A fascinating early ‘Constitution’

Seventy-two years before the Constituent Assembly of India began its momentous work in drafting what is now our Constitution, a remarkable gentleman drew up a very interesting “Constitution” for the major Princely States to adopt during British rule. T Madhava Rao, who served as Diwan of three different Princely States (not to be confused with V P Madhava Rao, the Diwan of Mysore) was a staunch defender of the interests of all Princely States against British interference. He drew up a constitution that he believed would guide good governance in these states and give the British less reason to intervene in its affairs. He hoped that the Princely States would not have to constantly look over their shoulder at the possibility of British interference as long as they adhered to the constitution he proposed.

Madhava Rao drew on his own experience of administration of the Princely States of Travancore, Indore and Baroda, apart from his vast knowledge of British and American constitutional law, to draft this constitution. A recent publication, The Progressive Maharaja: Sir Madhava Rao’s Hints on the Art and Science of Government (edited and arranged by Rahul Sagar) not only contains a copy of the draft constitution but also his lectures to the young Sayyajirao Gaekwad on good government. The lectures themselves are worth a read for anyone interested in what good government looks like, centring the discussion on the maharaja’s duty to promote the happiness of his people.

In Madhava Rao’s constitution, we see the earliest echoes of some of the provisions that we now have in the Indian Constitution. In his constitution, we see the origins of the ideas of separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, and a charter of rights in the context of an Indian government. Obviously, this is not the constitution of a sovereign and democratic country, and it has therefore nothing to do with either of these concepts. Yet, Madhava Rao makes the case for why the ruler of a Princely State should not attempt to control the judiciary or look to dispose of cases himself.

What is interesting is the way in which Madhava Rao’s constitution attempts to introduce the rule of law in the way the Princely States are governed -- mandating that individual rights are not to be interfered with, except by authority of law, whether this relates to life, personal liberty, property, money, or other rights generally. It also proposes to protect the rights of individuals to hold public meetings freely, hold and express whatever opinion, among other things. There are even rights guaranteed here that do not find mention in the Indian Constitution -- the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to get bail without excess cost, the right against being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and most interestingly, the right of the press to be free.

While Madhava Rao was not imagining a constitution for all of India, and his document is necessarily much shorter than the Indian Constitution, there are some obvious gaps in his constitution. Even though he includes what might be the first version of a charter of individual rights in his constitution, it contains no guarantee of equality as found under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. On the other hand, there’s an exhortation to judges and to the government not to interfere with the “rights and privileges” enjoyed by people and to enforce and uphold existing customs. Caste is a huge blind spot in Madhava Rao’s thinking, and should make us appreciate Babasaheb Ambedkar’s important intervention in making India’s Constitution concern itself with not just the problem of caste, but also in promoting equality and fraternity among India’s peoples.

Madhava Rao’s constitution, for all its merits, was never put into practice. Successive Viceroys, worried about antagonising local sentiment by curbing despotic powers, did not think fit to put a constitution in place for the Princely States. Nevertheless, Madhava Rao was able to put in place many of the governance reforms in Baroda when he was the Diwan and later, after his retirement, was one of the earliest members of the Indian National Congress when it was set up. He may not have imagined that less than 60 years after his death, a lot of his work ended up in the Constitution of a free, independent and sovereign India.