Jammu & Kashmir became an integral part of India after Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947. The Princely ruler had done so by exercising his right as defined under the Indian Independence Act of 1947. Under this Act, the Princely states were allowed to choose to join either the Indian Dominion or Pakistan Dominion. It bears mention here that this right that devolved on the Princely states gave the rulers the choice to exercise this right only once.
It was not a right meant for the people of the Princely states but the rulers themselves were given the choice to become a part of India or the new emerging nation of Pakistan. Around those days, at the dawn of Independence, over 550 Princely states had joined India. There was only one draft and version of the Instrument of Accession which all these states had signed. Incidentally, the accession of all these states, except that of J&K, into India was handled by a ministry headed by Sardar Patel.
Maharaja Hari Singh too had signed the same Instrument of Accession which dozens of others had signed before him. The accession document that he had signed was in no way different from those signed before, and, after him by other rulers. Yes, some Princely states had indeed signed the relevant instrument much later than the ruler of J&K. One of the most famous cases of the Instrument of Accession being signed later than J&K was that of the Princely state of Bhopal. Its hereditary ruler Nawab Hamidullah Khan signed the accession document on April 30, 1949, thus making it an Indian state thereafter.
Incidentally, Bhopal, which was one of the last Princely states to sign the Instrument of Accession, serves as the capital of Madhya Pradesh now. Despite the fact that Bhopal has signed this document over 18 months after J&K, no questions are asked about it. The reason is that it was not mandatory for the Princely states to sign the accession document before Independence Day (August 15, 1947). Further, there was no deadline or last date before which the princely hereditary rulers were to join either of the Dominions.
Maharaja Hari Singh is accused by some uninformed quarters of delaying the signing of the document. These people also say that this delay caused trouble in J&K but this is a patent falsehood. As early as in 1930, at a roundtable conference of princes in London, he had clearly demonstrated his Indian-ness. This was the reason he was not liked by the British who conspired against him and helped Pakistan grab a part of the territory ruled by him.
It was mainly the contiguity of J&K to both India and Pakistan which created problems for Maharaja Hari Singh. He had signed a Standstill Agreement with the Dominion of Pakistan in August 1947 and offered to sign it with India also. However, there were no takers for his offer of Standstill Agreement in Delhi, as then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was not favourably disposed towards him. There is nothing on record to show that the Maharaja was ever in doubt about his joining India.
There is thus no reason to question or insinuate about the finality of accession of J&K to India. Incidentally, in its verdict on the bunch of petitions relating to Article 370, the Supreme Court had said: J&K does not have any ‘internal sovereignty’ distinct from the powers and privileges enjoyed by other States in the country. It had no sovereignty after the signing of the Instrument of Accession (IoA) and Proclamation issued by Yuvraj Karan Singh on November 25, 1949. The Proclamation reflected the full and final surrender of sovereignty by J&K, through its sovereign ruler, to India – to her people who are sovereign.
Some Kashmir-based politicians often try to build a narrative questioning the integration of J&K with India. They point out that like India, of which it was a part, J&K also had a constitution of its own. However, the Supreme Court comments on this so-called Constitution should disabuse them of this notion. It had said: The Constitution of J&K was only to further define the relationship between the Union of India and the State of J&K. The relationship was already defined by the IoA, the Proclamation of November 1949 and, by the Constitution of India. The Constitution of J&K was only a document of internal governance and not a parallel Constitution. It had `inferior’ status vis-à-vis the Constitution of India.
Once the correct legal position and facts pertaining to the accession of J&K to India are explained properly, any doubts about its legality as also finality evaporate. Incidentally, Maharaja Hari Singh had acceded whole of his state to India, all territories. The territories of POJK, Gilgit-Baltistan were snatched away by Pakistan in war and we could not take back these areas as Nehru halted the Indian Army in its tracks when it was on a winning spree.
Some day in future, these areas which are nowadays broadly called Pakistan Occupied Jammu Kashmir (POJK) and G-B, will be back with India. That day, the unanimous resolution of February 22, 1994, passed on these areas will be redeemed.
