Montford Reforms, Lee Commission and Evaluation of the Civil Services
Modern History › Administrative and Judicial Developments Under British Rule · Topic 26.3
The Montford Reforms of 1919 recommended simultaneous examinations in India and England and recruitment of one-third of the service in India, rising 1.5 per cent a year. The Lee Commission of 1924 recommended 50:50 parity between Europeans and Indians in ICS recruitment within 15 years and a Public Service Commission; the Act of 1935 provided federal and provincial Public Service Commissions. Yet key posts stayed with Europeans, and Indianisation did not transfer effective power.
5 min read · UPSC Prelims · History · Administrative and Judicial Developments Under British Rule
At a Glance
- Montford, 1919 Simultaneous exams; one-third recruited in India
- Lee Commission, 1924 50:50 parity in 15 years; a Public Service Commission
- 1935 Act Federal and provincial Public Service Commissions
- Evaluation Indianisation did not transfer effective power
- Exam link UPSC Prelims, Modern History: Administrative and Judicial Developments Under British Rule
Where Does It Fit?
This is the third topic of the category on administrative and judicial developments under British rule. The previous topic covered the ICS Act of 1861 and the Aitchison Committee. This topic covers the Montford reforms, the Lee Commission and an evaluation of the civil services. The next topic covers the police. Previous topic: Indian Civil Service Act, 1861, Statutory Civil Service and the Aitchison Committee.
What Did the Montford Reforms Say About the Services?
The Montford reforms stated a realistic policy: if a responsible government was to be established in India, the more Indians employed in the public service the better. They recommended holding the examination simultaneously in India and England, and recruiting one-third of the service in India itself, a share to be raised each year by 1.5 per cent. The reforms are in Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and the Government of India Act, 1919.
What Did the Lee Commission Recommend?
The Lee Commission of 1924 made these recommendations.
| Recommendation | Detail |
|---|---|
| Secretary of State | Should continue to recruit the ICS, the Irrigation branch of the Service of Engineers, the Indian Forest Service and similar services |
| Transferred fields | Recruitment for fields such as education and the civil medical service to be done by provincial governments |
| Parity | Direct recruitment to the ICS on a 50:50 basis between Europeans and Indians to be reached in 15 years |
| Public Service Commission | To be established immediately, as laid down in the Government of India Act, 1919 |
What Did the Act of 1935 Add?
The Government of India Act, 1935 recommended the establishment of a Federal Public Service Commission and Provincial Public Service Commissions in their own spheres. The Act is covered in Nationalist Response to the Government of India Act, 1935.
But the positions of control and authority remained in British hands, and the Indianisation of the civil service did not put effective political power in Indian hands, since Indian bureaucrats acted as agents of colonial rule.
How Should the Civil Services Under British Rule Be Evaluated?
Just as Indians were systematically excluded from law-making and policy-making bodies, they were mostly kept out of the institutions responsible for implementing policy. European supremacy was assured in the civil service as in other spheres of governance in mainly two ways.
- First, although Indians had been entering the Indian Civil Service since 1863, entry remained extremely difficult for them. The examination was held in London, in English only, and the subjects included classical Greek and Latin learning. The maximum age for appearing was lowered from twenty-three in 1859 to nineteen in 1878 under Lytton.
- Second, all key positions of power and authority, and those which were well paid, were held by Europeans.
Though a slow process of Indianisation took place after 1918 under nationalist pressure, important and senior positions continued to be held by Europeans. Gradually Indians came to realise that Indianisation had not transferred effective power into Indian hands, and that Indian civil servants continued to serve the imperialist interests of their British masters. The earlier barriers are in Indian Civil Service Act, 1861, Statutory Civil Service and the Aitchison Committee.
As an analytical point, the evaluation separates the number of Indians in the service from the control of the system: the bureaucracy was becoming more Indian in membership, as a result of Montford and Lee, but policy was set in London and by the Viceroy and the senior Europeans, so nationalists criticised the services as an instrument of the existing order. Whether the same structure of the civil services was then taken over by independent India lies outside the scope of this account. The other instruments of control, the police and the army, are in Evolution of the Police System in Modern India and The Military Under the British.
Why Is This Topic Important?
- Montford and Lee recommendations Percentages and parity are Prelims facts
- Public Service Commission Origin in the 1919 and 1935 Acts
- Evaluation A standard Mains point on Indianisation without power
What Came Next?
The next topic covers the evolution of the police system in modern India. Next topic: Evolution of the Police System in Modern India.
Key People and Terms
- Lee Commission The 1924 commission on the superior services
- Public Service Commission A recruiting body provided by the Acts of 1919 and 1935
- Indianisation Increasing the share of Indians in the services
- Parity Equal numbers of Europeans and Indians
- Transferred fields Fields such as education and health under provincial ministers
- Federal Public Service Commission Provided by the 1935 Act
Exam Corner
Points to Remember
- Montford: one-third recruited in India, rising 1.5 per cent a year.
- Lee Commission 1924: 50:50 parity in 15 years.
- Public Service Commission: 1919 Act, Lee, 1935 Act.
- Exam in London, age 19 by 1878.
- Indianisation did not give effective power.
Do Not Confuse With
- Montford and Lee recommendations Montford: one-third in India; Lee: 50:50 parity in 15 years
- Federal and Provincial PSC Both from the 1935 Act
- Numbers and power More Indians in the service did not mean Indian control
Memory Hook
A third in 1919, parity by 1939, a commission in 1935, but the keys stayed in British hands.
Mains Angle
Questions ask whether Indianisation meant a transfer of power. These points add depth.
- Reforms Montford, Lee and 1935
- Barriers Examination and key posts
- Verdict Agents of colonial rule
A Question You May Face
An original practice question, not a past paper question.
“Evaluate the Indianisation of the civil services between 1919 and 1935 and its impact on the political power of Indians.”
How to Answer
- Reforms Montford and Lee.
- 1935 Public Service Commissions.
- Barriers Examination and key posts.
- Conclude Numbers versus power.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Montford Reforms recommend on the civil services?
They stated that the more Indians employed in public service the better if responsible government was to be established. They recommended simultaneous examinations in India and England and recruiting one-third of the service in India, with the share rising by 1.5 per cent each year.
What were the Lee Commission's recommendations of 1924?
The Secretary of State should continue to recruit the ICS, the Irrigation branch of the Service of Engineers and the Forest Service, provinces should recruit for transferred fields, ICS recruitment should reach 50:50 parity in 15 years, and a Public Service Commission should be set up at once.
What did the Government of India Act, 1935 provide for the services?
The Act provided for a Federal Public Service Commission and Provincial Public Service Commissions in their own spheres, but control and authority stayed in British hands, so the Indianisation of the services did not transfer effective political power.
How did Europeans keep control of the civil service?
Entry for Indians was made hard by the London examination in English with classical subjects and a falling age limit, and all key, well-paid positions were occupied by Europeans. Even after 1918 senior posts continued to be held by Europeans.
Did Indianisation transfer power to Indians?
No. Indians gradually realised that Indianisation of the services did not put effective power in their hands, and that Indian civil servants continued to serve the imperialist interests of their British masters, acting as agents of colonial rule.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 The Lee Commission recommended 50:50 parity between Europeans and Indians in direct ICS recruitment.
It was to be reached in 15 years.
2 The Montford reforms recommended that one-third of recruitment be made in India.
The share was to rise by 1.5 per cent annually.
3 The Government of India Act, 1935 provided for Public Service Commissions.
Federal and provincial ones.
4 Indianisation after 1918 gave Indians control of policy.
Key positions stayed with Europeans.
5 The ICS examination was held only in India after 1861.
It was held in London.
Related Topics
Browse the full Modern History index