Good Afternoon .......
Ok ... So you say that Maharaja of Kashmir signed the "instrument of accession" and only then your army entered Kashmir .. hence accession of J&K is legal and valid ....
Although, at first glance, India’s claim to Kashmir appears consistent with international law, a more thorough analysis suggests otherwise !!
1) International law clearly states that every treaty entered into by a member of the United Nations must be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations.
"The Instrument of Accession" was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.
2) The legality of the Instrument of Accession may also be questioned on grounds that it was obtained under coercion. The International Court of Justice has stated that there
"can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void."..... India’s military intervention in Kashmir was provisional upon the Maharaja’s signing of the Instrument of Accession. More importantly, however, the evidence suggests that Indian troops were pouring into Srinigar even before the Maharaja had signed the treaty. This fact would suggest that the treaty was signed under duress.
3) The Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, hence the Instrument of Accession can be considered without legal standing . The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was hardly in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hari Singh was in flight from the state capital, Srinigar. And it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power .....
Thus, an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Instrument of Accession shows that the accession of Kashmir to India was neither complete nor legal, as Delhi has vociferously contended for over sixty years.
Alastair Lamb (in his book, Kashmir - A disputed legacy 1846-1990) points out that the Instrument of Accession could not have been signed by the Mahrajah on 26th October as he was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 Km). There is no evidence to suggest that a meeting or communication of any kind took place on 26th October 1947. In fact it was on 27th October 1947 that the Mahrajah was informed by his MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar), the the Instrument of Accession had already been negotiated in Dehli. The Mahrajah did not in fact sign the Instrument of Accession, if at all, until 27th October 1947. This sheds doubts on the actions of the Indian regime
Moreover, further shedding doubt on the treaty`s validity, in 1995 Indian authorities claimed that the original copy of the treaty (letter of accession) was either stolen or lost !!!
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), based in Geneva, passed a resolution in 1993 proclaiming Kashmir's accession to India as bogus and null and void.
Kashmir: not an integral part of India - thenews.com.pk
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Kashmir: The origins of the dispute
http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/...hmir-fact-finding-mission-report-1995-eng.pdf
Therefore, letter of accession is lost, if not lost, null (declared by ICJ, UN Resolutions and PM Jawaharlal Nehru), if not null, void by the very people its supposed to serve. Even if its not void, the provision of the letter of accession lets the people of J&K decide their fate (according to PM Jawaharlal Nehru)
In his broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on 2nd November, 1947,
Pandit Nehru said,:
