If you look in the old Sn style guide (this might be the right section, and it might be the wrong section), you will find that 1 is a permisible number literal and doen't count a a magic number. You might be better with methods:-Since those numbers are encapsulated in the methods, they will not be visible anywhere else and won't cause confusion; you might wish to add comments explaining the workings of the methods, and the circumstances in which they might fail. By the way; there is no uch thing as a number contant −1.
While I understand your good intentions, zero-based indices are a convention in Java so your code will be more readable to experienced Java programmers if you stick with that convention. Trying to convert to one-based indices will just make your code more complicated and, in my opinion, convoluted. If for some reason you need to display a one-based sequence based on a zero-based index, just make the adjustment on the fly as you are printing out.
This is a good example of how not following conventions leads to the opposite of what you're going for. That name is very difficult to read because you did not follow the convention of using underscore (_) to separate words in a constant name. Also, I don't really see a constant like this making the code more readable. If anything, it makes the code unwieldy and annoying to read.
This morning, I wrote:. . . there is no uch thing as a number contant −1.
Apart from the many spellling errrors, that should have read number literal. Sorry.
Most things in Java® and indexed starting 0, which means when you get to index 1, you have moved 1 place from the first index.
People count 1‑based which means when you count 1, you have counted 1 item. I can think of two 1‑based things in Java®: the number of the index for the % tags (see the Formatter documentation) and order of fields in a reult set and other database results. As Stephan says, get used to both; you will find that integer arithmetic and 0‑based indexing match each other well.