'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.' [‎104v] (208/248)

the Government of India’s Secretariat. They hold strongly that, it the control
of Government over the Army and its head is to be a reality, it is essential to
keep the functions of the Commander-in-Chief as Executive rlead of the Army
entirely distinct from his functions as Member of Council in charge of Aimy
Department, and entitled in that capacity to pass orders in the name and with
the authority of the Government of India, and that the agencies through which
these two distinct classes of functions are respectively exercised should be kept
separate. They object also to the position assigned to the feecretaryAn the
Army Department, which differs from that of all the other secretaries to Govern
ment, inasmuch as, instead of whole business of Department passing through
his hands from its inception and in ordinary course, much of it will reach him
only after orders have been approved for signature, unless by the exercise of an
invidious discretion he specially calls for papers. They attach special impor
tance to a strong position for the Army Secretary, since, in the absence of the
constitutional check provided in civil matters by the existence of local govern
ments with free access to Viceroy, his independence is the main security for
effective control.
On the other hand Baker, Major-General Scott, and Lord Kitchener
consider above suggestions are not in accordance with Secretary of State’s
Despatch, are not practical, would re-introduce duplication of work which it
was intended to abolish, and would form an expensive as well as inefficient
system of administration. They therefore hope that you will approve of rules
as amended, which in their opinion completely safeguard independence of
Secretary in Army Department and the constitutional control of the Viceroy
and Council over Army matters.
I am bound to say I cannot accept objections of the honourable members
who dissent from my proposal to the amalgamation of Army Headquarters Staff
with the Government of India Secretariat. I regard such amalgamation as
inherent in the organisation proposed by the Secretary of State, and as essential
to its proper working. I do not consider that it can have any injurious effect
in the control of Government over the Army, or over the Commander-in-Chief;
neither can I admit comparison between local governments and the Army
Department as sound. The independent position of Secretary, and his
free access to the Viceroy has, I consider, been very fully guaranteed, and
the constitutional control of the Army by the Viceroy and Council amply
recognised.
I entirely agree with the views expressed by the Commander-in-Chief,
Baker, and Major-General Scott, but am anxious you should have the opinions
of all my colleagues.
No. 3.
Despatch from the Secretary of State for India to the
Governor-General, dated 9th February, 1906.
My Lord,
I have considered in Council Your Excellency’s communication of
23rd January, and the new Draft Buies of Business proposed by the
Government of India, in conformity with the request made by my pre
decessor in his Despatch of 31st May, 1905, and repeated in his telegram of
21st November.
*. ..f 9 S' <' J.
2. The policy set out in that Despatch was designed to put an end to an
alleged conflict between the Military Department of the Government of India
and the Commander-in-Chief as head of the Army ; to do away with a trouble
some and superfluous duplication of work and to concede to the Commander-
in-Chief “greater freedom of working.” With these objects in view the