1)The sub-division, not the district, should be the maximum area served by one Committee or local board, with primary boards, under it, serving very small areas, so that each member of it might possess knowledge of, and interest in, its affairs.
(2)The local boards should consist of a large majority of elected nonofficial members, and be presided over by a non-official Chairman.
Here was a real beginning of self-government. But unfortunately the principles underlying this resolution were not fully given effect in many of the provinces. The legislation that followed differed in different provinces. In the Central Provinces the Chairman became non-official and the principle of election was adopted, to a certain extent. In other provinces the old system was continued, and only a small number of members were elected. Everywhere the district continued to be the area of the local boards. In Bengal alone an attempt was made to carry Lord Ripon’s principles to the fullest extent, but the Bill introduced for the purpose was vetoed by the Secretary of State. Under the Act finally passed in 1885 the District Boards continued to function under the chairmanship of the District Magistrates.
“It is not primarily with a view to improvement in administration that the measure is put forward and supported. It is chiefly desirable as a measure of political and popular education.”
The liberal views of Ripon were not, unfortunately, shared by either the local governments or the authorities in England. The high hopes raised in the minds of the Indians were thus dashed to the ground. But the Congress took up this question and pressed it upon the Government year after year.
Municipalities
Up to the time of Lord Ripon the local administration of towns, like that of rural areas, was not conducted on any uniform or definite principle. In big towns there was a municipal Committee nominated by the Government with the District Magistrate as Chairman. Their power of taxation for meeting local needs was based in some cases on legislative enactments, but in others on local usage and customs. In most cases the Government had complete control over the administration, though in a few areas the limit of Government interference was prescribed by law.
Lord Ripon’s Resolution of May, 1882, aimed at the introduction of principles of self-government in municipal administration as in the case of rural Boards. He proposed that while the ultimate supervision, control, and superintendence should be left in the hands of the Government, the actual municipal administration should be entrusted to the elected representatives of the people. Under a non-official Chairman, the people should be trained to govern themselves through their own representatives. He further proposed that the police charges should be met by the Government, and the municipalities should busy themselves with education, sanitation, provision of light, roads and drinking water and such other objects of public utility.
Lord Ripon’s ideals were realised to a large extent. Acts were passed for the various provinces, providing for the compulsory election of a large proportion–varying from one-half to three-quarters-of municipal Commissioners. The Acts also provided for the election of a Chairman. This was, however, only a permissive clause, and the power was not actually granted in many cases. Even where such power was granted, the district officer was often elected as the Chairman. In course of time, however, non-official Chairmen became the rule rather than the exception.
Thus Lord Ripon made a real beginning in the direction of local self government in modern India. His ideas were not given full effect, but he sowed the seeds, which ultimately germinated in a real development of local self-government.
Presidency Towns
The development of self-government in the three Presidency towns of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras requires separate treatment. Being the earliest seats of British authority in India, the history of their local government goes back to a much earlier period, and shows an evolution of a very different character from that of the other towns of British India.
Towards the close of the eighteenth century, a Parliamentary Statute authorised the Governor- General to appoint justices of the peace in these towns. They provided for sanitation and the police, and were empowered to levy rates on owners and occupiers of houses for meeting the necessary expenditure.
The arrangement was inadequate and unsatisfactory, and two Acts were passed in 1856 for the conservancy and improvement of the towns and for the better assessment and collection of rates. Three Commissioners were appointed in each town, and in the Act for Calcutta special provisions were made for gas-lighting and the construction of sewers.
From this time the development in the three towns followed different lines, and we may treat them separately.
Calcutta
The new arrangement proving ineffective, the justices of the peace were again vested with general control, but the executive power was left in the hands of a Chairman appointed by the Government. The Chairman was also made the Commissioner of Police. Under such a strong executive authority great improvements were made, and Sir Stewart Hogg laid the foundations of a proper system of drainage and water supply.
