From: gauri@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Gauri Pavate)
Subject: Re: Kashmir Accession (was:Re: Kashmir:some questions?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:49:52 GMT

jmukherj@athena.mit.edu (Jaideep Mukherjee) writes:

regarding Mountbatten's letter to Maharaja Hari Singh of Oct. 27
1947

> The letter in question was indeed a very crucial document insofar
>as it specifically mentions that the accession question should
>be referred to the people. However I stand by original claim,
>namely, that there were two documents pertaining to the Accession
>that were signed by Mountbatten on 27th Oct. 1947 and that what
>I have quoted from above is not the *formal acceptance document* but
>a personal letter. There are two sources that appear to corroborate
>this claim: Alastair Lamb, Crisis in Kashmir: 1947 to 1966 and
>H.S. Gururaj Rao, Legal Aspects of the Kashmir Problem.

And, later

>Quote from Rao (p.40):

>"... despite the risk of repetition it is necessary to point
>out that *legally* India was under no obligation to make any
>such declaration to ascertain the wishes of the people of
>Kashmir regarding accession. It was a *political* declaration
>and is not clothed in any legality. However, *at no time*, the
>Government of India has declared that the *legal requirements*
>for accession of Kashmir to India was not complete".

	
	I have really been curious about the status of Mounbatten's
letter to Hari Singh, since the reference to a plebiscite in it 
has been quoted extensively to indicate the provisional nature of 
Kashmir's accession and the Indian govt.'s committment to holding 
a plebiscite in Kashmir. (Copy of this lettter is at the end of the 
article). As Jaideep has pointed out, Mountbatten signed two documents on
Oct. 27, 1947.  One was the document accepting the Instrument of
Accession of J&K.  The second was the acceptance letter to Hari Singh in
which reference is made to the plebiscite.  Very likely this letter is
not legally binding.  But, some important questions regarding the status 
of this letter are: Was this letter official? Did it reflect the
Indian Govt.'s committment?  The answers are partly to be found
in the reference to this letter by govt. officials themselves.  Let
me provide some quotes:

1.  From Lakhanpal's 'Essential Documents and Notes on Kashmir
Dispute':  
	Menon returned to Delhi on October 26, with the
Instrument of Accession duly executed by the Kashmir Maharaja the
same day.  Lord Mountbatten reiterated his suggestion made at the
Defence Committee meeting on October 25, that the accession of
Kashmir should be finalized through a plebiscite.  He urged "that
in the reply his Government asked him to send on their behalf to
the Maharaja accepting his accession offer he should be allowed to
add that this was conditional on the will of the people being
ascertained as soon as law and order were restored.  This
principle was at once freely accepted and unilaterally proposed
by Nehru." (This quote Lakhanpal obtains from Campbell Johnson
"Mission with Mountbatten")

	(From the above quote it is clear that the letter is an official
letter the Indian govt. asked Mountbatten on their behalf to the
Maharaja.  So to that extent, the contents of the letter can be taken
to reflect govt. committment.)

2.	From the text of telegram dated Oct. 31, 1947 from the
Indian Prime Minister to the P.M. of Pakistan:
	"Kashmir's accession to India was accepted by us at the
request of the Maharaja's Government and the most numerously
representative popular organisation in the State which is predominantly
Muslim.  Even then it was accepted on condition that as soon as
the invader has been driven from Kashmir soil and law and order
restored the people of Kashmir would decide the question of
accession."

	(Again a reference to Mountbatten's letter of acceptance
of accession, and seems to imply that the letter is to be
taken as an integral part of the entire accession package.)

3.	From Nehru's broadcast on Nov.2 1947:
	"And here let me make clear that it has been our policy
all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of
a State to either Dominion, the decision must be made by the
people of the State.  It was in accordance with this policy
that we added a proviso to the Instrument of Accesion of Kashmir."

	(Again a reference to the letter as a proviso to the
Instrument of Accession, again implying that the letter is
to be regarded as an integral part of the accession.)

	Basically it seems to me that this letter of Mountbatten
has been regarded in a different light at different times.
From Nehru's references, it seems that the letter was to be
regarded as an integral part of the accession deal.  But, at
later times it seems to have been delinked  precisely because
the legality of this letter is not clear.  The Instrument of
Accession signed by Hari Singh and the acceptance document signed
by Mountbatten are taken to indicate finality of accession.


>>	From what I have been able to gather, a disputed accession
>>meant a case where the ruler of a State did not belong to the
>>community to which the majority of his subjects belonged, and where
>>the State did not accede to the country whose majority was the
>>same as the State's.  From this point of view, the accession of
>>Hyderabad and Junagarh to India were not disputed cases, since
>>they acceeded to a country whose majority community was the same
>>as the State's.

> It would be helpful if you could either post or let me know by
>email, how you arrived at this definition of "disputed accession".

	I was trying to find out what Mountbatten meant by an
accession which 'has been the subject of dispute'.  In Balraj
Puri's book I came across this:  As late as on 1 November 1947,
the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten, in his meeting
with his counterpart Jinnah at Lahore, Pakistan, to discuss
measures to end the trouble in Kashmir, offered the following 
formula: 
	"The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that where
the ruler of a State does not belong to the community to which
the majority of his subjects belong, and where the State has
not acceded to the dominion whose majority is the same as the
State's, the question in all cases be decided by an impartial
reference to the will of the people." (This quote Puri picks
from Mountbatten's letter to Nehru, Nov.2 1947.)

	This quote seemed to illuminate what Mountbatten
may have had in mind when he talked of an accession which
has been the subject of dispute.

			Gauri.

P.S.  Text of Mountbatten's letter to Hari Singh:

My dear Maharaja Sahib,

	Your Highness' letter dated 26 October has been delivered
to me by Mr. V.P. Menon.  In the special circumstances
mentioned by your Highness my Government have decided to
accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of
India.  Consistently 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 law and order have been
restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader the
question of the State's accession should be settled by a
reference to the people.

	Meanwhile in response to your Highness' appeal
for military aid action has been taken today to send troops
of the Indian Army to Kashmir to help your own forces to defend 
your territory and to protect the lives, property and honour
of your people.

	My Government and I note with satisfaction that your
Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an
interim Government to work with your Prime Minister.

	With kind regards,
				I remain,
				Yours sincerely,
				Mountbatten of Burma.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.sri-lanka