LAST MONTH AFTER HAVING enrolled myself in the Ph.D. program at HPNLU, Shimla, the conducive quiet environment in the campus persuaded me to believe that I will spend some time, away from the hustle of city life, to focus concentrated attention on my reading and writing. But, within days of arriving at the beautiful campus I was drawn towards the Dhami Satyagraha of 1939 and its importance in the movement for establishing representative Government in India.
This article is an attempt to situate the Dhami Satyagraha within the broader constitutional and democratic struggles of colonial India. Additionally, it is argued that the Dhami Satyagraha and similar movements in other princely states were not peripheral to India’s challenging quest for constitutional democracy but important to the cause of establishing the legitimacy of popular sovereignty for sustaining the Indian Republic.
In a recent publication, “Assembling India’s Constitution: A New Democratic History” its authors Rohit De and Ornit Shani put forward the claim that ‘in India, democratisation emerged in anticipation of the constitution’ rather than as its product. The Dhami Satyagraha exemplified that dynamic with unusual clarity. It is argued in that book that people living in the princely ruled States like Dhami were subjects and yet to become formal citizens of India. Yet they were already struggling for representative Government that a future Constitution would guarantee them.
Dhami is a small village near Shimla situated at a one-hour drive from the Mall Road. Dhami was one of the 550 plus princely states that existed before independence with its capital at Halog. These princely states although not part of British India were nevertheless under the ‘paramountcy’ of the British crown, wherein the British recognized the internal sovereignty of the ruler in exchange for their loyalty to the British Crown and thereby created a kind of layered sovereignty that denied political rights to the subjects of these states and insulated princes from accountability. This system ultimately resulted in denial of civil and political rights to the subjects of princely states that were being extended to other people throughout British India by way of so-called constitutional reforms. However, by the 1930s, it was becoming clear that such unfair treatment would not last long due to intensification of the freedom struggle for independence of India and demands for representative government.
The Dhami Satyagraha of 1939: Events, Demands, and the Firing Incident
The immediate origins of the Dhami Satyagraha could be traced to the constitution of a body called Dhami Riyasati Praja Mandal under the chairmanship of Bhagmal Sautha. It presented a charter of demands to their ruler Rana Dalip Singh demanding civil rights, abolition of forced labour, reduction in land revenue, recognition of Praja Mandal as a legitimate representative body and most importantly, the establishment of a representative government accountable to the people. Those demands reflected the broader program of Praja Mandal movement across princely states in India. Moreover, the demand for establishing democratic government was particularly significant as it directly challenged the basis of princely rule and asserted the principle that the legitimacy and authority of any government flowed from the people who constituted source of power and authority. When Rana Dalip Singh failed to pay any heed to those demands the struggle for representative Government escalated rapidly. On 15 July 1939 Bhagmal Sautha spearheaded a large procession from Shimla to Dhami demanding representative Government. He was arrested on the border and the very next day a huge crowd came out protesting his arrest. But, at Halog Chowk in Dhami, Rana Dalip Singh ordered police to open fire on the crowd, killing and wounding many.
Gandhi on Dhami Satyagraha
There was outrage and indignation against Dhami firing and national leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru denounced the incident and constituted an informal committee to inquire into the matter. A deputation on behalf of the Himalayan States People's Conference met Gandhiji at Delhi on July 27, and apprised him of the firing in Dhami.
In his article, “Minority Administration” published in the Harijan on July 29, 1939 Gandhi referred to the direct British rule over princely State of Chamba because the ruler was a minor and quoted a correspondent who wrote, “We have been pressing for the repeal of the liberty penalizing laws which have been enforced during the minority administration, and we do wish that popular element be introduced in the temporary administrative council at least during the minority of the Raja.” The demand for “popular element” which Gandhi flagged in his article indicated the urges of people for introduction of representative and accountable Government which later became the foundational pillar of India’s constitutional scheme of governance. It is instructive that Gandhi referred to the total lack of policy of the British paramount power to recognise the rights of people in princely States and forcefully remarked, “Absence of declared policy by the Paramount Power about the rights of the people of the States is perhaps glaringly demonstrated by the happenings in the little hill State of Dhami.” “The shooting that took place there,” he emphatically claimed, “would have been impossible if the policy of the Paramount Power was known.”
In another seminal article “Lesson of Dhami” written by Gandhi in the Harijan on August 5, 1939 he sharply observed, “The ruling chiefs are becoming free with their rifles. They feel that they are safe so far as the Paramount Power is concerned…. Many of them are now evolving measures to crush the growing spirit of their people (for demanding their rights) and make it impossible, if they can, for the Congress to give effective guidance to them, let alone to interfere. Nevertheless, the Congress has a duty to perform.”
It is quite clear from the above writings of Gandhi that the Dhami firing incident was not just an isolated event. It was part of a larger pattern of princely repression of subjects engaged in democratic movements for establishing representative Governments. Although, throughout the 1930s, similar incidents occurred in other princely states as demand for responsible government gained momentum, what distinguished the Dhami incident was its timing. It took place just when the debates on India’s constitutional future were intensifying. Moreover, the national attention that it received also helped to highlight the fundamental incompatibility between princely rule and democratic governance which was seen as essential to India’s constitutional future.
The Government of India Act 1935: Federal Scheme and Democratic Deficits
`The Government of India Act, 1935 represented the most ambitious constitutional reform project of the British rulers till then. It was aimed at reforming the Indian administrative structure while maintaining imperial control over its Indian subjects. Under the Act, an All-India Federation was proposed that would unite British India and the princely states under a single federal government, with a bicameral legislature consisting of a Federal Assembly and a Council of States. This federal scheme was intended to address the growing demands for self-government while preserving British paramountcy and princely privileges.
However, there were certain rudimentary democratic aspects in the Act. It was evident from its provision which while allowing British India to elect representatives (albeit on a limited franchise), permitted the princes (on their own demand) to nominate representatives to the federal legislature. It is worth noting that the Act never introduced the conduct of popular election in the princely States. This arrangement reflected the lopsided priorities of the British government. The nominated princely representatives were expected to serve as a conservative counterweight to the elected representatives from British India, many of whom were Congress members committed to attain freedom of India from colonial rule. The British hoped that these nominated members would act as a check against any radical constitutional change.
As expected, both the Indian National Congress (INC) and the All-India State Peoples Conference (AISPC) rejected this nominated representation scheme. The INC’s Haripura Session of 1938 declared that people of the princely states must have the same political, economic and social rights as those in British India. The AISPC, at its Ludhiana Session of February 1939 under Nehru’s presidency, formally demanded that subjects of princely states must elect their representatives to any future federal or constitutional body.
However, the Princes ultimately refused to join such federation fearing loss of their status and privilege and the scheme never got fructified. But, the debates over the 1935 Act had lasting significance for India’s constitutional development. Against that backdrop the fundamental principles such as popular sovereignty, universal adult franchise and the rejection of any constitutional arrangement that denied political rights to any section of the Indian people became central to Constitutional making in India.
The Congress Demand for a Constituent Assembly and Popular Sovereignty (1939)
By late 1930s the demand for a Constituent Assembly became central to Congress policy. The proposal under the Government of India Act 1935 convinced the leadership that piecemeal constitutional reforms were inadequate. What was needed was a complete break with the colonial constitutional framework and the creation of a new constitution based on popular sovereignty. Nehru argued that legitimate constitutional authority could only derive from the people themselves, acting through their elected representatives in a Constituent Assembly.
Any constitution imposed by external authority lacked legitimacy and could not command the allegiance of the Indian people. This theory of popular sovereignty had profound implications for the princely states. The foundational principle of democracy that the source of authority and power are people themselves demolished the legitimacy of princely rulers rooted in hereditary rights. The subjects of princely states had the same inherent right to self-government as the residents of British India. Any constitutional arrangement for independent India conjured up by leadership of that time treated the subjects of princely states as equal participants, with the same political rights and the same voice for shaping the nation’s destiny.
Dhami and the Democratic-Constitutional Argument
The Dhami Satyagraha embodied and advanced the democratic-constitutional argument. In Assembling India’s Constitution, De and Shani illuminate this dynamic with two corrective observations that bear directly on the Dhami case. First, ‘the states were not autocracies waiting for India to democratise them’. Second, public engagement with constitutional questions was ‘in anticipation of universal franchise,’ as people experienced ‘the practicalities of becoming equal individuals for the purposes of authorising their government’. The members of the Dhami’s Praja Mandal were subjects demanding the rights of citizens before those rights were formally recognised by the Indian Constitution.
The Dhami Satyagraha in its own way contributed to create conditions for integrating princely states into democratic India. The Praja Mandal movement created organizational networks, developed local leadership, and raised political consciousness which would prove crucial when the princely states were integrated after independence. The experience of democratic struggle in states like Dhami helped to ensure that integration. It did not simply mean the transfer of power from princes to the Indian government.
The constitutional significance of Dhami extended beyond the immediate events of 1939. The principles of civil liberties, responsible government and popular participation articulated by the Dhami Praja Mandal would become building blocks of the Indian Constitution. The rejection of autocratic rule and the insistence on popular sovereignty that motivated the Dhami Satyagraha would find expression in the Constitution’s commitment to democracy, fundamental rights, and republican government.
Legacy and Conclusion: From Princely Resistance to Constitutional Democracy
Events like the Dhami Satyagraha of 1939 occupies a significant place in India’s constitutional history, though its importance has often been overshadowed by larger events and more prominent movements. Yet the Dhami firing and the broader Praja Mandal movement of which it was part made crucial contributions to establishing the principles that would guide framing of India’s constitution
Dhami was not alone among the Shimla Hill States in witnessing such resistance. The Pajhota Satyagraha of 1942 in Sirmur Hill State and the Kunihar agitation demonstrated that the democratic impulse was regional in character as it was national in scope. It cannot be confined to a single incident. Taken together, these movements established a collective record of princely-state democratic resistance in the Western-Himalayan region that strengthened the constitutional case for integration on the basis of popular sovereignty rather than dynastic treaty.
The broader trajectory of this Himalayan democratic mobilisation is vividly illustrated by De and Shani’s account of Theog, a princely state in the same Shimla Hills region . With an area of 373 square kilometres and a population of just over 7,000, Theog shared the structural features of Dhami: small, Himalayan, and governed under feudal conditions. Yet on the very day of India’s independence in August 1947, the ‘Rana of Theog celebrated by granting independence to his people’ as he ‘dethroned himself and formed a Council of Ministers elected by the people, which have been delegated with full power and authority’.
For contemporary constitutional discourse, the Dhami Satyagraha offers important lessons. It reminds us that constitutional legitimacy depends on popular participation and that excluding any section of the population from meaningful political participation undermines the constitutional order. It demonstrates that the struggle for civil liberties in princely States created essential pre-conditions for democratic self-government. And it shows that constitutional development is not merely a matter of elite deliberation but requires popular movements that articulate democratic demands and challenge unjust authority.