Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Im a human being and I stand with people of Balouchistan
As a first, please let me present you with the most easily available rebuttal to the claim that The Instrument of Accession does not exist:
http://thewire.in/76079/public-first-time-jammu-kashmirs-instrument-accession-india/
Please go through the link as it also clarifies many of claims against the authenticity as well as those of the Maharaja signing this under duress.
Please let me know your thoughts on the same.
1)
a) 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.
b) 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.
c) 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.
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 !!!
Accession of Kashmir is different from accession of any other Indian Princely State as the accession has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN (including Pakistan as a member nation of UN and as a party). Pakistan as a party to the dispute administers two administrations of the State on its side of cease fire line.
http://thewire.in/76079/public-first-time-jammu-kashmirs-instrument-accession-india/
Based on the above, the document clearly exists and its location is known.
So except for the formality of submitting this document, its claim of not existing is moot.
This is an assumption that the IoA was signed under duress.
The quote by the ICJ is in reference to overarching guidelines. It is NOT in reference to the IoA.
So this is a claim and not a fact! ICJ has not provided any verdict on the authenticity nor the claim of being signed under duress.
In particular, the IoA further has signature of Lord Mountbatten, the representative for the crown. So in making your claim, you are also discrediting the authority that oversaw partition. I haven't seen any indication or claims refuting the authenticity of the IoA by the British government or its representatives.
According to the rules of partition, as overseen by the British, he has all the authority to do so.
Any claim made against the same needs to be verified by the British who were the authority on this matter with regards to partition. No such claim exists from the British.
http://thewire.in/76079/public-first-time-jammu-kashmirs-instrument-accession-india/
Please refer to the same.
I will have to get back to you on this point.
Thanks.
A rebuttal by whom ?
Who is this Venkatesh Nayak anyway who claims to have seen the original Instrument of Accession ? and who claims that it has been "rediscovered" ? His claim has zero credibility
The fact remains that India has failed to produce the original copy of the so called "Instrument of Accession" on any international forum (including UN)
And the UN doesn't consider this "Instrument of accession" as legally valid and complete as is clear from the successive resolutions by the Security Council in 1948 and 1949:
The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;
You are referring to a blog written by Mr. Nobody and presenting it as your proof ?
That's a bit rich. Didn't you just refer me to a paper by two fellows from a Stanford publication?
The Fate of Kashmir
International Law or Lawlessness?
BY VIKAS KAPUR AND VIPIN NARANG
What is their credibility?
I just provided you with a link that not only has a scan, but provides the exact location.
Pakistan and the UN can find this in the location. If not, then you can raise a brouhaha about it.
It has not been presented is not the same as it doesn't exist.
This is a blatant lie and frankly borderline intellectual dishonesty.
The UN has not made any statement to doubt the authenticity of the IoA. If so please provide this exact statement. What you are referring to below is an interpretation based on perspective.
This simply refers to a (non binding) recommendation for the method in which the dispute would be resolved, ie. through the will of people. This does not in any way make the IoA invalid. Unless you provide this exact statement by the UN that states the same. The above was because Nehru went to the UN to let the people decide.
That paper argues about the legality of the instrument of accession
Whereas in the blog you have referred to, an unknown man claims to have seen and rediscovered the original IoA. That IoA which had never been presented on an international forum and which had been reported 'either lost or stolen' by the Indian authorities in 1995
You see no difference ??
Well, the UN has a special secretariat for that purpose. Those who wish to get any documents registered with the UN simply go there with the "original" documents. But India never did that. Why ?? ... Most probably because such a document never existed ...
Actually none whatsoever.
The UN may not have made any statement to doubt the authenticity of the IoA (and I never claimed that) BUT the UN does not consider IoA as legally valid and complete.
And no, I am not referring to any interpretation, I am quoting the "Exact Words" used by the UN:
HE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Having received from the Governments of India and Pakistan in Communications, dated December
23 and December 25, 1948, respectively their acceptance of the following principles which are
supplementary to the Commission's Resolution of August 13, 1948;
1. The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be
decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/uncom2.htm
.
This is your claim and not proof that it doesn't exist. I repeat, not submitting is NOT the same as not existing. The "why" for which can only be answered by the Indian Govt. You are free to speculate nevertheless, but those only remain possible reasons, not the reason.
Since you're speculating on the "Why", let me ask you,
If Mountbatten signed this IoA, Then why hasn't the British Government backed up Pakistani claims of foul play? Why hasn't the British government come out openly to call the IoA as doctored or even under duress?
Can you share your thoughts on this?
Okay then ... Let's leave it to the readers to decide whether they see any difference between "putting forward a legal argument" and "making an outrageous claim"
You are contradicting yourself.
If the UN doesn't consider the IoA as legally valid, it has to be clear in its stance. Since no such statements exist, the rest is a mere interpretation based on the method recommended by the UN to resolve the dispute. The below does not state AT ALL that the IoA is invalid or unauthentic.
From what I see here, you're simply reading between the lines based on what you want it to read.
Self fulfilling prophecy at most.
Which fundamental rights have been trampled upon, can you please elaborate?
Because the Indian constitution does not allow for states to seek independence from the union..
So unless India is trampling on the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution of India, which provide equal rights to all of its citizens, I fail to understand what the Kashmiris have been denied here?
Since India had failed to produce that document on any international forum, the "existence" or "non-existence" of IoA doesn't make any difference now. It simply doesn't exist as it has not been registered with any international body.
The British didn't have to back up (or reject) Pakistan's claims of foul play as the IoA had become irrelevant once the accession of Kashmir to India was placed before the UN for ratification or otherwise (by the people of Jammu and Kashmir)
I am not contradicting myself
You are unable to understand a very simple thing
As per the so called IoA, Kashmir had acceded to India
But As per UN, the final accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan is yet to be decided (through a free and fair plebiscite)