DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68026#0177
ROYAL COMMISSION UPON DECENTRALIZATION.
171
tests—tests by population, tests by number of
educated people, and so forth, and it was worked
out in that way. The population test is primd
facie a fair one.
45610. You arrived in that way at a certain sum
to give to each province ?—Exactly ; we took all
the circumstances we knew, and all the statistics
we could get, and worked them in different ways,
and if we found the different ways corresponded
fairly, we assumed that we had got at an equit-
able distribution.
45611. What is the essential difference between
a grant of that kind and the settled revenue which
the province received ; why should the Govern-
ment of India have more claim to dictate and
interfere in this grant than in the case of settled
revenue ; in each case does not the money come
from public funds?—The Government of India
determines on the strength of its own budget that
it can spare, say, 35 lakhs for education ; that
35 lakhs has to be distributed among certain
provinces ; I can understand its being distributed
by population and by various other tests, but I do
not understand how the provinces could auto-
matically distribute it among themselves.
45612. Suppose a distribution is made, in what
respect does that money differ essentially from
the money which the province gets under its
settlement?—It is merged in it. When once the
grant has been made it merges in the provincial
revenues of the province absolutely.
45613. Then on what ground does the Govern-
ment of India claim to interfere in the details of
that money more than in details of the other pro-
vincial revenue?—In the particular case that I
have in mind it was for primary education. All
the Government of India asked the Local Govern-
ments to do was to tell them how much they spent
on primary education for a year or two, simply in
order that the Government of India might be
satisfied that the grant had been used.
45614. You say “ The Government of India must
have some control over details, because without
particulars it could not know how much money
will be required ”: suppose that the grant has
been made, on what ground does the Government
of India further claim particulars as to its ex-
penditure?—Take the other case ; the Government
of India say, “ We are going to re-organise the
police; we are prepared to spend 150 lakhs on it”;
then they ask each Government for particulars, in
order to show the precise sum that they will
require to carry out the proposals of the Police
Commission.
45615. But the assignment once made, it
becomes part of the provincial revenue?—That is
so, but it cannot be spent without the sanction of
the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State
required detailed proposition statements to be
sent him showing down to the last constable what
had been sanctioned. It was out of that that
there arose the necessity of asking for details ;
it was imposed upon the Government of India by
the Secretary of State. The Government of India
in sending their despatch Home asked him to
permit them to give approval to the schemes of
the Local Governments as they were sent ; we
sent Home a certain scale and we said, “ Now, if
you agree to this scale, allow us to sanction every-
thing up to that scale, sending you Home state-
ments showing what we have sanctioned.” He
would not agree to that, and he said, “ You must
send home first complete proposition statements.”
That has been the origin of all the trouble that
there has been with the Local Governments ; it
has caused all the delay.
45616. (Chairman.) Did the Secretary of State
also accept or did he query the numbers in each
case?—The orders passed on these proposition
statments, where, they have been passed, are exceed-
ingly short and simple.
45617. But did the Secretary of State in deal-
ing with these questions ask as to the numbers or
curtail the numbers of police required by the dif-
ferent Local Governments ?—-He asked for pro-
position statements showing every single man em-
ployed.
45618. Were the numbers curtailed?—He ac-
cepted our proposals in every case, to the best of
my remembrance.
45619. (Sir Steyning Edgerley.) Did he order a
different system of scrutiny and treatment in this
particular case from that which is necessary in
the case of every scheme costing over Rs. 25,000?
—No, he did not, but my point is that he rejected
a proposal of ours which would have simplified the
whole thing.
45620. (Sir Frederic Lely.) As to these various
points that you give us, I am not able to follow
any principle running through them. You say
as a ground for the interference in details by the.
Government of India that “ when Services are
recruited provincially the conditions must be
fairly uniform.” Now in the Bombay Presidency
there are certain village accountants who are very
lowly paid and not paid in accordance with the
responsibilities they have to incur; it was pro-
posed by the local officers that they should be
given pensions on the superior service scale. That
would have met the difficulty, it would have been
entirely popular, it was strongly recommended by
the local officers and supported by the Local
Government. I understand that the Government
of India refused to sanction it on the ground that
similar village officers in other parts of India did
not receive similar treatment. Do you think that
that was justifiable?—I think the point of view
of the Government of India was that if this was
extended to village officers all over India, it would
open a very large and indefinite prospect of ex-
penditure. I am not acquainted with the case,
which belongs to the Revenue Department, but I
am not prepared to say that they were not justi-
fied in the attitude they took.
Si?' Herbert
Risley.
1 Apr., 1908
45621. Do you think it is such a matter of
imperial interest that the patwari in the Central
Provinces should get the same pension rates as the
talati in Gujarat?—I think a large and indefinite
addition to the pension charges may well be an
imperial question.
45622. But it was not on that ground, I under-
stand, that sanction was disallowed ; it was on
the ground of uniformity ?—In writing this I was
not thinking so much of the smaller Services ; I
was referring to the educated class ; I was think-
ing of the two or three castes which form what
is called the educated class, or the middle class.
45623. The reason given in this particular case
for refusing to sanction the proposal was on the
ground of uniformity. Then, you speak of
“ commercial interests ” ; do you really mean to
suggest that wherever commercial interests are
affected the Government of India should deal
with the matter?—What I mean to suggest is that
when the Home Department was dealing with
the petroleum rules and the carbide of calcium
rules, they had complaints from firms like
Graham and Co., who were dealing with petroleum
over a very large area, that it was absolutely in-
tolerable that there should be different rules in
the different provinces ; and it was difficult not
to sympathise.
45624. In. both those articles is there not an
element of danger involved, and also the element
of expert knowledge, which is usually at the
command of the Government of India? You
would not go so far as to put all commercial
matters under the Government of India, surely ?—
Either that, or that the rules should be made to a
certain model, so that firms shall not find abso-
lutely different sets of rules in force in the various
provinces in which they sell petroleum.
45625. Would you have a model schedule of
octroi duties in every municipality?—No, I do not
think that arises here.
45626. Clearly the octroi schedule would affect
the inland commerce of the country as much as
anything?—I do not think the cases are parallel.
If you take so much petroleum into a town you
pay at a given rate ; but here the whole sets of
rules are different; they affect transport, storage.
&c., over large areas. If they vary from pro-
vince to province business men who take no
account of administrative boundaries naturally
33383
Y 2
171
tests—tests by population, tests by number of
educated people, and so forth, and it was worked
out in that way. The population test is primd
facie a fair one.
45610. You arrived in that way at a certain sum
to give to each province ?—Exactly ; we took all
the circumstances we knew, and all the statistics
we could get, and worked them in different ways,
and if we found the different ways corresponded
fairly, we assumed that we had got at an equit-
able distribution.
45611. What is the essential difference between
a grant of that kind and the settled revenue which
the province received ; why should the Govern-
ment of India have more claim to dictate and
interfere in this grant than in the case of settled
revenue ; in each case does not the money come
from public funds?—The Government of India
determines on the strength of its own budget that
it can spare, say, 35 lakhs for education ; that
35 lakhs has to be distributed among certain
provinces ; I can understand its being distributed
by population and by various other tests, but I do
not understand how the provinces could auto-
matically distribute it among themselves.
45612. Suppose a distribution is made, in what
respect does that money differ essentially from
the money which the province gets under its
settlement?—It is merged in it. When once the
grant has been made it merges in the provincial
revenues of the province absolutely.
45613. Then on what ground does the Govern-
ment of India claim to interfere in the details of
that money more than in details of the other pro-
vincial revenue?—In the particular case that I
have in mind it was for primary education. All
the Government of India asked the Local Govern-
ments to do was to tell them how much they spent
on primary education for a year or two, simply in
order that the Government of India might be
satisfied that the grant had been used.
45614. You say “ The Government of India must
have some control over details, because without
particulars it could not know how much money
will be required ”: suppose that the grant has
been made, on what ground does the Government
of India further claim particulars as to its ex-
penditure?—Take the other case ; the Government
of India say, “ We are going to re-organise the
police; we are prepared to spend 150 lakhs on it”;
then they ask each Government for particulars, in
order to show the precise sum that they will
require to carry out the proposals of the Police
Commission.
45615. But the assignment once made, it
becomes part of the provincial revenue?—That is
so, but it cannot be spent without the sanction of
the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State
required detailed proposition statements to be
sent him showing down to the last constable what
had been sanctioned. It was out of that that
there arose the necessity of asking for details ;
it was imposed upon the Government of India by
the Secretary of State. The Government of India
in sending their despatch Home asked him to
permit them to give approval to the schemes of
the Local Governments as they were sent ; we
sent Home a certain scale and we said, “ Now, if
you agree to this scale, allow us to sanction every-
thing up to that scale, sending you Home state-
ments showing what we have sanctioned.” He
would not agree to that, and he said, “ You must
send home first complete proposition statements.”
That has been the origin of all the trouble that
there has been with the Local Governments ; it
has caused all the delay.
45616. (Chairman.) Did the Secretary of State
also accept or did he query the numbers in each
case?—The orders passed on these proposition
statments, where, they have been passed, are exceed-
ingly short and simple.
45617. But did the Secretary of State in deal-
ing with these questions ask as to the numbers or
curtail the numbers of police required by the dif-
ferent Local Governments ?—-He asked for pro-
position statements showing every single man em-
ployed.
45618. Were the numbers curtailed?—He ac-
cepted our proposals in every case, to the best of
my remembrance.
45619. (Sir Steyning Edgerley.) Did he order a
different system of scrutiny and treatment in this
particular case from that which is necessary in
the case of every scheme costing over Rs. 25,000?
—No, he did not, but my point is that he rejected
a proposal of ours which would have simplified the
whole thing.
45620. (Sir Frederic Lely.) As to these various
points that you give us, I am not able to follow
any principle running through them. You say
as a ground for the interference in details by the.
Government of India that “ when Services are
recruited provincially the conditions must be
fairly uniform.” Now in the Bombay Presidency
there are certain village accountants who are very
lowly paid and not paid in accordance with the
responsibilities they have to incur; it was pro-
posed by the local officers that they should be
given pensions on the superior service scale. That
would have met the difficulty, it would have been
entirely popular, it was strongly recommended by
the local officers and supported by the Local
Government. I understand that the Government
of India refused to sanction it on the ground that
similar village officers in other parts of India did
not receive similar treatment. Do you think that
that was justifiable?—I think the point of view
of the Government of India was that if this was
extended to village officers all over India, it would
open a very large and indefinite prospect of ex-
penditure. I am not acquainted with the case,
which belongs to the Revenue Department, but I
am not prepared to say that they were not justi-
fied in the attitude they took.
Si?' Herbert
Risley.
1 Apr., 1908
45621. Do you think it is such a matter of
imperial interest that the patwari in the Central
Provinces should get the same pension rates as the
talati in Gujarat?—I think a large and indefinite
addition to the pension charges may well be an
imperial question.
45622. But it was not on that ground, I under-
stand, that sanction was disallowed ; it was on
the ground of uniformity ?—In writing this I was
not thinking so much of the smaller Services ; I
was referring to the educated class ; I was think-
ing of the two or three castes which form what
is called the educated class, or the middle class.
45623. The reason given in this particular case
for refusing to sanction the proposal was on the
ground of uniformity. Then, you speak of
“ commercial interests ” ; do you really mean to
suggest that wherever commercial interests are
affected the Government of India should deal
with the matter?—What I mean to suggest is that
when the Home Department was dealing with
the petroleum rules and the carbide of calcium
rules, they had complaints from firms like
Graham and Co., who were dealing with petroleum
over a very large area, that it was absolutely in-
tolerable that there should be different rules in
the different provinces ; and it was difficult not
to sympathise.
45624. In. both those articles is there not an
element of danger involved, and also the element
of expert knowledge, which is usually at the
command of the Government of India? You
would not go so far as to put all commercial
matters under the Government of India, surely ?—
Either that, or that the rules should be made to a
certain model, so that firms shall not find abso-
lutely different sets of rules in force in the various
provinces in which they sell petroleum.
45625. Would you have a model schedule of
octroi duties in every municipality?—No, I do not
think that arises here.
45626. Clearly the octroi schedule would affect
the inland commerce of the country as much as
anything?—I do not think the cases are parallel.
If you take so much petroleum into a town you
pay at a given rate ; but here the whole sets of
rules are different; they affect transport, storage.
&c., over large areas. If they vary from pro-
vince to province business men who take no
account of administrative boundaries naturally
33383
Y 2