International Journal of Applied Research
Vol. 2, Issue 3, Part A (2016)
The myth of the instrument of accession: A Re-appraisal
For a majority of the Pakistanis the status quo in Kashmir is illegitimate. They consider the outcome of the partition of British India as a fall out of the conspiratorial scheming on part of the British as well as the top leadership of the Indian National Congress. For them it was neither fair nor just. The border drawn by the Radcliffe Commission was controversial, the division of civil and military assets inequitable, and, most importantly, the accession of princely states was improper. The most glaring injustice was created by the accession in to India, of the state of Jammu and Kashmir-a Muslim majority state under a Hindu ruler, Maharajah Hari Singh. There is also a widely-prevalent popular perception in Pakistan that Hindu leaders have long oppressed the Muslim population of Jammu and Kashmir, and the questionable accession into the Indian Union has continuously deprived the Kashmiris their right to self-determination. They often emphasize the UN Security Council’s demand for a ‘free and impartial plebiscite,’ but overlook the other UN demands in the same resolution which include, inter alia, a cessation of fighting; withdrawal of forces, “tribesmen,” and “Pakistani nationals not normally resident in Jammu and Kashmir”; prevention of any aid to intruders”; and the creation of “proper conditions” for such a vote to take place. India’s determination to hold on to the state of Jammu and Kashmir is taken as proof that only through extensive oppression can the Indian state suppress the desire for Kashmiri self-determination. This popular perception is both a product and a cause of Pakistani government policies. The (so-called) Indian abuses are amplified in the Pakistani press and undue emphasis on the plight of the Kashmiris for both the domestic and international audiences pushes the leadership toward policies that require the use of force to correct this injustice. At the root of all these allegations is the perceived sense of injustice and conspiracy regarding the Instrument of Accession that was signed between Lord Mountbatten, the Governor General of India and Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir in the immediate aftermath of the intrusion of the tribal invaders into the state. In the light of the recent debates on the status of Kasmir and its equation with the Indian Union and Pakistan, this paper attempts to make a fresh appraisal of the contentious issues of date and time of the signing of the instrument of accession between the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir and the Government of India (If at all, it was signed on the date as claimed by India!).
How to cite this article:
Dr. Suryakant Nath. The myth of the instrument of accession: A Re-appraisal. Int J Appl Res 2016;2(3):17-21.