ACCESSION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE – HISTORICAL & LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

Author(s): Adarsh Sein Anand

Source: Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 43, No. 4 (October-December 2001), pp.
455-468
Published by: Indian Law Institute
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43953394
Accessed: 21-10-2019 04:36 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian Law Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the Indian Law Institute

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE

Volumi- 43 OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001 NUMBER 4

ACCESSION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE -

HISTORICAL & LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

Adarsh Sein Anand*

GEOGRAPHICALLY, PRE-October 1947, the State of Jammu and

Kashmir fell into four natural regions. In the South lies Jammu, the winter
capital of the State; in the centre is the valley of Kashmir, which contains
the summer capital, Srinagar; to the north is Gilgit and between the
Kashmir Valley and Tibet is the province of Ladakh. The State covered
an area of 84,471 square miles and included Gilgit, areas in Pakistan
Occupied Kashmir (POK), Kashmir Valley, Ladakh and Jammu. At
present, almost 50 percent of the area is not under the control of the
Government of Jammu and Kashmir - it is under occupation of Pakistan
or China.
, The Indian native states, of which the State of Jammu and Kashmir
was one such state, were those areas in the Indian subcontinent, which
were tor internal purposes outside the administrative, legislative and
judicial sphere of the British Indian Government. Each such state had a
hereditary ruler, who, subject to the paramountcy of the British Crown,
exercised, with some exceptions, unlimited power over the state ruled by
him. These native states covered more than half the area of the Indian
subcontinent and were referred to as Indian India. The other part of India
comprising the provinces and certain other areas was referred to as
British India. The rulers of the native states were sovereign subject to the
paramountcy of the British Crown. On her assumption of direct rule in
India in 1858, the Queen Empress through a proclamation declared to the
native princes of India that all treaties and engagements made with them
by or under the authority of the East India Company would be honoured
and scrupulously maintained and that the rights, dignity and honour of
native princes would be maintained.
The aftermath oí the Second World War and the assumption of power
by a Labour Ministry in England, brought about a change in the British
policy towards India. The Secretary of State for India, Lord Pethick
Lawrence, announced on 19.2.1946 the decision of the British Government
to send a delegation of three Cabinet Ministers to India to find a solution

* Former Chief Justice of India.

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
456 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LA W INSTITUTE [Vol. 43 : 4

for the problem of India. The delegation popularly kno

Mission' arrived in India on 23.3.1946. On 25.5.1946 the Cabinet Mission
circulated a memorandum dated 12.5.1946, in regard to the native states.
In this memorandum, the Mission affirmed that on the withdrawal of
British Government from India, the rights of the states which flowed from
their relationship with the Crown would no longer be possible to exist and
the rights surrendered by the states to the paramount power would revert
to the rulers of those states when the two new dominions of India and
Pakistan are created. Paragraph 5 of the memorandum read:
When a new fully self-governing or independent Government or
Governments come into being in British India, His Majesty's
Government's influence with these Governments will not be such
as to enable them to carry out the obligations of paramountcy.
Moreover, they cannot contemplate that British troops would be
retained in India for this purpose. Thus, as a logical sequence and
in view of the desires expressed to them on behalf of the Indian
States, His Majesty's Government will cease to exercise the
power of paramountcy. This means that the rights of the States
which flow from their relationship to the Crown will no longer
exist and that all the rights surrendered by the States to the
paramount power will return to the States. Political arrangements
between the States on the one side and the British Crown and
British India on the other will thus be brought to an end. The void
will have to be filled either by States entering into a federal
relationship with the successor Government or Governments in
British India, or failing this, entering into particular political
arrangements with it or them.
The Cabinet Mission, however, advised the rulers of the native states
to enter into negotiations with the successor government or governments
and evolve a scheme of the precise form of their relationship. On 20.2. 1 947,
the British Government announced that independence would be granted
to British India. This was followed by another statement on 3.6.1947
setting out its plan for the transfer of power. The plan, inter alia, provided
that the Muslim majority areas in British India should constitute the
dominion of Pakistan and the Hindu majority areas in British India the
dominion of India. In this plan the position of the princely states was dealt
with in the following manner:
His Majesty's Government wish to make it clear that the decisions
announced above (about partition) relate only to British India and
that their policy towards Indian States contained in the Cabinet
Mission Memorandum of 12.5.1946, (Cmd.6835) remains
unchanged.

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2()()l| ACCESSION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE 457

Thus, it would be seen that on the withdrawal o

princely states were to become independent and th
division of British India was not to apply ipso facto
the Cabinet Mission nor the British Governmen
suggestions regarding the future of the princely states
was made clear was that the sovereignty was to rev
these native states. Lord Mountbatten, as the Cr
addressed the Chamber of Princes on 25.7.1947. He
and their representatives that although legal
independent, they should accede to one or the other
mind the geographical contiguity of their states1 . L
the Chamber of Princes that accession of the state to ei
was to be under the Cabinet Mission Memorandum
contemplated surrender to the dominion of three subjec
external affairs and communications. Lord Mountba
circulated for discussion a Draft Instrument of Acce
provided for surrender to the appropriate dominio
three specified subjects and stated that the dom
authority over the internal autonomy of the state.
either dominion by executing an instrument of acc
Ruler and accepted by the Governor-General of the
The decision whether to accede or not and to which
exclusive right and discretion of the Ruler. In the
accession was to be made under section 6 of the Gov
1935 as adopted by section 9 of the Indian Indepe
On 15.8.1947, India became independent. In ac
Cabinet Mission plan of May 1946, following the crea
of India and Pakistan, Kashmir bordering on both In
like any other native state, three alternatives, viz.,
independence, to accede to Pakistan or to accede to
the decision vested exclusively in the Ruler acco
Government's declared policy.
The Quit India Movement in British India had i
where the National Conference had launched 'Quit K
with renewed vigour from 28.6.1938 demanding
Singh should quit the State bag and baggage and lea
State to decide their own future by having a respon
gained more momentum in 1944. The Maharaja'
efforts to crush the Quit Kashmir Movement'. Arres
followed. On 15.8.1947, most of the leaders of the N
and the Muslim Conference were in prison. The mov

I. Keesing's Contemporary Archives, 9/16/8/1947, p. 876

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
458 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE | Vol. 43 : 4

not die. In the absence of British help which the Mahara

getting, the Maharaja found himself in a tight comer. "H
idea of becoming a part of India, which was being dem
Pakistan which was a Muslim State. He thought of indep
therefore, offered to sign a standstill agreement with
Pakistan aimed at continuing the existing relationship pe
decision regarding the future of the State.
No standstill agreement came to be concluded between
India though the Foreign Secretary to the Government o
15.8.1947 indicated to the Maharaja that the Government
agreeable to have a standstill agreement with the Governm
and Kashmir. It was followed by the visit of Private S
Jinnah to Srinagar and "His Highness was told that he wa
sovereign , that he alone had the power to give accession
consult nobody, that he should not care for the National
Sheikh Abdullah ... that he need not delegate any of h
people of the State and that Pakistan would not touch a h
or take away an iota of his power " 3 if he acceded to
second week of August, however, there occurred a Poonch
the authority of the Maharaja. The State Government foun
in Poonch was due to infiltration from Pakistan but the ch
by Pakistan Government. On the other hand, the Pakista
charged the Government of Jammu & Kashmir with att
villages in the State4 . At the same time there started an e
from Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan did not une
the charge of economic blockade but pleaded 'special circ
difficulties in sending supplies to the State due to reluctan
of lorries to carry the supplies between Rawalpindi and K
Pakistan Government was pleading 'special circumstan
Muslim League's official organ, wrote on 24.8.1947, " the
to tell the Maharaja of Kashmir that he must make his c
Pakistan . Should Kashmir fail to join Pakistan, " the g
trouble would inevitably ensue". This threat alarmed
Kashmir. Looking to the upsurge in the State, Sheikh Ab
in jail was released on 29.9.1947. On 20.10.1947, a la
several thousand tribesmen armed with "bren guns, machin
and flame throwers" attacked the frontiers of the State

2. Biown, W.N., The United States and India and Pakistan 162
1953).
3. Mahajan, M.C., Accession of Kashmir to India: The Inside St
1950).
4. White Papers on Jammu and Kashmir , Documents, Part 1 , pp
1948).

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2001 I ACCESSION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE 459

Kashmir. "Srinagar trembled before the danger

invasion". It was alleged that the tribesmen were bein
Margaret Bourke White wrote in her work, Halfway
Certainly these miniature ballistic establishme
factories in the tribal areas) would hardly explain
other heavy modern weapons and the two aeropla
the invaders were equipped. In Pakistan towns close
arms were handed out before daylight to tribesmen
the front steps of Muslim League Headquarters
quite the same thing as though the invaders were
directly by the Government of Pakistan. Still Paki
with one political party - the Muslim League.
The tribal invasion caused grave devastation
indecision of Maharaja Hari Singh gave place to de
to a genuine concern for his personal safety. On 25.1
appointed Sheikh Abdullah as the emergency admini
were fast approaching Srinagar, destroying and loot
their way. The State was in imminent peril. Sheikh
Maharaja that if the State was to be saved, he must
ask for immediate military help. This advice paved th
of Jammu and Kashmir to India. Maharaja also found
and he addressed a letter to Lord Mountbatten, the
India, stating:

1 have to inform your Excellency that a grave e

arisen in my State and request the immediate assi
Government. As your Excellency is aware, the Stat
Kashmir has not acceded to either the domini
Pakistan. Geographically my State is contiguous
them. Besides, my State has a common boundary w
of Soviet Socialist Republic and with China. In
relations the dominions of India and Pakistan cann
tact. I wanted to take time to decide to which dom
accede or whether it is not in the best interest of both
and my State to stand independent, of course with fri
with both.

After giving an account of the tribal invasion, the le

With the conditions obtaining at present in my Stat

emergency of the situation as it exists, I have no op
tor help from the Indian dominion. Naturally, the

5. Margaret Bourke White, Halfway to Freedom 208.

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
4M) JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 43 : 4

the help asked for by me without my State acced

dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to d
attach the Instrument of Accession for acceptance
Government.

Attached to the letter was an Instrument of Accession duly signed by the

Ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh. The operative part of the same read:6

Whereas, the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as

from the fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an
independent dominion known as INDIA, and that the Government
of India Act, 1935, shall with such omissions, additions,
adaptations and modifications as the Governor-General may by
order specify be applicable to the dominion of India;

And whereas the Government of India Act, 1935, as adopted by

the Governor-General, provides that an Indian state may accede
to the Dominion of India by an Instrument of Accession executed
by the Ruler thereof;

Now therefore I Shriman Indar Mahander Rajrajeshwar

Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singh Ji Jammu Kashmir Naresh Tatha
Tibet adi Deshadhipathi Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir in the
exercise of my sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby
execute this my Instrument of Accession ..."

Lord Mountbatten, the Governor- General of India indicated his acceptance

in the following words:7
I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession.
Dated this twenty-seventh day of October Ninteen Hundred and
Forty-Seven.

This Instrument of Accession was in no way different from that

executed by some 500 other states. It was unconditional, voluntary and
absolute. It was not subject to any exceptions. It bound the State of
Jammu and Kashmir and India together legally and constitutionally. The
execution of the Instrument of Accession by the Maharaja and its
acceptance by the Governor-General finally settled the issue of accession
of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
After accepting the Instrument of Accession, Lord Mountbatten wrote
a personal DO letter to Maharaja Hari Singh in reply to his letter, which

6. AS. Anand, The Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir - its Development and
Comments 74 -75 (3rd ed. 1998). For the text of the Instrument of Accession see,
Appendix III at 382-383. For full text of the letter see, White Papers on Jammu &
Kashmir 46-47 (1948).
7. Alan Campbell Johnson, Mission with Mountbatten 225.

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 2()()1| ACCESSION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE 461

had accompanied the Instrument of Accession but w

Instrument of Accession. In his letter Lord Mountbatten wrote:
... my Government have decided to accept the accession of
Kashmir State to the dominion of India. In consistence with their
policy 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 with the wishes of the people of the
State, it is my Government's wish that, as soon as lawr and order
have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader,
the question of State's accession should be settled by a reference
to the people.
This statement has figured as a controversial feature of Kashmir's
accession to India. Critics of the accession have steadfastly maintained
that this stipulation renders the accession conditional and that the question
of State Is accession has to be settled by a reference to the people of the
State. That, however, is not so. The 'wish' was at the most a pious hope.
It did not render the accession conditional. The only documents relevant
to the accession were the Instrument of Accession and the Indian
Independence Act and both the constitutional documents did not
contemplate any conditions and, therefore, there was no question of the
accession being conditional.
M.C. Mahajan rightly opined that the "finality which is statutory
cannot be made contingent on conditions imposed outside the powers of
the statute. Any rider which militates against the finality is clearly ultra
vires and has to be rejected"8 . The Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir never
accepted the view of Lord Mountbatten. That 'wish', therefore, had no
legal effect. Pakistan, however, to suit itself, refused to recognize the
accession. It called the accession as an act of "cowardly ruler" engineered
with the 'aggressive' help of the Indian Government. It charged that the
accession had been obtained by force. The official organ of Muslim
League - Dawn , on 5.1 1.1947 from Karachi, quoted Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan
saying:
We do not recognise this accession. The accession of Kashmir to
India is a fraud, perpetrated on the people of Kashmir by its
cowardly Ruler with the aggressive help of Indian Government.
Alan Campbell Johnson in his treatise 4 Mission with Mountbatten ' writes:
Indeed, the State s Ministry, under Patel's direction, went out of
its way to take no action which could be interpreted as forcing
Kashmir's hand and to give assurances that accession to Pakistan
would not be taken amiss by India.

8. Supra note 3 at 19-20.

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
462 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LA W INSTITUTE [Vol. 43 : 4

On his return to London, Lord Mountbatten narrated:9

Had he (the Maharaja of Kashmir) acceded to Pakistan b
August 14, the future Government of India had allowed m
give His Highness an assurance that no objection whatever
be raised by them.
Moreover, it cannot be denied that the Maharaja of Kashmir o
accede to the Indian dominion after the assaults and raids had started on
the State from across the borders. When at his meeting with Lord
Mountbatten on 1.11.1947, Mr. Jinnah claimed that the accession of
Kashmir to India was based on violence, Lord Mountbatten replied, "The
accession had indeed been brought about by violence, but the violence
came from tribesmen, for whom Pakistan, and not India was responsible".
The accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India imposed
an obligation on the dominion of India to defend the State. To drive the
invader out of the State was the task which the dominion of India was
asked to face as soon as it finally accepted the Instrument of Accession.
The requests and warnings of Government of India to the Government of
Pakistan to deny assistance and bases to the invaders met with no response.
India, therefore, decided to lodge a complaint with the Security Council.
India invoked Article 35 of the Charter of United Nations and
complained to the Security Council against Pakistan. Under Article 35, a
member is entitled to bring before the Security Council a 'situation',
which imperils international peace. The Government of India appealed to
the Security Council a 'situation', which imperils international peace.
The Government of India appealed to the Security Council, to ask the
Government of Pakistan:10

(1) to prevent Pakistan Government personnel, military and civil,

participating in or assisting the invasion of Jammu and Kashmir
State;

(2) to call upon other Pakistani nationals to desist from taking any
part in the fighting in Jammu and Kashmir State;
(3) to deny to the invaders:

(a) accesses to and use of its territory for operations against

Kashmir;

(b) military and other supplies;

(c) all kinds of aid that might tend to prolong the present
struggle.

9. A S. Anand, Supra note 6 at 78.

10. United Nations Security Council Document No. S/628, dated 2.1.1948.

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 2001] ACCESSION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE 463

On 15.1.1948, there was delivered to the Secretary

Security Council a letter from Pakistan Government em
the Indian charges. The letter made counter charges ag
amongst others, included:11
(1) a persistent attempt to undo the partition schem
(2) a pre-planned and extensive campaign of geno
Muslims in East Punjab and Punjab princely St
(3) the acquisition of Kashmir's accession by frau

Throughout the prolonged deliberations of the

spokesmen concentrated their attention almost exclusi
invasion and the legal fact of Kashmir's accession t
indeed, the limited issue referred to the United Nations
concluded his opening statement by declaring:12
We have referred to the Security Council a
straightforward issue. . . the withdrawal and expulsion o
and the invaders from the soil of Kashmir and the
stoppage of the fight are ... the first and the only ta
we have to address ourselves.

The Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Sir Mohammed Zafarullah Khan,

advanced the same thesis as appeared in the Dawn , dated 5.1 1.1947, in
the Security Council. He even alleged that the Maharaja had no authority
to sign the Instrument of Accession as he had lost the confidence <of his
people13. A position which does not stand any legal scrutiny. Did the
Maharaja have the right to sign the Instrument of Accession for his State
or not? During the British Administration in India, the Crown dealt with
the Maharaja alone. It recognised him only. Also, When the Government
of Pakistan concluded a 'Standstill Agreement' with the Maharaja, it did
so on the basis that the Maharaja was the sole representative of the State.
These associations were perfectly justified for, in a monarchical form of
government, it is the monarch who personifies and represents the state.
And the Government of India, in its relations with the Maharaja, acted in
accordance with law and recognised international practice. The In itrument
oí Accession was required to be signed by the Ruler only and every state
which acceded to either of the dominion did so by executing an instrument
of accession signed by its Ruler and accepted by the Governor-General
of the concerned dominion.

1 1. Id. No. S/646 dated 15.1.1948.

12. United Nations Security Council Verbatim Report No. S/P.V.227 dated
15.1.1948.
13. Id. no. S/P/V/ 534, dated 6.3.1951.

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
464 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 43 : 4

The Security Council, in accepting India's complaint, d

recognise the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashm
indeed the legality of the accession was not the point
brought before the Security Council. It is important t
question of aggression alone fell within the competence
Council. The Indian spokesman's statement was followe
address by Sir Mohammed Zafarullah Khan of Pakista
brilliant eloquence 'broadened' the issue and sought to
disputes between India and Pakistan together. Frankly sp
this stage that the 'aggressor' and 'victim of aggression'
par in the Security Council. The result of these deliberati
of the Security Council was the resolution dated 17.1.1
India and Pakistan accepted. In this resolution the Securi
upon India and Pakistan "to immediately take all measure
power (including public appeals to their people) calcula
the situation and to refrain from making any statements
or causing to be done or permitting any acts which migh
situation ...."14
On 27.1.1948, India and Pakistan submitted draft pr
President of the Security Council on the appropriate me
the Kashmir dispute.
In the Security Council now the victim and the aggress
at par. No progress was made in the Security Council
entered a stalemate. At home, the internal administration
being governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution
March 5, 1948, Sir Hari Singh issued a proclamation, inte
My Council of Ministers shall take appropriate steps, a
restoration of normal conditions have been completed,
a National Assembly based upon adult suffrage, ha
regard to the principle that the number of representat
each voting area should, as far as practicable, be propor
the population of that area.

The Constitution to be framed by the National Assemb

provide adequate safeguards for the minorities an
appropriate provisions guaranteeing freedom of c
freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
The National Assembly shall, as soon as the work of fra
new constitution is completed, submit it through the
Ministers for my acceptance.
This proclamation was followed by yet another proclam
20, 1949 issued by Maharaja Hari Singh, which read:

14. United Nations Security Council Document No. S/651 dated

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
20011 ACCESSION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE 465

Now, therefore, I hereby direct and declare all powers an

functions whether legislative, executive or judicial which a
exercisable by me in relation to the State and its governme
including in particular my right and prerogative of making law
of issuing proclamations, orders and ordinances, or remitting,
commuting or reducing sentences and of pardoning offenders
shall during the period of my absence from the State be exercisable
by Yuvraj Karan Singh Bahadur.
On 1st May, 1951, Yuvraj Karan Singh issued a proclamation w
inter alia , contained the following directions:
(1) A Constituent Assembly consisting of representatives o
people, elected on the basis of adult franchise, shall be consti
forthwith for the purposes of framing a Constitution for
State of Jammu and Kashmir;
(2) The Vote at election shall be direct and [by] secret ballo
(3) The Constituent Assembly shall have power to act
notwithstanding any vacancy in the membership thereof;
(4) The Constituent Assembly shall frame its own agenda and make
rules for the governing of its procedure and the conduct of its
business.

The idea of convening a Constituent Assembly for Jammu and Kashmir

State was conceived during the 'Quit Kashmir Movement' even before
the partition of India was contemplated and would have been implemented
but for the invasion of the State, after the partition of India, by the
tribesmen from across the Pakistan territory. When in 1948, the National
Conference formed an interim government in the State under the
proclamation of Sir Hari Singh, dated 5.3.1948, it was expressly declared
in paragraph 4 of the proclamation that, as soon as normal conditions
were restored, steps would be taken to convene a National Assembly
based upon adult suffrage, to frame a Constitution for the State. The
convening of the Constituent Assembly in 1951 was, thus, a natural
outcome of the desire of the people of the State to have a democratic
government responsible to the legislature, elected by the people. The
Constituent Assembly was invested with the authority to frame the
Constitution for the State and to decide its future.
" Today is our day of destiny. A day which comes only once in the life
of a nation... after centuries we have reached the harbour of our freedom
which for the first time in history will enable the people of Jammu &
Kashmir , whose duly elected representatives are gathered here , to shape
the future of their country after wise deliberation and mould their future
organs of the Government. No person and no power can stand between
them and the fulfilment of this their historic task ..." declared Sheikh

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
466 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LA W INSTITUTE [Vol. 43 : 4

Mohammed Abdullah in his inaugural address to the Consti

and added that the Assembly shall give "its reasoned conclu
accession The Constituent Assembly of the Jammu and
which was convened on the basis of adult suffrage com
representatives of the people of the State and which re
people of the entire State in unequivocal terms ratified the
to India, through a well-considered resolution of the Consti
on 15.2.1954, after great deal of debate, discussion and
The debate was free and frank. The task of constitution m
a decisive phase when in the 12th session of the Constituen
Jammu and Kashmir held from September 29,1956 to
1956, the drafting committee on October 10, 1956 present
Constitution. After detailed discussions the Constitution w
and adopted on 17th November, 1956. Sections 1 to 8 and 1
with the State territory, permanent residents, relationsh
with the Union of India came into force at once. The rem
came into force on 26th January, 1957, which day is refe
commencement of the Constitution.
The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is a written document,
having 158 sections and seven schedules. The Preamble to the Constitution
reads:

We, the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, having

solemnly resolved, in pursuance of the accession of this State to
India which took place on the twenty-sixth day of October, 1947,
to further define the existing relationship of the State with the
Union of India as an integral part thereof and to secure to
ourselves - Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of
thought , expression , belief faith and worship ¡Equality of status
and of opportunity; and to promote among us all ¡Fraternity
assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation.In
our Constituent Assembly this seventeenth day of November,
1956, do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this
constitution .

The people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, thus, finally settled the
controversy regarding accession through the Constituent Assembly
comprising of their elected representatives. No one, even the worst critic,
has ever doubted the representative nature of the Constituent Assembly.
Self-determination is a one-time slot - the people of the State took a final
decision and, therefore, the question of any further 'self-determination'
or 'plebiscite' does not arise either legally or morally. The 'wishes' of the
people of Jammu and Kashmir have been duly ascertained through the
duly elected Constituent Assembly. The State's accession to India,
therefore, cannot any longer be questioned or doubted. The 1 954 resolution

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
20()l| ACCESSION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE 467

of the Constituent Assembly was followed by incorpora

in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, which read
Jam m it and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part
India". The use of the expression 'is and shall be ' is sign
both of the past and the future relationship of the State
India. This section is in affirmation and reiteration of the desire of the
people of the State to be an integral part of India. It has been put beyond
the powers of the State legislature to amend by virtue of the mandate of
section 147 of the Constitution. This provision was apparently incorporated
in order to "avoid any fissiparous tendencies raising their ugly heads in
the future".
It, thus, follows that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to the Union
of India is legal and constitutional, which has been 'ratified' by the
people of the State also. It is, therefore, complete, final, legal and
irrevocable. The sovereign British Parliament vested the power to sign
the Instrument of Accession in the ruler in his own discretion under the
Indian Independence Act, 1947 read with the Government of India Act,
1935. Its acceptance was within the power of the Governor-General. The
Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir was signed by the Ruler
and accepted by the Governor-General of India. As per the assurance
given to the Security Council, the question of accession has been finally
set at rest by the people of the State through their elected representatives
in 1954 and 1957. If the accession of Kashmir has to be reopened, the
same reopening would imply going back 54 years and reopening the
whole question of the independence of India and Pakistan.
It is interesting to note that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to
India is quite analogous to the annexation of Texas by the United Status
of America. When Mexico separated from the Spanish Empire and set up
as an independent Republic, Texas was an integral part of the new state.
Later, Texas revolted against the Mexican authorities and established
itself as an independent entity. The independent status of Texas was
recognised by the United States of America and the principal powers of
Europe. In 1844, the Government of Texas, threatened by the menace of
predatory incursions from Mexico, requested the Government of the
United States of America to annex the State. This proposal was sanctioned
by the American Congress in a joint resolution in March 1845. After this
sanction, America sent an army to defend the western frontiers of Texas.
The Government of Mexico strongly protested against and alleged violation
of the rights of Mexico and even the diplomatic intercourse between the
two Governments was suspended. The Mexican protest evoked the
following reply from the Government of the United States of America:

The Government of United States did not consider this joint

resolution as a violation of any of the rights of Mexico, or that it

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
468 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTI! UTE [Vol. 43 : 4

offered any just cause or offence to its Governmen

Republic of Texas as an independent power, owing no
to Mexico, and constituting no part of her territory
sovereignty and jurisdiction.
In Texas case it has never been contended that the annexation was not
valid nor was the action of the United States to send an army to defend
the western frontiers of Texas ever questioned. The case of accession of
Kashmir stands at a much stronger footing than that of Texas and the
criticism regarding the validity of the accession of Jammu and Kashmi
to India is wholly meaningless and unsustainable - the accession of the
State of Jammu and Kashmir to India is legal, final and binding. Th
question of holding a 'plebiscite' in Jammu and Kashmir is thus, legally
not permissible. The theory is flawed on legal as well as moral grounds.
Even the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan has accepted this
position. He has clearly said that United Nations resolutions are no longer
implementable obviously because it was the entire State of Jammu and
Kashmir, including, the areas of POK and areas given by Pakistan t
China, which had acceded to India and unless all those areas were
restored to India, the pre-condition for holding plebiscite under United
Nations resolutions, is impracticable and un-implementable. The clock
cannot be put back - one must look forward only.
Since a part of the territory of the State is under the occupation of an
invader, the holding of elections in the entire State is not possible. The
Constitution takes into account this situation and provides that till that
area "ceases to be so occupied and the people residing in that area elect
their representatives", twenty four seats in the legislative assembly shall
remain vacant and shall not be taken into account for reckoning the total
membership of the Assembly.
Article 253 has been made applicable to the State in a modified form
with a proviso that no decision affecting the disposition of the State shall
be made by the Government of India except with the consent of the State
Government. Legally speaking, even if a government in Jammu and
Kashmir wanted to give its consent to secession of the State, a position
otherwise not permissible under the Constitution of India, the State
Government would be banned under section 3 of its own Constitution to
give such consent. Section 147 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir
prohibits any amendment of section 3, which is a basic feature of the State
Constitution. Thus, holding of a plebiscite would be repugnant to the
constitutions of India and Kashmir.
In conclusion, it can be said without any reservation that the accession
of Jammu and Kashmir State to India on 26th October 1947 is legally
sound, constitutionally binding and irrevocable.

This content downloaded from 157.34.114.163 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:36:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms