Standstill Agreement Kashmir

The accession instrument signed by the Maharaja, with its own single clauses, was seen as a quasi-temporary agreement between J-K and India, but just 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 entirely part of India`s constitution. , as well as the J-K membership 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. Independence Act of 1947 is not independent of the GOI Act of 1935. The unrest in Kashmir-led Kashmir was directed against the Hindu Maharaja nit against the establishment itself. The current Imbroglio is based on the same,, to honor the separation of Muslim hegemony and majoratarionism. The Aetucle produces selective references to events to advance a pro Kashmiri Muslim narrative, thus undermining the sovereignty and integrity of secular democratic India. India cannot let a de facto Muslim state operate on the ground of secular democratic India. It`s got to get worse. The Kalat khanat, on the western outskirts of Pakistan, also decided to remain independent.

It has signed a status quo agreement with Pakistan. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, bordering India and Pakistan, has decided to remain independent. She offered to sign status quo agreements with both gentlemen. Pakistan immediately agreed, but India called for further talks. It is significant that the agreement did not provide for the Dominion of India to deploy Indian troops to the state, while British India had maintained several cantons, notably in Secunderabad, as part of its “subsidiary alliance” with the state. Over the next six months, Indian troops were withdrawn from the state. [15] Pakistan immediately challenged the accession and suggested that it was fraudulent, that the Maharajah had acted under duress and that he had no right to sign an agreement with India when the status quo agreement with Pakistan was still in force. Soon the Nizams found themselves under pressure from Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (Ittehad), the Muslim nationalist party that was active in the state and withdrew from the agreement. [8] On the morning of 27 October, Qasim Rizvi, the leader of Ittehad, organized a massive demonstration by several thousand activists to block the delegation`s withdrawal. He convinced Nizam that, as India was then linked to the defence of Kashmir, it did not exceed sufficient resources to put pressure on Hyderabad. He claimed that a Hyderabad princess could get a much more favorable deal.

[9] Nizam then appointed a new delegation, dominated by members of the Executive Council opposed to the previous agreement. [10] Former Hyderabad bureaucrat Mohammed Hyder called the event the “October coup.” From that moment on, Qasim Rizvi began calling the gunfire in the Hyderabad administration. [11] Some indigenous leaders of the Principality tried to buy time by declaring that they would sign the status quo agreement, but not the accession instrument until they had time to make up their minds. In response, the Indian government considered that it would only sign status quo agreements with the states that joined the Union. [4] Until August 15, 1947, the agreed date and date of India`s independence, all but four princely states, which are Indian, signed about 560 of them, both the accession instrument and the status quo agreement with India.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • E-Mail

Comments are closed.