Hi,
As far as i know
as per 1947 independence-act the princely states would assume independent status
The states would be free to choose one or other constituent assembly or can be remain independent(is geographical boundaries to be considered as per act or just an opinion of mound batten or a common practice?i believe it was a common understanding out side the law).
is the decision of the ruler final or in case of dispute plebiscite option is there in the law or was it just common understanding ?i believe, the IOA itself does not specify any provisional or conditionality of accession, But it was also a common understanding and practice.
in case of Junagadh(Hindu population with Muslim ruler) India objected the rulers decision to join Pakistan(it had a coast line) and attacked junagadh(some say not junagadh but some says other two autonomous states which were under junagadh and declared to join india. If so were they got princely state statues to make decision to join India ?) India then held a plebiscite and won the majority.
in case of Kashmir(Hindu ruler with Muslim majority) raja preferred independence but signed the Instrument of accession with India when attacked by Pakistan.
but according to Indian white paper the agreement was conditional. Here lies the problem, is this not double standard??
(The Governor-General of India at the time, Lord Mountbatten, stipulated that the permanent accession of Kashmir to the Indian Union will only be accepted once the people of Kashmir had been consulted. He noted in a letter to the Mahrajah, "the question of the state’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people". Furthermore, when the Kashmir crisis broke out in October 1947, the principle of reference to the people through plebiscite was already established as similar disputes in some other states had been resolved this way. The Indian Prime Minister J Nehru, accepted this principle and reiterated his position in a letter to the British Prime Minister on 25th October 1947, "our view, which we have repeatedly made public, is that the question of accession in any disputed territory must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people and we adhere to this view". Therefore, at the time of the so-called accession, the Indian regime accepted the principle of reference to the people. Based on this principle, the Instrument of Accession should have been provisional and conditional upon the outcome of a plebiscite.
http://www.ummah.com/kashmir/falsecl.htm )
(bearing the date 27 October 1947, the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, declared that:
“Consistently with that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance to the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government’s wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders the question of the State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people.”
http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/the-bogus-indian-claim-to-kashmir-dates-don%E2%80%99t-jive/ )
(The Governor-General of India at the time, Lord Mountbatten, stipulated that the permanent accession of Kashmir to the Indian Union will only be accepted once the people of Kashmir had been consulted. He noted in a letter to the Maharajah, “the question of the state’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people”. Furthermore, when the Kashmir crisis broke out in October 1947, the principle of reference to the people through plebiscite was already established as similar disputes in some other states had been resolved this way.
http://rupeenews.com/2010/01/01/kashmir-india-claims-that-the-article-of-accession-is-lost-did-it-ever-exist/)
it is to be noted that Nehru made several statements supporting plebiscite until 1953 or so.he gone back from his promise when us aid came to Pakistan, i see this as a lame excuse.
IS NOT ALL THIS A DOUBLE STANDARD FROM OUR SIDE?
WHAT DO YOU SAY ??
