1. That the Committee have taken into consideration the question of the cost of the maintenance of British troops in India. They have had the advantage of the attendance of the Secretary of State on three occasions, and have addressed many questions to him on the subject. They are of opinion that the whole question should be exhaustively explored with a view to effecting what reductions in Military Expenditure may be found practicable and consistent with security. 2. The Committee have been informed that the Budget for the year 1922-23 shows an estimate of more than Rs.62 crores (approx. £41,000,000) for Military Expenditure alone. The corresponding total expenditure for this period is shown as Rs.141 crores (approx. £94,000,000), and the corresponding Revenue as Rs.132 crores* (approx. £88,000,000). There is therefore a deficit of Rs.9 crores (approx. £6,000,000). This serious financial position renders economies in all possible directions imperative. 3. The Committee have also been informed that the latest available figures of the total expenditure in India for British troops alone are as follows: 1913-14 1921-22 Rs.7 crores 32 lakhs (approx. £5,000,000) These figures, which are only approximate, show an increase of cost for 1921-22 of about Rs.9 crores (approx. £6,000,000) over the corresponding cost for 1913-14, in spite of the fact that there *These figures do not include Waziristan. +These cannot be regarded as total figures, as a large part of the increase of cost of administrative services (e.g., medical) is associated with the British garrison and is not distinguishable. The cost of printing and publishing this Report is estimated by the Stationery Office at £3 0s. Od. 4 has been a reduction of 6,000 men in the strength of British troops employed in India in 1921-22 as compared with 1913-14. The Committee have not been informed on what grounds this reduction in strength was made, and desire to make it clear that they do not recommend any further reduction in the size of the British Army. The increase in the cost, however, of these troops, which is shown to be for 1921-22 more than double that for 1913-14, notwithstanding the decrease in numbers, is to be attributed to a considerable degree to the higher rates of pay adopted in 1919. The Committee understand that the increase in pay was deemed necessary by the War Office on account of the increase granted in this country at that time, and was adopted by the Home Government under abnormal conditions without any formal consultation either with the India Office or with the Authorities in India. The Government of India had no alternative but to accept it, although there was already a serious deficiency in the Revenue as compared with the expenditure. 4. It is open for consideration whether the General Headquarters Staff is not inflated and capable of reduction without disadvantage. Under the Kitchener system there were two Armies, and a great part of their administrative work was undertaken direct by General Headquarters. During the war this system was not found workable, and a system of decentralisation was instituted by which four armies were created. The Headquarters of each Army was to undertake its own administrative work. The General Headquarters Staff increased from 98 in 1914 to 166 in 1921. The total number of officers serving on staffs other than at General Headquarters increased from 203 in 1914 to 278 in 1921. 5. The Committee have not examined this subject in detail on account of its magnitude and complexity, but in view of the facts disclosed above, the Committee feel it their duty to direct the attention of Parliament to the importance of the whole subject, and they recommend that the Committee, which is being appointed with Lord Inchcape as Chairman, should be directed to give their most serious consideration to the possibility of reducing expenditure in so far as the British Army in India is concerned. FROM STANDING COMMITTEE B ON THE Indian High Courts Bill [Lords] WITH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, LONDON: HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE. 37, PETER STREET, MANCHESTER; 1, ST. ANDREW'S CRESCENT, CARDIFF; 23, FORTH STREET, EDINBURGH ; OR FROM EASON & SON, LTD., 40 & 41, LOWER SACKVILLE STreet, Dublin. |