The Hilton-Young Commission (1926), officially known as the Royal Commission on Indian Currency and Finance, recommended fixing the rupee-sterling exchange rate at an artificially high ratio of 1s 6d (1 shilling 6 pence) per rupee, instead of the pre-war rate of 1s 4d. Option A is correct: The colonial administration adopted this artificially high rate primarily to ease the burden of "Home Charges." These were massive, mandatory sterling-denominated remittances sent from India to Britain to cover administrative costs, pensions, military expenses, and interest on public debt. By keeping the rupee artificially strong against the sterling, the Government of India had to extract fewer rupees from the domestic economy to purchase the sterling required for these remittances. This facilitated the steady flow of funds to Britain and ensured India could easily service its sterling debt, thereby maintaining its financial creditworthiness in London. Option B is incorrect: While an overvalued rupee did make imports cheaper (benefiting British manufacturers like Lancashire textiles), the primary motive of the British Government was to manage its own fiscal burden regarding remittances, not to provide support to Indian importers. Option C is incorrect: The artificially high exchange rate actually harmed Indian exports. It made Indian goods, such as cotton produce, more expensive and uncompetitive in the international market, which sparked intense opposition from Indian nationalists and businessmen during the "Ratio Controversy." Option D is incorrect: The primary objective of fixing the exchange rate at 1s 6d was to facilitate the transfer of sterling remittances (Home Charges) to Britain and manage the colonial government's budget, rather than merely preventing the depreciation of the Rupee in terms of gold. Therefore, the correct option is A.