeded in convincing the
Government of India at any rate.
45601. Then how is it an illustration of your
[point 1 (b)?—Working up to a higher standard of
administrative expenditure.
45602. With the consent of the Government of
India and the Secretary of State?—That conclu-
sion is irresistible.
45603. Therefore it is not an illustration of your
point 1 (&)?—I think it is an illustration of asking
too much.
45604. May I also point out that that statement
is incomplete? Why is not the Burma Govern-
ment put in ; it is in British India and it existed
in those years?—I do not know why the Finance
Department took only these provinces.
45605. Is it because the Burma population is
about half that of Bombay, and if it had been
included the figures would not have been so favour-
able to the suggestion ?—I cannot say without
looking at the original papers.
45606. Will you kindly complete that statement
as to Burma, and I should like the years 1907-08
added also. I should also like a statement of
expenditure per square mile area with the same
figures, and also a statement of revenue, provin-
cial and imperial, per population and square mile
area?—I will supply that.t
45607. (Sir Frederic Lely.) With reference to
your answer to the question whether it is feasible
to grant larger powers to Local Governments after
the Government of India has laid down general
lines of policy, you refer in the early part I under-
stand to the special grants made occasionally by
the Government of India. Should those grants
be regulated by the supposed requirements of the
provinces or- by their relative claims on general
grounds ?—By requirements 1 suppose ; I do not
quite know what is meant by “ claims on general
grounds.”
45608. Suppose there is a surplus of half a
crore, should it not be distributed on general
grounds to the several provinces, and left to them
to apply to their particular needs as estimated by
themselves ; would that not be. the more correct
policy?—I do not quite know how you would
arrive at a conclusion on that basis.
45609. There are several conditions that might
be taken into consideration in addition to the
demands of each province. As I understand
now, special grants are distributed practically
according to the demands of the various pro-
vinces?—When it was decided that there was to
be a special grant given for the purpose of educa-
tion, my remembrance is that we tried various

+ Vide Appendix XV.