Consider the following statements about the evolution of the local bodies during the British Rule:

1. Madras was the first city to have local self-government under the British rule.

2. Ripon is called the father of local self-government in India.

3. The Royal Commission on Decentralisation advocated reducing the financial powers of the local bodies.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

It was the presidency towns that local bodies first came into existence. In 1687, the Court of Directors ordered the setting up of a corporation in Madras.

Ripon’s Resolution of 1882

The Government of Ripon desired the provincial governments, to apply in case of local bodies, the same principle of financial decentralisation which Lord Mayo’s Government had begun towards them. For his contributions, Lord Ripon is called father of local self-government in India. The main points of the Resolution were as follows:

● Development of local bodies advocated to improve the administration, and as an instrument of political and popular education;

● Policy of administrating local affairs through urban and rural local bodies charged with definite duties and entrusted with suitable sources of revenues;

● Non-officials to be in majority in these bodies, who could be elected if the officials thought that it was possible to introduce elections;

● Non-officials to act as chairpersons to these bodies;

● Official interference to be reduced to the minimum and to be exercised to revise and check the acts of the local bodies, but not to dictate policies;

● Official executive sanction required in certain cases, such as raising of loans, alienation of municipal property, imposition of new taxes, undertaking works costing more than a prescribed sum, framing rules and bye-laws, etc.

The Royal Commission on Decentralisation:

The Royal Commission on Decentralisation (1908)

Pointing out the lack of financial resources, as the great stumbling block in the effective functioning of local bodies, the Commission made the following recommendations:

(i) It emphasised that the village panchayats should be entrusted with more powers, like judicial jurisdiction in petty cases, incurring expenditure on minor village works, village schools, small fuel and fodder reserves, etc. The panchayats should be given adequate sources of income.

(ii) It emphasised the importance of sub-district boards to be established in every taluka or tehsil, with separate spheres of duties and separate sources of revenue for sub- district boards and the district boards.

(iii) It urged the withdrawal of existing restrictions on their powers of taxation, and also, the stoppage of regular grants-in-aid from provincial governments, except for undertaking large projects.

(iv) The municipalities might undertake the response – bility for primary education and, if willing, for middle vernacular schools, otherwise the Government should relieve them of any charges in regard to secondary education, hospitals, relief, police, veterinary works, etc.