'Mesopotamia Commission. Report of the Commission Appointed by Act of Parliament to Enquire into the Operations of War in Mesopotamia, together with a Special Report by Commander J Wedgwood, DSO, MP, and Appendices. London: HMSO, 1917.' [‎50v] (100/248)

98 PART XI.—CAUSES CONTRIBUTING TO THE ERRORS OF JUDGMENT
AND SHORTCOMINGS OF RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES.
I
B. Faulty Organisation of Indian Military Administration.
10. During recent years certain important changes had been made in the highest
branch of Indian military administration, and certain influences were at work, which,
in our judgment, were detrimental to the efficient supervision of this or any Oversea
Expedition. Up to 1905 there had been two high officials in charge of the administrative
and executive work of the Indian Army—namely, the Military Member of Council and the
Commander-in-Chief. By “Indian Army” we mean Indian Military Establishments, as
there is always a large proportion of the British Army stationed in India, and these troops,
so long as they are there, are upon the Indian establishment. The Military Member of
Council was in charge of what we may designate the administration of the Army, and it
was through him that the demands of the Commander-in-Chief for the Army came to the
Viceroy’s Council, though the Commander-in-Chief himself was an extraordinary Member
of that Council. Whatever may have been the drawbacks of this system, it had the advan
tage that by this division of work, the Commander-in-Chief was free to perform his
important executive duties of inspection, and of reviewing and testing the efficiency and
wants of the troops under him. while the Military Member remained at the seat of
Government.
11. The Military Member was abolished, and in his place a Supply Member was ap
pointed as one of the Viceroy’s Council. This post was, however, extinguished a short
time after its creation. Thus, the whole of the administrative and executive work of the
Army became concentrated in the hands of one man. who has a duality of responsibility,
for he is both Military Member of Council and Commander-in-Chief. Being the only
military representative on the Viceroy’s Council it is his duty to be present at the meetings
of the Executive Council. The two Army Departments, namely, that of which the
Commander-in-Chief in his capacity as such is the head, and that of which the Commander-
in-Chief in his capacity as Military Member of Council is also the head, are both permanently
located in Simla.
12. While there is centralisation at the head of the administration, a cumbrous
dualism remains below. These two Departments, though under the same individual, are
kept separate and distinct, and they are separately maintained in order to give substance
to the fiction that one person is two persons. The Commander-in Chief, in his capacity
as Commander-in-Chief, may think and order something in his department which in his
subsequent capacity as Military Member in another Department he may like to unthink
and counter order. The procedure under this unique form of military administration
was described to us by Mr. Brunyate, the Financial Secretary to the Government of India.
He had been for some years Financial Adviser to the Commander-in-Chief and Military
Member of Council, and is a high expert upon the procedure which this dual system entails.
His evidence was so clear and explicit that we reproduce it verbatim. When asked to
give a concrete case of how a paper relating to a proposal for Army equipment would pass
through the two Departments, he replied :—
The Quartermaster-General, it may be supposed, wishes to have more mules. Probably before putting
forward the proposal at all he sees the Commander-in-Chief personally as Commander-in-Chief, and ascertains
from him that he is willing to have that proposal ventilated. He then writes a note stating his facts, probably
supported by a note by the Director of the Army Remount Department, makes a definite recommendation,
estimates the cost and marks his note to the Army Department of the Government of India. The office clerks
of the Army Department note on the case, the Assistant Secretary notes, the Deputy Secretary may note, and
it reaches the Army Secretary—we will call him General Holloway, though he is not actually Army Secretary
now. He criticises the proposal if he thinks fit The Office of the Financial Adviser then note upon
it. . . . The clerks in the Finance Adviser’s office note, the Assistant or Deputy Financial Adviser notes,
and the case then comes to the Financial Adviser, now Mr. Fell. Mr. Fell may be prepared at once to accept
the proposal on behalf of the Finance Department, and may intimate that he does not intend to refer it to the
Finance Member. The file then goes back to the Army Secretary, and in that case he at once arranges for the
necessary orders to be issued to give effect to the Quartermaster-General’s proposal, unless he thinks the case
of sufficient importance to refer it to the Army Member.
Such reference will, of course, practically always be required if the proposal is one requiring the sanction
of the Secretary of State. In that case the Army Secretary would take the Army Member’s orders at this stage,
and a despatch to the Secretary of State would then be drafted in the Army Department. ... Or again,
Mr. Fell, when the case first reached him, might have criticised the proposal, and indicated a desire to see it
modified or rejected. In that case the file would still go back to the Army Secretary, and he would doubtless
at that stage take the orders of the Army Member unless before doing so he wished to have the opinion of
the Quartermaster-General on the criticisms and suggestions’which had been made in the Military Finance
Branch. Mr. Fell, when criticising the proposal would probably have indicated whether he intended to refer
the case eventually to the Finance Member. Thus when the Army Secretary brought these criticisms before
the Army Member, the latter would know that if he decided to over-ride the Financial Adviser’s criticisms,