The accession instrument signed by the Maharaja, with its own unique clauses, was seen as a quasi-temporary agreement between J-K and India, but like other princely states, namely Hyderabad and Travancore, they had their own clauses, which were inserted into their accession instruments, which were watered down when the time came and that these princely states were fully part of India`s constitution, as were the J-K accession clauses. In this sense, the current revocation of Article 370 is exactly under the constitution of India and it is high time that Kashmiris accepted that they are legitimate citizens of India and that they deny the external influences that indoctrinate them and strive to lead peaceful and prosperous lives. The entire Indian nation will support them in this regard. So small technical equipment as a basis to question the authenticity of the J-K IoA, perhaps not to advance the debate, because the crash is visible in at least one other IoA of which I was able to obtain a copy of the National Archives. In the Mysore IoA, for example, the acceptance date was first mentioned as the “ninth” day of August in black ink. Lord Mountbatten seems to have entered the correct date, namely the “sixteenth”, while adding his signature. The correction is done in green ink – the same color he used to sign his acceptance of every IoA I looked at. In the case of the status quo agreement with Mysore, the Tauan signed the signed portion of the Secretary of the States Department of the Dominion. Thus, the name of V.
P. Menon had to be entered manually at the end of this document.  See www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/instrument_of_accession.html, called October 22, 2016. This document will be surprisingly viewed on the website of the Commissioner of Services and Services, Hydebarad-IV, on 22 October 2016. The draft status quo agreement was drawn up on 3 June 1947 by the political department of the British-Indian government. The agreement provided that all administrative agreements of “common interest” between the British Crown and a particular signatory state would be kept unchanged between the signatory regime (India or Pakistan) and the State until new agreements are concluded. A separate timetable set out issues of common interest. During the discussion, Jawaharlal Nehru, India`s future prime minister, expressed doubts about whether the agreement should cover only “administrative” issues.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the future Governor General of Pakistan, spoke in his favour.  The Indian Independence Act of 1947 laid the legal basis for the British withdrawal from the subcontinent and guaranteed division. On June 3, 1947, a status quo agreement was drawn up by the British-Indian government to ensure that “all administrative arrangements between the British Crown and the Spring State be maintained without amendment between the signatory states (India and Pakistan) and the State until new agreements are reached.” Instead, it signed a “status quo agreement” with Pakistan to make services such as trade, travel and communications uninterrupted.Leave a reply →