DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68026#0192
186
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE :
Sir Herbert
Risley.
7 Apr., 1908.
the existing procedure. The main ground of this
is that the removal, for whatever cause, of a
Military Officer from a line he has been permitted
to adopt as his career, may be attended not only
by serious consequences to himself, but of embar-
rassment to the State. The question of centraliza-
tion, though remotely involved, is here only a
subordinate factor.
45883**. Was the suggestion of the Director of
Archaeology to the Epigraphist of Madras to ask
the Government of Madras to engage a full-time
photographer, practically equivalent to an order
to the epigraphist to apply for a photographer?—
No. The functions of the Director-General of
Archaeology in India in respect of the provincial
officers are only advisory in character. This has
been very clearly laid down by the Government
of India, and the provincial Governments have
been furnished with a copy of the orders on the
subject. It is left entirely to the discretion of
the latter to adopt, or not to adopt,the suggestions
of the Director-General of Archaeology in India.
45884**. Is it not necessary that archaeology
which concerns temples about which there may be
a local sentiment, should be under provincial con-
trol?—The existing system, under which the work
of archaeological conservation is carried on by the
Local Governments in consultation with the Gov-
ernment of India affords ample security against
the disregard of local sentiment about any par-
ticular building. European opinion holds the
Government of India, and not the provincial
Governments, responsible for the preservation of
ancient buildings in India. The Government of
India therefore must exercise the ultimate con-
trol in such matters.
45885**. Should not the Inspectors-General
place their views and observations before Local
Governments who are on the spot, rather than
keep them for the Government of India?—I think
it might be worth while to consider whether an
advisory officer, after making a prolonged tour in a
province, should not record a note of the places
he has visited and the questions he has discussed
with provincial officers and submit a copy to the
Local Government. This would let them know
what he has been doing and would guard against
the impression that he had been collecting infor-
mation or disseminating opinions behind their
backs.
45886**. Should not the power of Inspectors-
General to call for figures and statistics be
strictly limited? Do they now ascertain whether
the labour entailed by their demands is com-
mensurate with the value? Should they Ibe
limited to calling for statistics existing in pub-
lished form?—I have already dealt with this
matter. As to the second part of the question I
have made no special enquiries, but the pre-
sumption is that the officers concerned do not ask
unnecessary questions. No complaints on the
subject have come to my notice.
45887**. When the Government of India over-
rule a provincial Government, is the special sanction
of the Viceroy required? Do the provincial
Governments have the same opportunity of putting
their point of view before the Viceroy as the
Government of India?—The answer is “Yes.”
The matter is regulated by statutory rules, and
no proposal of a provincial Government (includ-
ing a Chief Commissioner) is negatived, or its
decision overruled, without the personal orders of
His Excellency the Governor-General (to whom
the. entire papers are submitted for considera-
tion), or except at a meeting of the Executive
Council of the Governor-General. Exceptions to
the rule are:—(1) cases in which a suggestion only
is made to a Local Government; (2) cases in
which the proposals of a Local Government con-
travene standing orders or accepted principles, and
the reply of the Government of India merely
refers to such orders (as in cases where the Local
Government may wish to anticipate the sanction
of the Secretary of State or to give retrospective
effect to some financial sanction). Such cases are
not, as a matter of course, submitted to His Excel-
lency the Governor-General.
45888**. Why did the Government of India
impose a uniform set of rules under the Poisons
Act upon Local Governments in February, 1907 ?—
Originally there was no desire on the part of the
Government of India to impose uniformity of
details in the rules framed in the different pro-
vinces, but merely that the same general lines
should ibe followed throughout India. The draft
rules prepared by the Local Governments revealed,
however, a wide divergence in many matters of
principle as well as of details. . As examples of
such divergence may be mentioned the list of
poisons specified under section 2 of the Act. In
some cases it included four varieties only, in
others six or seven, and in one case 28. A
similar diversity of opinion existed with regard to
the amount of fee to be charged to the licence-
holder, which was fixed as high as Rs. 50 in one
province and at nil in another. The classes of
persons to whom poisons may be sold were
variously defined. In some cases sales were to be
prohibited to anyone under 21 years ; in other-
cases to anyone under 18 years, 16 years, and 14
years. Again, some of the draft rules related
both to wholesale and retail sales, while other-
rules differentiated between the two. In some
cases the maximum amount of poison which might
be held by a licence-holder was prescribed, as
well as the minimum quantity which might be
sold at any one transaction ; in other cases no
such limits were fixed. Considerable divergence
of opinion existed also as to the class and rank
of officers who might inspect a licensed vendor’s
premises. It was upon a consideration of all
these circumstances that the Government of India
decided that the rules for each province should
be drawn on uniform lines in respect to the
matters above mentioned, and model rules were
accordingly circulated to Local Governments for
adoption if they saw no objection to them. Burma
pointed out certain objections, and in so far as its
suggestions tended to improve the rules, they were
adopted. In the case of the sales of poisons
administrative, as well as commercial, interests are
involved, and where such interests are concerned,
it is desirable that the arrangements should be as
uniform as possible. If they vary widely, firms
dealing in poisons will have cause for complaint.
45889**. Under the order of the Government of
India, Ordnance Department—(1) the loss of a
single cartridge case requires an enquiry and four
signatures by the Inspector-General of Police,
i.e., two committal proceedings and two sanc-
tioning papers ; (2) the loss of a dummy cartridge
must be sanctioned by the Local Government. Is
this necessary?—The procedure referred to is un-
necessary. There appears to be some confusion
in, and possibly some misunderstanding of, the
orders on the subject. The matter will be looked
into.
45890**. Why must Local Governments desiring
to appoint a Deputy Collector to a listed post for
more than six weeks obtain the leave of Govern-
ment of India?—Under existing rules Local
Governments have the power to nominate members
of the Provincial Civil Service to listed appoint--
raents for three months without report to the
Government of India, and for over that period with
their previous sanction. This rule was made be-
cause it was considered that, as these posts involve
very responsible duties and the principle of selec-
tion ought to be carefully observed in filling them,
it was desirable that, at the beginning, the nomi-
nation of the Local Governments should come to
the Government of India for scrutiny. The rules
have been in force now for more than 15 years,
and in my opinion it is right that they should be
altered, and Local Governments empowered to
sanction such appointments without reference to
anyone.
Hie reference to appointments being made by
Local Government for not more than six weeks with-
out the sanction of the Government of India,
suggests that the question relates not to listed
posts but to scheduled or reserved posts. In
respect of such appointments sanction is required
under sections 3 and 4 of the Statute 24 and 25
Viet., Cap 54. But the previous sanction of
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE :
Sir Herbert
Risley.
7 Apr., 1908.
the existing procedure. The main ground of this
is that the removal, for whatever cause, of a
Military Officer from a line he has been permitted
to adopt as his career, may be attended not only
by serious consequences to himself, but of embar-
rassment to the State. The question of centraliza-
tion, though remotely involved, is here only a
subordinate factor.
45883**. Was the suggestion of the Director of
Archaeology to the Epigraphist of Madras to ask
the Government of Madras to engage a full-time
photographer, practically equivalent to an order
to the epigraphist to apply for a photographer?—
No. The functions of the Director-General of
Archaeology in India in respect of the provincial
officers are only advisory in character. This has
been very clearly laid down by the Government
of India, and the provincial Governments have
been furnished with a copy of the orders on the
subject. It is left entirely to the discretion of
the latter to adopt, or not to adopt,the suggestions
of the Director-General of Archaeology in India.
45884**. Is it not necessary that archaeology
which concerns temples about which there may be
a local sentiment, should be under provincial con-
trol?—The existing system, under which the work
of archaeological conservation is carried on by the
Local Governments in consultation with the Gov-
ernment of India affords ample security against
the disregard of local sentiment about any par-
ticular building. European opinion holds the
Government of India, and not the provincial
Governments, responsible for the preservation of
ancient buildings in India. The Government of
India therefore must exercise the ultimate con-
trol in such matters.
45885**. Should not the Inspectors-General
place their views and observations before Local
Governments who are on the spot, rather than
keep them for the Government of India?—I think
it might be worth while to consider whether an
advisory officer, after making a prolonged tour in a
province, should not record a note of the places
he has visited and the questions he has discussed
with provincial officers and submit a copy to the
Local Government. This would let them know
what he has been doing and would guard against
the impression that he had been collecting infor-
mation or disseminating opinions behind their
backs.
45886**. Should not the power of Inspectors-
General to call for figures and statistics be
strictly limited? Do they now ascertain whether
the labour entailed by their demands is com-
mensurate with the value? Should they Ibe
limited to calling for statistics existing in pub-
lished form?—I have already dealt with this
matter. As to the second part of the question I
have made no special enquiries, but the pre-
sumption is that the officers concerned do not ask
unnecessary questions. No complaints on the
subject have come to my notice.
45887**. When the Government of India over-
rule a provincial Government, is the special sanction
of the Viceroy required? Do the provincial
Governments have the same opportunity of putting
their point of view before the Viceroy as the
Government of India?—The answer is “Yes.”
The matter is regulated by statutory rules, and
no proposal of a provincial Government (includ-
ing a Chief Commissioner) is negatived, or its
decision overruled, without the personal orders of
His Excellency the Governor-General (to whom
the. entire papers are submitted for considera-
tion), or except at a meeting of the Executive
Council of the Governor-General. Exceptions to
the rule are:—(1) cases in which a suggestion only
is made to a Local Government; (2) cases in
which the proposals of a Local Government con-
travene standing orders or accepted principles, and
the reply of the Government of India merely
refers to such orders (as in cases where the Local
Government may wish to anticipate the sanction
of the Secretary of State or to give retrospective
effect to some financial sanction). Such cases are
not, as a matter of course, submitted to His Excel-
lency the Governor-General.
45888**. Why did the Government of India
impose a uniform set of rules under the Poisons
Act upon Local Governments in February, 1907 ?—
Originally there was no desire on the part of the
Government of India to impose uniformity of
details in the rules framed in the different pro-
vinces, but merely that the same general lines
should ibe followed throughout India. The draft
rules prepared by the Local Governments revealed,
however, a wide divergence in many matters of
principle as well as of details. . As examples of
such divergence may be mentioned the list of
poisons specified under section 2 of the Act. In
some cases it included four varieties only, in
others six or seven, and in one case 28. A
similar diversity of opinion existed with regard to
the amount of fee to be charged to the licence-
holder, which was fixed as high as Rs. 50 in one
province and at nil in another. The classes of
persons to whom poisons may be sold were
variously defined. In some cases sales were to be
prohibited to anyone under 21 years ; in other-
cases to anyone under 18 years, 16 years, and 14
years. Again, some of the draft rules related
both to wholesale and retail sales, while other-
rules differentiated between the two. In some
cases the maximum amount of poison which might
be held by a licence-holder was prescribed, as
well as the minimum quantity which might be
sold at any one transaction ; in other cases no
such limits were fixed. Considerable divergence
of opinion existed also as to the class and rank
of officers who might inspect a licensed vendor’s
premises. It was upon a consideration of all
these circumstances that the Government of India
decided that the rules for each province should
be drawn on uniform lines in respect to the
matters above mentioned, and model rules were
accordingly circulated to Local Governments for
adoption if they saw no objection to them. Burma
pointed out certain objections, and in so far as its
suggestions tended to improve the rules, they were
adopted. In the case of the sales of poisons
administrative, as well as commercial, interests are
involved, and where such interests are concerned,
it is desirable that the arrangements should be as
uniform as possible. If they vary widely, firms
dealing in poisons will have cause for complaint.
45889**. Under the order of the Government of
India, Ordnance Department—(1) the loss of a
single cartridge case requires an enquiry and four
signatures by the Inspector-General of Police,
i.e., two committal proceedings and two sanc-
tioning papers ; (2) the loss of a dummy cartridge
must be sanctioned by the Local Government. Is
this necessary?—The procedure referred to is un-
necessary. There appears to be some confusion
in, and possibly some misunderstanding of, the
orders on the subject. The matter will be looked
into.
45890**. Why must Local Governments desiring
to appoint a Deputy Collector to a listed post for
more than six weeks obtain the leave of Govern-
ment of India?—Under existing rules Local
Governments have the power to nominate members
of the Provincial Civil Service to listed appoint--
raents for three months without report to the
Government of India, and for over that period with
their previous sanction. This rule was made be-
cause it was considered that, as these posts involve
very responsible duties and the principle of selec-
tion ought to be carefully observed in filling them,
it was desirable that, at the beginning, the nomi-
nation of the Local Governments should come to
the Government of India for scrutiny. The rules
have been in force now for more than 15 years,
and in my opinion it is right that they should be
altered, and Local Governments empowered to
sanction such appointments without reference to
anyone.
Hie reference to appointments being made by
Local Government for not more than six weeks with-
out the sanction of the Government of India,
suggests that the question relates not to listed
posts but to scheduled or reserved posts. In
respect of such appointments sanction is required
under sections 3 and 4 of the Statute 24 and 25
Viet., Cap 54. But the previous sanction of