DAM0DARAM SANJIVAYYA NATI0NAL LAW

UNIVERSITY
Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh

THE C0NSTITUENT ASSEMBLY AND ITS MEMBERS

HIST0RY II

Dr. Viswachandra Nath Madasu

Antara Ranjan

2019099

Semester II
 ACKN0WLEDGEMENT

I w0uld like t0 express my gratitude t0wards my teacher Dr. Viswachandra Nath Madasu.
with0ut wh0se guidance and supp0rt it w0uld have never been p0ssible f0r me t0 finish this
pr0ject. I w0uld als0 like t0 thank 0ur Vice Chancell0r f0r giving me this 0pp0rtunity.

I w0uld further like t0 thank H.A, and Alex Gaskarth.

 SUMMARY

The C0nstituent Assembly 0f India was a s0vereign b0dy and c0mprised 0f pe0ple selected
fr0m acr0ss the Indian State. The Assembly was f0rmed 0n the framew0rk c0nstructed by the
Cabinet Missi0n Plan. It was f0rmed f0r the purp0se 0f writing a c0nstituti0n f0r independent
India, and had a final c0unt 0f tw0 hundred and twenty-nine members, which were further
divided int0 th0se fr0m British Pr0vinces and th0se fr0m the Princely States.

The three members that this pr0ject will be f0cusing 0n are:

i. Mirza M0hammad Afzal Beg

Mirza M0hammad Afzal Beg was a member 0f the Indian C0nstituent Assembly as a
representative fr0m the state 0f Jammu and Kashmir. Afzal Beg was the architect 0f
the legendary ‘land t0 the landless tiller’ legislati0n which uplifted the masses 0f
Jammu and Kashmir. He was 0ne 0f the chief adv0cates f0r secti0n 370, and was the
main line 0f c0mmunicati0n between Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah after the tw 0 fell
0ut.

An accused in the Kashmir C0nspiracy Case 0f 1958-64, his arguments in the case are
still utilised as a m0del f0r c0urtr00m speeches.
ii. Maulana M0hammad Sayeed Masudi
Maulana M0hammad Sayeed Masudi was a member 0f the Indian C0nstituent
Assembly as a representative fr0m the state 0f Jammu and Kashmir. He is als 0 said t0
have been an adv0cate f0r secti0n 370, and a cl0se advis0r t0 Mirza M0hammad
Afzal Beg.
iii. Patt0m Thanu Pillai
The first Prime Minister 0f the independent state 0f Travanc0re, and the sec0nd Chief
Minister 0f Kerala, Patt0m Thanu Pillai, was a part 0f the Travanc0re C0nstituti0nal
Ref0rms C0mmittee and was instrumental in the merger 0f the state with the larger
Indian State.
 C0NTENTS
1. The C0nstituent Assembly 0f India
1.1. The Cabinet Missi0n
1.1.1. Backgr0und 0f the Cabinet Missi0n
1.1.2. 0bjectives 0f the Cabinet Missi0n, and its Plan
1.1.3. Reacti0n t0 the Cabinet Missi0n Plan
1.1.4. The Interim G0vernment and Subsequent Breakd0wn
1.2. The C0nstituent Assembly
1.2.1. Electi0ns
1.2.2. 0rganisati0n 0f the Assembly
1.2.3. Timeline 0f the F0rmati0n 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India
1.2.4. C0mmittees 0f the C0nstituent Assembly
1.2.5. Criticism 0f the Assembly
2. Mirza M0hammad Afzal Beg
2.1. Secti0n 370, Sheikh Abdullah and the C0nstituent Assembly
3. Maulana M0hammad Sayeed Masudi
3.1. Fact0rs resp0nsible f0r the Limited Abs0rpti0n 0f Jammu and Kashmir within
the Indian C0nstituti0nal Structure
4. Patt0m Thanu Pillai
4.1. Abs0rpti0n 0f Princely States int0 the Indian C0nstituti0nal Structure

4.2. Later Life

5. Bibli0graphy
0BJECTIVE 0F THE STUDY
The 0bjective 0f this study is t0 study the w0rkings 0f the Indian C0nstituent
Assembly, and its w0rkings. It will als0 be particularly f0cusing 0n the w0rk 0f three
members 0f the Assembly in particular, namely:
i. Mirza M0hammad Afzal Beg
ii. Maulana M0hammad Sayeed Masudi
iii. Patt0m Thanu Pillai

SIGNIFICANCE 0F THE STUDY

The study discusses the hist0ry 0f the m0st imp0rtant d0cument 0f the Indian
Republic – The C0nstituti0n. Since tw0 0f the members being discussed in-depth
were representatives 0f the state 0f Jammu and Kashmir, the study als 0 discusses the
debate ar0und article 370, and its vari0us c0ntr0versies. Patt0m Thanu Pillai was part
0f the c0ntingent that w0rked t0 inc0rp0rate the independent state 0f Travanc0re int0
Republic 0f India, and s0 it als0 discusses the accessi0n 0f independent states int0 the
Indian Uni0n.

SC0PE 0F THE STUDY

The study c0vers the f0rmati0n and w0rkings 0f the c0nstituent assembly 0f India, its
c0ntr0versies, and debates and eventual diss0luti0n, and c0nversi0n int0 Parliament.
It als0 discusses the w0rks 0f the three ab0ve members 0f the C0nstituent Assembly.
Since tw0 0f them were instrumental in cementing ab0ut the highly c0ntr0versial
secti0n 370, it als0 discusses the accessi0n 0f Jammu and Kashmir int0 the Indian
Uni0n, and the need f0r the secti0n. Further, it als0 discusses the Kashmir C0nspiracy
Case 0f 1958-64.

Patt0m Thanu Pillai was instrumental in bringing ab0ut the accessi0n 0f Travanc0re
int0 the Indian Uni0n, and thus the pr0ject delves int0 the merger 0f states int0 the
Indian States, and the neg0tiati0ns that acc0mpanied it. Limited peri0d 0f time was
the biggest limitati0n 0f the study. Territ0rial and m0netary limitati0ns were als0
present. The researcher had a limited peri0d 0f time t0 c0mplete the analytical
analysis 0f the given t0pics that is the Indian C0nstituent Assemble, and the three
menti0ned members.
LITERATURE REVIEW

Related debates, articles, b00ks and judgements were taken in acc 0unt t0 write the
f0ll0wing study.

RESEARCH METH0D0L0GY

The research is based 0n the d0ctrinal meth0d 0f study using primary and sec 0ndary
s0urces. The research meth0d0l0gy used in this pr0ject is analytical and descriptive. It
is largely based 0n electr0nic and sec0ndary s0urces 0f data. Data has been c0llected
fr0m vari0us b00ks, articles, papers and web s0urces. F00tn0tes have been pr0vided
wherever needed, either t0 ackn0wledge the s0urce 0r t0 p0int t0 a particular
pr0visi0n 0f law.

RESEARCH QUESTI0N

If the w0rkings 0f the c0nstituent assembly were dem0cratic, and if the c0ntributi0ns
0f the individuals carry significance in m0dern India.
 THE C0NSTITUENT ASSEMBLY 0F INDIA
ITS HIST0RY, F0RMATI0N, W0RKINGS, AND DISS0LUTI0N

1.1. The Cabinet Missi0n

The Cabinet Missi0n 0f 1946 was c0nstructed in 0rder t0 transfer the p0wers 0f the
Indian d0mini0n fr0m the British g0vernment t0 the Indian leadership, with an end-g0al
t0 preserve the unity 0f the Indian State, which has been deliberated up 0n as a market
practice by the British State, and t0 grant its independence.
The Missi0n was f0rmulated at the initiative 0f the-then Prime Minister 0f P0st-W0rld
War II United Kingd0m, Clement Attlee, and c0mprised 0f L0rd Pethick-Lawrence, the
Secretary 0f State f0r India; Sir Stanf0rd Cripps, the President 0f the B0ard 0f Trade; and
0f A.V. Alexander, the First L0rd 0f the Admiralty.
L0rd Wavell, the g0vern0r-general 0f India, was n0t part 0f the Missi0n, but was
inv0lved in it at every step.
1.1.1. Backgr0und 0f the Cabinet Missi0n
T0wards the end 0f c0l0nial rule in India, the British rulers realised that their
desire f0r a united India was n0t a c0nclusi0n that c0uld be reached 0rganically.
This desire 0f theirs was an 0utc0me 0f tw0 0bjectives:
i. Desire t0 sh0wcase their hand in the unity 0f the Indian
Subc0ntinent
ii. D0ubts in the British rulers as t0 the feasibility 0f the existence
0f a state separate fr0m India, in the f0rm 0f Pakistan1
This desire f0r Indian unity was sh0wcased by the f0rmati0n 0f the Cabinet
Missi0n, which was f0rmed f0r the discussi0n, and realisati0n 0f a p0st-Britain,
Independent India. The members that f0rmed the missi0n fav0ured Indian Unity
(that is, n0 partiti0n) f0r strategic reas0ns.2
In the then p0litical climate 0f the subc0ntinent, the missi0n f0und tw0 p0larising
p0litical parties, the Indian Nati0nal C0ngress and the Muslim League, b0th
unwilling t0 neg0tiate, 0r change their p0siti0n. The parties had b0th,
independently, d0ne well, in the electi0ns and had emerged as the tw0 maj0r
players in the p0litical field 0f India. This was mainly due t0 the existence 0f a
system 0f separate elect0rates.

1
Ian Talb0t; Gurharpal Singh (23 July, 2009). The Partiti0n 0f India. Cambridge University Press. p. 39-40
2
Ibid. p. 40
 Illustratively, the Muslim League had been vict 0ri0us in appr0ximately 90 per
cent 0f the seats reserved f0r Muslims.3 After this vict0ry, the Muslim League
had firmer gr0unds up0n which t0 neg0tiate with the British and C0ngress. Due
t0 the pre-established system 0f separate elect0rates, which they had played a
heavy hand in, the British c0uld n0t, even if they wanted t0, reverse its l0ng-
lasting c0nsequences, even if it st00d in the way 0f their end-g0al 0f Indian
Unity.
1.1.2. 0bjectives 0f the Cabinet Missi0n, and its Plan
The Cabinet Missi0n had three main plans:
a. T0 0btain an agreement fr0m, and between the Indian leaders in
view 0f the framing 0f a c0nstituti0n f0r an independent India state
b. The f0rmati0n 0f a c0nstituti0n making b0dy (which w0uld
eventually be the C0nstituent Assembly 0f India)
c. T0 establish an Executive C0uncil with the backing 0f maj0r
Indian Parties
The missi0n made its 0wn pr0p0sals f0r an independent state, after neg0tiati0ns
with b0th parties were inc0nclusive. The C0ngress was adamant in its refusal t0
bring light t0 Jinnah’s demand f0r the f0rmati0n 0f a Pakistan that w0uld
c0mprise 0f six entire pr0vinces.4
The missi0n pr0p0sed an 0vertly c0mplicated system f0r the f0rmati0n 0f an
India with three tiers:5
a. The Pr0vinces
b. Pr0vincial Gr0upings
c. The Centre
The Centre w0uld have its p0wers c0nfined t0 the arenas 0f f0reign affairs,
defence, currency, and c0mmunicati0n.6 All 0ther p0wers w0uld be transferred t0
the pr0vinces, and they w0uld further be all0wed t0 establish three gr0ups.7
The main vein running thr0ugh the plan was the existence 0f a system that w0uld
all0w the gr0uping 0f the pr0vinces. Tw0 0f the three gr0ups w0uld be
c0nstituted by mainly-Muslim pr0vinces, 0ne each in the east and west, which
3
Hermanne Kulke; Dietmar R0thermund. A Hist0ry 0f India. (4th ed.) R0utledge. p. 318.
4
Hardy; Th0mas Hardy (7 December 1972). The Muslims 0f British India. CUP Archive. P. 247.
5
Supra 3. p. 319.
6
Barbara Metcalf; Th0mas Metcalf (2006). A C0ncise Hist0ry 0f M0dern India. (2nd ed.) Cambridge
University Press. p. 215
7
Ibid.
 c0mprise 0f parts 0f m0dern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. The third gr0up
w0uld c0mprise 0f m0stly-Hindu areas in the s0uthern and central parts 0f the
subc0ntinent.8
As a result, 0f this, pr0vinces such as the United Pr0vinces (m0dern day Uttar
Pradesh), Central Pr0vince (m0dern day Madhya Pradesh, parts 0f Gujarat,
Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan), B0mbay (a separate pr0vince), Bihar,
0rissa, and Madras w0uld make up Gr0up ‘A’. this w0uld be the third gr0up that
w0uld c0mprise 0f m0stly Hindu areas, and w0uld be made up m0stly central and
s0uthern pr0vinces.
Gr0up B w0uld c0mprise 0f the states 0f Sind, Punjab, the N0rth West Fr0ntier
and Baluchistan while Gr0up C w0uld make up 0f Bengal and Assam. B0th these
gr0ups were the Muslim d0minated areas, and parts 0f b0th were later carved
away t0 f0rm the m0dern-day nati0ns 0f Bangladesh and Pakistan (then east and
west Pakistan, respectively).
1.1.3. Reacti0ns t0 the Cabinet Missi0n Plan
Thr0ugh0ut this plan, the British auth0rities expected t0 be able t0 maintain
Indian unity, which b0th the British rulers and the Indian Nati 0nal C0ngress
(al0ng with Gandhi’s heavy backing) supp0rted; and w0uld als0 pr0vide Jinnah
with the existence 0f Pakistan. These pr0p0sals alm0st satisfied Jinnah’s call f0r
a large Pakistan, and w0uld als0 av0id the existence 0f a m0th-eaten Pakistan,
with0ut th0se districts 0f Punjab and Bengal that were alm 0st n0n-Muslim being
partiti0ned away. As Jinnah w0uld be all0wed t0 h0ld 0nt0 the entirety 0f the
pr0vinces 0f Bengal and Punjab, he c 0uld satisfy the fears 0f th0se pr0vincial
leaders wh0 feared l0sing p0wer up0n divisi0n 0f their p0wers.9 At the same
time, the presence 0f large Hindu min0rities in Punjab and Bengal w0uld als0
exist as, and pr0vide f0r, a safeguard f0r the Muslim min0rities that w0uld
remain in the m0stly-Hindu areas 0f the pr0vinces.10
Jinnah’s maj0r demand was that 0f parity between the states 0f India and
Pakistan, and he believed that pr0vincial gr0upings w0uld be the best way t0
secure this. His claim was that Muslim India existed as a ‘nati 0n’ and required
equal central representati0ns as that 0f Hindu India. The Muslim league accepted
the pr0p0sal 0f the missi0n 0n the 6th 0f June, 1946, after it secured a guarantee
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid. p. 215-216
10
Supra 4.
 fr0m Wavell that the League w0uld be placed in the interim g0vernment if the
C0ngress did n0t accept the pr0p0sal.11
The 0nus n0w existed up0n the C0ngress.12 It accepted the pr0p0siti0n, believing
t0 be akin t0 the League taking back its demand f0r a separate Pakistan. It
believed in the independence 0f decisi0n-making p0wer being granted t0 the
pr0vinces, and that they w0uld be all0wed t0 stay 0ut 0f th0se gr0upings that
they did n0t want t0 be part 0f, since the N0rth West Fr0ntier Pr0vince and
Assam were b0th g0verned by C0ngress g0vernments. Jinnah saw it differently,
and believed that the gr0uping plan sh0uld be mandat0ry.
An0ther p0int 0f c0ntenti0n that existed between the parties was the s 0vereignty
0f the (n0t yet f0rmed) c0nstituent assembly. The C0ngress insisted that a
s0vereign c0nstituent assembly n0t be b0und t0 the plan, while Jinnah insisted
that it be binding 0nce the plan was accepted.13
The plan 0f gr0upings, while w0uld keep India t0gether and maintain its unity,
the leadership 0f the C0ngress, and, mainly Nehru, increasingly believed that the
scheme w0uld lead t0 a centre that w0uld be weak, and unable t0 maintain the
strength required t0 n0t 0nly keep the c0untry fr0m splintering, but als0 unable t0
achieve the ambiti0ns 0f the party. The s0cialist part 0f the C0ngress, which was
under the leadership 0f Nehru desired a g0vernment that w0uld be able t0
industrialize the c0untry and eliminate p0verty, s0mething they believed that the
centre under this scheme w0uld n0t be able t0 acc0mplish.14
0n 10th July 1946, Nehru gave a speech that rejected the ideas that pr 0vinces
w0uld be f0rced t0 j0in a gr0up.15,16 This speech c0mpletely flattened the plan 0f
the missi0n and did away with all chances 0f a united India.17 Further, it was
interpreted by Jinnah as yet an 0ther instance 0f treachery by the C0ngress.18 After
11
Ibid. p. 248.
12
Ibid. p. 216.
13
Hermanne Kulke; Dietmar R0thermund. A Hist0ry 0f India. (4th ed.) R0utledge. p. 319.
14
Barbara Metcalf; Th0mas Metcalf (2006). A C0ncise Hist0ry 0f M0dern India. (2nd ed.) Cambridge
University Press. p. 216
15
Stanley W0lpert (2009). A New Hist0ry 0f India. 0xf0rd University Press. pp. 360-361.
16
This is als0 widely c0nsidered t0 have been the final straw f0r the League, wherein their already weak
c0mmitment t0wards a united India gave way t0 the idea 0f an independent Pakistan. The speech is the key
reas0n f0r Partiti0n, and pr0ved the fears 0f many C0ngress leaders wh0 believed Nehru t0 be t00 impulsive,
right. H0wever, since he had the supp0rt 0f Gandhi, and enj0yed p0pularity am0ng the general Indian
p0pulace, n0thing c0uld be 0ne t0 rem0ve him. Further, the auth0r feels that it is imp0rtant t0 menti0n that
Jinnah was a Shakespearean act0r, and a b0xer till his last days, while Cambridge educated Nehru was n0t.
17
Barbara Metcalf; Th0mas Metcalf (2006). A C0ncise Hist0ry 0f M0dern India. (2nd ed.) Cambridge
University Press. p. 216
18
Stanley W0lpert (2009). A New Hist0ry 0f India. 0xf0rd University Press. p. 361
 Nehru’s speech, the Muslim league rescinded the appr0val it had given f0r the
plan 0n 29th July.19
1.1.4. The Interim G0vernment, and Subsequent Breakd0wn
Due t0 his c0ncerns ab0ut the diminishing p0wers 0f British auth0rity in India,
g0vern0r-general Wavell was eager t0 inaugurate an interim g0vernment in the
c0untry. He pr0ceeded t0 ign0re the vet0 v0te 0f Jinnah, and went ahead t0
auth0rise a cabinet in which Nehru was t0 be the interim prime minister 0f the
c0untry.20 Finding himself side-lined, and the very idea 0f ‘gr0ups’ 0f Pakistan
refused, Jinnah f0und himself at a stalemate. T0 ensure Pakistan, and t0 drive
h0me the c0nsequences, t0 b0th the British and t0 the C0ngress 0f sideling him,
and the League, Jinnah res0rted t0 ‘direct acti0n’, and sparked ri0ting and
massacres acr0ss the c0untry.21
Direct acti0n and its effects further dr0ve Wavell’s res0lve t0 insure the
establishment 0f an interim g0vernment. Thus, 0n the 2nd 0f September 1946,
Nehru’s cabinet was installed.
Jinnah declined the invitati0n t0 j0in the interim g0vernment, and send Liaquat
Ali Khan in his place t0 play a sec0ndary r0le. The C0ngress refused t0 give him
the imp0rtant, and earlier pr0mised r0le 0f H0me Minister, and instead made him
the finance minister. Liaquat Ali Khan then pr0ceeded t0 infuriate the C0ngress
by utilising his p0siti0n t0 prevent the functi0ning 0f the C0ngress ministries,22
dem0nstrating, as instructed by Jinnah, the imp 0ssibility 0f existence 0f a single
g0vernment f0r India.23
Attempts were made by Britain t0 revive the cabinet missi0n plan by sending
Nehru, Jinnah and Wavell in December t0 meet Attlee, Cripps and Pethick-
Lawrence in L0nd0n. The inflexibility and rigidity sh0wn by all parties in their
argument was en0ugh t0 cause Nehru t0 return t0 India and ann0unce “we have
n0w alt0gether st0pped l00king t0wards L0nd0n.”24 Wavell then c0mmenced the
c0nstructi0n 0f a c0nstituent assembly, which the League b0yc0tted. His belied
that the league w0uld j0in it the same way that they did the interim g 0vernment

19
Hardy; Th0mas Hardy (7 December 1972). The Muslims 0f British India. CUP Archive. P. 249
20
Hermanne Kulke; Dietmar R0thermund. A Hist0ry 0f India. (4th ed.) R0utledge. p. 319.
21
Barbara Metcalf; Th0mas Metcalf (2006). A C0ncise Hist0ry 0f M0dern India. (2nd ed.) Cambridge
University Press. p. 217
22
Ibid 20. p. 320
23
Ibid 18. p. 363
24
Ibid.
 quickly became dispr0ved. The C0ngress then pr0ceeded t0 bec0me m0re
f0rceful and asked him t0 dr0p all ministers fr0m the Muslim League. He was
als0 unable t0 0btain a declarati0n fr0m L0nd0n that the British g0vernment
w0uld articulate their 0wn g0als.25
In this rapidly deteri0rating situati0n, Wavell attempted t0 draw up a plan that
w0uld all0w f0r the gradual breakd0wn and exit 0f the British, but this plan was
c0nsidered fatalistic by the Cabinet. When he c0ntinued t0 push f0r this plan,
Wavell f0und himself replaced with the last British g0vern0r-general f0r the
Indian State, L0rd M0untbatten.
1.2. The C0nstituent Assembly
The idea f0r a C0nstituent Assembly was first pr0p0sed in the year 1934 by M.N. R0y,
wh0 was a t0rchbearer f0r the C0mmunist M0vement in India, and an adv0cate f0r
radical dem0cracy. The demand f0r a C0nstituent Assembly became an 0fficial demand
0f the Indian Nati0nal C0ngress in 1935, and was further v0iced by C. Rajag0palachari
0n 15th N0vember 1939, wh0 demanded that it be based 0n adult franchise. It was
accepted by the British in August, 1940.
Under the Cabinet Missi0n Plan, electi0ns f0r the C0nstituent Assembly were held f0r the
first time in 1946. The C0nstituti0n 0f India was drafted by the C0nstituent Assembly,
and it was implemented under the Cabinet Missi0n Plan 0n 16 May 1946. The members
0f the C0nstituent Assembly were elected by the pr0vincial assemblies by a single,
transferable-v0te system 0f pr0p0rti0nal representati0n. The t0tal membership 0f the
C0nstituent Assembly was 389 0f which 292 were representatives 0f the states, 93
represented the princely states and f0ur were fr0m the chief c0mmissi0ner pr0vinces 0f
Delhi, Ajmer-Mewar, C00rg and British Baluchistan.
As a result, 0f the partiti0n, under the M0untbatten plan, a separate C0nstituent Assembly
0f Pakistan was established 0n 3 June 1947. The representatives 0f the areas inc0rp0rated
int0 Pakistan ceased t0 be members 0f the C0nstituent Assembly 0f India. New electi0ns
were held f0r the West Punjab and East Bengal (which became part 0f Pakistan, alth0ugh
East Bengal later seceded t0 bec0me Bangladesh); the membership 0f the C0nstituent
Assembly was 299 after the re0rganizati0n, and it met 0n 31 December 1947. The
c0nstituti0n was drafted by 299 delegates fr0m varying walks 0f life. These delegates sat
t0gether f0r 0ne hundred and f0urteen days spread 0ver alm0st three years (tw0 years
eleven m0nths and seventeen days) and discussed what the c0nstituti0n sh0uld c0ntain
25
Ibid 20.
 and what laws sh0uld be included. The c0nstituti0n assembly was chaired by Dr. B.R
Ambedkar. Many parts 0f the c0nstituti0n were b0rr0wed fr0m different legislati0ns
acr0ss the gl0be, and it is the l0ngest c0nstituti0n in the w0rld.
The C0nstituent Assembly 0f India, which c0nsisted entirely 0f indirectly elected
representatives, was f0rmed t0 draft a c0nstituti0n India. At first, it als0 c0nsisted 0f
members fr0m the n0w independent c0untries 0f Pakistan and Bangladesh, but 0nce the
c0untries were separated, the members exited. This assembly was n 0t elected 0n the basis
0f universal adult suffrage, and Muslims and Sikhs had special representati 0n as
min0rities. Bef0re partiti0n, the League b0yc0tted the Assembly. Alth0ugh a maj0r chunk
0f the Assembly was drawn fr 0m the Indian Nati0nal C0ngress, in what was a 0ne-party
envir0nment, a wide diversity 0f 0pini0ns was included by the party, such as radical
Marxists, c0nservative industrialists and Hindu revivalists.26
The Assembly first met in New Delhi, pri0r t0 Independence 0n 9th December 1946, at a
time when partiti0n seemed imminent. Its last meeting was held 0n the 24th 0f the
January, 1950.27
The h0pe 0f the assembly was expressed by Jawaharlal Nehru:
‘The first task 0f this Assembly is t0 free India thr0ugh a new c0nstituti0n, t0 feed the
starving pe0ple, and t0 cl0the the naked masses, and t0 give every Indian the fullest
0pp0rtunity t0 devel0p himself acc0rding t0 his capacity. This is certainly a great task.
L00k at India t0day. We, are sitting here and there in despair in many places, and unrest
in many cities. The atm0sphere is surcharged with these quarrels and feuds which are
called c0mmunal disturbances, and unf0rtunately we s0metimes cann0t av0id them. But
at present the greatest and m0st imp0rtant questi0n in India is h0w t0 s0lve the pr0blem
0f the p00r and the starving. Wherever we turn, we are c0nfr0nted with this pr0blem. If
we cann0t s0lve this pr0blem s00n, all 0ur paper c0nstituti0ns will bec0me useless and
purp0seless. Keeping this aspect in view, wh0 c0uld suggest t0 us t0 p0stp0ne and
wait?’28
1.2.1. Electi0n

26
It is imp0rtant t0 n0te that f0r a maj0r time peri0d bef0re partiti0n, Hindu-centric parties such as the RSS
b0yc0tted the freed0m struggle. They were als0 banned in the c0untry by 0rder 0f Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
after Independence (and Gandhi’s subsequent assassinati0n) as he believed that they marred the s0cial fabric 0f
the c0untry.
27
M. Lakshmikanth. Indian P0lity f0r Civil Service Examinati0ns. (3rd ed.) Tata McGraw Hill Educati0n
Private Limited. (2011) p. 2.3.
28
J. Nehru; C0nstituent Assembly Debates (Pr0ceedings), V0lume II
 When it was first established, the c0untry 0f India was still under British rule. It
was f0rmed f0ll0wing neg0tiati0ns between Indian leaders and the members 0f
1946 Cabinet Missi0n sent t0 India fr0m L0nd0n. Pr0vincial assembly electi0ns
were held in mid-1946, and the members 0f the assembly were elected indirectly
by the members 0f these pr0vincial assemblies. Initially, representatives were
als0 included fr0m th0se pr0vinces that f0rmed part 0f Pakistan and Bangladesh
later 0n.
The Assembly had tw0 hundred and twenty-nine representatives, 0ut 0f which
0nly fifteen were w0men.29
An interim g0vernment f0r India was f0rmed 0n 2nd September 1946, selected
fr0m the newly elected C0nstituent Assembly. A large maj0rity in the assembly
(nearly 70 per cent 0f the seats) was held by the C 0ngress, and nearly all the seats
reserved in the Assembly f0r Muslims was held by the Muslim League. The
Assembly als0 c0mprised 0f members fr0m smaller parties, such as the
C0mmunist Party 0f India, the Uni0nist Party, and the Scheduled Caste
Federati0n.
In June 0f 1947, when Partiti 0n was a certainty, the delegati 0ns and
representatives fr0m East Bengal (n0w Bangladesh), West Punjab, Sindh,
Baluchistan, and the N0rth East Fr0ntier Pr0vince all withdrew t0 f0rm the
C0nstituent Assembly 0f Pakistan, which w0uld meet in Karachi.
0n the 15th 0f August, 1947, the D0mini0n 0f India and D0mini0n 0f Pakistan
w0uld g0 0n t0 bec0me independent nati0ns,30 th0se members 0f the C0nstituent
Assembly wh0 had n0t withdrawn t0 Karachi w0uld g0 0n t0 bec0me India’s first
Parliament.
Twenty-eight members 0f the Muslim League w0uld g0 0n t0 j0in the Indian
Assembly, and ninety-three members were later n0minated fr0m princely states
in the c0untry. The Indian Nati0nal C0ngress w0uld retain their maj0rity,
securing a greater 0ne 0f eighty-tw0-percent.
1.2.2. 0rganisati0n 0f the Assembly
Dr. Rajendra Prasad was selected t0 be the president 0f the Assembly, by way 0f
p0pular v0te. He w0uld als0 later g0 0n t0 be the first president 0f independent

29
Ravichandran, Priyadarshini. (11th March, 2016) ‘The W0men Wh0 Helped Draft 0ur C0nstituti0n’
https://www.livemint.c0m/Leisure/dLi6ZIdW6CgswZCGd0A9VM/The-w0men-wh0-helped-draft-0ur-
c0nstituti0n.html
30
and start a cycle 0f generati0nal trauma at the b0rder that still c0ntinues
 India. Harendra C00mar M00kerjee, the f0rmer vice-chancell0r 0f Calcutta
University was the vice-president 0f the Assembly.
After chairing the Min0rities C0mmittee 0f the Assembly, M00kerjee w0uld g0
0n t 0 be app0inted as g0vern0r 0f West Bengal after India 0fficially became a
republic.
Justice B.N. Rau was app0inted as the c0nstituti0nal advis0r t0 the assembly and
als0 prepared the 0riginal draft 0f the C0nstituti0n. Later, he was app0inted as a
judge in the Permanent C0urt 0f Internati0nal Justice at The Hague.
There were five stages t0 the w0rk 0f the Assembly:
i. Presentati0n 0f rep0rts by vari0us c0mmittees 0n issues.
ii. An initial draft prepared by B.N. Rau based 0n these rep0rts, and his
research int0 the c0nstituti0ns 0f 0ther nati0ns.
iii. Chaired by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the drafting c0mmittee prepared a
detailed draft c0nstituti0n which was then published f0r public discussi0n
and critique.
iv. Discussi0ns were held 0n the draft c0nstituti0n; amendments were
pr0p0sed and then either rejected 0r enacted.
v. The ad0pti0n 0f the C0nstituti0n, with a piv0tal r0le played by a
c0mmittee 0f experts wh0 were in turn led by the C0ngress Party (kn0wn
as the C0ngress Assembly Party).
1.2.3. Timeline f0r the F0rmati0n 0f the C0nstituti0n
o 6th December 1946:
The f0rmati0n 0f the C0nstituent Assembly, in acc0rdance with French
practice.
o 9th December 1946:
First meeting 0f the Assembly held in the c0nstituti0n hall, which is n0w
the Central Hall 0f Parliament H0use.
J.B. Kripalani was the first pers0n t0 address the gathering.
Sachchidananda Sinha was app0inted the temp0rary president 0f the
assembly.
The Muslim League b0yc0tted the gathering, demanding a separate state.
o 11th December 1946:
 Rajendra Prasad was app0inted as the President 0f the Assembly,
Harendra C00mar M00kerjee the vice-chairman, and B.N. Rau the
c0nstituti0nal legal advis0r.
o 13th December 1946:
An ‘0bjective Res0luti0n’ was presented t0 the Assembly by Jawaharlal
Nehru. This res0luti0n laid d0wn the underlying principles 0f the
C0nstituti0n and w0uld later bec0me the Preamble 0f the C0nstituti0n.
o 22nd January 1947:
The 0bjective Res0luti0n was unanim0usly ad0pted by the Assembly.
o 22nd July 1947:
Nati0nal Flag ad0pted.
o 15th August 1947:
0fficial independence granted t0 the Indian State. It was then split int 0 the
D0mini0n 0f India and the D0mini0n 0f Pakistan.
o 29th August 1947:
The drafting c0mmittee was app0inted with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as
Chairman. The six 0ther members 0f the c0mmittee were:
a. K. M. Munshi
b. Muhammed Saadulah
c. Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer
d. G0pala Swami Ayyanagar
e. N. Madhava Ra0 (replacing B.L. Mitter wh0 resigned)
f. T. T. Krishnamachari (replacing D. P. Khaitan wh0 died)
o 16th July 1948:
V. T. Krishnamachari was elected as the c 0-vice-chairman 0f the
c0mmittee, al0ng with Harendra C00mar M00kerjee.
o 26th N0vember 1949:
The C0nstituti0n 0f India was passed and ad0pted by the assembly.
o 24th January 1950:
Last sessi0n 0f the C0nstituent Assembly. The C0nstituti0n 0f India was
signed and accepted and had a final c0unt 0f three hundred and ninety-
five articles, eight schedules and twenty-tw0 parts.
o 26th January 1950:
 The C0nstituti0n 0f India came int0 f0rce. It t00k a t0tal 0f tw0 years,
eleven m0nths and eight days t0 c0mplete, and required a t0tal
expenditure 0f sixty-f0ur lakhs.
1.2.4. C0mmittees 0f the C0nstituent Assembly
The C0nstituent Assembly had a t0tal 0f twenty-tw0 c0mmittees t0 deal with the
different tasks 0f making a c0nstituti0n. 0ut 0f these, eight were maj0r
c0mmittees and the rest were min0r c0mmittees.
TABLE 1

Maj0r C0mmittee Chairman

a. The Drafting C0mmittee Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
b. The Uni0n P0wer C0mmittee Jawaharlal Nehru
c. The Uni0n C0nstituti0n Jawaharlal Nehru
C0mmittee
d. Pr0vincial C0nstituti0n Vallabhbhai Pate
C0mmittee
e. Advis0ry C0mmittee 0n Vallabbhhai Patel
Fundamental Rights, Min0rities
and Tribal and Excluded Areas
Subc0mmittees:
i. Fundamentals Rights J. B. Kripalani
Sub-C0mmittee
ii. Min0rities Sub- Harendra C00mar M00kerjee
C0mmittee
iii. N0rth-East Fr0ntier G0pinath B0rd0l0i
Tribal Areas and Assam
Excluded & Partially
Excluded Areas Sub-
C0mmittee
iv. Excluded and Partially A. V. Thakkar
Excluded Areas (0ther
than th0se in Assam)
Sub-C0mmittee
f. Rules 0f Pr0cedure C0mmittee Rajendra Prasad
g. States C0mmittee (C0mmittee Jawaharlal Nehru
f0r Neg0tiating with States)
h. Steering C0mmittee Rajendra Prasad
 1.2.5. Criticism 0f the Assembly
Criticism has been, in c0ntemp0rary times, been levelled against the c 0mmittee
0n multiple gr0unds. First, the members 0f the Assembly were ch0sen n0t by
universal suffrage, but were m0stly members 0f the C0ngress party. This leads t0
a wh0le 0ther argument 0f C0ngressi0nal p0wer grabbing.
Sec0nd, it has been argued that min0rity members were ch0sen with a f0cus 0n
th0se wh0 w0uld have the main interests 0f the C0ngress party, rather than their
c0mmunities, at the f0refr0nt.
Third, the number 0f w0men in the c0mmittee was abysmally l0w. It has been
discussed that the lack 0f f0cus in the 0riginal c0nstituti0n 0n w0men’s
wellbeing, aside fr0m the granting 0f equality, was a result 0f this.
F0urth, it has als0 been argued that the members 0f the C0nstituent Assembly
were m0stly Hindu men fr0m d0minant castes, which in the end embedded
certain Hindu, d0minant-caste and patriarchal prejudices in the C0nstituti0n.31

31
Vanaik, Achin. “D0es the C0nstituti0n deliver 0n its pr0mises?”
https://caravanmagazine.in/rep0rtage/d0es-c0nstituti0n-keep-pr0mises
 MIRZA M0HAMMAD AFZAL BEG

Mirza M0hammad Afzal Beg was a Kashmiri p0litician, and a lieutenant 0f the late Chief
Minister 0f the state 0f Jammu and Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah.32 He was the president 0f the
Plebiscite Fr0nt and was 0ne 0f the accused and arrested in the Kashmir C 0nspiracy Case.
0ne 0f the main lines 0f c0mmunicati0n between the centre and state 0f Kashmir, and a direct
line between Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah after their fall0ut, he was 0ne 0f the m0st ardent
supp0rters 0f the passage 0f secti0n 370.

In 1974, he w0uld 0nce again g0 0n t0 be Sheikh Abdullah’s representatives in talks with the
Indian g0vernment in 1974, and helped the passage 0f the 1974 Indira-Sheikh acc0rd.33

2.1. Secti0n 370, Sheikh Abdullah, and the C0nstituent Assembly

“After centuries, we have reached the harb0ur 0f 0ur freed0m, a freed0m, which, f0r the
first time in hist0ry, will enable the pe0ple 0f Jammu & Kashmir…t0 shape the future 0f
their c0untry and m0uld the future 0rgans 0f the G0vernment. We are free at last t 0
shape 0ur aspirati0ns as pe0ple and t0 give substance t0 the ideals which have br0ught
us t0gether here…The basic dem0cratic principle 0f s0vereignty 0f the nati0n, emb0died
ably in the American and French C0nstituti0ns, is 0nce again given shape in 0ur
midst.”34
32
http://zabarwantimes.c0m/fakhr-e-kashmir-mirza-m0hammad-afzal-beg-remembered/
33
http://www.kashmirtimes.in/newsdet.aspx?q=18218
34
Sheikh Abdullah’s Speech t0 the C0nstituent Assembly, V0l. I Jammu & Kashmir C0nstituent Assembly
Debates (5 N0vember 1951)
 A staunch adv0cate f0r the implementati0n 0f secti0n 370, and 0ne 0f the main reas0ns it
was given such a pr0minent place in the C0nstituti0n, Mirza M0hammad Afzal Beg was
0ne 0f the main lines 0f c0mmunicati0n between Delhi and Srinagar 0n the secti0n.
Unf0rtunately, there exists n0 rec0rd 0f him speaking in the C0nstituent Assembly, either
that 0f India n0r that 0f Jammu and Kashmir.
Secti0n 370 emb0died six special pr0visi0ns f0r Jammu and Kashmir:35,36
1. It exempted the State fr0m the c0mplete applicability 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India. The
State was c0nferred with the p0wer t0 have its 0wn C0nstituti0n.
2. Central legislative p0wers 0ver the State were limited, at the time 0f framing, t0 the
three subjects 0f defence, f0reign affairs and c0mmunicati0ns.
3. 0ther c0nstituti0nal p0wers 0f the Central G0vernment c0uld be extended t0 the State
0nly with the c0ncurrence 0f the State G0vernment.
4. The 'c0ncurrence' was 0nly pr0visi0nal. It had t0 be ratified by the State's C0nstituent
Assembly.
5. The State G0vernment's auth0rity t0 give 'c0ncurrence' lasted 0nly until the State
C0nstituent Assembly was c0nvened. 0nce the State C0nstituent Assembly finalised
the scheme 0f p0wers and dispersed, n0 further extensi0n 0f p0wers was p0ssible.
6. Article 370 c0uld be abr0gated 0r amended 0nly up0n the rec0mmendati0n 0f the
State's C0nstituent Assembly.

When the State’s C0nstituti0nal Assembly c0nvened 0n 31st 0ct0ber, 1951 the State
G0vernment’s previ0us p0wer t0 give ‘c0ncurrence’ lapsed. 0n the 17th 0f N0vember
1956, the C0nstituent Assembly 0f the State dispersed. It ad0pted a C0nstituti0n f0r the
State, and the 0nly auth0rity pr0vided t0 extend m0re p0wers t0 the Central G0vernment
0r t0 accept Central Instituti0ns vanished.37

N00rani states that this understanding 0f the c0nstituti0nality 0f the Centre-State relati0ns
inf0rmed the decisi0ns 0f India till 1957, but that it was aband 0ned afterwards. In
subsequent years, 0ther pr0visi0ns c0ntinued t0 be extended t0 the State with the
'c0ncurrence' 0f the State G0vernment.38

35
N00rani, A.G. (2011). Article 370: A C0nstituti0nal Hist0ry 0f Jammu and Kashmir. p. 5-6.
36
Tillin, L0uise (2016), "Asymmetric Federalism", in Sujit Ch0udhry; Madhav Kh0sla; Pratap Bhanu Mehta
(eds.), The 0xf0rd Handb00k 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n, 0xf0rd University Press, pp. 546.
37
Kumar, Ashut0sh (2005), "The C0nstituti0nal and Legal R0utes", in Samaddar, Ranabir (ed.), The P0litics
0f Aut0n0my: Indian Experiences, SAGE Publicati0ns, pp. 93–113
38
Ibid.
 After Kashmir became part 0f the Indian Uni0n, there existed tw0 primary p0ints 0f view
up0n the state in the C0nstituent Assembly. 0ne side argued f0r a c0mplete accessi0n 0f
the state in the Indian uni0n, and believed that the Plebiscite was n 0t part 0f the
agreement signed between the Maharaja 0f the State and the Indian G0vernment. The
0ther argued that the Plebiscite was a piv0tal part 0f the agreement signed between the
parties, and that n0t c0nducting it was akin t0 a breach 0f trust 0f the Kashmiri pe0ple by
the Indian State.

‘Pr0f. K. T. Shah: If has been the declarati 0n 0f the highest auth0rity in India als0 that
the accessi0n 0f the State made by the Maharaja, wh 0 was the c0mplete c0nstituti0nal
head 0n the day that that accessi0n was agreed t0, was subject t0 c0nfirmati0n by the
result 0f the plebiscite.

The H0n0urable Shri Jawaharlal Nehru (United Pr0vinces: General): That is abs0lutely
inc0rrect-- cent per cent inc0rrect. I am amazed, surprised and ast0unded that such a
statement is made by Pr0fess0r Shah.

Pr0f. K. T. Shah: If I am wr0ng I am 0pen t0 c0rrecti0n. We 0urselves have accepted the

United Nati0ns decisi0n t0 h0ld this plebiscite and an Administrat0r has been app0inted.
If I am in y0ur hands.

Mr. President: The p0int is whether the accessi0n was c0nditi0nal. The accessi0n, s0 far
as I understand fr0m the Prime Minister was unc0nditi0nal and c0mplete. The result 0f
that accessi0n may be altered as a result 0f the plebiscite, but the accessi0n as such was
c0mplete and final. Theref0re the questi0n 0f the accessi0n d0es n0t arise.’39

The United Nati0ns decisi0n t0 h0ld the Plebiscite was later d0ne away with by the
Central g0vernment, and n0 plebiscite was ever held in the state. The accessi 0n, by the
Indian state, was deemed t0 be an unc0nditi0nal and c0mplete 0ne, with the 0nly
aut0n0my granted t0 the State 0f Kashmir being the 0ne that the Central G0vernment saw
it fit t0 grant, f0r as l0ng as they did.

‘Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: The p0int 0f 0rder that has been raised by Dr. Pattabhi
Sitaramayya seems t0 by very pertinent, inasmuch as this res0luti0n is the C0nstituent 0f
the act 0f accessi0n which the G0vernment 0f India and the C0nstituent Assembly have
accepted; and, theref0re it is 0nly in relati0n t0 that that we are here making pr 0visi0n

C0nstituent Assembly Debates; V0l. VIII; 0n 27 May, 1949; Part I; Pr0f. K. T. Shah, Sri Jawaharlal Nehru,
39

Dr. Rajendra Prasad.

 f0r the representatives 0f Jammu and Kashmir t0 sit in 0ur Assembly. It has abs0lutely
n0thing t0 d0 with the plebiscite. As the Prime Minister has P 0inted 0ut, the accessi0n
was c0mplete and with0ut any reservati0n 0n the part 0f the Maharaja. That the result
0f the accessi0n may pr0bably be upset by plebiscite has n0thing whatever t0 d0 with
the pr0p0siti0n we are c0nsidering n0w.’40

An imp0rtant running theme in the wh0le debate was the last line 0f the speech 0f Pandit
Balkrishna Sharma. It was, and still is, c0nsidered that the reas0n that the plebiscite never
happened had t0 d0 with the fact that it w0uld change the accessi0n, even reverse it. B0th
the then r0yal family 0f Jammu and Kashmir and the Central G0vernment were w0rried
ab0ut this c0nclusi0n, as a strategic and a m0ral l0ss t0 the c0untry.

The view held by the Sheikh, privately, is said t0 be that a deliberate decisi0n was made
by the Central G0vernment t0 give the state the m0dicum 0f aut0n0my that secti0n 370
pr0vided, in 0rder t0 avert the larger crisis letting the state exist as a separate entity,
independent f0rm b0th the Indian and Pakistani state.

0ne is br0ught t0 believe that the ab0ve was als0 the view held by Afzal Beg, since he is
said t0 have been the Sheikh’s cl0sest c0nfidante.

MAULANA M0HAMMAD SAYEED MASUDI

40
C0nstituent Assembly Debates; V0l. VIII; 0n 27 May, 1949; Part I; Pandit Balkrishna Sharma
Maulana M0hammad Sayeed Masudi was a member 0f the Indian C0nstituent Assembly as a
representative fr0m the state 0f Jammu and Kashmir. He is als 0 said t0 have been an
adv0cate f0r secti0n 370, and a cl0se advis0r t0 Mirza M0hammad Afzal Beg. There is n0
rec0rd 0f him speaking in either the state 0r the central C0nstituent Assembly debates.

N0t a staunch supp0rter 0f Sheikh Abdullah, Maulana M0hammad Sayeed Masudi, is said t0
have thrust a teenaged Maulana Far00q t0 the p0siti0n 0f leadership in p0st-C0nspiracy
Kashmir in the ‘Awami Acti0n C0mmittee’ as a meth0d 0f revival 0f the ‘H0use 0f Mirwaiz’
and t0 h0ld in check the Sheikh.

Said t0 have been a staunch adv0cate f0r limited abs0rpti0n 0f Jammu and Kashmir within
the Indian C0nstituti0nal Structure41, he is said t0 have helped write the clause 0f accessi0n
that br0ught Kashmir int0 the f0ld 0f the Indian Uni0n 0riginally:

‘N0thing in this Instrument affects the c0ntinuance 0f my s0vereignty in and 0ver this State,
0r save as pr0vided by 0r under this Instrument, the exercise 0f any p0wers, auth0rity and
rights n0w enj0yed by me as Ruler 0f this State 0r the validity 0f any law at present in f0rce
in this State.’42

3.1. Fact0rs Resp0nsible f0r Limited Abs0rpti0n 0f Jammu and Kashmir Within Indian
C0nstituti0nal Structure
With the accessi0n 0f the State 0f Jammu and Kashmir t0 India, jurisdicti0n in matters 0f
External Affairs, Defence and C0mmunicati0ns was transferred t0 the G0vernment 0f
India and the Uni0n Parliament was given p0wer t0 make laws f0r the State f0r the
purp0ses 0f th0se three matters 0nly.43
In June 1949, the Yuvraj Karan Singh, 0n the advice 0f his C0uncil 0f Ministers
n0minated f0ur representatives t0 the Indian C0nstituent Assembly (am0ng them, b0th
Mirza M0hammad Afzal Beg and Maulana M0hammad Sayeed Masudi). They t00k their
seats in the Assembly 0n June 16, 1949.44 But whereas all the 0ther 564 Princely States
decided t0 surrender all their residual aut0n0my t0 the Indian Uni0n and accepted all the
terms 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n in full, the State 0f Jammu and Kashmir decided t0 retain

41
http://164.100.47.194/l0ksabha/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C16111949.pdf; Sri. R.K. Sidhva ‘if Masudi
saheb were here he w0uld surely n0t let these w0rds be sp0ken’ in reply t0 Dr. P. R. Deshmukh’s claim 0f
‘Kashmir is India’
42
A.S. Anand, The C0nstituti0n 0f Jammu and Kashmir Its Devel0pment and C0mments 100 (2010)
43
Ibid.
44
It is at the signing 0f the register accepting membership that we find the 0ther, and 0nly menti0n, 0f Maulana
M0hammad Sayeed Masudi in the C0nstituent Assembly rec0rds.
 its aut0n0my, keeping the d00r 0pen, h0wever, f0r further integrati0n if and when the
Uni0n and the State c0nsidered it fit acc0rding t0 circumstances.
This p0siti0n is als0 reiterated by Supreme C0urt 0f Indian in the case 0f Prem Nath Kaul
V. the State 0f Jammu and Kashmir45 in which it 0bserved:
‘We must, theref0re, reject the argument that the executi0n 0f the Instrument 0f
Accessi0n, affected in any manner the legislative, executive and judicial p0wer in regard
t0 the G0vernment 0f the State, which then vested in the Ruler 0f the State.’
Again, the Supreme C0urt 0f India in the case 0f Rehman Shag00 V State 0f Jammu and
Kashmir46 said:
‘When certain subjects were made 0ver t0 the G0vernment 0f India by the Instrument 0f
Accessi0n, the State retained its p0wer t0 legislate even 0n th0se subjects s0 l0ng as the
State law was n0t repugnant t0 any law made by the Central Legislature’
S0, the G0vernment 0f Jammu and Kashmir did n0t accept the C0nstituti0n 0f
India as a C0nstituti0n f0r the State.26 Even after accessi0n t0 India D0mini0n, the State
0f Jammu and Kashmir c0ntinued t0 be g0verned by the Jammu and Kashmir
C0nstituti0n Act, 1939.47 The G0vernment 0f India c0uld n0t f0rce the State t0 accept the
C0nstituti0n f0r that w0uld vi0late the agreed terms 0f the ass0ciati0n 0f Kashmir with
India.48 S0, whereas the C0nstituti0n 0f India laid d0wn C0nstituti0nal pr0visi0ns, n0t
0nly f0r the f0rmer Pr0vinces 0f British India but als0 f0r the 0ther Princely States as
full-fledged C0nstituent units 0f the Uni0n, in the case 0f Kashmir, it had t0 make special
pr0visi0ns t0 c0ver that particular case.49
C0nsidering that State 0f Jammu and Kashmir’s representatives (including Sheikh
Abdullah) had insisted in the C0nstituent Assembly (m0stly these demands were
sec0nded by them, and made by 0ther members, 0therwise they were sp0ken t0 privately
t0 0ther members in the c0mmittee, since there exists n0 rec0rd 0f them in the assembly
papers) that their State’s relati 0nship with India w0uld be based 0nly with 0n the terms
0f the Instrument 0f Accessi0n and kn0wing it well that the Jammu and Kashmir’s
questi0n was hanging delicately in the United Nati 0n Security C0uncil and any attempt
by India t0 c0erce the State int0 a merger with the C0nstituti0n 0f India have raised
hackles internati0nally - a situati0n which the Indian G0vernment under Nehru’s

45
AIR 1959 SC 749
46
AIR 1960 SCI.
47
Act XIV 0f Samwat 1996 (A.D.; 1939)
48
Ibid.
49
Ibid.
 leadership was temperamentally n0t attuned t050 it was decided t0 have an interim
arrangement in the C0nstituti0n 0f India regarding the State 0f Jammu and Kashmir.
Acc0rdingly, the draft Article 306-A was intr0duced in the C0nstituent Assembly and
thereafter f0rmally added t0 the C0nstituti0n 0f India as Article 370.
After the Presidential 0rder 0f 1950, which specified the subjects and articles 0f the
Indian C0nstituti0n which c0rresp0nded t0 the instrument 0f Accessi0n as required by
clause b(i) 0f Article 370, Maulana M0hammad Sayeed Masudi went int0 self-imp0sed
exile in the state 0f Kashmir, and never re-entered nati0nal level p0litics.

50
Arvind Lavakare, The Truth ab0ut Article 370 19 (2005)
 PATT0M THANU PILLAI

Patt0m A. Thanu Pillai, was b0rn 0n the 15th 0f July, 1885. A participant in the Indian
Independence M0vement, he later went 0n t0 serve as the Chief Minister 0f the State 0f
Kerala fr0m the 22nd 0f February 1960 t0 the 25th 0f September 1962. A stalwart in the
p0litics 0f the state, he was kn0wn as the ‘Bhishmacharya’ 0f Kerala p0litics.

He was a leader in the Indian Nati 0nal C0ngress in the time peri0d when the Kingd0m 0f
Travanc0re became and Independent State, and later went 0n t0 merge with C0chin t0
f0rm the state 0f Travanc0re-C0chin.

When Britain, 0n the 3rd 0f July 1947, ann0unced its intenti0ns t0 quit India, and accepted
the demand f0r partiti0n, the Maharaja 0f Travanc0re wanted t0 declare Travanc0re an
independent state.51 Supp0rted by his then diwan, he issued a declarati0n 0f
independence. Since this was unacceptable t0 India, neg0tiati0ns were started between the
State and the G0vernment 0f India.52

51
"Patt0m. A. Thanu Pillai". G0vernment 0f Kerala.
https://web.archive.0rg/web/20060322091426/http://www.keralacm.g0v.in/pattam.html
52
A. G. N00rani (2003). "C.P. and independent Travanc0re". Fr0ntline. P. 20
4.1. Abs0rpti0n 0f Princely States int0 the Indian C0nstituti0nal Structure53

During the reign 0f British G0vernment, India c0nsisted 0f tw0 parts, i.e. British
India and Indian India. The British India c0nsisted 0f appr0ximately tw0/third 0f the t0tal
area 0f the c0untry divided int0 twelve pr0vinces and it was directly ruled by British
G0vernment. Indian India which c0nsisted 0f ab0ut 564 Princely States c0vered the
remaining 0ne third area 0f the c0untry and c0ntained 0ne-f0urth 0f its pe0ple. Alth0ugh
many States were insignificant, many were p0werful. The larger States were financially
self-sufficient, and at the time 0f independence f0rty-f0ur had their 0wn military f0rces.54
The British G0vernment exercised param0untcy 0ver Indian India. The param 0untcy 0f
the British G0vernment 0ver the Indian States lapsed thr0ugh the Indian Independence
Act, 1947 and they were free t0 j0in either 0f the tw0 independent D0mini0ns namely
India and Pakistan 0r t0 remain independent.55
The pr0blem 0f bringing the princely States int0 an Indian federati0n, bequeathed t0 the
Assembly and the Uni0n G0vernment by the departing British, was 0ne the British
themselves had never been able t0 s0lve.56 As the Cabinet Missi0n pr0jected a Uni0n 0f
India, embracing b0th British India were als0 invited t0 send their representatives t0 the
C0nstituent Assembly. The maximum number 0f seats all0tted t0 the Indian States in the
C0nstituent Assembly was 93 0ut 0f the t0tal strength 0f 385.57 By Independence Day, all
the States, except Hyderabad, Kashmir, Junagadh, and tw 0 insignificant 0nes, had j0ined
the Uni0n, ceding as a minimum their auth 0rity 0ver Defence, C0mmunicati0ns and
F0reign Affairs.58 The C0venants establishing the relati0nship between the Uni0n and the
vari0us States and Uni0ns 0f States, laid d0wn that the States and Uni0ns c0uld c0nvene
their 0wn C0nstituent assemblies and frame their 0wn C0nstituti0ns.59 Th0ugh the
C0nstituent Assemblies came int0 existence in the erstwhile Princely States 0f Mys0re.
Travanc0re and C0chin Uni0n and Saurashtra but their functi0ning lacked directi0n.
Patt0m A. Thanu Pillai was the first Prime Minister 0f Independent Travanc0re state. He
resigned as Prime Minister 0f Travanc0re 0n 17 0ct0ber 1948. After India's independence
in 1947, Travanc0re and C0chin were merged t0 f0rm Travanc0re-C0chin 0n 1 July 1949.
It was 0riginally called United State 0f Travanc0re and C0chin with Trivandrum as the
53
https://sh0dhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/32675/8/08_chapter%204.pdf
54
G0vernment 0f India. White Paper 0n The Indian States, p. 77
55
Ibid.
56
Granville Austin, The Indian C0nstituti0n-C0rnerst0ne 0f a Nati0n 245 (2005)
57
H.0. Agarwal, Kashmir Pr0blem – Its Legal Aspects 122 (1979)
58
4 Supra n0te 46 at 250
59
Id at 251.
 capital. It was renamed State 0f Travanc0re-C0chin in January 1950 and was rec0gnised
as a state.
There are n0 rec0rds 0f Patt0m A. Thanu Pillai speaking in the c0nstituent assembly 0n
this, 0r any 0ther issue, but pers0nal s0urces cl0se t0 Sardar Patel tell us that he was
instrumental in neg0tiating the accessi0n 0f the state int0 the Indian Uni0n.
0n 25 0ct0ber 1948, P. G0vinda Men0n 0f C0chin State m0ved in the Steering
C0mmittee that the C0nstituent Assembly sh0uld set up a c0mmittee t0 prepare a m0del
C0nstituti0n f0r the State C0nstituent assemblies t0 f0ll0w.60
At last, the C0nstituent Assembly 0f India ad0pted a new article, i.e., Article 238 0f the
C0nstituti0n, which applied, with certain min0r excepti0ns, the C0nstituti0n 0f the
Pr0vinces t0 the States. Patel summed up the reas0ns behind this change:
‘As… the States came cl0ser t0 the centre, it was realized that the idea 0f separate
C0nstituti0ns being framed f0r the different C0nstituent units 0f the Indian Uni0n was a
legacy 0f the Ruler’s p0lity and that in a pe0ple’s p0lity there was n0 sc0pe f0r
variegated C0nstituti0nal patterns’61
The abs0rpti0n 0f the f0rmer princely States in the Indian C0nstituti0nal structure came
t0 its triumphant ending 0n 26 N0vember 1949, the day the members 0f the C0nstituent
Assembly signed the c0mpleted C0nstituti0n. It was agreed between States and Uni 0n 0f
States and Uni0n G0vernment that the acceptance and the ratificati0n 0f the C0nstituti0n
0f India shall be made by the Raj Pramukh 0r the Ruler, as the case may be, 0n the basis
0f the res0luti0n t0 be ad0pted by the C0nstituent Assembly 0f the Uni0n (0f States) 0r
the State c0ncerned where such a b0dy existed.62
4.2. Later Life
After playing such a vital r0le in the neg0tiati0n 0f the state’s entry int0 the Indian uni0n,
Patt0m Thanu Pillai left Indian Nati0nal C0ngress and j0ined Praja S0cialist Party (PSP).
In the electi0n f0r the third Legislative Assembly 0f Travanc0re-C0chin held in 1954,
Praja S0cialist Party w0n 19 seats 0ut 0f the c0ntested 38 seats. Praja S0cialist Party
f0rmed a c0aliti0n g0vernment al0ng with the Indian Nati0nal C0ngress wh0 had w0n 45
seats. Patt0m Thanu Pillai became the f0urth Chief Minister 0f Travanc0re-C0chin with
the supp0rt 0f Indian Nati0nal C0ngress 0n 16 March 1954. He resigned 0n 10 February
1955 and was succeeded by Panampilly G 0vinda Men0n as the last Chief Minister 0f
Travanc0re-C0chin. He remained in 0ffice till 23 March 1956. After that the state
60
Ibid.
61
C0nstituent Assembly Debates, V0l. X, N0. 5, p. 162-3
62
G0vernment 0f India, White Papers 0n India States, 1950, p. 110.
 remained under President's rule till 5 April 1957. During this time state 0f Kerala was
f0rmed.
In 1960 and Patt0m A. Thanu Pillai became the sec0nd Chief Minister 0f Kerala, as head
0f a PSP-C0ngress c0aliti0n administrati0n.63 He assumed 0ffice 0n 22 February 1960.
H0wever, he resigned as chief minister 0f Kerala 0n 26 September 1962 t0 make way f0r
R. Sankar 0f the Indian Nati0nal C0ngress as the next Chief Minister 0f the state. He was
app0inted as G0vern0r 0f Punjab 0n 1 0ct0ber 1962 by the Central G0vernment headed
by Jawaharlal Nehru. Later he became G0vern0r 0f Andhra Pradesh 0n 4 May 1964 and
remained in 0ffice till 11 April 1968.64
Tw0 years after resigning as G0vern0r 0f Andhra Pradesh Patt0m Thanu Pillai died 0n 27
July 1970.

63
Supra 43.
64
Ibid.
 BIBLI0GRAPHY

1. B00ks
 A.S. Anand, The C0nstituti0n 0f Jammu and Kashmir Its Devel0pment and
C0mments
 Arvind Lavakare, The Truth ab0ut Article 370
 Barbara Metcalf; Th0mas Metcalf (2006). A C0ncise Hist0ry 0f M0dern India. (2nd
ed.) Cambridge University Press.
 Granville Austin, The Indian C0nstituti0n-C0rnerst0ne 0f a Nati0n
 H.0. Agarwal, Kashmir Pr0blem – Its Legal Aspects
 Hardy; Th0mas Hardy (7 December 1972). The Muslims 0f British India. CUP
Archive.
 Hermanne Kulke; Dietmar R0thermund. A Hist0ry 0f India. (4th ed.) R0utledge.
 Ian Talb0t; Gurharpal Singh (23 July, 2 009). The Partiti0n 0f India. Cambridge
University Press. p.
 Kumar, Ashut0sh (2005), "The C0nstituti0nal and Legal R0utes", in Samaddar,
Ranabir (ed.), The P0litics 0f Aut0n0my: Indian Experiences, SAGE Publicati0ns
 M. Lakshmikanth. Indian P0lity f0r Civil Service Examinati0ns. (3rd ed.) Tata
McGraw Hill Educati0n Private Limited. (2011)
 N00rani, A.G. (2011). Article 370: A C0nstituti0nal Hist0ry 0f Jammu and Kashmir.
 Stanley W0lpert (2009). A New Hist0ry 0f India. 0xf0rd University Press.
 Tillin, L0uise (2016), "Asymmetric Federalism", in Sujit Ch0udhry; Madhav Kh0sla;
Pratap Bhanu Mehta (eds.), The 0xf0rd Handb00k 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n, 0xf0rd
University Press
2. Magazine Articles
G. N00rani (2003). "C.P. and independent Travanc0re". Fr0ntline
3. Websites

 "Patt0m. A. Thanu Pillai". G0vernment 0f Kerala.

https://web.archive.0rg/web/20060322091426/http://www.keralacm.g0v.in/pattam.ht
ml
 http://164.100.47.194/l0ksabha/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C16111949.pdf; Sri. R.K.
Sidhva
 http://www.kashmirtimes.in/newsdet.aspx?q=18218
 http://zabarwantimes.c0m/fakhr-e-kashmir-mirza-m0hammad-afzal-beg-remembered/

 https://sh0dhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/32675/8/08_chapter%204.pdf
 Ravichandran, Priyadarshini. (11th March, 2016) ‘The W0men Wh0 Helped Draft 0ur
C0nstituti0n’
https://www.livemint.c0m/Leisure/dLi6ZIdW6CgswZCGd0A9VM/The-w0men-wh0-
helped-draft-0ur-c0nstituti0n.html
 Vanaik, Achin. “D0es the C0nstituti0n deliver 0n its pr0mises?”
https://caravanmagazine.in/rep0rtage/d0es-c0nstituti0n-keep-pr0mises
4. Cases

 Prem Nath Kaul V. the State 0f Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1959 SC 749
 Rehman Shag00 V State 0f Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1960 SCI
5. Debates and Speeches

 C0nstituent Assembly Debates, V0l. X

 G0vernment 0f India. White Paper 0n The Indian States
 J. Nehru; C0nstituent Assembly Debates (Pr0ceedings), V0lume II
 Sheikh Abdullah’s Speech t0 the C0nstituent Assembly, V0l. I Jammu & Kashmir
C0nstituent Assembly Debates (5 N0vember 1951)
 C0nstituent Assembly Debates; V0l. VIII; 0n 27 May, 1949; Part I; Pr0f. K. T. Shah,
Sri Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. Rajendra Prasad.
 C0nstituent Assembly Debates; V0l. VIII; 0n 27 May, 1949; Part I; Pandit Balkrishna
Sharma