Page:EB1911 - Volume 14.djvu/407

Rh the exception of a few held by military officers on civil duty in the non-regulation provinces. Other services mainly or entirely recruited in England are the education department, police, engineering, public works, telegraph and forest services. In addition to the British officials employed in these services, there is a host of natives of India holding superior or subordinate appointments in the government service. According to a calculation made in 1904, out of 1370 appointments with a salary of £800 a year and upwards, 1263 were held by Europeans, 15 by Eurasians and 92 by natives of India. But below that line natives of India greatly preponderate; of 26,908 appointments ranging between £800 and £60 a year, only 5205 were held by Europeans, 5420 by Eurasians and 16,283 by natives.

These figures show that less than 6500 Englishmen are employed to rule over the 300 millions of India. On the other hand, natives manage the greater part of the administration of the revenue and land affairs and magisterial work. The subordinate courts throughout India are almost entirely manned by native judges, who sit also on the bench in each of the High Courts. Similarly in the other services. There are four engineering colleges in India, which furnish to natives access to the higher grades of the public works department; and the provincial education services are recruited solely in India.

Though the total strength of the army in India has undergone little change, important reforms of organization have been effected in recent years which have greatly improved its efficiency. In 1895, after long discussion, the old presidency system was abolished and the whole

army was placed under one commander-in-chief, though it was not till 1904 that the native regiments of cavalry and infantry were re-numbered consecutively, and the Hyderabad contingent and a few local battalions were incorporated with the rest of the army. About the same time (1903) the designation of British officers serving with native troops was changed from “Indian Staff Corps” to “Indian Army.” The entire force, British and native, is now subdivided into a Northern and a Southern Army, with Burma as an independent command attached to the latter. Each of these armies is organized in divisions, nine in number, based on the principles that the troops in peace should be trained in units of command similar to those in which they would take the field, and that much larger powers should be entrusted to the divisional commanders. At the same time large sums of money have been expended on strategic works along the north-west frontier, supply and transport has been reorganized, rifle, gun and ammunition factories have been established, and a Staff College at Quetta.

In 1907–1908 the actual strength of the army in India numbered 227,714 officers and men, of whom 73,947 were British troops; and the total military expenditure amounted to £17,625,000, of which £2,996,000 was for non-effective charges. In addition, the reserve of the native army numbered 34,846 men, the volunteers 34,962, the frontier militia (including the Khyber Rifles) about 6000, the levies (chiefly in Baluchistan) about 6000, and the military police (chiefly in Burma) about 22,000. These figures do not include the Imperial Service troops, consisting of cavalry, infantry and transport corps, about 18,000 in all, which are paid and officered by the native states furnishing them, though supervised by British inspectors. The military forces otherwise maintained by the several native states are estimated to number about 100,000 men, of varying degrees of efficiency.

The police, it is admitted, still form an unsatisfactory part of the administration, though important reforms have recently been introduced. The present system, which is modelled somewhat on that of the Irish constabulary, dates from shortly after the Mutiny, and is regulated for the

greater part of the country by an act passed in 1861. It provides a regular force in each district, under a superintendent who is almost always a European, subordinate for general purposes to the district magistrate. For the preservation of order this force is by no means inefficient, but it fails as a detective agency and also in the prosecution of crime, being distrusted by the people generally. As the result of a Commission appointed in 1902, a considerable addition has been made to the expenditure on police, which is being devoted to increasing the pay of all the lower grades and to augmenting the number of investigating officers. In 1901 the total strength of the civil police force was about 145,000 men, maintained at a total cost of about £2,200,000. In addition, the village watchmen or chaukidars, a primitive institution paid from local sources but to some extent incorporated in the general system, aggregated about 700,000; while a special force of military police, numbering about 20,000 under officers seconded from the army, is maintained along the frontier, more especially in Burma.

The administration of gaols in India can be described more favourably. As a rule, there is one gaol in each district, under the management of the civil surgeon. Discipline is well maintained, though separate confinement is practically unknown; and various industries (especially

carpet-weaving) are profitably pursued wherever possible. So much attention has been directed to diet and sanitation that the death-rate compares well with that of the general working population: in 1907 it was as low as 18 per 1000. Convicts with more than six years to serve are transported to the Andaman Islands, where the penal settlement is organized on an elaborate system, permitting ultimately self-support on a ticket of leave and even marriage. In 1907 the daily average gaol population in India was 87,306, while the convicts in the Andamans numbered 14,235.

Local self-government, municipal and rural, in the form in which it now prevails in India, is essentially a product of British rule. Village communities and trade gilds in towns existed previously, but these were only rudimentary forms of self-government. The beginnings of municipal government

occurred in the Presidency towns. Apart from these the act of 1850 respecting improvements in towns initiated consultative committees. In 1870 Lord Mayo delegated to local committees the control over these improvement funds. But the system at present in force is based upon legislation by Lord Ripon in 1882, providing for the establishment of municipal committees and local boards, whose members should be chosen by election with a preponderance of non-official members. The large towns of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras have municipalities of this character, and there are large numbers of municipal committees and local boards all over the country. There are also Port Trusts in the great maritime cities of Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Karachi and Rangoon.

As the land furnishes the main source of Indian revenue, so the assessment of the land tax is the main work of Indian administration. No technical term is more familiar to Anglo-Indians, and none more strange to the English public, than that of land settlement. No

subject has given rise to more voluminous controversy. It will be enough in this place to explain the general principles upon which the system is based, and to indicate the chief differences of application in the several provinces. That the state should appropriate to itself a direct share in the produce of the soil is a fundamental maxim of Indian finance that has been recognized throughout the East from time immemorial. The germs of rival systems can be traced in the old military and other service tenures of Assam, and in the poll tax of Burma, &c. The exclusive development of the land system is due to two conditions,—a comparatively high state of agriculture and an organized plan of administration,—both of which are supplied by the primitive village community. During the lapse of untold generations, despite domestic anarchy and foreign conquest, the Hindu village has in many parts preserved its simple customs, written in the imperishable tablets of traditions. The land was not held by private owners but by occupiers under the petty corporation; the revenue was not due from individuals, but from the community represented by its head-man. The aggregate harvest of the village fields was thrown into a common fund, and before the general distribution the head-man was bound to set aside the share of the state. No other system of taxation could be theoretically more just, or in practice less obnoxious to the people. Such is an outline of the land system as it may be found at the present day throughout large portions of India both under British and native rule; and such we may