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