By Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan

It is Aug 2,2023. The constitution bench proceedings of the Suoreme Court of India are set to begin. The challenge is to the legality of the Aug,2019 Presidential Order under Art.370(3). The process and procedure adopted are under the scanner. No matter how well informed one may be , we cannot place our hands on the core issue, without beginning with, where we must-Treaty of Amritsar,1846 signed by the then Dogra Maharajah, Gulab Singh. It is umbilically tied to how Art.370 came to be and the purpose abd intendment behind it.

Let us get to know the Dogras first. Shall we?

The Dogra dynasty began in the 1840s with the rise of Gulab Singh, a Dogra Rajput who served as a general in the Sikh Empire. After the First Anglo-Sikh War in 1846, the British defeated the Sikhs and took control of much of their territory. Gulab Singh saw an opportunity to expand his own power, and he negotiated with the British to purchase the Kashmir Valley. The Treaty of Amritsar, which was signed in 1846, gave Gulab Singh control of Kashmir in exchange for a payment of 7.5 million rupees.

Gulab Singh was a shrewd and capable ruler, and he quickly consolidated his power in Kashmir. He built up the army, improved the infrastructure, and promoted trade. He also introduced a number of reforms, including the establishment of a court system and the introduction of a uniform system of taxation.

Gulab Singh’s son, Ranbir Singh, succeeded him in 1857. Ranbir Singh continued his father’s policies, and he further expanded the Dogra kingdom. He also built a number of important public works projects, including the Jammu Tawi Canal and the Banihal Tunnel.

The Dogra dynasty ruled Kashmir until 1947, when it was partitioned into two parts: Jammu and Kashmir, which joined India, and the Northern Areas and Gilgit-Baltistan, which joined Pakistan.

The following are some of the key events that led to the rise of the Dogra dynasty in the 1840s:

A. The First Anglo-Sikh War (1845-1846): The British defeated the Sikhs and took control of much of their territory.

B. The Treaty of Amritsar (1846): Gulab Singh purchased Kashmir from the British in exchange for a payment of 7.5 million rupees.

C. The rule of Gulab Singh (1846-1857): Gulab Singh was a shrewd and capable ruler who consolidated his power in Kashmir and introduced a number of reforms.

C. The rule of Ranbir Singh (1857-1885): Ranbir Singh continued his father’s policies and further expanded the Dogra kingdom.

The Dogra dynasty was able to buy territory to add to Kashmir from Governor Hardinge because the British were eager to get rid of the responsibility of governing Kashmir. They were also willing to sell Kashmir to Gulab Singh because they believed  that he would be a stable and able leader.

Even if the Chief Justice of India Justice D Y Chandrachud may have openly said that the court will have nothing to do with the history of where it all began and where it was on date of promulgation and thereinafter and  the court was confined to the ‘constitutionality’ of the Act, take it from me, no one, just no one, on either side, can argue with content and conviction, without alluding to the Dogra dynasty of Kashmir, whose Hari Singh, ( the congressman Karan Singh cones in this lineage), it was, who signed  the critical  Instrument of Ascension of Kashmir in 26th Oct,1947. Watch this space for more.

(Author of Constitution & its Making/Wirking, OakBtidge- is practicing advocate in the Madras High Court)

         By    Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan

A monumental hearing commences tomorrow – 2nd August,2023, before the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. The court may have made it clear that their singular would be on ‘constitutionality’ of the issue. Not where it began, how it moved, and where it is today and the impact on the ground in J$K and India.

The self-same Suoreme Court had said that ‘debates in the constituent assembly leading to the constitution was akin to the 85 Federalist Papers leading to the 1789 US Constitution”. So the debates matter. And that is now settled law. What of the views, statements, stance abd expressions of the protagonists at that time. It makes sense to begin this Nugget series, commencing on 1st Day of Aug,2023, through the hearings, culminating in Orders being Reserved. Let us join the debate,discourse in decision with the Supreme Court of India, in this nugget series as it sizzles with vignettes strewn across the turf. Let us begin with the two topmost protagonists or actors in the drama in the making of Art.306-A which morphed into Art.370.

Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, played a crucial role in the formulation and adoption of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Article 370 was introduced as a “temporary provision” in the Constitution, granting special autonomous status to the region of Jammu and Kashmir.

Nehru’s stance on Article 370 was based on the historical context and the unique circumstances surrounding Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India. He saw Article 370 as a ‘transitory measure’ intended to provide ‘temporary autonomy’  to the region, allowing it to gradually integrate with the rest of India while respecting its distinct identity, culture, and laws.

Nehru believed that granting this special status to Jammu and Kashmir would help build trust and facilitate a peaceful assimilation of the region into the Indian Union. However, over the years, Article 370 faced criticism from various quarters for allegedly hindering the full integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India. On August 5, 2019, the Indian government abrogated Article 370, revoking the region’s special status and reorganizing it into two separate union territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. This decision was highly contentious and remains a subject of debate in the country, which has landed in the lap of the law lords on the pulpit.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chairman of the Constituent Assembly’s drafting committee, was opposed to the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. He believed that the article would create a “dangerous precedent” and undermine the unity and integrity of India.

In a speech to the Constituent Assembly on May 16, 1949, Ambedkar said:

“I am not prepared to accept Article 306-A [later renamed Article 370] in its present form. I am not prepared to accept it because I think it is a dangerous precedent. I think it is a dangerous precedent because it is going to create a kind of privileged class in India. It is going to create a kind of State within a State.”

Ambedkar also argued that the article would give the Government of Jammu and Kashmir too much power and would make it difficult for the Indian government to intervene in the state in the event of a crisis.

However, Ambedkar’s objections were overruled by the Constituent Assembly, and Article 370 was adopted in its present form.

We will go wherever it takes us from tomorrow, as the hearing begins. Join me.

( Author of Constitution and its Making/Working- OakBridge, is practicing advocate in the Madras High Court)