Chausath Yogini Temple, Mitaoli (M.P)

Ekattarso Mahadeva Mandir Yogini is believed to be the origin of the centres of energy in the human body. According to Lalitasahasranama, Devi, the Prime Shakti is called Kulayogini and also named as the Deity worshipped by 64 prime Yogini herds, their being several crores. Thus Yogini is at the same time the Prime Goddess and also the subordinate godhead. This explains the concept that there are two aspects of Shakti, Samavayini and Parigraha Shakti. As Samavayini Shakti, She is Cit and so identical with Shiva Himself. As Parigraha Shakti, She is inert and evolving i.e. in Tantric parlance Bindu. Again Bindu as pure aspect of Cit is Mahamaya or Mahayogini i.e. Pure conduit of creation and as mixed or Asuddha maya or Yogini i.e. inherent cause of material world the impure conduit. Adi-Shakti is connected to 64 forms. Sixty-four has a unique significance in tantra; tan, to spread philosophy. Adi-Shakti is connected to 64 forms of art (Kala). The mastery of as many of the 64 traditional arts known as the Chausath Kalas or Chathusashti Kalas formed an important basis in the development of a cultured individual in many parts of ancient India. “The history surrounding the yoginis is scarce and can vary from source to source. Consensus is that the cult first appeared around the sixth to seventh century. The cult did not begin to thrive however, until the ninth century and stayed fairly popular through to the twelfth century.” (Probing the Mysteries of the Hirapur Yoginis by Gadon, Elinor) According to another legend, when an asura called Mahishasura continuously tortured the Gods, Goddesses and divine celestial, they prayed to Goddess Para Shakti to protect them from the tortures of the asura. Goddess Adi Para Shakti allayed their fears by creating Goddess Durga from her own body, which in turn created another eight demi divines called Ashta Matrikas from her body from each of whom emerged eight Yoginis thus totaling to the manifestation of 64 Yoginis. Those 64 Yoginis joined with the forces of Goddess Mahishasuramardini and annihilated asura brothers Kamban, Nisumba along with their entire asura forces. Major Sanskrit Textual Sources of Yoginis are Agni Purana, Markan Deya Purana, Kalika Purana, Bhagavata Purana, Matsya Purana, Garuda Purana, Skanda Purana, and Devi Bhagavata Purana. The medieval literature such as Somadevasuri’s Yasatilaka, Kalhana’s Rajatarangini and Somadeva’s Katha-saritsagara speaks of several legends about the Yoginis by viewing them as goddesses. “In support of Yogini worship, one of the Kashmir texts, namely ‘Rajatharangini’, meaning river of Kings, written by Kalhana and who was the first historian of Kashmir, describe the tantric practices which prevailed during the rule of some of the Kings. The text of Rajatharangini in 7826 verses, have been divided into eight books called Tarangas. Kalhana may have been a witness to various tantric or agamic cults and practices during the period of Kashmir rulers since he mentions several tantric masters, esoteric practices of the Yogini cult, the installation of Shaiva images etc. in the text of Rajatharangini. As per stories in Rajatharangini some of the Kings were involved in the tantric practices to gain more powers while some of the Kings had also lost their Kingdom due to the tantric Gurus who misguided them. One of the stories narrate the bloody offering of the chief of Damara (Damara is a landlord or wealthy cultivator possessing much land) who was slayed to appease Lord Bhairava and the mothers (Yoginis) in a temple, which were tantric deities.” Yoginis Santhipriya by Jayaraman In recent times, important information has been gathered from a 400 hundred year old text called ‘Sri Matottara Tantra’, which is available in the Nepal National Archives. The doctrines written in the text form in Sanskrit language is narrated in the form of dialogue between Lord Shiva and Goddess ‘Kubjika’ wherein the Lord clarified what the tantrism was, the secrets of 64 Yoginis, the relevant chakras attributed to them etc. ‘Sri Matottara Tantra’ is in the nature of a compendium of ritual circles called chakras in which significance of each ritual practices associated with each are given with diagrammatic presentation. The Chausath Yogini temple in the Bhind-Morena region is a temple of Lord Shiva. According to an inscription dated to 1323 Vikram Samvat, the temple was built by Maharaja Devapala in 8th century. Also known as the Ekattarso Mahadeva Mandir is located in the small quiet village of Mitaoli, 40 km north of Gwalior and 15 km east of Morena in Madhya Pradesh. The temple in the Chambal Valley is an ancient replica of the Parliament House. The circular shaped hypaethral structure runs about 125ft in diameter, with more than 100 stone pillars running along the outer wall as well as the central shrine. This temple has 64 chambers in its interior, each dedicated to a yogini or bharavi. Inside the circular wall are niches, most often 64, containing statues of female figures, the yoginis. Their bodies are described as beautiful, but their heads are often those of animals. They have Siddhis, extraordinary powers, including the power of flight; many yoginis have the form of birds or have a bird as their vahana or animal vehicle. These were the kind of features that identified a shrine to be a yogini’s place of worship. The structure that leads the eye to the sky holds another secret under its ground—a humongous water storage facility. The main shrine consists of a slab covering with perforations to drain excessive rainwater. A network of pipes runs around it, evidence of the engineering marvel. It takes a hundred steps to reach the Chausath Yogini temple. It is said that the temple was used to be a seat of education of astrology and mathematics with the use of the rays and shades of the Sun.

Chausath Yogini Temple, Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh

The Secret Cult of Yoginis “The circular enclosure with no roof to the sky is a very peculiar shape for an Indian temple but at Yogini temples, you will find this and an even more interesting set of deities worshipped. Statues of female Yoginis or tantric goddesses with beautifully sculpted bodies and non-human heads! The temples of the Chausath (64) Yoginis are strewn across the heart of India, in Madhya Pradesh and Odisha. The most famous among them is the one at Hirapur, just outside Bhubhaneshwar in Odisha. Little is known about the yogini temples thanks to the fear they still evoke among the locals. The Tantric sects of Hinduism that evolved outside the main orthodox Brahmanical system are perhaps the least known or understood. A lot of this is because they were always kept out of the mainstream and shrouded in mystery for the uninitiated and hence taboo. Infact, the fear of Yoginis goes back all the way to ancient times. The Brahmanda Purana, one of the main texts of tantrism states that anyone who reveals the secrets of the Purana will be cursed by the Yoginis. Another, the Jnanavarna Tantra, goes beyond, adding that whoever tells the secrets of tantra to the uninitiated, will become food for the Yoginis! So who are the Yoginis? They are a group of forest spirits or mother goddesses of the forest who were later incorporated into the Hindu pantheon. This incorporation of these goddesses - from Tribal to Tantric happened in 8th century CE. It is not surprising that most of these Yogini temples are in the heart of the old Gondwana forests of central India, where tribals live. The cult of Yoginis was very powerful between 9th to 12th centuries, but it was virtually wiped out by the 17th century. However, some aspects of Yogini worship survived across India. In fact, there is a reference to a Yogini ‘Vrata’ or a Puja undertaken by ladies in the Walkeshwar area of Mumbai as late as the 1900s!” (Yogini Cult and Temples by Vidya Dahejia) In the advent of 9th century AD, the tantra tradition evolved into an esoteric form and had the women practitioners who were called the yoginis. The yogini cult was an assimilation of a cross-section of faiths like Shaivism, Vashnaivsm, Buddhism, and Tantrism. Temples to the Yoginis in India were built between the ninth and sixteenth centuries and their worship seems to have flourished amongst the royalty during that time. All of the known Yogini temples are circular, except for two, which are rectangular. One common characteristic between all Yogini temples is that they are hypaethral or without a roof. In all the Yogini temples, temple niches line the inner temple walls and are inhabited by Yoginis in various postures and bhavas (moods or expressions of the divinity). They all bear witness to the central altar, which sometimes is inhabited by a fierce form of Shiva. The Chausath Yogini temple is a ruined Yogini temple in the Khajuraho town of Madhya Pradesh. Dated to the late 9th century, it is the oldest surviving temple at Khajuraho. Unlike the Yogini temples at other places, it has a rectangular plan, but like them it is hypaethral, without roof. The temple is made of large, coarse granite blocks, with an open courtyard at the centre. The courtyard was originally surrounded by 65 shrine cells: 10 on the front (north) wall, 11 on the back wall, and 22 on each side. Only 35 of these 65 cells now survive; each has a small doorway made of two squared granite pillars and a lintel stone, and a curvilinear tower roof. Above the lintel of the best-surviving cells is a triangular pediment. Apart from a single much larger cell for the deity, each of the 64 cells for yoginis is approximately 1 m high and 1 m deep. The large cell is located at the centre of the back wall, and faces the entrance at the north. It was probably a shrine of Goddess Durga. The other 64 ("Chausath") cells housed the statues of Yoginis. Three large statues of Mother Goddesses or Matrikas, found among the ruins, are now in the Khajuraho museum. Of all the Yogini temples in India, Yogini temple of Khajuraho is the most primitive in construction and unique in being rectangular. Situated away from but still classified as part of the western group of temples at Khajuraho. Chausath Yogini temple is a unique open-air sanctuary, considered to be one of the earliest shrines in Khajuraho, dating to around 885 AD. At Khajuraho the sanctuary of Chausath Yogini temple is situated away from the main group of temples of Visnu, Shiva and Surya. Dedicated to the Chausath (sixty four) Yoginis, essentially manifestations of the Great Goddess Durga, unlike most other temples at Khajuraho that are made from Sandstone, this temple is constructed from coarse granite. The difference is the only shrine at Khajuraho that is not aligned east-west, but is instead oriented north-east. The Sanctuary stands on a lofty platform 5.4m high. It consists of sixty seven cells, of which only thirty five now survive, all of equal size except for one single larger cell. Each tiny cell is entered by a small doorway and roofed by a basic curvilinear Shikhara. The single larger cell housed an image of Durga Mahishasuramardini inscribed with the label ‘Hinghalaja’, a Goddess that is revered in many parts of northern and western India. When Major Alexander Cunningham visited the sanctuary in 1865 AD, only three images remained in their cells; the Goddess Hinghalaja, with Brahmani and Maheshwari in cells either side. All these images are now safely in the site museum, along with an image of a dancing Ganesha that used to face the Chausath Yogini sanctuary.

Chausath Yogini Temple, Ranipur-Jharial,

“The term Yogini could be understood in various ways: as a female spirit endowed with magical powers, a fairy, witch, sorceress, a class of female attendants of Durga, and sometimes the term is used for Durga herself.” (Brighenti 2001: 293). Yogini means ‘power of union’ or ‘the power that facilitates union’. Those 64 powerful Yoginis have unique personas and powers to fulfill ones desires, drive away negativity and fear, prevent misfortunes, give knowledge, peace, all-around prosperity, good progeny, and auspiciousness of all kinds. In tantric tradition, Yoginis are considered to be fertility Goddesses. Their aspects are also innumerable such as benevolent, fierce, rule over the negative or positive tendencies of humans. Yogini in others view has been a demoness or sorceress, possessing magical powers. Sixty-four Yogin is symbolising the multiplication of these values. The symbology involves references to sixteen kalas or phases that are constituted by the mind, five gross elements, and ten sense organs. The moon has sixteen phases out of which fifteen are visible and one is invisible. There is a group of sixteen eternal goddesses. There are sixteen Siddhis or attainments or supernatural powers. The circle of sixty-four Yoginis symbolises the continuation of life. It is a never-ending circle – a spiritual symbol named ‘mandala’. Yogini Temples are always circular in design. Usually the yogini temples were situated in remote places for tantric rituals. The goal of Yogini worship, as described in both Puranas and Tantras, was the acquisition of Siddhis. The Sri Matottara Tantra describes 8 major powers, as named in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, namely :Anima, becoming microscopically small, giving knowledge of how the world works; Mahima, becoming huge, able to view the whole solar system and universe; Laghima, becoming weightless, allowing levitation and astral travel away from the body; Garima, becoming very heavy and powerful; Prakamya, having an irresistible willpower, able to control the minds of others; Ishitva, controlling both body and mind and all living things; Vashitva, controlling the natural elements, such as rain, drought, volcanoes, and earthquakes; and Kamavashayita, gaining all one's desires and any treasure. The Kularnava Tantra a treatise on the Yogini, it uses the term Yogini in three different contexts – Devi, female partners in the Cakra ritual and describes the goddesses as the patron deities of the Kaulikas. Therefore the Yoginis are simultaneously feared as well as worshiped. Stvan Keul identifies the Yogini cult as a multivalent cult with both devotional and tantric connotations, and writes; “that it was only through the royally sponsored construction that the transition of this specialized, secretive and siddhi oriented cult to a broader and more porous cult suitable to the larger public could be accomplished.” (Keul 2012: 3-5) Ranipur-Jharial is located at a distance of 105 km from Balangir, Odisha. As per historians, the Somavanshi Keshari kings built many temples in Ranipur-Jharial that can be dated back to 8th century A.D. Ranipur Jarial is known as “Soma Tirtha” in scriptures. It is a combination of religious faiths of Shaivism, Budhism, Vaisnavism and Tantrism. Sixty-four Yoginis are worshiped on a close circular open vault. The temple is a wonderful architecture of archaeological heritage and cultural history of Odisha. A signboard outside the entrance of the 64 Yogini temple that reads - this monument has been declared to be of national importance and protected under the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 (24) of 1958. Dr. C.B. Patel writes; “Ranipur-Jharial Hypaethral 64 Yogini Temple is a circular roofless temple dedicated to the 64 Yoginis is a monument of the Somavansis who ruled over this territory in 8th/9th century A.D. It is built of sand stone of the local variety. The temple is in good condition. At the centre there is a roofed porch enshrining a six-handed dancing Shiva. All around in the niches we find Yogini images. Beglar who visited the place in 1874-75 has also noted them. We count now 62. There might have been two more on both sides of the southern entrance. The niches measures 100 x 50 cm. The wall measures from 2.60 to 2.65 m. The niches begin in the third course of stone slab. The wall is covered with a coping stone.” Yogi temple of Ranipur-Jharial, Odisha, is the first to be discovered among all the 64 Yogini temples in 1853 by Major-General John Campbell. According to him, “Yogini temples are not closed structures and they don’t have the ‘garbhagriha’ or the sanctum sanctorum where the presiding deity is worshiped. Rather these are circular structures opened to the sky. Ranipur-Jharial temple is built circular in plan measures about 50 feet diameter of outer portion. The height of the enter wall is 8.86 feet and consist of five courses of hammer-dressed stone as hard masonry and crowned by projecting eave and large semi-circular coping. To enter in the shrine from the east by a passage, which measurement 5.18 feet wide and 5.74 feet long. There are 64 niches in the temple including the one at the center housing the three-faced Shiva in a dancing pose. At the centre of the temple is the original shrine with four pillars, holding an image of Nateshwar Shiva as Lord of Dance. The Shiva image is three-faced and eight-armed, and is depicted with urdhva linga. Ganesh and the bull Nandi are shown in the image's base. The similar-sized image of the Goddess Chamunda in the temple may once have been housed with Shiva in the central shrine. This is a roofed structure and the images are largely intact. 13 of these 64 statues of Yoginis made up of sandstone are missing and some others have been damaged beyond recognition. 14 of the Yogini images have animal heads like that of an elephant, cat, snake, or antelope also of a leopard with a tantric overtone. The leopard-headed goddess is holding up a human corpse, suggestive of the corpse rituals (shava sadhana) of the Yogini cult.” The 19th century archaeologist Alexander Cunningham described two further Yogini images. “One, uniquely, had the attributes of the Sun-god, Surya; she had two arms, a lotus flower in each hand, and seven horses. The other (now surviving only from the knees down) was dancing on a reclining male; she had 6 or 8 arms, and was depicted pulling her mouth open wide; she held a skull-cup, a kettle-drum, and a sword.” The Ranipur Jharial Yoginis are made, like the temple walls, of low-quality coarse sandstone, which has weathered poorly. Uniquely, all the Yogini images are depicted poised about to dance, in the karana pose of Indian classical dance; Vidya Dehejia explains that the posture is taken up at the start of each group of movements. There are no matrikas or mother goddess images along with the Yoginis unlike in the case of the other temples. The absence of haloes or attendant figures as at later Yogini temples, suggests that this temple was built relatively early. This is because of the fact, Ranipur Jharial temple was built much earlier. Similarly, well-known Indologist Prof. Henrich von Stietencron (2013: 70-83) has equated these temples to Kala Chakras or the wheels of time. According to him; “the temple being perfectly circular and with the entrance facing east. The architecture of these temples was such which helped the priests to calculate solar and lunar time. He further elaborates his hypothesis by looking at the square-shaped Chandi Mandapa located at the centre of the temple.” The Chandi Mandapa as mentioned above houses four bhairava images, but according to architectural texts there used to be a standing image of Martanda Bhairava at the centre of the square pavilion. A dancing Martand Bhairava image has been found in Chausath Yogini shrine of Ranipur Jharial in Balangir district of western Odisha. ‘Martanda’ is one of the names of Sun god, and ‘Bhairava’ is a ferocious form of Shiva who is associated with yoginis. The solar aspect of this temple could also be ascertained from the four faces of Martand Bhairava representing four directions. The cosmological arrangement of the temple shows Sun as the ruler over space and time, as it is the Sun which is the representative of the solar year and the stable centre around which all the movement circulates. Hence, it is believed that keeping in line with the architectural and iconographic programme of the Chausath Yogini temples a four-faced Martanda Bhairava stood in the middle of the circle of merry-making yoginis, as Miranda Shaw (1994: 81) describes them: ‘yogini’s gathered at feasts to play cymbals, bells, and tambourines and danced within a halo of light and a cloud of incense. Within this nocturnal congregation, a circle of yoginis feasted, performed rituals, taught, and inspired one another. They sang songs of realization regaling one another with spontaneous songs of deep spiritual insight.’

Chausath Yogini Temple, Hirapur, Odisha

The philosophy of the concept of Yogini is based on the concept of Sapta Matrikas, seven Mother Goddesses. Since prehistoric times the number seven has had mystical significance in India. In North India, Vaishno Devi shrine in Jammu has been designated as the “Elder Sister” among the seven Devi shrines in a fairly narrow belt of the Siwailiks between the Yamuna and Chenab rivers. In Western and Southern India, the Sapta Kannagis (seven maidens) are considered the tutelary deities. In her manifestation of Durga, she created seven manifestations of Shakti from her body to help her while she was engaged in battle with the demon Raktabija. These seven manifestations of Shakti came to be known as seven little mothers--Sapta Matrikas. “The philosophy of the concept of yogini is based on the concept of Sapta Matrikas, seven Mother goddesses. These seven goddesses symbolise the motherly aspect and have a logical, esoteric, and conceptual sequence. Sometimes the Sapta Matrikas are portrayed in a deeper philosophical conceptual meaning with the eight divinities involved in the creation of universe and its various integral life forms in a serial logical order. • Brahmi or Brahmani represents the unmanifested sound, logos, and she creates the universe. • Vaishnavi gives the universe a definite shape. • Maheshvari gives individuality to all created beings. • Kaumari bestows the force of aspirations. • Varahi is the power of assimilation and enjoyment. • Aindri or Indrani is the immense power that destroys whatever opposes the cosmic law. • Chamunda is the power of spiritual awakening. Sixty-four yoginis symbolise the multiplication of these values. The symbology involves references to sixteen kalas or phases that are constituted by the mind, five gross elements, and ten sense organs. The moon has sixteen phases out of which fifteen are visible and one is invisible. There is a group of sixteen eternal goddesses.” Dr Suruchi Pande The general belief based on Puranic texts has been that from the body of Adi Para Shakti came out eight great female demi Goddesses called Ashta Matrikas when she was in the form of Sati. As per ‘Kaula Tantra’, which is an ancient spiritual tradition and also a school of thought in different Schools of Tantrism, those eight Ashta Matrikas namely Brahmani, Vaishnavi, Maheswari, Indirani, Kaumari, Varahi, Chamunda and Narasimhi in turn brought out from their bodies eight Divine Shaktis each, called Yoginis, totaling to 64 Tantric Yoginis. The Yoginis are also popularly known and worshiped in Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism in several countries in the name of Bhairavis, Dhakinis, Shakinis, Sakinis, Sakthis, etc. The Yoginis are mentioned in the Skanda Purana variously as Yoginis, Dakinis, Shaktis or Bhairavis. The Lalitha Sahasranama and Vishnu Bhagavata Purana reverently call the Divine Mother Shakti as Maha Yogini and Kula Yogini. Sometimes Goddess Durga is even referred to as the queen of the Yoginis because in some of the legends it is stated that the Yoginis came out of the body of Goddess Durga. Out of the generally accepted 64 Yoginis, regardless of their number the most important amongst them is said to be Yogini Mahamaya. Sometimes she is described as the mother of the universe and her appearance is largest compared to the other 63 Yoginis. Vaishnava scholars in the state of Orissa believe that Yogini Mahamaya was the same Yogini who occupied the eyes of Lord Vishnu in the name of Yoganitra; hence she is seen at the entrance gate of the Hirapur temple. The Chausath Yogini Temple of Hirapur, also called Mahamaya Temple, is 20 km outside Bhubaneswar, the capital of Odisha. It is devoted to the worship of the auspicious goddess yoginis. The temple is believed to have been built by Queen Hiradevi of the Bramha dynasty during the 9th century. The legend behind the temple, according to local priests, is that the Goddess Durga took the form of 64 demi-goddesses to defeat a demon. Sixty-four yogini cults in tantra were the powers created to assist goddess Durga in killing the demon Raktavirya. After the fight the 64 goddesses, equated with yoginis, asked Durga to commemorate them in the form of a temple structure. . The Chausath Yogini Temple of Hirapur is small and circular, only 25 feet in diameter. It is hypaethral, (roofless) and built of blocks of sandstone. The inside of the circular wall has niches, each housing the statue of a Goddess. 56 of the 64 idols, made of black stone, survive. They surround the main image at the centre of the temple, the Goddess Kali, who stands on a human head. Inside the open-air temple, the inner face of the temple wall has 60 evenly spaced niches just above ground level, each one containing an extraordinary standing figure (yogini) carved from fine grained chlorite. Each idol is delightfully posed, many with a soft smile that enhances their attractiveness even further. They are all standing on their own pedestal or vahan, which typically consists of an animal, human head, or demon. The variety of their hairstyles, weapons and accessories ensures no two images look alike. Around the outside of the temple are nine unsmiling Goddesses, locally described as the nine Katyayanis, an unusual feature for a yogini temple. The entrance is flanked by a pair of male Darapala, door guardians. Two additional images near the Darapalas are Bhairavas. Some historians believe that an idol of Maha Bhairava was worshipped in the Chandi Mandapa. The temple follow a Mandala plan in a way that concentric circles are formed while a Shiva at the center inside the inner sanctum is roundly surrounded by four Yoginis and four Bhairavas. The circle is reached via a protruding entrance passage, so that the plan of the temple has the form of a Yoni-pedestal for a Shiva Lingam. The scholar Shaman Hatley writes; “that if the temple is seen as a tantric Mandala embodied in stone, Shiva is surrounded by 4 yoginis and 4 Bhairavas of an inner circuit, and sixty yoginis of an outer circuit. The images of the Yogini are acala images carved in black chlorite whereas the images on the outer side of the wall are carved in sandstone. The four dvarapals at the passage into the temple are fierce-looking, wearing garlands of skulls and holding khaḍga in their hands.” The temple plan resembles a yoni patt on which a Shiva-linga rests. The Yogini images depict standing Goddesses and their animal vehicles (Vahanas). The Yoginis are naked but for their bejeweled girdles, from which hang flimsy skirts that can be made out as a light decoration on their legs; they are adorned with bracelets, armlets, necklaces, and anklets. At least 8 of the yoginis stand on animal vehicles representing signs of the Zodiac, including a crab, a scorpion, and a fish, suggesting a link with astrology. The scholar Istvan Keul writes; “that the yogini images are of dark chlorite rock, about 40 cm tall, and standing in varying poses on plinths or Vahanas, their animal vehicles; most have delicate features and sensual bodies with slender waists, broad hips, and high, round breasts with varying hairstyles and body ornaments”. He further states, “that the central structure is faced with three yogini images and four naked ithyphallic representations of Bhairava" “The sixty-four yogini temple at Hirapur, Odisha, has its tantric roots. The circular walls, lack of roof, that is, hypaethral style of a building, arrangement of each yogini image in the niche of the wall to replicate the seat of self, that is, as a symbol of origin of the Self. The circle of sixty-four yoginis symbolises the continuation of life. It is a never-ending circle—a spiritual symbol named ‘mandala’. It is also called ‘yogini chakra’ as an auspicious ritual circle. Usually the yogini temples were situated in remote places for tantric rituals. Metaphorically they may suggest that the difficulty in finding out the remotely built temples indicate that the sadhaka, a spiritual aspirant, has to accept difficulties and obstacles in aiming for tantric sadhana.” Dr Suruchi Pande There are various lesser-known theories which present the architecture of the Hirapur Chausathi Yogini Temple in a different light. One of them being, “that the cosmological programme of the temple is akin to a mandala, where strategically placed yoginis like Varahi, Kaumari, Mahamaya and Chamunda denote various energies within a mandala. The temple seems to follow a mandala plan in a way that concentric circles are formed when Shiva at the centre inside the inner sanctum is roundly surrounded by four yoginis and four bhairavas. The next circle is formed by the nine katyayanis and two dvarapalas. It is the only yogini temple which has sculptures on its outer wall. There are nine feminine images, identified as the ferocious katyayanis surrounding the exterior walls along with two male guards flanking the passage; these dvarpalas have been identified as bhairavas. Inside the enclosure, there is a rectangular central shrine housing Ekapadabhairava (also known as Jhamkarabhairava).” (Donaldson 1985: 1053) In the words of Shaman Hatley (2007: 18), “with the increasing significance of Yoginis in the Purana corpus, the Yogini temples in fact appear to mark the entry of these deities into a wider religious domain, beyond the confines of the esoteric tradition - to the point that their ritual mandalas are translated into monumental circular temples.”

CHAUSATH YOGINI TEMPLE, BHEDAGHAT (M.P)

Legend of Yoginis: The term Yogini mostly invokes a sense of fear with a majority regarding them as followers of a secret tantric cult or ones capable of extreme destruction. Some consider them as female attendants of Goddess Durga. However, in essence, it is the feminine Sanskrit word for Yogi with their references in our ancient and medieval texts from Hinduism. Literally used for a female master practitioner of Yoga as a mark of respect, the ancient culture of Yoginis are as spiritual practitioners. Researchers have also found their relevance in Buddhist and Jain scriptures. The Chausath Yogini Temple, Bhedaghat, also called the Golaki Math, it has shrines for 81 rather than the usual 64 yoginis, hence it has more importance. Bhedaghat is famous for its marble rocks which soar in glittering splendor to a height of about hundred feet on either side of the Narmada. Alexander Cunningham refers it as a bathing-place on Narmada whereas the village is situated at the confluence of the Narmada and a small stream locally known as Saraswati but known as Banganga at Karanbel. Because of the sangam of two rivers, this place is considered holy. Cunningham mentions that King Gaya Karna took bath at this place with his queen, son, prime-minister, commander-in-chief at the occasion of granting a land to a Brahman. Queen Gosala Devi, widow of King Narasimha Deva, also took bath here while making a grant of a village. A small temple of Matrikas was constructed originally in 1st Century AD when the Kushanas ruled over this region. In the 7th-8th Century during, the beginning of the Kalachuri period, the original temple was extended as is evident from the analytical study of the existing sculptures. The present shape of the temple came into existence when Yuvrajdeva- I, the Kalachuri ruler came to power in 915 A.D. Bhedaghat Yogini temple, Cunningham suggests that the temple is dedicated to sixty-four Yoginis and the rest of the cells are occupied by other related deities like matrikas, Shiva, Ganesha. Matottara Tantra mentions a tradition of eighty-one Yoginis, further mentions about nine matrikas, Sapta-Matrikas with Chandika and Maha-Lakshmi, forming the inner circle of the chakra. Each of these nine matrikas issue nine Yoginis, thus forming a chakra of eighty-one. The eighty-one cells suggest that the temple was dedicated to the eighty-one Yognis as explained in Matottara Tantra. It also tells of 9 Matrikas (not the usual 8); each is counted as a yogini, and leads a group of 8 other yoginis, so that there are 9 groups of 9. The same text mentions that these eighty-one Yoginis were usually worshiped by royalties and thus it suggests that the temple at Bhedaghat was constructed by a royal member of some dynasty. The Yogini Temple at Bhedaghat is the largest yogini temple in India with the internal diameter of about 116 feet and the external diameter of about 131 feet. Cunningham describes it as a curious circular cloister of considerable antiquity located on singularly fine and commanding position above a hill near Narmada. The cloister consists of 84 square pillars which results in an arrangement of 81 cells and 3 entrances, two on west and one on south-east. The statues in the cloister cells are divided into two groups, standing and seated. Standing statues, five in number, are made of purplish sandstone while the sitting statues are in grey sandstone. The central temple, now known as Gauri-Shankar temple, is probably built after the original circular temple as suggested by Cunningham. It is located off-center of the inner courtyard, which is indeed very peculiar. The temple was constructed about two centuries later, by queen Alhanadevi whose inscription dated 1155 AD is found on an isolated slab. Another inscription of queen Gosaladevi, which is later than 1190 AD, does not talk about the construction but only her daily worship to the God. Inside the Garbhagriha of the small temple known as “Gaurishankar Mandir” is a rare image of Gauri- Shankar being worshipped, where Shiva and Parvati are shown seated on the back of a standing Nandi. This image depicts the departure scene of Shiva after his marriage with Parvati, and a small scene depicting the marriage procession is inscribed below this image, along with the inscription of “VARESHWAR” in Nagari- Lipi dating back to Eleventh Century. It is said to be a sculpture which is one of its kind in the whole country. Sculptures of Surya, dancing Ganesha, Lakshmi- Narayana, Naga- Nagi and three headed Shiva are also fixed in the walls of Garbha Griha. The design of the temple has been kept simple, but the idols of yoginis are exquisitely carved, each one depicting a unique posture. The most common posture found amongst these sculptures is "Lalitasana" mudra which is termed as the "royal pose" or a relaxed sitting posture. It has been constructed of primarily granite stone and the columns are all monolithic. This is the only temple where one will find Ganeshani or Vinayaki, the feminine form of Ganesha. She is one of Chausath Yoginis. The courtyard of the Chausath Yogini Temple offers a scenic view of the Gorge at River Narmada and the surrounding landscape. In spite of the grandness and huge scale of this temple, but was constructed in such a humble way, where a human being can relate easily with its scale. The whole setting is very calm and serene where one can definitely attain some peace while overlooking the beautiful views of river Narmada. There is a tunnel (now closed) which is clearly visible near the entrance gate of the circular periphery, and the locals say that this has been connected to the Madan Mahal Fort as Rani Durgavati used to visit this temple. Several festivals are celebrated in this temple. Especially during the full moons and on auspicious days, a grand celebration is organized by the temple association. Many devotees gather whenever any religious event is organized in the temple. A steep flight of stairs (about 150 or more) barefoot climb will reach to the beautiful temple situated on a hilltop. This process of climbing the stairs is also said to be helpful in purifying the body and soul. Compiled By Chaman Lal Gadoo, Email: cl.gadoo@gmail.com Blog: clgadoo.blogspot.com

TRUTH ABOUT ARTICLE 370 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

 

             The Indian federal polity grew out of two diametrically divergent processes which underlined the devolution of authority to the provinces, in what was known as the British India before the independence, and the integration of the Indian States, which had acceded to India in accordance with the Instruments of Accession. The Instruments of Accession envisaged the procedure by virtue of which the Indian States, after the British withdrawal from India and the lapse of Paramountcy, exercised the right to accede to the Dominion of India. The federal organization of India was, therefore, constituted of the erstwhile Indian provinces of the British India and the Indian States which were liberated from the British tutelage after the British colonial organization came to its end in 1947.

              Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of the Jammu and Kashmir State, acceded to the Indian Dominion on the terms and conditions envisaged by the Instrument of Accession which was drawn by the States Ministry of the Indian Dominion. Hari Singh signed the standard Instrument of Accession, which the rulers of other acceding States has signed earlier and he bound himself to the same obligations, which the rulers of the other Indian States had accepted. There was no condition attached to the accession of the State to India, which provided for any separate set of constitutional relationships between Jammu and Kashmir and the Dominion of India. All the acceding States and Unions of the States, Jammu and Kashmir being no exception, were reserved the right to convene their own Constituent Assemblies to draw up the constitution for their respective governments. Indeed, Constituent Assemblies were instituted in Mysore State and the Surashtra States Union.

             Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and the other National Conference leaders were in jail when India won freedom and were released from imprisonment months after the British had left. After their release the Conference leaders laid no conditions for the accession of the State to India which they supported, except that they demanded the transfer of State power to the people, a process to which the Indian Government was equally committed. The claims made by several State leaders as well as many national leaders that National Conference had endorsed the accession of the State to India on the condition that Jammu and Kashmir would be constituted into a separate and autonomous political identity on the basis of the Muslim majority character of its population, is a distortion of history. The Conference leaders did not lay claim to any immunity from the future Constitution of India, nor did Nehru or any other Indian leader give any assurance to the ruler of the State or the Conference leaders, about any special constitutional position, Jammu and Kashmir would be accorded in the Indian federal organisation.

              The Instrument of Accession was evolved by the Secretary in the State's Ministry of the Government of the Indian Dominion, V.P. Menon in consultation with the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, and with the approval of the State's Minister, Sardar Patel. The lapse of Paramountcy had reduced the Princes to mere shadows of the royalty; they were, during the British rule. The powers they exercised in their States were enforced by the British authority, and after it was withdrawn, they were left to the mercy of the State's people, who had all along the liberation struggle of India, committed themselves to the independence of India from the British rule and unity of the people in the British India and the Indian States. The States people inhabited one-third of the Indian Territory and formed one fourth of the population of India.

             Lord Mountbanen as well as V.P. Menon was interested in the protection of the Princes for their own reasons. They enacted the long and atrocious drama of the integration of the States, to secure the Princes, the powers and privileges they had enjoyed under the protection of the Paramountcy. Menon persuaded Patel to accept the accession of the States on the basis underlined by Cabinet Mission, thus leaving the Princes in possession of all the powers of the government, except defense, foreign affairs and communications. Accordingly, the Princes were invited to accede to the Indian Dominion and delegate to the Dominion Government, powers in respect of defense, foreign affairs and communications, leaving the residuary powers for them to administer. The demonstration effect of the Indian offer to the Princes was so profound that the State's Minister of Pakistan, Sardar Abdur Nishtar, proposed to accept the accession of the States on two subjects only i.e. the defense and foreign affairs, leaving communications as well as state troops, within the control of the States.

                The integration of the States into viable administrative units proved more difficult than anticipated and the institution of the Constituent Assemblies in the States was also delayed. In May 1949, the Premiers of the State's took a stupendous decision in a Conference at Delhi, in which the Negotiating Committee of the constituent Assembly participated and entrusted the Constituent Assembly of India, the task of drawing up the Constitution for the States. The Jammu and Kashmir did not accept the decision arrived in the Premiers Conference and expressed its preference to convene a separate Constituent Assembly to draft a separate constitution for the State. Consequently, a separate meeting was held on 14 May 1949, in Delhi between the representatives of the State Government and the representatives of the Constituent Assembly in which Sheikh Mohd Abdullah, Nehru and Patel participated. In the meeting the Conference leaders blankly refused to accept the inclusion of the State in the constitutional organisation of India. They told the Indian leaders, in veiled words, that they favoured a separate constitutional organisation for the State in view of the Muslim majority character of its population which they feared would be subjected to the dominance of the Hindu majority in India. They proposed the retention of the Instrument of Accession as the basis of the constitutional relationship between the Union and the Jammu and Kashmir, till the Constituent Assembly of the State evolved a fresh structure of constitutional imperatives to replace the existing relations.

             The Indian leaders did not approve of the exclusion of the State from the constitutional organisation of India and emphasized the paramount importance of bringing the States within the scope of the framework of the rights and legal Safeguards as well as the principles of State policy, the Constituent Assembly had devised. Nehru, told the Conference leaders that the safeguards for the rights and the principles of State policy had been evolved by the Constituent Assembly with great pride and there could be no reason to deprive the people of the State of the protection, the Constitution of India envisaged. In words, laiden with considerable emotion, he stressed that all people of India would be governed by a uniform set of constitutional postulates and people of any province or any acceding State would not be denied any rights and safeguards for equality, liberty and freedom, the objective Resolution adopted by the Constituent Assembly embodied. He readily agreed to modify the scheme of the federal division of powers, the Constituent Assembly had evolved, in respect of Jammu and Kashmir and accepted to reserve a wider orbit of powers, including the residuary powers for the State Government. In the scheme of the federal division of powers, the Constituent Assembly had evolved the residuary powers were vested with the federal government.

           After protracted negotiations, an agreement was finally reached between the State leaders and the representatives of the Constituent Assembly which underlined the inclusion of the State in the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and the application of the provisions of the Constitution of India to the State pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction of the Union of India, Indian citizenship, rights and related constitutional safeguards, principles of State policy, and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It was agreed upon that the Constituent Assembly of the State would be empowered to determine the future of Dogra rule and specify, with the approval of the President of India any further extension of the provisions of the Constitution of India to the State. To avoid any fresh controversy over the agreement, Nehru sent a rejoinder to Abdullah, specifying clearly the stipulation on which the agreement was reached.

           The agreement was, however, short lived and the Conference leaders resiled from their commitments after they returned to Srinagar. The issue came to a head when Gopalaswamy Ayanger draw up the draft constitutional provisions for Jammu and Kashmir and sent them to the Conference leaders for their approval. The draft provisions were based upon the stipulations of the agreement reached in the Delhi conference. After a short spell of silence and close door deliberations, the National Conference leaders placed the draft provisions before the Working Committee of the Conference. The Working Committee promptly turned down the draft provisions. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah sent an alternative draft to Ayangar, which envisaged the complete exclusion of the State from the constitutional organisation of India. He proposed that the federal relations between the State and the Union be determined by the provisions of the Instrument of Accession. The Conference leaders expressed strong reservations about the application of the fundamental rights and related constitutional guarantees and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to the State, on the ground that the fundamental rights embodied in the Constitution of India conflicted with the policies of the National Conference, committed to radical social and economic reforms. Gopalaswamy Ayangar, labouring under the impression that the Conference leaders would accept his proposals if he left out the fundamental rights and related guarantees, drew up a fresh draft, in which reference to the fundamental rights, constitutional guarantees and the federal judiciary, was altogether omitted. To his utter consternation, the Conference leaders rejected the modified draft as well. They refused categorically, to accept the application of any provisions of the Constitution of India to the State. Ayangar, who had served Maharaja Hari Singh, during the most fateful years of the history of Kashmir, did not realize the grave consequences of keeping Jammu and Kashmir out of the scope of the rights and related judicial safeguards the Constitution of India envisaged for the Indian people. He was unmindful of the incalculable harm, the fateful change he had made in his proposals, would do to the minorities in the State.

             Ayangar made fresh efforts to arrive at an agreement with the Conference leaders who refused to accept any provisions of the Constitution of India, including the provisions which described the territorial jurisdiction of the Union. The Conference leaders were invited to Delhi, the Indian capital, for talks and Nehru joined the parleys. Nehru distrusted the demand of the National Conference leaders for a separate constitutional organisation of the State which did not form a part of the Indian republic and he strongly pleaded with the Conference leaders to abandon their obduracy. He refused to approve of any constitutional arrangement, which forced the exclusion of the State from the basic structure of the Constitution of India. The Conference leaders refused to relent and at one stage they broke off the negotiations and threatened to resign from the Assembly. They sulked away closing themselves up in the Kashmir House, the old mansion, built in the Indian capital, by Maharaja Hari Singh.          

            Nehru and the other Indian leaders were caught in between the devil and the deep sea. They could ill-afford to estrange the Conference leaders at a time when the United Nations intervention, interestingly, invoked by India against the aggression of Pakistan, had put the India Government on the cross-roads.  Without the support of the Kashmiri speaking Muslims, who formed the main support base of the National Conference, India had little hope to win the proposed plebiscite in the State. Nehru was under pressure of the Security Council to implement the demilitarization of the State to prepare the ground for the induction of the plebiscite administration into the State. He quietly relented and sent Ayangar to assure the Conference leaders that the Government of India would not press them to accept the inclusion of the State into the constitutional organisation of India.

              Gopalaswamy Ayangar drew up a fresh draft in consultation with Mirza Afzal Beg, a close associate of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and one among the Conference leaders, who was not favourably disposed towards the accession of the State to India. The new proposals envisioned the exclusion of the State from the Indian constitutional organisation. The revised draft-provisions were incorporated in Article 306-A, of the draft Constitution of India. A last minute controversy cropped up between Ayangar and the Conference leaders when the draft Article 306-A, came up for consideration in the Constituent Assembly. The Conference leaders demanded the inclusion of the provisions in the draft Article 306-A which recognised the Interim government of the state as a government in perpetuity. Many prominent members of the Constitueut Assembly pointed to Ayangar the anomalous situation, the recognition of a government in perpetuity would create. They advised Ayangar not to accept the position taken by the Conference representatives. Accordingly, when Ayangar conveyed his inability to the Conference leaders to incorporate provisions envisaging a government in perpetuity, they reacted in anger. They again sulked away and did not join the proceedings of the Assembly till Ayangar had delivered half of his speech on the draft Article. Inside the Assembly they sat glum and did not utter a word in support of the draft provisions. Beg had informed Ayangar that he would move an amendment to the draft provisions. Ayangar watched the proceedings with concern as any controversy between the Indian Government and the Conference leaders in the Constituent Assembly, was bound to have a deep impact on the Indian stand in the United Nations. Nehru was in the United States and perhaps, he expected the Conference leaders to make spirited statements in the Indian Constituent Assembly, commending the accession of the State to India as well as the way Indian Constituent Assembly had accommodated a Muslim majority State in the Constitutional framework it had evolved for the Princely States. Beg did not move the amendment. The draft provisions of Article 306-A were adopted by the Constituent Assembly without any dissent.

               Immediately after the proceedings of the day were over in the Constituent Assembly, Beg wrote to Ayangar demanding the annulment of the Article 306-A, failing which he threatened to resign from the Assembly along with the other representatives of the State. Ayangar was stunned. Nehru was abroad in the United States as he could hardly help to reverse the decision of the Assembly, he wrote back to Beg plaintively not to resign and wait for Nehru's return. The Conference representatives did not resign.

          Article 306-A was renumbered Article 370 at the revision stage. Jammu and Kashmir State was included in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India which described the territories of India. No other provision of the Constitution of India was extended to Jammu and Kashmir. An explicit limitation was placed on the application of the Constitution of India to the State, except in regard to the provisions of the Seventh Schedule corresponding to the subjects by the Instrument of Accession to the Indian Dominion. Accordingly, the power of the Union in respect of Jammu and Kashmir was limited to the subjects in the Instrument of Accession viz. foreign affairs, defense and communication.

            Article 370 of the Constitution of India envisaged provisions which stipulated;

(a) limitations on the application of the Constitution of India to the State,

(b) the division of powers between the Union and the State,

(c) extension of the provisions of constitution of India to the State,

(d) modification and termination of the operation of Article 370, and

 (e) the institution of a separate Constituent Assembly for the State.

            The only part of the Constitution of India which was extended to the State independent of Article 370 was the First Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which described the territorial jurisdiction of the Indian Union. Jammu and Kashmir was listed in the First Schedule and included in the territories of India. As a matter of fact, the State was included in the First Schedule, in consequence of the Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler of the State which accomplished the irrevocable integration of the State in the Dominion of India. The territorial jurisdiction of the Indian State was created by the Independence Act of 1947, and Instruments of Accession executed by the rulers of the erstwhile Princely States. The Constitution of India described the territories of the Indian State, constituted by the transfer of power to the Indian Dominion on 15 August 1947 and the accession of the States that followed in due course. The inclusion of the State in the First-Schedule of the Constitution of India actually placed it alongside the other Princely States which had acceded to India.

              The accession of the States involved the consent of the States to join either the two Constituent Assemblies which had been created after the partition was accepted. The Cabinet Mission underlined the adherence of the States to a United India and their participation in the Constituent Assembly of India which was convened long before the partition was envisaged and put into effect. The participation of the States in the Constituent Assembly of India was a consequence of the accession of the States. The accession of the States brought about the irrevocable unification of the Princely States with the State of India, irrespective of whether they accepted to become a part of any future constitutional organisation of India. The integration of Jammu and Kashmir into the State of India was, therefore, brought about by the accession of the State to India and not by Article 370.

            The Constitution of India did not constitute the State of India. In fact, the Constitution of India was only declaratory of the state of India. The Indian State existed prior to the Constitution of India, and it would not be dissolved if the Constitution of India was abrogated nor would the Jammu and Kashmir fall apart if Article 370 was rescinded.

         Had Article 370 not been incorporated in the Constitution of India, the Jammu and Kashmir would have been placed in the constitutional organisation of India in the same manner in which the other federating States, grouped into Part B States, were placed in the constitutional organisation of India. The limitation imposed by Article 370 explicitly restricted the application of the Constitution of India to Jammu and Kashmir Article 370 was by no means an enabling act. There was only one enabling instrument which the Indian Independence Act created and that was the Instrument of Accession. The participation of the States in the Constituent Assembly of India was an inevitable consequence of the accession of the States. The oft-repeated assertion that Article 370 was an enabling act, was politically motivated and used by successive State governments to perpetuate the unrestricted power to rule by decree, vested in them, by Article 370. Evidently, Article 370 was not in any way connected with the so-called autonomy of the State. Infact, it placed the State outside the federal structure of India, the federal division of powers between the Union and the States and the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, including its power of judicial review, which guaranteed the autonomous identity of the States in India. Autonomy for the Indian States could only be visualized within the Indian federal structure and not outside the division of powers, it envisaged.

               Provisions were incorporated in Article 370 for convocation of a separate Constituent Assembly for the purpose of drafting the Constitution of the State. The stipulations of Article 370, in regard to the Constituent Assembly of the State, left no doubt about the fact that the Constituent Assembly of the State was a creature of the Constitution of India and drew its powers from the same source. Several of the Conference leaders claimed plenary powers for the Constituent Assembly. The issues they raised were more involved and perhaps they did not accept that the institution of the Constituent Assemblies in the erstwhile Princely States followed as a consequence of the accession of the States to the Indian Dominion.

                The claim of the Conference leaders to plenary powers for the Constituent Assembly, which in the following years became the bane of a serious controversy between the National Conference and the Indian Government had a subtle and dangerous import. Plenary powers would vest in the Constituent Assembly a veto not only on all constitutional relationships between the Jammu and Kashmir State and the Union of India, but also on its accession to India.

              Article 370 was included in the transitional provisions of the Constitution of India and was therefore, presumed to be of transitory nature. Indeed provisions were incorporated in Article 370 by virtue of which the President of India was empowered to modify or terminate the operation of its provisions by a notification, provided recommendations to that effect were made by the Constituent Assembly of the State. The President was empowered to extend the application of the provisions of the Constitution of India to the State by an order issued by him in concurrence with the State government. Presumably the temporary provisions, envisaged by Article 370, were meant to remain in operation only so long as the Constituent Assembly of the State completed its task. Evidently, the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution could not have visualized a perpetual Constituent Assembly for the State.    

 Dr. Mohan Krishen Teng  (Co-Chairman) & Chaman Lal Gadoo (Co-Chairman)                                                  

                      

    

 

TRUTH ABOUT ACCESSION OF JAMMU & KASHMIR STATE

 

      The Princely States of India, including Jammu & Kashmir State, were on the agenda of partition of India in 1947, is a travesty of history and a part of diplomatic offensive, Pakistan has launched to mislead the international opinion about its claim to Jammu & Kashmir. Distortion of the history of the partition of India, false propaganda and lies, shroud the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India in 1947, as well as the exclusion of the State from the Indian Constitutional organization by virtue of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution in 1950.

             The Indian political class in its attempt to substitute “greater autonomy” of the State for the “right of self-determination” that Pakistan and Muslim separatist forces have been demanding during the last six decades, has undermined the national consensus on the unity of India and the secular integration of the people of the State and the people of India on the basis of the general right to equality.

           Today, the whole nation is confronted with a situation which threatens to disrupt the unity of the country and endanger its territorial integrity. The people of India need to stand up as one man to expose the perfidy which has virtually pushed the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the brink of disaster. Nearly half of the State is under the occupation of Pakistan. To allow the reorganization of the other half into a separate sphere of Muslim power, will eventually pave the way for the disintegration of the civilizational boundaries of the Indian State.

              The creation of two Dominions of India and Pakistan was restricted to the division of British India and the separation of the British Indian provinces of Sindh, Baluchistan, North-west Frontier Province, the Muslim majority contiguous regions of the province of the Punjab, the Muslim majority eastern region of the province of Bengal, along with the Muslim majority regions of the Hindu majority province of Assam. The princely States, which formed an integral part of the British Indian Empire, were not brought within the scope of the partition plan.

            The Indian Independence Act did not lay down any provisions in respect of the procedure for the accession of the princely States to the two dominions and the terms on which the accession would be accomplished. After the 3 June Declaration of 1947, the States Department of the Government of India was divided into two sections: the Indian Section which was placed under Sardar Vallabhai Patel and the Pakistan Section which was placed under Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar of the Muslim League. The task of laying down the procedure of the accession of the States to India was entrusted to the Indian Section and the task of laying down the procedure for accession of the States to Pakistan was entrusted to the Pakistan Section. The Indian Section drew up an Instrument of Accession for the accession of States to India, so did the Pakistan Section for the accession of States to Pakistan. The Instrument of Accession enshrined the procedure and the terms in accordance with which the rulers acceded to either of the two Dominions.

             The Instrument of Accession drawn up by the Indian Section laid down two sets of terms and procedures, one for the larger princely States and the other for the smaller princely States. It is important to note here that the States were provided no option, except to accede to India on the terms and conditions laid down by Indian Section, or to accede to Pakistan on the terms and conditions laid down by the Pakistan Section of the Indian States Department. All the larger princely States which acceded to India, including Jammu and Kashmir, signed the same standard form of the Instrument of Accession and accepted the terms it enshrined. The Instrument of Accession enshrined acceptance by the rulers of princely States to unite their domains with the Dominion of India on terms and conditions and in accordance with the procedure laid down by it. The princely States were never recognized by the British as independent entities. They formed a subsidiary structure of the British colonial organization of India which was subject to the British Crown. The lapse of Paramountcy did not alter their status. The Instrument of Accession signed by the rulers of the princely States, including Jammu and Kashmir, stipulated the unification of the States with the two successor States of the British Empire in India. The transfer of power in India underlined the creation of only two successor States of the British Indian Empire: the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. The lapse of the Paramountcy put the States on the inevitable course which led them to accede to either of the two successor States.

           The rulers located within the geographical boundaries of the Dominion of Pakistan, acceded to Pakistan. The ruler of Kalat, who was opposed to the accession of Kalat to the Dominion of Pakistan, was smothered into submission by the Muslim League with the active support of the British, included Bahawalpur as well. All other princely States were situated in the geographical boundaries earmarked for the Dominion of India. The State of Jammu and Kashmir was contiguous with both India and Pakistan. Its borders stretched along the boundaries of the Dominion of Pakistan in the West and South-west, while its borders in the East and South-east rimmed the frontiers of the Dominion of India. The ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, harboured no illusions about the accession of his State to Pakistan and eagerly awaited a clearance from the Congress leaders, who had secretly advised him not to take any precipitate action in respect of the accession of his State, till Hyderabad and Junagarh were retrieved. He himself was aware of the dangers of any wrong step on his part, which he knew would lead to a chain reaction in the States ruled by the Muslim rulers. He did not want his State to be used as a pawn by Pakistan.

             Pakistan had no special claim to Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the Muslim majority composition of its population. As already mentioned, the Muslim League strongly opposed any suggestion to recognize the right of the people of the princely States to determine the future of the States. It was only when Pakistan failed to grab Jammu and Kashmir after it invaded the State in October 1947, and the Indian military action frustrated its designs to swallow Hyderabad and Junagarh, both States located deep inside India, that Pakistan raised the bogey of self-determination of the Muslims of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of their numerical majority. The Instrument of Accession was executed by the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir State on the terms specified by the Dominion of India. Neither the ruler of the State, Maharaja Hari Singh, nor the National Conference leaders played any role in the determination of the terms the Instrument of Accession underlined. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and many National Conference leaders were in jail when the transfer of power in India was accomplished by the British. Sheikh Abdullah was released from jail on 29 September 1947, about a month and a half after the British had left India.                                         

          Three days after the release of Abdullah, the Working Committee of the National Conference met under his presidentship and took the decision to support the accession of the State to India. The decision of the Working Committee was conveyed to Nehru by Dwarka Nath Kachroo, the Secretary General of the All India States Peoples’ Conference, who was invited to attend the Working Committee meeting of the National Conference as an observer. Kachroo was a Kashmiri Pandit who had steered the movement of the All India States Peoples’ Conference during the fateful days in 1946-1947, when partition and the transfer of power in India were on the anvil.

           Interestingly, the National Conference leadership kept the decisions of the Working Committee a closely guarded secret. Within a few days after the Working Committee meeting, the National Conference leaders sent secret emissaries to Mohammad Ali Jinnah and other Muslim League leaders. While Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah held talks with a number of Muslim League leaders of the Punjab, who had come to Srinagar after his release, he sent two senior most leaders of the National Conference, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq, to Pakistan to open talks with Muslim League leaders. Jinnah spurned the offer of reconciliation the National Conference leaders made and refused to meet the emissaries. Sadiq was still in Pakistan when Pakistan invaded the State during the early hours of 22 October 1947.

             Hari Singh upturned the whole game-plan of Pakistan. While the invading army spread across the State, Hari Singh sent his Prime Minister, Mehar Chand Mahajan to Delhi to seek help to save his State from the invasion and offered accession of the State with India. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah had already reached Delhi. He made no secret of the danger the State faced and asked Nehru to lose no time in accepting the accession and ensuring the speedy dispatch of Indian troops to the State. The instrument of Accession was taken to Jammu by V.P. Menon, where it was signed by the Maharaja. Menon then rushed back to Delhi and got the Instrument accepted by Mountbatten. Next day, the air-borne troops of the Indian Army reached Srinagar. On November1, 1947, the Gilgit Scouts, a local Muslim militia raised by the British for the defenses of Gilgit Agency, revolted and declared the accession of Gilgit Agency to Pakistan. Major Brown, a British adventurer who commanded the Gilgit Scouts, hoisted the flag of Pakistan over the Agency. The Governor of Gilgit, Gansara Singh was put into prison. The State army garrison at Bunji in Askardu, mostly Muslim, followed the Gilgit Scouts, opening the way for the invading forces of Pakistan, to take hold of Baltistan.    

              Hari Singh laid no conditions for the accession of the State to India. The National Conference leaders were nowhere in the process of the Accession of the State, to lay down any condition for the accession of the State to India. The Congress leaders including Nehru made no promises to the National Conference leaders. The terms of the Instrument of Accession were not altered in any respect by the Viceroy. Neither, Nehru, Patel, nor any other Congress leader gave any assurance to the Conference leaders about autonomy or Special Status of the State. In fact the National Conference leaders did not make any such demands at any time, while the process of accession was in progress. The Instrument of Accession was an act performed by the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir to unite his domains with the State of India. Mountbatten, in his capacity as last Viceroy and first Governor General of India, had only one power in this respect: to accept the Instrument of Accession executed by the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. His power derived  from the Indian Independence Act, which was strictly limited to his acceptance of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir that Hari Singh offered. It is important to note that Mountbatten could not refuse to accept the Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, or indeed, of any other princely state. Hence he did not refuse to accept the accession of Junagarh, which was accomplished in a political crisis caused by the rebellion of the people of the State against the ruler. The Nawab of Hyderabad was keen to align his State to Pakistan against the wishes of his people. Hyderabad lay deep inside the Indian mainland, south of the Vindhyas; Junagarh was situated in the midst of Kathiawad States which had acceded to India. The accession of Junagarh to Pakistan and the insistence of the Nawab of Hyderabad threatened to disrupt the unity of India and balkanize it. Nehru and Patel pleaded with the Nawab of Hyderabad to ascertain the wishes of his people in respect of the accession of his State. Nehru and Mountbatten repeatedly requested the leaders of Pakistan to agree to refer the accession of Junagarh to Pakistan, to the people of the State. While Mehar Chand Mahajan was pleading with Nehru to accept the accession offered by Hari Singh, Junagarh was in a state of civil war and the Nawab of Hyderabad was secretly plotting with Pakistan the course of action he would take after Hari Singh had acceded to India. Nehru sought to reinforce his interests in Hyderabad and Junagarh by repeating the offer of eliciting the opinion of the people of Jammu and Kashmir in respect of their accession. The withdrawal of the invading army of Pakistan from territories of the State under its occupation was the precedent condition, laid down by Mountbatten, Nehru and the Security Council, for any reference to the people of Jammu and Kashmir,                                                                                                                                    

                National Conference leaders demanded the exclusion of Jammu and Kashmir from the Indian constitutional organization in the summer of 1949, when the Constituent Assembly of India was in the midst of framing the Constitution of India. This was the time when foreign power intervention in Jammu and Kashmir had just begun to have its effect on the deliberations of the Security Council as well as the developments in the State. Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces from the occupied territories of the State. It has so far distorted the discourse regarding the accession of the State to suit its denial.           

           The Instrument of Accession was a political instrument and the accession of Jammu and Kashmir was a political act, which had international implications as it formed a part of the process of the creation of the State of India. As such, the Instrument of Accession executed by Maharaja Hari Singh was irreversible and irreducible, irrespective of the circumstances and events in which it was accomplished.

        Finally, the princely states were not required to execute any Instrument of Merger. The claim made in some quarters in Jammu and Kashmir that the State had not signed the Instrument of Merger, which such quarters insist, saved Jammu and Kashmir from being integrated in to the constitutional organization of India, is a travesty of history. The State Department of India laid down a procedure for the integration of smaller princely States into administratively more viable Unions of States. To complete the procedure of this integration, the State Department drew up an Instrument of Attachment, erroneously described as an Instrument of Merger. The major Indian States, including Jammu and Kashmir, were not required to sign the Instrument of Attachment. Moreover, the Instrument of Accession had no bearing on the integration of the States into the Indian Constitutional organization.

Dr. Mohan Krishen Teng  (Co-Chairman) & Chaman Lal Gadoo (Co-Chairman)