"Indianisation of the superior civil services was a calculated concession rather than a genuine transfer of power." Critically examine this with reference to the Lee Commission (1924).

The Royal Commission on the Superior Civil Services in India (Lee Commission) submitted its report on 27 March 1924. It aimed to bring more Indians into the colonial "steel frame" after the 1919 reforms [1]. The way it was carried out shows that Indianisation was real in numbers. But Britain kept tight control of its pace, its methods and its institutions, so it was closer to a concession than a transfer of power.

Evidence of a genuine shift

• Parity in direct recruitment: The Simla communiqué of October 1926 said direct recruits to the ICS must be Europeans and Indians in equal numbers. In 1925–26 Indians actually outnumbered Europeans, 22 to 20 [2].
• Recruitment on Indian soil: A separate Allahabad examination let in Indians who could not compete in London [2].
• Institutional seed: Following Lee's recommendations, the first Public Service Commission was set up on 1 October 1926. It later became the Federal PSC (1937) and then the UPSC (1950) [3].
• Lasting dividend: The Indianised cadre gave independent India experienced administrators. Sardar Patel called the civil services the "steel frame of the nation" [4].

Evidence of a calculated concession

• Parity worked as a ceiling: The Indian surplus of 1925–26 was taken back the next year. The 1926–27 target was tilted to 29 Europeans and 27 Indians, so the two-year totals stayed at 49:49 [2].
• Quota fixed before merit: The government announced 16 Indian places for 1927 before the Allahabad exam was even held. Only 9 of them were open to competition [2].
• Patronage survived: 7 of the 16 places (about 44%) were kept for nomination, i.e. appointment without an exam [2]. This was despite the PSC being modelled on the British Civil Service Commission, whose purpose was to keep patronage out [5].
• Uneven playing field: The 1926 London exam selected 19 Europeans and only 11 Indians [2].
• Delayed, British-led oversight: Section 96C of the 1919 Act provided for a PSC, but none was set up until October 1926 [1]. Its first Chairman, Sir Ross Barker, was a UK Home Civil Service officer who served until 1932 [6].

In short, the Lee framework brought many more Indians into the service. Britain still controlled how many got in, by which routes, and who ran the institutions above them. Even so, the merit-based institutions it started grew into the constitutionally protected UPSC [3]. At UPSC's centenary, the lesson is that the merit principle and equality of opportunity (Article 16) must be firmly protected, not granted as a favour.