Sixteen Stormy Days: The Story of the First Amendment of the Constitution of India

by Tripurdaman Singh

Sixteen Stormy Days narrates the riveting story of the First Amendment to the Constitution of India-one of the pivotal events in Indian political and constitutional history, and its first great battle of ideas. Passed in June 1951 in the face of tremendous opposition within and outside Parliament, the subject of some of independent India's fiercest parliamentary debates, the First Amendment drastically curbed freedom of speech; enabled caste-based reservation by restricting freedom against discrimination; circumscribed the right to property and validated abolition of the zamindari system; and fashioned a special schedule of unconstitutional laws immune to judicial challenge.Enacted months before India's inaugural election, the amendment represents the most profound changes that the Constitution has ever seen. Faced with an expansively liberal Constitution that stood in the way of nearly every major socio-economic plan in the Congress party's manifesto, a judiciary vigorously upholding civil liberties, and a press fiercely resisting his attempt to control public discourse, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru reasserted executive supremacy, creating the constitutional architecture for repression and coercion.
What extraordinary set of events led the prime minister-who had championed the Constitution when it was passed in 1950 after three years of deliberation-to radically amend it after a mere sixteen days of debate in 1951?
Drawing on parliamentary debates, press reports, judicial pronouncements, official correspondence and existing scholarship, Sixteen Stormy Days challenges conventional wisdom on iconic figures such as Jawaharlal Nehru, B.R. Ambedkar, Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Patel and Shyama Prasad Mookerji, and lays bare the vast gulf between the liberal promise of India's Constitution and the authoritarian impulses of her first government.

Genres: History, Politics, India, Nonfiction, Law, Indian Literature, Audiobook

288 pages, Hardcover

Published January 20, 2020

Reviews

[Krutika · Rating 4 out of 5]

| Book Review | Sixteen Stormy Days.
•
“Somehow, we have found that this magnificent constitution that we had framed was later kidnapped and purloined by lawyers.” - Jawaharlal Nehru.
•
Back in school, I remember my teacher explaining how the Indian Constitution is the longest written Constitution of any sovereign country. In spite of being an Indian, my knowledge about our Constitution was very limited in nature. When Sixteen Stormy Days was out in the market, I was curious to indulge in it. The nature of the book is serious, perhaps even a bit complex. Tripurdaman Singh has managed to present absolute facts that made the Indian Constitution what it is today. I will admit, this book took two weeks' of my time to wrap it up but it only makes sense that something as significant as this deserves quality time from its readers.
•
It makes perfect sense for the book to be out right around the time our Constitution completed 70 years. At turbulent times as now, where there's a storm brewing between the government and it's people, the relevance of this book plays an important role. It's well known that the Indian Constitution came into effect on 26 January, 1950. But very few are aware of the tremendous responsibility that was handed over to its creators. Just two weeks after the Constitution was put into effect, Bombay High Court released suspected communists who had been detained indefinitely under the Bombay Public Safety Measures Act. The new Constitution did not permit indefinite detention under Article 22. This caused a shift in the power from the government.
•
Apart from the role played by Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the author also focuses on Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and puts forth their hand in drafting and shaping the Constitution. The grave burden of curating laws and regulations that ensures equality and freedom to people of all castes and communities, proved more difficult than it initially seemed to be. This non-fictional work by Mr Singh is rich in facts and right from the very first chapter, the amount of research and work that must have gone into bringing it to the public is quite evident.
•
I'm usually not one to sit back and unwind with a book as crucial and advanced as this but I did learn many important things that went behind in birthing our country's most principal and prominent piece of work. I recommend it to the ones who are thirsty to know more about the supreme law of our country. It's knowledgeable and extremely thorough, something that only people with utmost interest in learning about the foundation of India will find it fascinating.
•
Rating - 4/5.

[Hrishikesh · Rating 4 out of 5]

During the course of my studies, whenever I would come across the First Amendment to the Constitution of India, I would always wonder as to the nature of the extraordinary circumstances that caused the Parliament to amend the Constitution within merely 16 months of its adaptation - particularly in light of the fact that a vast majority of Parlimanetarians were also part of the Constituent Assembly that had debated thoroughly each individual provision.

“Sixteen Stormy Days” is the first proper chronicle period of that event that I have come across, and it has left me spellbound & breathless, looking at the scale and magnitude of the audacity of the actions begated.

To put it in a nutshell - the first amendment was also the first exercise in Parliamentarian majoritarianism; not because it enjoyed the support of a majority - God knows, many of the elderly statesmen that our nation have been blessed with were opposed to it - but it seemed to operate on a simple premises: the social agenda determined by the legislature attains legitimacy by virtue of the legislature being popularly elected, and that everything else is subordinate to such an agenda.

It is not to say that the aims achieved by the First Amendment were all wrong. Zamindari Abolishment was something that (rightly) had unanimous support.

But the premises of the amendment - that of achieving a popular agenda - leads us to shaky grounds. Societal values are subjective & depend on the contemporary context. What is wrong today might be acceptable tomorrow.
The Constitution is supposed to, as much as possible, transcend the temporal realm of “today & tomorrow”. The term “slippery slopes” comes to mind.

The procedural lapses in the amendment are also breathtaking, but that is a tale for another day.

A fascinating story, that any student of the Constitution would definitely enjoy. I look forward to reading a counter-argument to the story provided herein.

[Avani ✨ · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Sixteen Stormy Days" by Tripurdaman Singh is a non-fiction based on the story of the first amendment to the Constitution of India. It is the narration of the one of the most decisive events in the history of Indian politics.

The book starts with giving us a little bit of the introduction of the whole scenario taking place for the amendment act. The introduction itself is very powerfully written by the author. If you're a person who loves historical novels, this one's a must read!

The book is a classic gem, as the author has very beautifully narrated the unknown words of the Constitution and Indian politics. While reading this book, all the iconic figures mentioned in the book flashed infront of me as if we are living that time with them.

The book also contains few pictures of the people from the first cabinet as well as signatures and etc. I especially enjoyed reading the last chapter of the book which talks about the aftermaths of the Constitution. The author has done a brilliant job with this and I am glad that I came across this book.

[E.T. · Rating 5 out of 5]

"India has often been said to be flirting with authoritarianism. Yet, this was not always so. There was once a time, before authoritarianism became enshrined in its Constitution, when India also flirted with liberalism."
Once upon a time in India (1950)
Preventive Detention (jailing) - ❌
Press censorship - ❌
Reservations in education/jobs - ❌
Unfair acquisition of private property (Land redistribution/Reforms) - ❌
India's constitution came into force on 26th January 1950, and within a year, the honourable High Courts (and Supreme Court) came down in favour of individual liberty and upheld fundamental rights of the citizen and in a timely manner too ! Irked by the criticism, the super-liberal super-hero PM Nehruji amended the Constitution itself in 1951 ! Despite being the PM of a provisional government elected by a v.limited franchise.
I have always maintained that liberty and equality at their core are at odds with each other. Both are equally important in a democracy and so I understand that attempts to bring out equality of opportunity failed before a (overly?) liberal Constitution. And I can understand the amendment being brought in to provide reservations and redistribute zamindari lands.
BUT, Nehru also put severe restrictions on freedom of speech and expression (thankfully, atleast the word "reasonable" was added to restrictions after massive protests). An entire schedule of laws was created immune from checks on constitutionality. And criticising Nehru's appeasement politics on Pak and China became a crime (Wah Nehruji Wah !). And sedition and preventive detention came back.
"Mookerji had warned Nehru to stick with the original Constitution, that he was creating legal tools that would one day be wielded by his opponents, that his rule or that of his ideological co-travellers would not be eternal. It is a warning that every government and every citizen would do well to remember." The debates and logic given by opposition parliamentarians in particular the fiery arguments with SP Mukherjee were quite revealing. As was JP Narayan's observation that Indians equated liberty with national freedom.
Something that may hold true even today.

[Sajith Kumar · Rating 5 out of 5]

When the newly independent India’s Constituent Assembly put up the new constitution for the nation’s approval, they had every reason to cheer. Their magnum opus contained the finest liberal notions guaranteed as inalienable fundamental rights to the new republic’s citizens. The world congratulated the Constitution-makers with a tinge of respect and amazement. However, the rulers who were tasked with the administration of the nation’s most sacrosanct document were pygmies in real stature even though with an expansive ego duly massaged by sycophants. Jawaharlal Nehru, who continued as the unelected, caretaker prime minister till the first general elections were held, found the Constitution constraining his party’s social policy. His ire was turned towards the fundamental rights, which Dr. Ambedkar had termed the ‘heart and soul of the Constitution’. Barely a year after January 1950 when the Constitution came into effect, the very makers of the Constitution railed against too much liberty granted by it. Nehru found the combination of fundamental rights, tenacious citizens, a belligerent press and a resolute judiciary determined to vigorously uphold fundamental freedoms as roadblocks on his path to continuation in power. Nehru’s solution was to bend the Constitution to his government’s will to overcome the courts and preempt any further judicial challenges according to his firm belief that wider social policy was to be determined by the government alone and neither the courts nor the Constitution could be allowed to stand in the way. This book tells the story of events that led to the first amendment of the Constitution and the stormy days in which it was hotly debated in parliament. Tripurdaman Singh is a PhD in history and is a fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society. This enchanting book is an indicator of more to come in future from his pen.

Singh explains the reasons which goaded Nehru to curtail constitutional privileges in a well-planned and interesting way, like an absorbing movie script. Court rulings against press censorship, communal reservation and taking over zamindari property clashed with the Congress’ social reform agenda. Just fourteen days after 26 Jan 1950, the Bombay High Court struck the first judicial blow by releasing suspected communists who had been detained indefinitely. Nehru countered this by bringing in a central legislation two weeks later enabling the government to continue jailing people without charging them or presenting them in court, or even inform them of the reasons for their arrest. Three months later, the Patna High Court held the Bihar Management of Estates and Tenures Act null and void by infringing on the right to property and taking over assets without just compensation. Congress had initiated land reform legislation in UP and Bihar in a big way. This sought to appropriate land from zamindars and to distribute them among the landless. A differential compensation scheme was envisaged in which big landowners received lesser amount of cash as the size of the estate grew bigger. The Bihar judgement put the UP legislation also in disarray. Bihar politicians clamoured for the subordination of the Constitution to the Congress party’s election manifesto. But on this issue, the Opposition too sided with them. Socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan demanded that the Constitution be scrapped and a new one drafted. In July 1950, the Madras High Court set aside the state’s communal reservation order on the grounds that it discriminated against citizens. Two months later, the Madras High Court quashed the Criminal Law Amendment Act also as unconstitutional. The verdict alleged that the act was an illustration of naked arbitrary powers to ban organisations and imprison people in the name of ‘public order’.

The book neatly summarizes the autocratic tendency in Nehru after Sardar Patel’s death when he had unrivalled mastery over the party. Nehru was stung by adverse court verdicts and blurted out that ‘it was impossible to hang up urgent social changes because the Constitution comes in the way’. The First Amendment tabled by Nehru himself in Parliament on 12 May 1951 contained such profound and pervasive changes that legal luminaries called it ‘the Second’ or ‘Nehruvian Constitution’. The whole process was especially jarring as the Parliament itself was provisional and unelected. Moreover, this body had only the lower house. Nehru ignored these procedural niceties and quickly formed a 21-member select committee headed by himself and fixed a timeframe of five days to examine the proposed bill. Many Congress MPs were mentally against such shameful appropriation of power. While the bill was under parliamentary scrutiny, 77 Congress MPs presented a petition to Nehru asking for conscience vote on the issue. The cabinet was also split. Nehru sensed the danger and agreed to mellow the restrictions he intended to place on fundamental rights by introducing the qualifying term ‘reasonable’ before it. He then issued the whip and all Congress MPs promptly fell in line. On May 31, 1951, the resolution was put to vote and declared carried by 228 in favour, 20 against and 50 abstaining. Close on the heels of this far reaching change, sections 124A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code were revalidated. This brought back the British-made sedition law and any activity promoting ill-will between communities into major criminal offences. Parliament soon passed the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act penalizing the publication of material it did not like.

A detailed description of the damage done by the First Amendment is given in the book. Article 19 offered freedom of speech and expression which was curtailed only by considerations of libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court and undermining the security of the state. The new law criminalized anything the executive deemed to be upsetting ‘public order’ and jeopardizing the nation’s relations with a foreign state. This may seem surprising to us now, but what Nehru was seeking was to throttle criticism against his humiliating concessions to Pakistan which was highly disadvantageous to India and directed only to attract the Muslim vote bank to the Congress party and probably a Nobel peace prize for Nehru himself. The First Amendment also introduced the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution as a repository of unconstitutional laws that put them beyond the purview of courts. Former Chief Justice and later Vice President of India, Mohammad Hidayatullah, caustically observed that ‘ours was the only constitution that needed protection against itself’. The Ninth Schedule contained a total of 284 laws in 2006!

The author analyses why the icons of our freedom struggle turned distrustful of its citizens within just a year of the establishment of the republic. As the sole inheritors of the British Raj, India’s post-colonial Congress leaders had assumed the same sense of entitlement to stifle dissent, to censor adverse opinion and muffle all opposition. But to their surprise, they realized that unlike their colonial predecessors, they could not do as they wished and would be forced to endure their opponents. Furthermore, they would have to submit to and be bound by constitutional restrictions. Having enjoyed disproportionate and unchecked power since 1947, they were reluctant to cede ground to democracy. It was the provincial high courts that ruled against Nehru’s agenda and here too they were not unanimous. The Bihar High Court turned down the state’s zamindari abolition act while the Allahabad High Court upheld Uttar Pradesh’s similar law. Nehru could have appealed to the Supreme Court for a ruling to clarify the legal position but instead of deferring to the apex court he made them follow his own commands by changing the Constitution.

Nehru’s personal beliefs on socialism might also have played a role in the shaping of things. The right to personal property was effectively curtailed. Article 31, which restrained the state from acquiring property except by the authority of law and on payment of compensation, was coolly swept aside. Articles 15 and 29 were diluted to allow reservation to backward classes in education and government employment. The Constitution had originally planned to extend reservation only to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (SC/ST). The overall impact of the amendment is also examined in this book. Nehru provided a constitutional infrastructure for his successors to be unleashed on the country’s hapless citizens. This loophole was later frequently exploited to overcome court judgments. Nehru’s justification for the amendment smacked of a tyrannical bend of mind. He castigated the fundamental rights as obsolete remnants of the ideas of the French Revolution and argued for the superiority of the constitutional section on Directive Principles of State Policy over the chapter on Fundamental Rights. This truly deliberate strategic assault on the Constitution and fundamental rights tampered with the nation’s primary document to suit the transient whims of every clique in power for the time being.

The book is a delightful read. Rarely have I seen Indian authors handle English in such an appealing way. A lot of tasty and colourful phrases and idioms are included as adornment to the fine diction. The research that has gone into the preparation of the book is truly impressive.

The book is highly recommended.

[Sarthak Bhatt · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a horror story!! A tragedy!! If you want to know about how democracy was killed just 16 months after it was born read this. I say this book should be compulsory reading for all schoolchildren so that they may learn more about the fake shit they've been fed since they were born.


Nehru, Patel, and rajagoaplchari these people were not liberal founding fathers they were all authoritarian figures who wanted to smother our democracy and guess what? they succeed in doing so.

I read this in just 2 days and I feel so so gloomy!! What could have been if only these b@stards resisted we would not have sedition, reservations, section 9 and it goes on and on.

Yet this book is also the story of the most unlikeliest of heroes who stood up in Parliament and said this is wrong! Heroes whose name we don't even remember people like syama prasad mookerji, hn kunzru, hv kamath and acharya kripalani all these parliamentarians fought and they fought as hard as they could but couldn't stop that dictator Nehru. The author writes very poignantly in the end

"India has often been said to be flirting with authoritarianism. Yet, this was not always so. There was once a time, before authoritarianism became enshrined in its Constitution, when India also flirted with liberalism. At that moment, Mookerji had warned Nehru to stick with the original Constitution, that he was creating legal tools that would one day be wielded by his opponents, that his rule or that of his ideological co-travellers would not be eternal. It is a warning that every government and every citizen would do well to remember"

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Book: Sixteen Stormy Days: The Story of the First Amendment of the Constitution of India
Author: Tripurdaman Singh
Publisher: ‎ Vintage Books (1 February 2020)
Language: ‎ English
Hardcover: ‎ 288 pages
Item Weight: ‎ 410 g
Dimensions: ‎ 13.97 x 2.79 x 22.23 cm
Country of Origin: ‎ India
Price: 377/-

A few months after the arrival of the Indian Constitution, certain realistic difficulties in its working came into the open, and the need for amending quite a few of its provisions was felt.

In June 1951 the Constitution (First) Amendment Act was passed, and 13 amendments were made. More important of these were the following:

1) A new clause (4) was added to Article 15, and it provided that nothing in either that Article or in clause (2) of Article 29 (dealing with protection of interests of minorities) shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

2) Clauses (2) and (6) of Article 19 were recast.

3) The new clause (2) stipulated that the right to freedom o speech and expression shall not affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, insofar as such law imposed reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

4) The amended clause (6) of Article 19 stipulated that the right to practise any profession. or to carry on any occupation, trade or business would not prevent the State from making any law relating to (i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or (ii) the carrying on by the state. or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.

5) After Article 31, dealing with the right to property, two new Articles 31A and 31B were inserted.

6) Article 31A was designed to save laws providing for the acquisition of estates etc., and it stipulated that no law providing for the acquisition by the State of any estate shall be deemed to he void on the ground that it was inconsistent with, or took away or abridged any of the Fundamental Rights.

7) A law made by the Legislature of a state for this purpose enjoyed the protection of the above provision only if that law had been reserved for the consideration of the President and had received his assent. Article 31B was designed to validate certain Acts and Regulations, and it stipulated that none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule shall be deemed to be void or to have ever become void, on the ground that such an Act or Regulation was inconsistent with or took away any of the rights.

Another amendment of the Constitution made in the first amending Act was the addition of a new Schedule the Ninth Schedule — to the Constitution. Thirteen state laws, mostly dealing with land reforms and the abolition of zamindari system, were specified in the new Schedule and those were, thus, protected from judicial scrutiny.

It might be noted that most of these Articles were amended due the difficulties created by court decisions in several cases such as ‘Kameshwar Singh v State of Bihar’, ‘Romesh Thapar v Slate of Madras’, ‘Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi’, and ‘Mon Lal v Government of Uttar Pradesh’. The issues involved in these cases were numerous, such as the scope of the Fundamental Right of freedom of speech, acquisition of zamindari (land) of intermediaries, conflict between a citizen’s Fundamental Right to practise any profession, or to carry only business or trade (Article 19, g) and state monopoly of any trade so on.

Thus, to put it briefly, what did the First Amendment bill actually do? It bill proposed key changes. An in-depth reading serves us the following observations:

1) It sought to introduce new grounds, on which freedom of speech could be curbed — public order, the interests of the security of the state and relations with foreign states. In the original constitution, these had been limited to libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court and anything that undermined the security of the state or tended to overthrow it.

2) With the addition of the three nebulous new provisos, left to the government of the day to define, the right to freedom of speech and expression was to be drastically curtailed.

3) The bill sought to enable caste-based reservations by restricting the right to freedom against discrimination from applying to government provisions for the advancement of backward classes. Nothing would now prevent Parliament from creating special measures for backward communities, and none of these measures would be legally challengeable even if they breached any of the fundamental rights provisions.

4) The bill sought to circumscribe the right to property and validate zamindari abolition by adding two new articles empowering the state to acquire estates without paying equitable compensation and ensuring that any law providing for such acquisition could not be deemed void even if it abridged this right.

5) And lastly, it sought to introduce a special schedule where laws could be placed to make them immune to judicial challenge even if they violated fundamental rights—an absolute repository of unconstitutional laws beyond the court’s purview, a schedule described by the jurist A.G. Noorani as an ‘obscenity created by wilful resolve’.

The narrative of this book commences with the endorsement of the Indian Constitution. In particular, the author isolates Part III, which contains the fundamental rights, as breaking with the colonial past. He emphasizes constitutional freedoms, not democratic elections, as the exodus from colonial tyranny.

Singh narrates how the Constitution was right away put to work. Repressive laws could now be challenged. In case after case, the government’s actions were challenged and often overruled. We would simply offer three examples:

1) In Delhi, the government’s attempt to censor ‘The Organiser’, an RSS newspaper, had been countermanded.
2) In Bombay, the government’s order banning ‘Cross Roads’, a left-leaning weekly critical of Nehru and the Congress government, had been quashed.
3) Zamindari abolition had met a similar fate.

This is how the seven-chapter book has been divided:

1. The Build-up
2. Will the People Wait?
3. The Deepening Crisis
4. The Gathering Storm
5. The Clouds Burst
6. The Battle Rages
7. The Aftermath

The essential questions that the book asks are:

i) How did fundamental rights — the heart and soul of the constitution, so majestically and pointedly given in 1950 — become lacunae in the same Constitution and the cause of serious difficulties by 1951?

ii) What led to the leading framers of the Constitution turning on their own creation within 15 months, to the Government of India and the Congress party taking the unexpected step of thoroughly amending the Constitution they themselves had piloted in 1950?

iii) Who got up to defend the newly granted fundamental rights when the moment came, and how did this climactic battle unfold? And finally, what were the results?

iv) Were there lacunae in the Constitution, as Nehru believed, or was man (and the government) despicable, as Ambedkar had asserted before the Constituent Assembly?

These are the four primary questions this book seeks to investigate, and within them lies the account it seeks to tell.

The aforesaid ‘account’ is built upon the following keystones:

1) It is the narrative of how the Government of India discovered that mouthing clichés to civil liberties was one thing, and upholding them as principles was quite another.

2) It is the narrative of how the dominance of a government’s social agenda over the Constitution and individual freedom was affirmed.

3) It is the narrative of how the entire chapter on fundamental rights was vandalized and the courts emasculated—and the long shadow this has cast over Indian politics ever since.

4) It is the narrative of how this amendment came to be and how it was passed.

5) It is the story of how the great liberal promise of our Constitution was belied.

6) It is the story of the great but eventually useless—and now forgotten—battle that was waged to preserve the original Constitution and the individual freedoms and civil liberties it had granted.

The battle over the first amendment was the first battle of Indian liberalism, and its fearless warriors the first great defenders of our individual rights and freedoms. They included the unlikeliest of characters

a) Hindu nationalists such as S.P. Mookerji and M.R. Jayakar,
b) Gandhians such as Acharya Kripalani,
c) Socialists such as Shibban Lal Saksena and Jayaprakash Narayan,
d) Diligent Congress dissenters such as H.V. Kamath, Syamnandan Sahay and K.K. Bhattacharya,
e) Jurists such as Pran Nath Mehta and M.C. Chagla,
f) Press associations, editors, lawyers and businessmen; men who’s ideological and editorial successors today might barely believe (but would do well to remember) that their predecessors held the views they did.

One one hand was Nehru and the Congress bent on reducing fundamental rights, and on the other end of the spectrum was Mookerji and the RSS batting for individual freedom and civil liberties — it was an impartially dramatic epoch in Indian history.

While reviewing this book in ‘The Indian Express’ Malini Bhattacharya notes: “The book makes it evident that the First Amendment provided the DNA of a Hobbesian state in postcolonial India and laid the foundation of the Nehruvian state. It also lays bare the schisms within the Congress party, the pressure applied on the president’s office to bend to the will of the government, and the ways in which the judiciary was subordinated by the executive. Most importantly, the story also blurs the dichotomies that political analysts slip into: the liberal Nehruvian vision of India versus the RSS’s authoritarian one, between progressive and reactionary politics. It leaves us wondering why this story was never told before; is it a mere coincidence or a part of a deliberate political project? The book maintains a dignified restraint in answering this question.”

‘Dignified restraint’ or not, the author drives home the point that the first amendment proved to be a lightning rod for disparagement and galvanized opposition to the Congress regime.

‘Cutting at the very root of the fundamental principles of the constitution,’ charged the leader of the Opposition, S.P. Mookerji, as he led the counter-attack against the bill, calling it ‘the beginning of the encroachment of the liberty of the people of Free India.’

No doubt a leftist academician such as Dr. Bhattacharya would call it the ‘DNA of a Hobbesian state in postcolonial India.’

A magnificent read!! This book, in my humble estimate, could right away be shortlisted as one of the best Indian non-fictions of 2020-21.

A thumping five on five!!

[Ribhav Pande · Rating 5 out of 5]

An important legal book that makes for a splendid read. This is one of the quickest legal reads I've been through.

The book is about the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. It's not like there haven't been enough authors that have spoken about this amendment. There have. But this book isn't just about the amendment. It's a particular narrative. The author avowedly has leanings, and this does come out in the book through the repeated and damning critique of Nehru as well as the Congress, and at the same time, glowing tributes to the work of SP Mookerji et al. However, it would be reductive to say that this take away from the critique in the book. The book's introduction lays out an intellectual 'Nehru did it' trope qua liberty of speech, but the book goes on to prove this assertion and it has been proved well.

There are 4 aspects of the 1st Amendment that were problematic:

1) The addition of 'public order, decency or morality' and amendment of 'undermined the security of, or tends to overthrow the state' to 'interest of the security of the state' as exceptions to free speech under Article 19.

2) Insulating reservations for 'socially and educationally backward classes' by adding cl. (4) to Art. 15, also to cover Article 29(2). Also, dropping of an economic criteria in this regard.

3) Adding Article 31A to insulate land acquisition legislation from Article 14 (equality) or Article 19 (freedoms)

4) Adding Article 31B to create the 9th Schedule to the Constitution, which insulates any law placed in it from the test of Fundamental Rights

The book deals with the circumstances which compelled Nehru to consider these, as well as its journey through public imagination and the Parliament. In short, it was Nehru who steamrolled over everything to make this amendment happen. His views as described in the book are quite shocking, and must be read. Equally shocking are some of Ambedkar's comments through this process. Since it's a short read, I would suggest that this be read in toto.

There are some phrases in the book, which I am compelled to reproduce here. Do read the book for the context!

Author: 'The creation of the Nehruvian state demanded constitutional blood – and the PM and his acolytes were willing to spill it.'

Ambedkar, in the context of the 9th Schedule: 'Just imagine the amount of burden...if we were to sit here and examine every section of each of these Acts.'

AG Noorani on the 9th schedule: '...an incongruity, introduced as a result of sheer neglect became an obscenity created by wilful resolve.'

SP Mookerji:
–'For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that is was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time.’
– on the 9th schedule: A constitutional monstrosity
– on the 1st Amendment, to Nehru: 'You cannot pass or amend a Constitution to fight with ghosts'

'Not Enough, Times of India, 28 May 1951 (Bombay): 'At the root of democratic progress is the belief that the heterodoxies of today may become the orthodoxies of tomorrow...'

[Siddhartha · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book illustrates how champion of democracy Nehru assumed the role of dictator and tried to emasculate judiciary. This book mostly focuses on parliamentary debates, opinion of some stalwarts and editorials published in newspapers. The author could have delved more into the impact of amendments and judgment passed by apex Court.
This book is good for a layman who is not much acquainted with the Constitution. Law students can give it a miss.

[Akshat Upadhyay · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are excerpts of prescient speeches from luminaries such as Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, Shibban Lal Saksena and Acharya Kriplani, among others, that lay out in a detailed manner the antagonisms amongst a set of people over the theory and practice of constitutionality. This is the refreshing strength of this book.

The Constituent Assembly deliberated over the creation of an Indian Constitution which, as per political theorist Madhav Khosla, was an attempt at creating a new language of democracy, republicanism and constitutionality with its attendant rules and regulations for a population which had never witnessed such a political system. The Constitution in its final shape was still biased towards the State as there was a belief and conviction in the emancipatory nature of the State to paper over group identities, destroy coercive group solidarities and invest in the creation of a citizen, an individual who was able to make political decisions independently. But in this effort the social reform project was given short shrift. 1951, as per Nehru, was an attempt to accelerate the social reform project but political freedom, fundamental rights (archaic leftovers of the French and American revolutions) and an independent judiciary came in the way. It was the state, embodied by the Congress party which was supposed to usher in these changes as it was the belief of a majority of members of the Assembly that only the State had the capability, authority and legitimacy to bring about these far-reaching changes. That there was an inherent contradiction in these supposedly liberal pronouncements may have been debated but papered over.

A Prime Minister who could do no wrong and a statesman of the world, Mr Nehru sought to accelerate social reforms to usher in a new socialist society within India. From Zamindari abolition to land reforms and reservations for the not-yet-defined backward classes, his intention was to upend the entire feudal nature of Indian society and remodel it to conform closely with the Soviet model, the purges and mass deaths brought on by Stalin either not known, forgotten or plainly hidden from public view. Despite the admirable nature of some of the reforms, there was a tendency to set aside any criticism by the media, public or opposition. At a number of occasions, Mr Nehru alluded to the moral responsibility of the media not to criticise the government too much or stoop too low while doing so. Obviously the threshold for such subjectivities had to be okayed by the PM himself.

The First Amendment to the Constitution, brought just 16 months after the Constitution declaring India to be a sovereign republic came into being, was an attempt by the executive to subjugate the citizen who had just been created from a subject back to the same status. It was obvious that liberal debates and nuances of wordings and clauses that had marked the civility with which the Constituent Assembly had gone about its job, had been discarded for realpolitik. References to dealings with Pakistan and riots and migration in Bengal provided adequate excuse, apart from the obstinacy of the courts to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, to the PM to introduce a barbaric amendment in the Constitution that would haunt India to the day.

In one of the paragraphs, the author refers to habituation of heavy handedness by the Indian government. Habituation is an interesting choice of word as it indicates the smooth transition between the coercive instrumentality of the Raj and the new Indian state. It also shows that the new leaders, despite or maybe because of being on the receiving end of these measures, preferred the same tools of repression to solve or push through reforms as considered them to be effective.

The strength of the book is that it is able to bring out these contradictions and especially the narrative conflict between the doyens of liberalism debating and arguing over the finer points of the future shape of India and the realpolitiks of Nehru and his clique. The author however betrays a sense of objectivity in some parts of his narration. That feudalism had to go and a new social order created out of their ruins was the long running demand and objective of Mr Nehru. He wanted the Zamindari Abolition Bill to be passed immediately. However in his attempt at detailing Nehru's hard nosed politicking, he has tried to paint the zamindars as liberals who opposed Nehru tooth and tail and were only worried about their remuneration. This is a misappropriation of the platform to use an anti-Nehru pitch and create an obfuscation, that of a benign feudal order ready to battle it out with a dictator.

Another issue with the book is the storminess of the 16 days is neither evident nor explained in detail. Though the author has taken pains to create the context for his story, the description of the 16 days finishes in a jiffy. There are hardly any debates on the clauses and amendments sought to be introduced during the Parliament. One wished that these were sketched out in greater detail.

The book is definitely a must read, if not for its heady defence of conservatism and entrenched orthodoxies, then to witness the beginning of the crippling of the Indian experiment in democracy.

[Krishnanunni · Rating 5 out of 5]

Story of the first Amendment of the constitution. Captures the violence involved in amending the constitution in 16 months of its promulgation. Nehru is brought under the light. But I wanted to hear more about Ambedkar's role in the legal drama, couldn't get enough of him.

[Sricharan AR · Rating 4 out of 5]

"I submit, these extraordinary powers will be used to your injury; and who will use them? It will be they that will come after you. You are not going to be eternal. No government is going to be eternal . . . More power will only injure you. So please be satisfied with limited power, because your capacity is very limited indeed."

[Ipshita Das · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sixteen Stormy Days

Being a political science graduate and a law student this book turned out to be an informative read for me. The insight of the framers of the Constitution and the comments made by the official dignitaries while the enforcement of the Constitution and along with the first amendment which created a havoc in the society was all well mentioned here. Every citizens is somewhat familiar with the fundamental rights we are privileged with, but a very few know about how it all came into force and the obstacles and judgements made on it. This book deals with all of it. It will throw a light on the path of the first amendment of our very own Constitution of India. And how it's impact have effected the lives of people and also how it also benefitted to few sections of people. The caste discrimination and the reservation of seats based on caste and their outcomes are very well delivered in the book by the author. I must say the author has immense knowledge and have worked a lot before penning down this book. It's a non fiction and a very useful to those who are willing to learn more about our Constitution and interested in that field of law. The language of the book is extremely rich, the writing style of the author is praise worthy. But those who are not acquainted with those terms mentioned here may find it difficult to read. But the narration is smooth and but for those who are not into the field of laws, politics and all may find it an exhaustive read. But I totally enjoyed reading it and will definitely recommend readers to read it because it will benefit them in some aspects. About the cover and the title it totally suits the storyline and is apt for it.

[Md Akhlaq · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just after a short while of the birth of Indian constitution, there was a transition phase of power from britishers to indians. Country was making a book of vision with lots of challenges. Some progressive changes were required. There was also a lot of litigation regarding such as right to property viz. fundamental right, abolition of zamindari system, restrictions upon freedom of speech and expression in terms of friendly relation, foreign policies and public orders. Restrictions should be reasonable thus justiciable in nature. It was an addition of article 46 which direct to empower the economically weakers for their education and social injustice, recently we have seen an order in the furtherance of this and to promote it article 15 (3) was amplified. As per the title this book states the story of sixteen days parliamentary debates over this matter to amend that constitution which was fabricated in almost three years. A well researched and exhaustive story which will change the personified notions of the people of India and world about the history of indian constitution. A very clear distinction between constitutional values and political aspects. So interesting to read. This book will definitely inspire to turn back and look at the original constitution and it's provisions.

[Ronak · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sixteen stormy days: the story of the first amendments of the Constitution of India.

Someone, please say I don't love hardcover🤣
First political read of 2020

I always try to stay away from politics. Because everyone thinks of there own benefit from it.

This book is full of information. If you are looking for something that will add a ton of value in your life then this is for you.

If you want to learn about our Constitution how it is made then you should definitely read this. This book talks about a lot of political agenda, economy how changed everything over the year.

This book also talks about problems faced by during 1st Amendment act. The author added a lot of things like reports, images, signatures, etc.

How the colonial rules messed by integrity, battle between ideas and debates on it. How the law had made. This book is one of those gems who love political issues and history.

Kudos to the author to making such a detailed book.

I highly recommend everyone who wants to study the Constitution of India.

[Sandeep Dash · Rating 5 out of 5]

"At the root of democratic progress is the belief that heterodoxies of today will become the orthodoxies of tomorrow and that the opposition of today, may in the course of time achieve the majesty of government.

It was a warning that was apocalyptic and oracular in equal measure, nearly 70 years on, facing the full force of the amendment, the Congress party, Nehru's ideological descendents, and co-travellers, and the one time cheerleaders of the nehruvian offensive, live on to testify to the veracity of the unknown writer's prophetic warning"

Great book.

[Vineet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliantly researched

[noorthebookworm · Rating 5 out of 5]

Do you like being up-to-date w.r.t. current affairs especially the political scenario in your country❓
Are you aware that India's constitution is over 30 times as long as the US'❓

It came into effect on 26th Jan.1950 after 3years of work.
The 1st amendment of The Constitution Of India happened within 16 days..Why❓❓
What was the socio-political scenario at that time & the reasons which led to this❓This book talks about all that with factual proof and a lot more.

As far as I can remember, I read about the CONSTITUTION, our FUNDAMENTAL Duties & Principles, RIGHTS.. in my CIVICS (SSc) subject at school.

The book, 268 pages of information, is divided in 7 Chapters with interesting titles.

Written in a fairly simple language with perfect bifurcations, this is one elaborate, informative read.

The title is exactly what the book talks about & the cover is eye-catching with the then PM, his body language saying a lot and the building saying the rest.

It's a book I would keep as one of the MASTERPIECE'S ON MY BOOKSHELF.

About the Author:

TRIPURDAMAN SINGH is a British Academy postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London. Born in 1988 in Uttar Pradesh, Tripurdaman read politics and international studies at the University of Warwick, and subsequently earned an MPhil in modern South Asian studies and a PhD in history from the University of Cambridge.


2nd Book:
S̳I̳X̳T̳E̳E̳N̳ S̳T̳O̳R̳M̳Y̳ D̳A̳Y̳S̳: ᴛʜᴇ sᴛᴏʀʏ ᴏғ ᴛʜᴇ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴀᴍᴇɴᴅᴍᴇɴᴛ ᴏғ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄᴏɴsᴛɪᴛᴜᴛɪᴏɴ ᴏғ ɪɴᴅɪᴀ.
P͟U͟B͟L͟I͟S͟H͟E͟D͟ B͟Y͟ : ᴠɪɴᴛᴀɢᴇ ʙᴏᴏᴋs ᴏɴ 01.02.2020
ᴀᴠᴀɪʟᴀʙʟᴇ ғᴏʀ ɪɴʀ 470/- ʜᴀʀᴅᴄᴏᴠᴇʀ @ᴀᴍᴀᴢᴏɴᴅᴏᴛɪɴ
&
ғᴏʀ ɪɴʀ 269.04/- @ᴀᴍᴀᴢᴏɴᴋɪɴᴅʟᴇ

THIS BOOK FELT LIKE A COMPLETE, PeRfEcT THESIS to me.

Check the images for more.

1st Book:
I͟M͟P͟E͟R͟I͟A͟L͟ S͟O͟V͟E͟R͟E͟I͟G͟N͟IT͟Y͟ A͟N͟D͟ L͟O͟C͟A͟L͟ P͟O͟L͟I͟T͟I͟C͟S͟: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘙𝘢𝘫𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘔𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢, 1600- 1900.
𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘊𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘔𝘢𝘺.2019
𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘐𝘕𝘙 696/- @𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘻𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘯

#noorthebookwormreviews
#bhadauriarajputs

[Anuraag Sharma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Talking about Freedom of Speech in Indian Parliament, a leader said

It has become a matter of great distress to me to see from day to day some of these newssheets which are full of vulgarity and indecency and falsehood, day after day, not injuring me or this House much, but poisoning the mind of the younger generation, degrading their mental integrity and moral standards. It is not for me a political problem but a moral problem. How are we to save our younger generation from this progressive degradation and the progressive poisoning of their mind and spirit? From the way untruth is bandied about and falsehood thrown about it has become quite impossible to distinguish what is true and what is false. Imagine our younger generation in schools and colleges reading this, imagine, I ask this House, our soldiers and our sailors and our airmen reading this from day to day. What kind of impression do they carry? . . . when there is no sense of responsibility and obligation, what are we to do? How are we to stop this corroding influence?

[Sofia Kazmi · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was way out of my comfort zone but still I wanted to read it to learn more about the Indian Constitution. .
Sixteen Stormy Days is, 'The Story of the first amendment to the constitution of India.'
.
Learning about constitution was fun and one must have knowledge of it coming into existence. .
"Government is of the people, for the people and by the people." This was intriguing so I wanted to know more about how the Government was OF the people.
The book was really informative about the making of our fundamental rights and the obstacles that came it between and the parliamentary debates that took place. This book tells us in details how, when and how it all started. .
I am really impressed with the research the author has done before presenting it as it truly is a masterpiece!

[Prakash Iyangar · Rating 3 out of 5]

I find the topic chosen by the author to be very good and. However the author comes from a very simpleton view of how constitution and democracy works.

Amendments by the correct legislative body are exactly how democracies are supposed to work. The author goes out of his way to make an amendment seem like a ground breaking work. Yes, fundamental rights should not be changed drastically very often. The changes proposed in the first amendment were significant but that is exactly the job of parliament.. to create laws and provide any amendments to the constitution that would facilitate the action of government in governing.

We can all debate what was right about first amendment and what could have been changed. The author chooses to focus more on the timing than on the content while giving lip service to protecting liberal ideas

The book at times feels unnecessarily long and rambling. Especially in the aftermath part.

Anti nehruvian at its core, focused on bringing him out as a megalomaniac, in someways the book almost gives everyone else in the country a free pass for letting the amendment pass but never gives Nehru any sort of benefit of the doubt even when so much clearly exists.

I don’t think the first amendment has had that big a dent in the fundamental freedoms of the people except in case of schedule 9 and reservations. With regards to the freedom of speech and press, good laws exist in the book, but as examples across India and other countries show, the laws on the book are only as good as those implementing it (ex Nehru, as even the author concedes) or those checking it ( judiciary). Both seem to be missing these days is my feel for India.

Could have been an excellent book (possibly shorter), if the author had tried to be more objective..but alas!

[Vikram · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book explains in detail the reason behind something that I’ve always felt - The dichotomy between what our constitution promises and what it delivers in daily life. Some excerpts of Nehru’s speeches give a glimpse into his authoritarian socialist tendencies. A fascinating account of how a liberal constitution was diluted by an unelected government, how sweeping restrictions were put on fundamental rights and how the obscenity of the Ninth schedule was created, forever cementing the Executive over the Judiciary.

[Varunkumar · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book narrates the story of the First Amendment to Indian Constitution merely 16 months after it came into effect by a Parliament which was still unelected and based on narrow franchise, as well as in absence of an upper House which was yet to be formed.

The book describes background to the amendment, how Constitution was subjugated to the Congress manifesto for coming first general elections, how small but strong opposition, in collaboration with Press defended Constitution and managed to wrest important concessions and overall how India had it's first brush with authoritarianism, setting bad precedents which have been followed several times since then against emergence of democratic principles in Indian polity.

[Ranesh Rai · Rating 5 out of 5]

A marvellous book which takes you to the journey of how India changed. How political compulsions became more important than the ideals. It must be read by all of legal and political fraternity to understand what we should do and what we must abstain from ?
Those who want to understand MR. Nehru's character of what kind of democrat he was and how much of authoritarian he was and how he stifled all opposition to his notion of the State. This book gives the glimpse of how India started a journey of becoming Nehruvian state.

[Crazybookbug · Rating 3 out of 5]

It Was last semester the subject 'Constitution' had been added to my semesterly syllabus the purpose of which was making the students aware of Amendments till now has besn done in our constitution. The book was thinner enough to read in an hour and the credit score of the subject was 0..

The credit score being 0 no student bothered read the book not even for the sake of writing exam chanting only one thing that "history is boring".

So the thing is there's lot we don't know about the thing that is always in trend and is the reason why whole country functions synchronisely, Constitution Of India!

Writing the thing was tough but making changes in constitution that are accurate for all the individuals was toughest. The book 'Sixteen Stormy Days' is a exhaustedly researched book about the first amendment act in the constitution of India. The book presents scenario of those days where after the war finally India became free from britishers and the title decocretic country was given.

At that time the constitution was created and presented in front of the ruler and opposition party but at some places they all need changes somewhere. There were so many decisions, so many point of views and each of them seemed correct..
It was so tough to go with any one and that has to be justifiable for all the individuals of the country.


The situation was delicate as decision taken by one party provoked the opposite one and the arguments took place. The first amendment Bill was passed by Jawahar Lal Nehru On 10th May 1951 while enacted by parliament on 18th June, and in that, it was decided to make several changes in 'Fundamental Rights' that was about securing constitution validaty of abolition laws and to place reasonable restrictions on 'Freedom Of Speech'.

The author here has narrated each of the situation with suitable intensity. Here some needy pictures are attached too such as signature of party members on amendment bill. And that was the most amazing thing I loved about the book.

When we read history books we believe whatever has been written here is the only truth but that is the most false judgment we've been believing till. History is something we of current generation can never find no matter how much we research and read.

History has been sensational topic at my home and we discuss it more often on a chai more than we devour snacks so I've heard about so much regarding this and that. It was little tough for me to connect with the story as both of the point of views was different. I still don't know what to believe but the book definitely have guts to knock down your questions regarding the ruler party and politics smartness about that time.

Pick up the book, read it but if English is not your language then keep the dictionary open. The book is indeed brilliantly written.

[Revanth Ukkalam · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was published just as I was studying a course on the Constitution at college. I had intended to read this in that very period but I finally found an opportunity.

This is the kind of work that one would like to review. It has a point. It sometimes misses its point. It at other times deliberately misses its point.

Notwithstanding anything, the book is of utmost significance for it integrates into the political history of Independent India (even when it has been spoken about, it does not earn the attention that it merits), a chapter that has not sufficiently been written about or recollected. It was, as the book rightly points out, a foundational episode and set tone to the state's relationship with the constitution and as the book strays into saying, civil liberties. The book talks about the First Amendment of the Indian Constitution, that was placed not before the parliament, but the Constituent Assembly itself, even before the First General Election! The Amendment concerned editing sections on the Fundamental Rights - Freedom of Speech, Right to Equality, and Right to Property. The book succeeds in placing the need to regulate these freedoms in their contexts: the want of preventive detention, the Zamindari Abolition, and finally, Affirmative Action in Madras.

The book actually has a convincing case that the amendment was tabled hastily, out of frustration, and paranoia. Yet, the book blows the disappointment it has for the ruling party of the time out of proportion. The leaders of the time: Rajaji, Patel, and most importantly for Singh's argument, Nehru are postured as unqualified authoritarians. This is despite the arguments that each of them had for why these amendments were being passed. I am of the opinion that, the Right to Property in any part of the world for example can be a contingent right only. Yet, the book takes a strictly libertarian stance allowing passages such as this to spill over: "Accustomed to reigning over a subservient population, given to treating their constitutional freedoms with disdain, uncomfortable with the idea of civil liberties, and resentful at its legal armoury being wrecked by the courts, the home ministry wanted little more than to be granted its draconian powers back." Finally, the book is left with more adjectives than can be afforded by a historian.

The book, still, is a work of history, and should be treated in such a fashion. Albeit with a clear agenda.

[Ruchi Patel · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s a book of non fiction genre. It’s the story of the first amendment to the constitution of India. And that is also a tagline of the book. I pick up non fiction book in between fiction because sometimes, I fear that I might loose touch of reality and definitely general knowledge and that is too based on India, everyone must have. On every republic day of India, I used to hear the sentence in speeches that on that day in 1950, we had our own constitution. Till then we were governing country by old rules. But as I grew up, I always wondered that it must have been to complex and difficult to form that. And it’s been done too perfectly so hats off to that and when I saw the title of this book, I knew I had to pick this up. The author has covered all the events in sequence like from moment to freedom till the formation and application to the constitution. Certain sentences are written wonderfully like “British Raj was not going to be replaced by Congress Raj” and “White Sahib was not going to be replaced by Brown Sahib”. We all know the role of Shree B. R. Ambedkar but I never knew contribution and involvement of these many people. Like for example Sardar Patel was the chairman of Advisory committee of Fundamental rights of minorities and tribals. The most interesting read for me was policies related to Zamindari abolition, Land lordship and new land reformation as I have heard my grandparents talking about but never read it in well detailed manner. The author has written the book to the point like articles wise. The reference for the information have been quoted that shows author has done well researched the content before penning it down. The language is layman friendly as I could understand and this is way beyond my subject. Content is well explained along with examples and I love the inclusion of pictures. Overall good one.

Click the link below to read detailed reviews

https://drruchipatel.wordpress.com/20...

[Pretty Little Bibliophile · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sixteen Stormy Days is about the sixteen days of debate in 1951, which led to the controversial first Amendment of the Indian Constitution. This book was a truly well-researched treatise on the why and how behind the major change in Indian Constitutional history.
In eloquent prose, the book goes over the changes that were made in the Constitution, which had been worked on for three years prior to this abrupt and fast sixteen-day debate. With the passing of the Amendment as the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of June 1951, various changes were brought in – most of which cause heated debates even today. To name a few, the fundamental rights were qualified in favour of the State, enabled the caste-based reservation system, restricted the right to property, to name a few.
Most importantly, the book also sheds light on the support as well as the opposition that this Amendment garnered. The author also sheds light on the various icons behind it – such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, etc. Most importantly, it depicts how the originally liberal Constitution was reconfigured in a way that would be favourable to India’s first government, which turned to be authoritarian. What started as a major move by Jawaharlal Nehru and the super-majoritarian government, radically led to a system of coercion and repression on a vast majority of the Indian people.
The narration is smooth, however, having never had political science or history as my subjects, I found it a bit exhausting to read. Perhaps that is something a few readers may face but let me tell you that the end is worth it. You will come out a bit wiser and also perhaps with more questions, which will lead you down on a path of learning. I think this was a really well-penned book by the author. It was informative and with the eloquent writing, the reader really captures the attention of the reader. It was also a really quick read once I got into it.
I rated this book 4/5 stars!

[Sumith Chowdhury · Rating 3 out of 5]

As we all know from our history books since childhood, The Constitution of India came into force on 26 January 1950. When the Constitution of India came into force on 26 January 1950, it repealed the Indian Independence Act. India ceased to be a dominion of the British Crown & became a sovereign democratic republic. The date of 26 January was chosen to commemorate the Purna Swaraj declaration of independence of 1930. All this can be deduced from what has been taught to us since our childhood days.

However, many don't know - they're quite unaware & oblivious of the countless struggles. The structure of pivotal events in Indian political & Constitutional framework which shaped the history of India; led this day to a fruition. There were countless parliamentary debates over all the minor & major details; for various ideas like freedom of speech, caste based discrimination, freedom against all discrimination, racism & right to property of individuals over zamindari system. Furthermore, many other countless changes were made in their predecessors & other constitutional counterparts!

I liked everything in this book especially the part where it criticises Jawaharlal Nehru at various contexts & at rapid intervals in the novel. I too personally find him inept & incapable of being a prime minister let alone a good honorable leader to lead a great country like India. The very foundation of racial & religious discrimination began under his nose in the form of political rule. His inability to make wise decisions along with mahatma gandhi had serious consequences in the form of total chaos. Additionally, the repeatedly repertoire repercussions on our country in terms of Hindus & Muslims segregation/division perpetual hatred continued to be persistent. Based on my research, I can proudly proclaim that he was never fit nor deserved to be the prime minister of India. Same goes for mahatma gandhi being the so-called father of our nation who incited everything.

[Harshil Mehta · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ironically, Nehru, an ideal of liberalism, brought an amendment which backed restrictions on the freedom of expression and right to equality. And Rajaji, who later founded a liberal Swatantra Party, and Ambedkar both supported this.

Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, a leader of opposition and founder of Bhartiya Jan Sangh, vehemently opposed them. Sadly, BJP, the successor of BJS, is now curtailing the freedom of expression by banning movies and books for "hurting religious sentiments". I wish they just revise what Mookerjee was fighting for.

This work explains the context which led to first amendment in the constitution. It is a collection of political commentaries, editorials, debates in the parliament and reportings in newspapers.

The frustration of Nehru and the Congress after hitbacks by the judiciary is seen throughout the book. The constitution had become an obstacle then for pushing land reforms, reservations and to treat so-called traitors (communists and right wing activists, in opinion of Nehru).

Book is dynamic. In a few parts, many stories are running parallel, in which, readers may feel the interlink is quite broken.

However, Singh tried his best to include all possible details about first amendment and its context. The book is result of rigorous study and research done by him.

In the nutshell, book is an interesting read and informative. Those who are interested in constitutional history and political history must read this book. As a classical liberal (or liberal with right leanings), I will recommend this to everyone—conservatives, radical liberals, Nehruvians, Marxists.

I hope we’ll have an absolute freedom of expression one day, right to property and right to equality when caste, gender or religion won’t matter for the State.