Administrative Organisation After 1858 UPSC

The Revolt of 1857 had shaken British confidence in India. Before this, at least in official rhetoric, the British sometimes said that they were “training Indians in self-governance.” But after the Revolt, this mask was dropped. The British openly declared: Indians are not capable of ruling themselves; therefore, British rule must continue indefinitely.

From this mindset followed a deliberate policy: keep the organs of power — the army, police, and civil service — under strict British control, and exclude Indians from real authority. The central question of this period became: How much participation, if any, should Indians get in administration?

The Civil Service under the Crown

After 1858, when the administration passed directly to the Crown, the Government of India Act, 1858 gave the Queen authority over important appointments.

Competitive exams for recruitment to the “Her Majesty’s Civil Service” were to be conducted in London by the Civil Service Commission.
This effectively meant that Indians, without resources to travel abroad, were practically excluded from higher services.

Thus, though in theory Indians could compete, in practice the doors remained closed.

The Indian Civil Service Act, 1861

This Act tried to open a small window:

Certain posts were listed (in a schedule) where any person, Indian or European, could be appointed if he:
1. Had resided in India for 7 years,
2. Passed an exam in the vernacular language of the district,
3. Cleared departmental tests.

But in reality, this Act remained a “dead letter” — more ornamental than functional. Authorities were reluctant to enforce it, and the hurdles were so high that very few Indians could benefit.

Act of 1870

By the 1870s, pressure from educated Indians was rising. They wanted entry into the covenanted service (the elite ranks). Responding to this, the Act of 1870 was passed, allowing the British government to appoint Indians of proven merit to civil posts.

However, once again, the idea met resistance: should all posts be open, or should there be a fixed proportion for Indians? This indecision meant the law had little real impact

Statutory Civil Service (1879)

In 1879, Lord Lytton introduced a new scheme — the Statutory Civil Service.

One-sixth of posts in the covenanted service were to be filled by Indians, nominated by provincial governments (but with the approval of the Government of India and the Secretary of State).

This too was short-lived and failed in purpose, eventually being abolished. Clearly, the British were willing to make promises but not to part with real authority.

Indian National Congress Demand (1885)

By the 1880s, a new political force had emerged — the Indian National Congress.

At its very first session in December 1885, the Congress passed a resolution demanding simultaneous Civil Service examinations in England and India.

This was a crucial turning point. For the first time, the demand for “Indianisation” of the Civil Service was taken up in an organised political platform. This pressure forced the government to act.

Aitchison Commission (1886)

In response, the Aitchison Commission was appointed in 1886 under Sir Charles Aitchison. Its recommendations were important:

Abolish the distinction between “covenanted” and “uncovenanted” services.
Abolish the Statutory Civil Service.
Divide the services into three categories:
1. Imperial Service – controlled by the Secretary of State in London.
2. Provincial Service – controlled by provincial governments.
3. Subordinate Service.
Raise the age limit for civil service exam to 23 years.

While the Commission did introduce some reforms, it firmly insisted that exams should continue in England — because, in their view, the Indian Civil Service had to embody “English principles and methods of governance.” In other words, they still wanted the service to remain largely British in character.

Islington Commission (1912)

By the early 20th century, the nationalist movement had gained strength, and the demand for Indianisation grew louder. So, another Commission was set up in 1912, headed by Lord Islington.

Its observations:

Indians made up only 5% of the Civil Service.
It recommended two entry routes: one through England (open to all), and one in India (open only to “statutory natives of India”).
Suggested reserving 25% of posts for Indians (189 out of 755 posts).
Proposed classifying services as Class I and Class II.

Although cautious, this was a step forward — an acknowledgement that the exclusion of Indians could not continue forever.

Let’s pause here and look at the Larger Picture in the story until now

So, what we see between 1858 and 1912 is a tug-of-war:

On one side, educated Indians were demanding participation in administration.
On the other, the British authorities were conceding little, setting up Commissions, passing laws, but keeping real power firmly in their own hands.

This struggle over the Civil Service is not just about jobs — it reflects a deeper issue: whether India would eventually govern itself, or remain perpetually dependent on British rule. Let’s continue the story now:

Montford Reforms and the Road to Indianisation

Context: Declaration of 1917

In August 1917, Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, made an important declaration: Britain would now work towards “increasing the association of Indians in every branch of administration.”
This statement was not out of generosity—it was compelled by the rising tide of Indian nationalism, especially after India’s sacrifices during World War I. Britain had to show that it was willing to reform.

Montford Reforms, 1919

As part of the reforms:

A separate competitive examination for the Civil Services was to be held in India (though not simultaneously with London).
It was proposed that 33% of superior posts would be filled by Indians, with a gradual increase of 1.5% each year.

This was a cautious attempt—Britain wanted to include Indians, but only slowly, and under strict control.

Government of India Act, 1919

The Act implemented these recommendations:

Separate competitive exams in India were approved.
A Public Service Commission was promised for India.

In February 1922, the first civil service exam in India was held in Allahabad, conducted under the supervision of the Civil Service Commission (London). However, the selected candidates were still sent to England for two years of probation, which showed that British oversight remained strong.

The bigger question of creating a Public Service Commission in India was left unresolved—it was pushed forward to another committee.

The Lee Commission (1923)

To address this, in 1923 a Royal Commission on Superior Civil Services in India was appointed under Lord Lee of Fareham. Its recommendations were significant:

1. Division of Services

The Commission categorised services into three classes:

All India Services – e.g., Indian Civil Service (ICS), Indian Police Service (IPS), Indian Medical Service, Indian Forest Service, Indian Service of Engineers.
👉 These were to remain under the direct control of the Secretary of State in London.
Central Services – operating at the level of the Government of India.
Provincial Services – to be controlled by provincial governments.
This division clarified the administrative structure that we still recognise in some form today.

2. Indianisation of the ICS

The Commission recommended a 50:50 ratio between Europeans and Indians in the ICS within 15 years.
Practically, this meant: out of 100 ICS posts → 40 Europeans (direct recruitment), 40 Indians (direct recruitment), and 20 filled by promotions from provincial service.
The goal was that by 1939, Indians would hold half of the ICS posts.
This was the first time a clear timeline for Indianisation was set, even though it still moved too slowly for nationalists.

3. Public Service Commission

The Commission stressed that the statutory Public Service Commission promised in the 1919 Act should be established immediately.

Public Service Commission (1926)

Following the recommendation, the Public Service Commission was finally set up on October 1, 1926.

It had four members plus a Chairman.
Sir Ross Barker, a British officer from the UK’s Home Civil Service, was appointed the first Chairman.
In 1927, it conducted its first recruitment exam for the civil services in India, though still under close linkage with London’s Civil Service Commission.

This marked the real institutional beginning of what later became the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

Government of India Act, 1935

This landmark Act further shaped the service structure:

It provided for three types of commissions:
1. Federal Public Service Commission
2. Provincial Public Service Commissions
3. Joint Public Service Commission (for two or more provinces)
Because the Act also introduced Provincial Autonomy, only three services remained as All India Services:
1. Indian Civil Service (ICS)
2. Indian Police Service (IPS)
3. Indian Medical Service (IMS)
Other services like Agricultural, Veterinary, Educational, Engineering, and Forest were provincialised.

Thus, the groundwork was being laid for the structure of public services that would later continue after independence.

The Larger Significance

Between 1919 and 1935, we see a steady shift:

From exams only in London → to separate exams in India (1922).
From no Public Service Commission → to an Indian Public Service Commission (1926).
From complete European dominance → to a 50:50 sharing goal by 1939.
From centralised services → to a division into All India, Central, and Provincial services.

In short, the British, under nationalist pressure, were compelled to slowly open the doors of administration to Indians. But the pace was deliberately slow, designed to maintain British dominance as long as possible.

Excellent, now we move into the other two pillars of British control in India — the Army and the Police. These were deliberately reorganised after 1857 to ensure that never again could Indians challenge British rule through force. Let’s discuss the army first:

The Army – The Backbone of British Power

Before 1857

The East India Company’s army was overwhelmingly Indian in composition.
About 86% of soldiers were Indians (sepoys), while only a small fraction were Europeans.
The Revolt of 1857 proved how dangerous this imbalance was for British control — if such a massive Indian army could unite against them, the Empire itself could collapse.

Changes After 1858

When the Crown took direct control of India, the European forces of the Company were merged with the Crown’s troops. After that, reforms were introduced to weaken Indian capacity to revolt and to strengthen European dominance.

Domination of Europeans
- The ratio of Europeans to Indians in the army was deliberately increased.
  - Bengal Army → 1 European : 2 Indians
  - Madras & Bombay Armies → 2 Europeans : 5 Indians
- The Royal Peel Commission (1859) recommended a safe ratio of 1 European to every 2.5 Indian sepoys.
- Europeans were stationed in strategic positions (hill stations, cantonments, key military posts).
- Crucial wings like artillery were kept exclusively under European control.
- Indians were barred from officer ranks — leadership was to remain entirely British.
Divide and Rule in Recruitment
- The army was reorganised on the principle of “balance and counterpoise” — deliberately mixing castes, religions, and regions to prevent unity.
- Recruitment was based on communal and regional discrimination.
- Soldiers were encouraged to maintain caste and tribal loyalties, not nationalist ones.

👉 The British even invented a theory of “martial and non-martial races.”

Those who had rebelled in 1857 (Avadh, Bihar, Central India, South India) were branded as non-martial and excluded.
Those who had remained loyal or helped suppress the revolt (Sikhs, Gurkhas, Pathans) were declared martial races and recruited heavily.

This policy not only divided the Indian soldier but also left a lasting legacy on Indian society, as the colonial stereotypes of “martial races” survived well into the 20th century.

The Police – The Civil Arm of Control

After 1857, the British realised that they needed not just a strong army but also an internal security mechanism to watch over daily life and suppress dissent.

Police Commission, 1860

Headed by M. H. Court, this Commission recommended reforms on the lines of Napier’s police system (used in Sindh).
It advocated a single, uniform civil constabulary across provinces.

Indian Police Act, 1861

This Act created the structure of police that largely survives even today. Key features:

Inspector General of Police (IG): Head of police in each province.
Deputy Inspector General (DIG): Head of a “Range.”
District Superintendent (SP): Head of police in each district.

👉 This made the police an organised, hierarchical force — designed primarily to maintain law and order in the interest of the colonial regime, not to serve the people.

Frazer Commission, 1902–03

By the turn of the century, policing was reviewed again. The Commission suggested:

Establishment of a Central Intelligence Bureau (CIB) at the centre.
Creation of a separate Crime Branch / Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in each Presidency, controlled by the IG.

This laid the foundation of the colonial intelligence and surveillance machinery — a network that spied on nationalist leaders, censored their writings, and kept the regime informed about political activity.

After Independence

Though India became free in 1947, the basic framework of policing set up by the 1861 Act remained unchanged.

Minor reforms were introduced, but the system continued to be criticised for:
- Inefficiency in serving the poor and underprivileged.
- Lack of empathy towards citizens.
- Politicisation and criminalisation of the force.

In many ways, the colonial legacy of using police as an instrument of control rather than a service for the people continued into independent India.

The Larger Lesson

The army was made the hard fist of colonial power — dominated by Europeans, divided along caste and communal lines, and isolated from nationalist ideas.
The police became the soft fist — a pervasive mechanism of surveillance and control, built on the 1861 framework.

Together, they ensured that the British Raj remained secure despite being an alien power ruling over millions.

Wonderful — now will move on to the next section where we study the British administrative policies after 1857, which reflect the mindset of the colonial rulers. The Revolt had shaken their confidence, and instead of moving towards liberalism or reform, their policies became increasingly reactionary and conservative. So, guys, let’s move on to the next section for this interesting discussion.

Administrative Organisation after 1858 in British India