Friday, July 26, 2013

What is the G-20 ? Some Facts and Data

What is the G-20 ? Some Facts and Data

·   

The Group of Twenty (G-20) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors was established in 1999 to bring together systemically important industrialized and developing economies to discuss key issues in the global economy. The inaugural meeting of the G-20 took place in Berlin, on December 15-16, 1999, hosted by German and Canadian finance ministers.

Mandate

The G-20 is the premier forum for our international economic development that promotes open and constructive discussion between industrial and emerging-market countries on key issues related to global economic stability. By contributing to the strengthening of the international financial architecture and providing opportunities for dialogue on national policies, international co-operation, and international financial institutions, the G-20 helps to support growth and development across the globe.

Origins

The G-20 was created as a response both to the financial crises of the late 1990s and to a growing recognition that key emerging-market countries were not adequately included in the core of global economic discussion and governance. Prior to the G-20 creation, similar groupings to promote dialogue and analysis had been established at the initiative of the G-7. The G-22 met at Washington D.C. in April and October 1998. Its aim was to involve non-G-7 countries in the resolution of global aspects of the financial crisis then affecting emerging-market countries. Two subsequent meetings comprising a larger group of participants (G-33) held in March and April 1999 discussed reforms of the global economy and the international financial system. The proposals made by the G-22 and the G-33 to reduce the world economy’s susceptibility to crises showed the potential benefits of a regular international consultative forum embracing the emerging-market countries. Such a regular dialogue with a constant set of partners was institutionalized by the creation of the G-20 in 1999.

Membership

The G-20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries and the European Union:
§  Argentina
§  Australia
§  Brazil
§  Canada
§  China
§  European Union
§  France
§  Germany
§  India
§  Indonesia
§  Italy
§  Japan
§  Mexico
§  Russia
§  Saudi Arabia
§  South Africa
§  Republic of Korea
§  Turkey
§  United Kingdom
§  United States of America
To ensure global economic fora and institutions work together, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the President of the World Bank, plus the chairs of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and Development Committee of the IMF and World Bank, also participate in G-20 meetings on an ex-officio basis. The G-20 thus brings together important industrial and emerging-market countries from all regions of the world. Together, member countries represent around 90 per cent of global gross national product, 80 per cent of world trade (including EU intra-trade) as well as two-thirds of the world’s population. The G-20′s economic weight and broad membership gives it a high degree of legitimacy and influence over the management of the global economy and financial system.

Achievements

The G-20 has progressed a range of issues since 1999, including agreement about policies for growth, reducing abuse of the financial system, dealing with financial crises and combating terrorist financing. The G-20 also aims to foster the adoption of internationally recognized standards through the example set by its members in areas such as the transparency of fiscal policy and combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism. In 2004, G-20 countries committed to new higher standards of transparency and exchange of information on tax matters. This aims to combat abuses of the financial system and illicit activities including tax evasion. The G-20 has also aimed to develop a common view among members on issues related to further development of the global economic and financial system.
To tackle the financial and economic crisis that spread across the globe in 2008, the G20 members were called upon to further strengthen international cooperation. Accordingly, the G20 Summits have been held in Washington in 2008, in London and Pittsburgh in 2009, and in Toronto and Seoul in 2010.
The concerted and decisive actions of the G20, with its balanced membership of developed and developing countries helped the world deal effectively with the financial and economic crisis, and the G20 has already delivered a number of significant and concrete outcomes:
First, the scope of financial regulation has been largely broadened, and prudential regulation and supervision have been strengthened. There was also great progress in policy coordination thanks to the creation of the framework for a strong, sustainable and balanced growth designed to enhance macroeconomic cooperation among the G20 members and therefore to mitigate the impact of the crisis. Finally, global governance has dramatically improved to better take into consideration the role and the needs of emerging of developing countries, especially through the ambitious reforms of the governance of the IMF and the World Bank.

Chair

Unlike international institutions such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), IMF or World Bank, the G-20 (like the G-7) has no permanent staff of its own. The G-20 chair rotates between members, and is selected from a different regional grouping of countries each year. In 2011 the G-20 chair is France. The chair is part of a revolving three-member management Troika of past, present and future chairs. The incumbent chair establishes a temporary secretariat for the duration of its term, which coordinates the group’s work and organizes its meetings. The role of the Troika is to ensure continuity in the G-20′s work and management across host years.

Former G-20 Chairs

§  1999-2001 Canada
§  2002 India
§  2003 Mexico
§  2004 Germany
§  2005 China
§  2006 Australia
§  2007 South Africa
§  2008 Brazil
§  2009 United Kingdom
§  2010 Republic of Korea

Meetings and activities

It is normal practice for the G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors to meet once a year. The ministers’ and governors’ meeting is usually preceded by two deputies’ meetings and extensive technical work. This technical work takes the form of workshops, reports and case studies on specific subjects, that aim to provide ministers and governors with contemporary analysis and insights, to better inform their consideration of policy challenges and options.

Interaction with other international organizations

The G-20 cooperates closely with various other major international organizations and fora, as the potential to develop common positions on complex issues among G-20 members can add political momentum to decision-making in other bodies. The participation of the President of the World Bank, the Managing Director of the IMF and the chairs of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and the Development Committee in the G-20 meetings ensures that the G-20 process is well integrated with the activities of the Bretton Woods Institutions. The G-20 also works with, and encourages, other international groups and organizations, such as the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, in progressing international and domestic economic policy reforms. In addition, experts from private-sector institutions and non-government organisations are invited to G-20 meetings on an ad hoc basis in order to exploit synergies in analyzing selected topics and avoid overlap.

External communication

The country currently chairing the G-20 posts details of the group’s meetings and work program on a dedicated website. Although participation in the meetings is reserved for members, the public is informed about what was discussed and agreed immediately after the meeting of ministers and governors has ended. After each meeting of ministers and governors, the G-20 publishes a communiqué which records the agreements reached and measures outlined. Material on the forward work program is also made public.

FAQ


1. When was the G-20 set up?

The G-20 first meeting was held in Berlin on December 1516, 1999.

2. Why was the G-20 set up?

The G-20 was created as a response both to the financial crises of the late 1990s and a growing recognition that key emerging-market countries were not adequately included in the core of global economic discussion and governance. Prior to the G-20 creation, similar groupings to promote dialogue and analysis had been established at the initiative of the G-7. The G-22 met at Washington D.C. in April and October 1998. Its aim was to involve non-G-7 countries in the resolution of global aspects of the financial crisis then affecting emerging-market countries. Two subsequent meetings comprising a larger group of participants (G-33) held in March and April 1999 discussed reforms of the global economy and the international financial system. The proposals made by the G-22 and G-33 to reduce the world economy’s susceptibility to crises showed the potential benefits of a regular international consultative forum embracing the emerging-market countries. Such a regular dialogue with a constant set of partners was institutionalized by the G-20 creation in 1999.

3. How does the G-20 differ from the G-7?

The G-7 was established in 1976 as an informal forum of seven major industrial economies: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The G-7 conducts dialogue and seeks agreement on current economic issues on the basis of the comparable interests of those countries. The G-20 was established in 1999 and reflects the diverse interests of the systemically significant industrial and emerging-market economies. (see: About the G-20). It has a high degree of representativeness and legitimacy on account of its geographical composition (members are drawn from all continents) and its large share of global population (two-thirds) and world GNP (around 90 per cent). The G-20′s broad representation of countries at different stages of development gives its consensus outcomes greater impact than those of the G-7.

4. Can all member countries exert equal influence?

Achieving consensus is the underlying principle of G-20 activity with regard to comments, recommendations and measures to be adopted. There are no formal votes or resolutions on the basis of fixed voting shares or economic criteria. Every G-20 member has one ‘voice’ with which it can take an active part in G-20 activity. To this extent the influence a country can exert is shaped decisively by its commitment.

5. What are the criteria for G-20 membership?

In a forum such as the G-20, it is particularly important for the number of countries involved to be restricted and fixed to ensure the effectiveness and continuity of its activity. There are no formal criteria for G-20 membership and the composition of the group has remained unchanged since it was established. In view of the objectives of the G-20, it was considered important that countries and regions of systemic significance for the international financial system be included. Aspects such as geographical balance and population representation also played a major part.

6. How are the G-20 taking forward work remitted to Finance Ministers by Leaders.

The G-20 Finance Ministers were tasked from the Pittsburg Summit to take forward work in the following areas;
§  Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth
§  Strengthening the International Financial Regulatory System
§  Modernizing our Global Institutions to Reflect Today’s Global Economy
§  Reforming the Mandate, Mission, and Governance of the IMF
§  Reforming the Mission, Mandate, and Governance of Our Development Banks
§  Energy Security and Climate Change
§  Strengthening Support for the Most Vulnerable
§  Putting Quality Jobs at the Heart of the Recovery

§  An Open Global Economy.

Monday, July 22, 2013

Company Rule

Company Rule


•       1765: Company acquired the diwani of Bengal
•       1765-1833: Company had dual role of trader and ruler
–   1833: its commercial role was abolished
•       Civil Services under the company divided into
–   Covenanted Civil Service: consisted only of Englishmen
–   Uncovenanted Civil Service: included Indians, Parsis, English and the Portuguese

•       Regulating Act 1773
–   Laid down the skeleton of the present governmental system in the country
–   Gov Gen and council appointed in Bengal
–   Provided that a Supreme Court of justice be established
•       Pitt’s India Act, 1784
–   Board of Control established in England
–   The Court of Directors was retained but was subjected to the authority of the Board of Control
–   BoC became the real ruling authority over India
–   Gov Gen was given more effective power over the council
–   Positives
•     After years of irresponsible administration, Act was a measure to rationalise the system


•       Hastings
–   Civil service became structured
–   Company became a govt and took up functions of revenue and maintenance of law and order.
–   Establishment of the secretariat system
–   The post of collector was introduced
–   He laid the foundation on which Cornwallis built a super-structure
–   Civil and Criminal courts established
–   Supreme court


•       Cornwallis

•       Area administration
–   Consolidated Indian districts into definite administrative units
–   Each district placed under a magistrate and a collector
•       Law and order
–   Each district was divided into a number of police circles, or thanas
•       Judicial Administration
–   Comprehensive system of justice
•       Introduced highly liberal system of remuneration
•       Efforts to remove patronage and see that all important offices are held by covenanted CS
•       Cornwallis Code: concerned with correctives against the abuse of power by the officials
•       Separated customs from the revenue department
•       Permanent Settlement
•       Boards were set up for administration: board of trade, board of revenue, military board and medical board

•       Cornwallis
•       Positives
–   Introduced into the organisation of civil service a definitive, legal and rational principle, expressed in the separation of revenue and judicial functions
–   Cornwallis Code
•     Defined the powers of civil servants in each capacity, with fixed salaries assigned according to the degree of responsibility
•       Drawback
–    Europeanisation of Civil Service: his systematic effort to exclude Indians from taking part in the administration
–   Could not give India a modern code of law
•       Conclusion
–   Cornwallis created certain basic conditions for the growth of bureaucratization
–   Apart from consolidating the foundations of state authority, he brought corporate, legal and professional concepts into bear upon the organisation of his administrative staff



•       Wellesley
–   Contribution in the field of training: Fort William College in Calcutta in 1800. (abolished in 1802).
–   Hartford Castle (1806): the qualification of candidates was tested by a written and an oral examination
•       Bentinck: evolved the modern concept of district magistrate
•       Charter Act of 1833
–   Centralisation was the guiding principle
–   Gov Gen’s council enlarged
–   Presidency of Bengal divided into two parts: Bengal and Agra (nullified in 1835)
–   Gov Gen of Bengal became Gov Gen of India
–   The activities of the Company as a commercial body came to an end
–   Mentioned that Indians should not be debarred from holding office under the company

•       Dalhousie
–   Post and telegraph
–   Public Works department
–   Division of governmental functions into well-defined departments was yet another of his reforms
•       Charter Act of 1853
–   Introduced a system of open competition for recruitment
–   Released the gov gen from direct involvement in the details of provincial administration
•       Macaulay Committee Report, 1854
–   Laid the foundations for administrative reforms in India
–   Competitive recruitment and training
–   Proposed a detailed scheme of the examination

•       Consequences of the Company rule
–   Decadence of the indigenous institution of self-government
–   Provinces grouped arbitrarily
–   Enormous growth in public taxation and expenditure
–   Insufficient attention  to education, public health, irrigation
–   Neglect of indigenous industry and agriculture -> famines
–   Excessive curbs on the political activities of the people


•       Act of 1858
•       1859: Portfolio system by Canning
–   Work of the govt, divided into several branches, was entrusted to different members of the Gov Gen’s council
•       Act of 1861
–   Initiated the process of decentralisation
–   Member in-charge of his dept could issue final orders with regard to matters which concerned his department
–   Restored some of the powers of the legislative councils of Madras and Bombay
–   Provided for setting up of new councils in other provinces as well
–   Provision for inclusion of some Indians in the council of the gov gen

•       Aitchison Commission (1886-87)
–   Supported the formation of a lower, local civil service to be called the provincial civil service
–   Covenanted CS was abolished and three services were carved out
•     Imperial Civil Service
•     Provincial CS
•     Subordinate CS

•       Councils Act 1892
–   Enlarged the functions of the legislative councils
–   Elected representatives in LC
•       Councils Act 1909
–   Provided for a distribution of powers between the centre and the provinces
–   The division however, did not make India federal. Centre was still very powerful
–   Further increased the size of legislative councils
–   Communal Award
•       Decentralisation Commission (1909) made recommendations for the revival and growth of panchayats

•       Govt of India Act 1919
–   Dealt with the structure of provincial governments
–   Dyarchy: provincial subjects were divided into ‘reserved’ and ‘transferred’
–   LSG became a provincial and transferred subject under a responsible Indian minister


•       Why dyarchy failed?
–   Dividing the govt into branches proved to be unscientific and unnatural
–   Destroyed the unity of purpose of govt activities
–   Governor had the last word. No system of collective responsibility.
–   Finance was a reserved subject
•       1923: Royal Commission on superior civil services in India
–   Chair: Lord Lee of Farham
–   Recommended the establishment of a Public Service Commission

•       Act of 1935
–   Abolished dyarchy in the provinces but introduced it in the centre
–   Provincial autonomy
–   Three lists: Union, state and concurrent
–   Relaxed some autocratic control of the Crown in certain spheres and replaced it with a popular government
–   Created an All-India Federation
•       Drawbacks
–   It was not mandatory for the princely states  to join the federation
–   Federal features of the constitution were thus not implemented

•       Features of the British rule can be discussed under the following heads
–   Creation of the ICS
–   Secretariat system
–   Pay, promotions and transfers
–   Provincial civil service
–   Financial administration
–   Financial accountability
–   Law and order
–   Administration of justice
–   Local self government
–   Bureaucratic leadership

•       Bureaucracy

•       Bureaucratic Development
•       Three phases under Company rule
–   Phase 1: Upto 1765 when it emerged as a territorial power
–   Phase 2: 1765-1798 – period of parliamentary intervention without definite political policy
–   Phase 3 – 1798 onwards – developments by Wellesley
•       Phase 1
–   Royal charter of 1661 authorised the company to appoint governor to the provinces
–   Writers were appointed
–   Organisation of CS contained modern ingredients such as a centralised agency of recruitment, graded heirarchy, contractual service and a body of rules governing the transaction of its corporate business
–   Patronage was rampant

•       Phase 2
–   To check nepotism and abuse of nomination, the Charter Act of 1793 laid down that all vacancies occuring in Civil offices below the Council should be filled by the members of the Convenant CS belonging to that province
–   Made CS a compact body of officers who were paid according to the number of years of service
•       Phase 3
–   Wellesley
–   Fort William College for training of CS established
–   Charter of 1813
–   During this phase there were two competing principles of administration   
•     First recognised the rule of law as the ruling force
•     Second advocated a form of rule by discretion of executive inter-position
–   Selection on merit and promotion on seniority

•       1858-1919
–   Efforts at rationalisation of the bureaucracy
–   Was a period of bureaucratic despotism where every level of hierarchy tried to tighten the chains around the subordinates
–   Act of 1858 provided for recruitment to CCS through open competitive exam held at London
–   Indian Civil Service Act, 1861: reserved certain high posts in administration for the members of ICS
–   1876: age limit for recruitment reduced to 19
–   1892: min age raised to 21 and max to 23
•       1919-1947
–   Towards decentralisation
–   1907: decentralisation commission
•     Collector to be recognised as the head of the district in all administrative matters
•     Rural and municipal councils      
–   1935: provincial autonomy
•       Indian Civil Services


•       Even before 1765, the company had set up an elaborate system of administration
–   Apparantice and Writers constituted the lowest level
•       Two types
–   Covenanted
–   Un-covenanted
•       Beginning of Civil Services
–   Hastings took steps to separate the commercial and administrative activities of the company
–   Gave large powers to the covenanted civil servants
–   Mixed system of administration
•     Both Europeans and Indians in the CS
•     Though Europeans were at higher posts.


•       Europeanisation of Civil Services
–   Cornwallis abandoned the system of mixed administration
–   Since he introduced rule of law and security of property (European concepts) he needed Europeans to man the administration
•       Organisation and Recruitment
•       Divided into two main classes
–   Covenanted
–   Uncovenanted
–   (After 1892 these were called ICS and Provincial CS respectively)
•       ICS consisted of only that body of civil servants recruited according to provisions of the GoI Act, 1858 and for whom certain posts were reserved
•       Later other methods besides open competition were also used
•       Between 1858 and 1919 recruitment to the ICS was made chiefly by open competition held in London

•       Act of 1833 made two major changes regarding recruitment
–   Cornwallis’ policy of excluding Indians was repudiated
–   The policy of combining nomination with examination was adopted (early it was mostly nomination)
•       Act of 1853
–   Removed the provision of nomination to the covenanted CS
–   All recruitment hence was to be through an open competition
•       First competitive exam held in 1855
•       First Indian civil servant: Satyendra Nath Tagore (1864)
•       Statutory Civil Service
•       Instituted in 1879 by Lord Lytton
–   Was a device to appease educated Indian who were agitating for employment in the covenanted civil service
–   Appointments were generally confined to young men of ‘good family’ and social position possessing fair abilities and education
•       Indian Civil Service
•       1892, the two services rechristened as
–   Indian Civil Service
–   Provincial Civil Service
•       Macaulay Report: Led to the establishment of a merit based bureaucracy
•       1858-1919
–   Recruitment to ICS made on the basis of an open competitive examination which was held in London
–   Emphasised that this be a service of men endowed with the best intellectual traditions, ideas and sentiments
–   Macaulay’s ideas of recruitment lent support to the power elite theory of bureaucracy being the ruling class
•       Idea of specific age limit for taking the exam evolved with Macaulay’s report
•       By 1920, there were a total of five methods of entry into the higher civil service
•       Competitive exam conducted by and independent agency
•       Another substantial contribution was institutionalizing a training system
•       Indianisation of ICS
•       1870: Parliament passed an Act making provision for appointment of Indians to certain posts reserved for ICS
•       This arrangement proved to be unsatisfactory and was abolished on the recommendation of the Aitchison Committee (1889)
•       1877-79: Indian Association organised agitation on the civil services question
•       This resulted in the creation of Statutory CS
•       Congress also took up the issue
•       Curzon’s govt reiterated the policy of English occupying the highest posts
•       By 1913 only 5 pc of the ICS were Indians

•       1886: Public Service Commission
–   Chair: Lord Aitchison
–   Upheld the recruitment policy of 1858
–   Provincial and Indian CS
–   Continuance of the London test was strongly defended
•       Through the commission’s recommendations, a three tier structure was adopted
–   ICS, PCS and Subordinate CS
–   This structure continues to till date
–   In a sense, the commission imparted finality to the public service structure
•       1912: Royal Commission on Public Services in India
–   Chair: Lord Islington
–   Rejected the demand for simultaneous exam
–   Recommended that recruitment to be made through two channels
•     One in London open to all
•     One in India open to statutory natives only
•       Creation of a provincial civil service
•       On the recommendation of the Aitchison Commission the following changes were made
–   Covenanted CS renamed as Indian Civil Service
–   Uncovenanted CS renamed as Provincial CS
•       An element of reservation existed in PCS to provide representation to different classes

•       Secretariat
•       Portfolio System (1858)
•       Staffing
–   Central pool for drawing manpower
–   Recruitment to the upper division of the secretariat made through direct appointments
–   1937: Maxwell committee recommended that the ministerial staff should be divided into two main grades – assistants and clerks
•       Features of the secretariat system
–   Reliance on precedents
–   Incapacity of the lower grades of officials to share responsibility
–   Practice of excessive record keeping and noting
•       Secretariat Reforms
•       Secretariat Procedure Committee, 1919
–   Recommended a pyramidal organisation
•       Lewellyn Smith Committee (1920)
–   Recommended that tenure of the secys and dy secys be fixed to bring stability
•       Secretariat Committee (Wheeler), 1935
–   Studied the problem of delays in working
–   Rec. practice of double notings to speed work
•       Tottenham Committee (1945-46)
–   Reported on the organisation of departments, the question of staffing and reorganisation of the entire secretariat system
•       Pay, promotions and transfers
•       Posts divided into superior and inferior categories. Pay depended on this.
•       The system of promotion brought about an onslaught on the traditional-bound Indian society
–   Promotion provided an element of social mobility, especially for the lower castes
•       The frequency of transfers sapped the vitality of the British administration
•       Area Administration
•       After the revolt, a four tier structure was adopted
–   District Administration
–   Provincial Government
–   Government of India
–   Home Government
•       The administrative links between these four tiers were provided by statures, rules and conventions
•       Revenue Administration
•       Permanent Settlement of Cornwallis
•       Financial Administration
•       Initially the Accountant General of Fort William of Bengal controlled the finances
•       From 1846, the Secy to the Govt of India in the Finance Dept was nominated the ex-officio Accountant General of India
•       Creation of the general department of accounts in place of separate accounts for each presidency
•       During Company rule, revenue came from
–   Land and taxes on trade and personal property
•       Expenditure
–   Security or defence
–   Social and development services
•       1860: The most important administrative innovation was the introduction of the budget sytem
–   Financial resources to be ascertained before the start of the year
•       1860
–   Central Revenue Department created
–   Imperial Audit Department was set up

•       Creation of reform committees in the field of revenue administratiion
–   Resolution of 1860 provided for the creation of a Budget and Audit Committee
•       Introduction of govt paper currency in 1860
•       Financial Accountability
•       1772: Supervisors as collectors in district
•       1781: Board of Revenue became the controlling authority for revenue purposes
•       1829: Divisional commissioners appointed to supervise the collectors
•       1919: C&AG was made responsible to the central admin
•       1922: Central Public Accounts Committee created
•       1926: given power to inspect any government office of account
•       1934: RBI established
•       Law and Order Administration
•       Foundations of the contemporary police administration laid during British rule
•       Indian Police Act, 1861
•       IGP head of state police. SP at district level.
•       Subordinate police force consisted of the inspectors, head constables, sargeants and constables
•       Prior to the Police Act, the magistrate was the head of the district police
•       After 1861, magistrate ceased to be a direct police functionary but still had some control over police matters, in addition also retained judicial authority.
•       Thus, DM now had powers over the district police as well over subordinate magistracy. Over centralisation of authority in one official paved the way for administrative despotism at the district level.

•       Report of the Police Commission (1902-03)
–   A European service to be recruited entirely in England
–   A provincial service to be recruited entirely in India
–   Upper subordinate service consisting of inspectors and sub-inspectors
–   Lower subordinate service comprising head constables and constables
•       A province to be divided into ranges
•       IPC, 1960, CrPC, 1861, Indian Evidence Act etc constituted the legal framework of criminal justice administration that helped the police system to exercise its functions effectively
•       Judicial Administration
•       Hastings organised two courts in each district
–   Exercising civil and criminal jurisdiction
•       Cornwallis introduced the separation of power between executive and judiciary
–   Cornwallis code of 1793 took away the judicial powers of the Collector.
–   Laid the foundation of independent judiciary
•       Code provided for a three tier system
–   European judges with the zilla and city courts at the bottom
–   Four Provincial court of appeal at the middle level
–   Sadar Diwani and Nizamat Adalat at the top. Besides, Privy Council at the top
•       Criminal justice was in the hands of the four provincial courts
–   Called Circuit Courts
–   At the top was the Sadar Nizamat adalat to hear appeals from the Circuit Courts
•       Holt Mackenzie
–   Removed the intermediate tier as it slowed down the process
–   Recommended that primary jurisdiction in all cases, except a few, be vested in Indians
•       Judicial Administration
•       Judicial admin created perpetual problems
–   People did not know the laws of the rulers
–   Rulers did not know the traditions of the people
•       Bentinck introduced major reforms to improve the situation
–   The district judges of Cornwallis’ creation had to surrender their magesterial powers to the district collectors
–   Thus there emerged the district officer who was the DM, collector and the head of the police force
–   DM of Bentick continued till the end of the British Administration
•       Local Self Government
•       1864: statutory recognition was granted to panchayats as petty courts in Bombay and Madras
•       1870: Mayo included the panchayats in the management of funds devoted to education, public works etc
•       Ripon
–   1882: recommended the extension of the elected element in rural bodies, reduction in the size of the official element, an elected non-official as the chairman of rural bodies and financial decentralisation
•       Decentralisation Commission of 1909 recommended
–   Three tier system
–   Village Panchayat
–   Local tehsil
–   District board
•       1919
–   LSG became a provincial and  transferred subject under a responsible Indian minister

•       Conclusion
•       Indian Administration built on its British heritage
–   Eg. All India services, recruitment, training, secretariat system, district admin, revenue admin, police system, fin admin
•       Uniform system of administration
–   The princely states had different systems of administration
•       Their Acts and statutes are still in use
•       Innovation and stuff