FinalCountDown
<b>PKKH.tv</b>
New Recruit
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2012
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes.
His remark about Instrument of Accession.
The position was that technically, the princes became sovereign, independent powers on the Crown withdrawing from south Asia after giving dominion status to its colony. This was obviously unworkable; there were 562 princely states, and they were not viable as independent powers. The Instrument of Accession was just an orderly path into their future, rather than have 562 separate points of view come up for protracted negotiations.
The decision for partition was for two states, Punjab and Bengal. The decision for creation of Pakistan was for five states of the British colony, India. The territory of the princes never came into it.
Your assumption, that everything was to have been decided on the basis of the majority community, is a fairly common mistaken impression of many Paistani members, usually the younger ones.
As for Instrument, it is a formal authority to remain independent, or to accede to any of the states. True that It gave these states a power to remain independent, that is what the writer stated. What was wrong in it and exactly that is what the writer stated that no State emerged as problamatic or given a second thought of remaining as independent state except three disputes. Hyderabad, which wanted to remain independent, taken by India, Junagadh and Kashmir. What was wrongly stated in the article then?