Desistimientos

2 Letters to Local Govts, 28 Jan. 1895, Pub.Progs.. No.311. Jan. 1895. 3 Madras to Govt, of India, 14 Sept. 1898, Pub.Progs.. No.156, Dec.1898. 4 Govt, of India to Madras, 27 Dec. 1898, Pub.Progs.. No.157.

75

In influencing the Governments policy to throw open a

larger number of posts, important associations like the Congress and the Indian Asscoiation, and the Press played an important role. A large share in the administration was a demand which they never ceased to press. Resolutions, memorials, articles, deputations to England,

and questions and discussions in Parliament by men like Wedderburn, Kaoroji and others, were the means by which the attention of the Government was drawn to this question. It is indisputable that the British Government could not affcTd to ignore the growing influence of the educated classes. Sometimes it availed itself of the opportunity of explaining its policy when the memorials were presented to it. In 1868, for instance, Northcote informed the British Indian Association that he was contemplating to insert a clause in his Bill, empowering

1 the Government of India to appoint Indians without competition. In April 1884-, Kimberley told the deputationists that if it had been the intention of the Government to exclude Indians from the Civil Service,

2 the provision of one-sixth appointments would not have been made. In 1898, when the Indian Association pointed out the defects of the scheme of 1892, the Government of India took the opportunity of clarifying

3 certain points.

The story of the Indian demand for a larger share in the high offices may be briefly told here. In 1867 Naoroji*s resolution for

1 See abovej i°.

2 Pari. Papers. LVIII (1884-85). 3 See above,

6

i .

76

holding simultaneous examinations was accepted by the East India Association, and a memorial was presented to Northcote. In 1868 and

again in 1874- the British Indian Association sent memorials on the same subject. In 1877-78 Banerjea started his Civil Service movement. A deputation was also sent to England and a meeting was held at Willis*s Rooms with John Bright as president. The effect of this meeting, says

Banerjea, was so great that the rules which had been f,delayed for seven 1 years, were published within twenty-four hours of that meeting."

In 1884- he undertook another tour of the N.W.P. and the Punjab. The

fruits of that agitation, according to him, were the Government of India

1

s despatch recommending a higher age-limit, and the appointment of the

Public Service Commission. Ever since its establishment in 1885, the Congress pressed unceasingly for a larger Indian employment and for

simultaneous examinations. Banerjea, as one of its most prominent leaders, played an important part. However, one finds it difficult to accept his opinion, in its entirety, that the publication of Statutory rules, Riphn’s despatch of 12 September 1884-, and the appointment of the Commission were the immediate outcome of his efforts. In fact, the main object of his agitation - the raising of the age-limit - was not accepted in 1878, and again in 1883 the Indian Association’s memorial on simultaneous

examinations failed to have any effect on Kimberley, who again in January 1885 did not accept Riponfs recommendations. The above remark is not,

1 Benerjea, op.cit.. Chap. V. 2 Ibid., 87-88.

77

however, intended to detract from the importance of the great work which Banerjea has to his credit. In the minute of September 1883,

in which Ripon criticised Salisbury*s decision of 1876, he made reference to the memorial from the Indian Association. While making an estimate of the work of Indian public bodies on this question, one must also bear in mind that the sympathetic approach of Viceroys like Ripon and Duffer in went a long way to facilitating the work of reform. Much of what the despatch of September 1884* contained would not have been

possible without Ripon*s favourable attitude to the whole question.

Similarly Dufferin*s remark that without a radical change no satisfactory scheme was possible, led to the appointment of the Commission of 1886. Indeed, in 1900 Gurzon criticised Dufferin for not effecting restrictions

1 on the admission of Indians into the higher ranks of the service. Remarking on this and some other popular measures of his viceroyalty, Hamilton observed that he did not believe **he (Dufferin) has been in

any single place of responsibility and authority in which he did not more or less purchase popularity by leaving to his successors unpleasant

2 ...

legacies.” Though Ripon and Dufferin were not prepared to go very far in the direction of Indianisation, their sympathetic policy made the introduction of the reforms easier. As regards the work of various

associations, it consisted in this that they brought before the

Government an organised body of public opinion which it thought expedient

1 Curzon to Hamilton, 23 April 1900, Pr.Cor.Ind.. xvii;y* 2 Hamilton to Curzon, 17 May 1900, Pr.Cor.Ind.. v,

169

,

78

to take into consideration and the absence of which was certain to result either in the abridgement or in the postponement of reforms. British political parties were remarkably unanimous on the question of Indianisation. In 1867 it was Northcote, a member of a Conservative Government, who seriously took up. the question and it was

a Liberal Government which passed the Act of 1870 though it failed to make rules to carry it into effect. It was again Argjill, a Liberal Secretary of State, who laid down the limitations under which Indianisa­ tion was to be effected and, indeed, they continued to guide his

successors. In 1876 it was under a Conservative Government that the age-limit was reduced, but it was also under the same Government that the Statutory rules of 1879, which gave effect to the Act of 1870 and threw open one-sixth of the appointments, came into force. In 1885 it was Kimberley, a member of the Liberal Government, who rejected the Government of India's proposal for raising the age-limit, but again it was he who authorised it to appoint the Commission of 1886. In 1889, it was Cross, a member of the Conservative Government, who fixed the

age-limit at 21-23, and gave effect to the Commission's recommendations. In 1893 it was a Liberal Parliament which passed Paul's resolution of June 1893, which Fowler, a Liberal Secretary of State, rejected in 1894.

British policy towards Indian employment was inspired by certain important considerations. As early as 1832 the Select Committee had

observed that "it is contended that their admission, under European control, into the higher offices, would have a beneficial effect i n ‘Correcting the moral obliquities of their general character, would strengthen their

79

attachment to British dominion; would conduce to the better administration of justice, and would be productive of a great

1

saving in the expenses of the Indian Government.tt Among these considerations economy and political advantage were emphasised most. That the use of Indian agency was less expensive, was indisputable; but as regards the second, opinions were divided. Ripon believed that the employment of Indians would make the Government popular, whereas Sir John Strachey, an eminent administrator in the second half of the nineteenth century, maintained that a government of foreigners would

2

nover be really popular. On the question of efficiency, the British official class was of opinion that the substitution of Indians for

Europeans would not be conducive to the good government and, indeed, in opposing the policy of Indianisation it laid the greatest emphasis on this aspect.

According to the Government of India*s memorandum of 1893, the necessities of British rule, which required that the supervising and controlling offices must be held by Europeans, limited the scope of -1 ^

3

Indian employment in the higher offices. But the point at issue was the number and Category of posts which were still to remain a monopoly of Europeans. The conditions of British rule, it was maintained, ruled out the appointment of Indians to a large number of high posts but this

1 Report from the Select Committee on the Affairs of the E.I.C. (1832),21, 2 John Strachey, India? Its Administration and Progress. (3rd ed), 4-95. 3 Memorandum, Pub.Frogs.. No.70, Nov. 1893.

80

view came into conflict with the principle of equality embodied in the Proclamation of 1858* Indians wanted nothing more than the fulfilment of that pledge,. Speaking at the Convocation of the Calcutta University, Lytton had said* 11 Now, whatever else it may rest upon, the claim of native subjects to official employment rests,

primarily and principally, on the pledge spontaneously given and

1 repeatedly affirmed, to them by the Crown and Parliament of England.M Referring to the inconveniences of the Proclamation, Hamilton observed*

f,0ne of the greatest mistakes that ever was made was the issue in the

I

! Proclamation annexing India of the principle that perfectequality was !

A to exist, so far as all appointments were concerned, between European

i/ 2

and Native.” And yet with all its inconveniences its repeal was out of the question. Educated Indians interpreted it as making accessible to them, subject, of course, to fitness, higher offices

without any restrictions as to number and quality. This interpretation, logical though it was, did not fit in with the logic of the facts of nineteenth-century British rule. Since the Government was unable to repudiate the principle of legal equality and yet it had no mind to give full effect to it, it saw in the London competition the most

effective safeguard against the influx of Indians; and for exactly the same reason it was opposed to simultaneous examinations. A scheme of unfettered competition was, indeed, incompatible with the reservation

1 Speech, 10 March 1877, Selected Speeches of Lord Lytton (1877). 2 Hamilton to Curzon, 17 May 1900, Pr.Cor.Ind.. V, 169.

81

of posts for Europeans; and that of a limited, though identical, competition was inconsistent with the principle of racial equality. Lytton1s scheme of an exclusive Indian service was intended to remove

some of the inconveniences of the Proclamation, but it was turned down because it violated its very spirit. Thus in theory the Proclamation remained unscathed, but in practice it was greatly modified by the overriding considerations of the stability and efficiency of British rule.

'Ultimately, the rate of Indianisation depended on the extent to which the European element was to be maintained. The overnment of India was of opinion that the provision of 93 listed posts, besides those which were secured on the results of the London competition, should constitute the maximum scope of Indian employment. In 1893 it suggested that to maintain a certain proportion of Europeans, which, in its opinion, had reached its irreducible minimum, the Home Govern­ ment should watch the results of the competition and fix the total percentage of Indians at 18. In 1896 Elgin emphasised that it was not ”safe to proceed too fast in entrusting the higher work of administra-

1

tion to other than European officers.” In 1900 Curzon remarked that the British administration was confronted with the greatest peril by the Hsystem under which every year an increasing number of the 900

and odd higher posts that were meant, and ought to have been exclusively and specifically reserved, for Europeans are being filched away by the superior wits of the Native in the English examinations.” In 1909

1 Elgin to Hamilton, 23 Dec. 1896, Pr.Cor.Ind. iii,

82

he said* ”The question at issue is rather not what is the maximum number of offices that can safely be given to Indians, but what is the minimum that

1

must of necessity be reserved for Europeans.” It is to be noted that at the beginning of 1909 out of a total number of 1,2J + U members of the

Indian Civil Service, there were only 65 Indians, and out of 93 posts 2 only 51 had been filled by the members of the Provincial Service* It is evident that the progress of indianisation was very slow, but the British Government, tied to the principles of stability and efficiency, was content with it*

A comparison between the views of Thomas Munro and John Strachey, two of the ablest of the British administrators of India, will not be

i

out of place* Munro, expressing his views early in the nineteenth century, said that the British Government would never be popular unless it entrusted Indians with posts of responsibility, and emphasised that the Governments aim should be so to improve their character as to enable them Mto govern and protect themselves11; and that the best way of doing that was to appoint them to ” almost every office under the Government.” His scheme envisaged, no doubt, at a distant date, the

3

withdrawal of British power from India- Strachey, on the other hand, was of opinion that the number of British officers was ”extraordinarily

small” . He emphasised that since a foreign government - like the

1 Quoted in 0*Malley, The Indian Civil Service* 225.

2 East India (Fifty Years Administration)* Cd.4956, (1909). 3 Gleig, Munro. i, 519-20; ii, 58, A23-2A; iii, 386-88.

S3

British - would never be popular, it was indispensable that all the higher offices must be held by Englishmen. nBut let there be no hypocrisy**, writes Strachey,1* about our intention to keep in the hands of our people those executive posts - and there are not very many of them - on which, and on our political and military power, our actual

1

hold of the country depend s. ** Strachey differs from Munro in this that while the latter expressed his personal opinions, shared only by. a few individuals, he represented the views of the most dominant school of thought, which believed in the permanence and not in the withdrawal of British power, and sought tits stability not in

popularity but in the restriction of Indian employment. And it was this school which played the important role in the determination of

British Indian policy.

84

CHAPTER II

The Development of Legislatures

The growth of the Indian legislature "between 1833 and 1909 reveals a significant feature# The nucleus of the legislature was the executive council to which more members were added for legislative purposes. The use of the term fadditional* for them was retained even in the Minto - Morley reforms of 1909 although under the new provisions they far out­ numbered those who formed the nucleus# The term no doubt was indicative of the relationship between the legislature and the executive inasmuch as legislative power residing in a body distinct and separate from the

1

executive was not recognised* However, the presence of additional members, not belonging to the executive, and entrusted only with legislative work tended to differentiate the enlarged body more and more, both in its composition and functions, from the nucleus#

The Charter Act of 1833 made the first attempt to differentiate the legislative from executive functions by providing for a fourth

ordinary member whose duties were solely legislative# It was also laid down that the transaction of the former required the presence of at least three ordinary members as distinguished from the latter which could be

2 performed by the Goveraor-G-eneral and one ordinary member of the Council#

1 Report of the Indian Statutory Commission, I, para. 130. 2 3 & 4 Will. 4, c.85, s*48.

85

William Grey, Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal* went so far as to say that 1

,the Act constituted what was "virtually" a separate legislative body. It would he more correct to say that the emphasis of the Act was more on the differentiation of functions than on the composition of the law-making "body* because the Governor-General was fully entitled to make laws with or without the fourth member.

Another important change was the abolition of the legislative authority of Madras and Bombay and its concentration in the hands of the Supreme Government. The Governor of a Presidency could* however* act as an extraordinary member of the Council when it assembled there. He was also invested with power to make proposals of any laws to the Governor-

Z

General in Council.

The next step in the direction of "differentiating the legislative machine much more decisively from the executive" was taken in 1855 under

5

the impulse of Dalhousie# The Council was expanded by the addition of

six new members to be called legislative councillors* of whom two* including the Chief Justice* were judges of the Supreme Court* and four were

officials of at least ten year* s standing appointed by the Governments of Bengal* Madras* Bombay* and the N#W#P. The legislative Councillors were

entitled to sit or vote only at its meetings held for legislative purposes. The Governor-General* s assent was essential for any law passed by the

4

Council# The fourth ordinary member became a full-fledged member of the

1 Minute* 15 March 1868* Pub. Progs.* Ho#150* March 1868.

Z 5 $ 4 Will. 4, c.85* s.66. 5 M/C Report (1918)* para# 5®*

4 16 & 17 Viet#* c#95* ss#22-24. The Act made provision for the appoint­ ment of two more civilians to the Legislative Council, but they were not added.

86

executive•

The Council of 1853 assumed in practice more or less a distract character though the position of legislative councillors was "exactly”

1

similar to that of the fourth ordinary member of 1833* its assuming the role of what was termed a "quasi-independent” "body or a "petty

parliament"* Dalhousie’s attitude was an important factor. He was

concerned to enlarge the sphere of its activity. The Council transacted 2

its business with a large number of standing orders. The discussions were oral and full publicity was accorded to its proceedings. The exam­ ination of bills was performed by select committees and all the formalities of the three readings were observed. The Council also formed itself into a body for the redress of grievances. In his diary of 12 October 1854 Dalhousie wrote: "Tho Legislative Council transacts the business before it

5

on m c h the same system as is observed in our Parliament....” Sir Charles Wood, then President of the Board of Control, was not happy at this

development. He remarked that he had never wished to raise up a great 4

independent body in India.

In its composition the legislative council, as constituted under the Act of 1853* had two important features. First, the legislative councillors in a full council formed a majority if any member of the Government happened to be absent. Secondly, the Act, by providing for

the appointment of provincial representatives, recognised "the principle

1 Leg. Des. from India, Ho.6, 14 March 1861.

In document Conflictividad entre el Estado y las Comunidades Autónomas (página 43-57)