Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Instrument of Accession

The Instrument of Accession was a legal document executed by the rulers of India's princely states in 1947, enabling their accession to the Dominion of by ceding authority over , external affairs, and communications to the while preserving internal . This standardized form, adapted from provisions in the , allowed over 560 princely states—covering nearly half of pre-independence 's territory and population—to integrate into the new dominion without immediate full merger, averting potential fragmentation amid the partition into and . The instrument's execution was spearheaded by India's Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Secretary , who employed , incentives like privy purses, and in resistant cases military action to secure signatures by August 15, 1947, or shortly thereafter. Most rulers acceded swiftly, often pairing the instrument with a Standstill Agreement to maintain administrative continuity on other matters, but holdouts like , , and Jammu & Kashmir sparked conflicts—resolved through "police actions" in the former two and accession amid tribal in the latter—highlighting the document's role in coercive as well as consensual unification. By 1949, subsequent mergers and the adoption of India's transformed these accessions into permanent unions, with Article 370 later granting temporary special status to Jammu & Kashmir until its revocation in 2019. This process, credited with forging India's territorial integrity against odds of , relied on the instrument's legal framework to legitimize transitions from paramountcy under the British Crown to under the Indian Union, though debates persist over the voluntariness of some accessions given underlying power imbalances.

Historical Background

Princely States under

Under rule, the was divided into territories directly administered by the as provinces and a large number of princely states governed indirectly through local rulers who acknowledged paramountcy. These princely states, totaling 562, covered over two-fifths of the subcontinent's area and housed nearly 100 million people out of a total population of approximately 400 million. The relationship between the and the princely states was formalized through a system of treaties and subsidiary alliances, beginning in the late and evolving into full by the mid-19th century, whereby the exercised ultimate authority over external affairs, defense, and key communications while granting princes internal in exchange for loyalty and . political agents, known as , were stationed at princely courts to oversee compliance with treaty obligations and provide advisory influence on , though direct was limited unless misrule or disloyalty threatened British interests. Following the , the transferred control from the to the Crown, establishing direct imperial rule and reinforcing the paramountcy doctrine. On November 1, 1858, Queen Victoria's Proclamation, announced by Lord at Allahabad, assured princes and chiefs that their rights, dignity, and honor would be respected as the British own, promising no annexations of their territories and an end to policies like the that had previously allowed British seizure of states without natural heirs. This proclamation aimed to secure loyalty by emphasizing non-interference in internal matters and religious practices, provided the rulers maintained and allegiance to the Crown. The princely states varied widely in size, from vast entities like and to minuscule estates, but all operated under oversight that prioritized strategic needs, such as securing borders and facilitating trade routes, over full . In 1921, the was established as a consultative body for rulers to discuss matters with authorities, reflecting the indirect yet dominant nature of colonial control. This framework of paramountcy persisted until the lapse of authority in 1947, leaving the states to decide their future affiliations.

Partition and Lapse of Paramountcy

The Indian Independence Act 1947, receiving royal assent on 18 July 1947, partitioned the territories of British India into two independent dominions—India and Pakistan—effective 15 August 1947, thereby ending British suzerainty over the subcontinent. This division applied to the eleven provinces under direct British administration, which were demarcated primarily on religious majoritarian lines, with Muslim-majority areas allocated to Pakistan and Hindu-majority areas to India. The approximately 565 princely states, covering 40 percent of pre-independence India's land area and 23 percent of its population, were excluded from this automatic territorial reallocation, as they had operated under indirect British oversight rather than provincial governance. Section 7(1)(b) of the Act decreed that, as from 15 August 1947, "the of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force... between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States, all functions exercisable by His Majesty... with respect to Indian States, all obligations of His Majesty... towards Indian States or the rulers thereof, and all powers, rights, authority or jurisdiction exercisable by His Majesty... in or in relation to Indian States." Known as the lapse of paramountcy, this provision terminated the Crown's overarching authority—encompassing protection, external relations, and intervention rights—without imposing any obligation on the states to join either . Rulers thus regained de jure independence, theoretically enabling them to negotiate fresh treaties, declare , or accede selectively to or via bilateral instruments. The interplay of and lapse created a constitutional , as the new s inherited no residual British claims over the states, risking amid and geopolitical pressures. , in his 3 June 1947 plan announcing and in subsequent addresses to the on 25 July 1947, urged rulers to accede to the contiguous , factoring in territorial contiguity and communal composition to avert instability, though legally no third option of was precluded by the itself. This framework necessitated the Instrument of Accession as a standardized legal document for voluntary transfer of key powers—defense, external affairs, and communications—to a , preserving internal pending further . In practice, the lapse accelerated diplomatic efforts by Indian leaders like Sardar to secure accessions, with most states joining by merger or standstill agreements to maintain essential services amid the 's disruptions.

Origins in the

The , enacted by the British Parliament on August 2, 1935, proposed a structure for comprising the provinces of British and acceding princely states, marking the first statutory introduction of the Instrument of Accession as a mechanism for states to join the federation. Under Section 5, His Majesty could proclaim the Federation of upon parliamentary approval and fulfillment of conditions, including the accession of princely states whose rulers elected at least 52 members to the and whose aggregate population constituted at least 50 percent of the total princely states' population. This framework preserved the internal autonomy of princely states while enabling them to cede limited powers to the center, reflecting British efforts to integrate over 500 semi-sovereign states—covering about 40 percent of pre-partition 's land area and 24 percent of its population—into a unified system without abolishing paramountcy. Section 6 of the formalized the Instrument of Accession as the legal executed by a state's and accepted by His Majesty, deeming the state acceded upon such acceptance. The instrument specified the subjects—typically , external affairs, and communications—over which the legislature could enact laws applicable to the state, along with any limitations or reservations; rulers could later vary terms via a supplementary instrument, subject to His Majesty's discretion to ensure consistency with the scheme. Execution required the 's personal signature for validity, with the 's terms binding the state irrevocably post-accession, and copies laid before for . This process limited executive and legislative authority to the instrument's provisions (Sections 101, 294), while allowing administrative agreements between the and rulers for implementing laws (Section 125). The federal scheme under the 1935 Act failed to materialize, as fewer than half the princely states acceded by the required thresholds, primarily due to rulers' reluctance to dilute sovereignty amid political uncertainties and the absence of elected provincial governments until 1937 elections. Seats allocated to states in the federal legislature remained vacant pending sufficient accessions (First Schedule, Sections 10-12), stalling the proclamation under Section 5. Nonetheless, the Act's template for accession—emphasizing voluntary cession of enumerated powers while safeguarding internal affairs—provided the foundational legal precedent for the instruments used in 1947, when the lapse of British paramountcy under the Indian Independence Act necessitated rapid integration of states into the dominions of India and Pakistan. Judicial mechanisms, such as Federal Court jurisdiction over disputes involving instrument interpretation (Sections 204, 207), further underscored the Act's emphasis on enforceable, delimited federal-state relations.

Drafting and Standardization of the Instrument

The Instrument of Accession was drafted in June and July 1947 by , the Secretary in the Ministry of States, in collaboration with Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who oversaw the integration of princely states into the Indian Union. Menon prepared a uniform template to enable rapid execution by rulers before the lapse of British paramountcy on August 15, 1947, as stipulated by the , which terminated the Crown's over the states. This standardization drew from the federal framework of the , which had allowed states to accede on limited subjects like and external affairs, but was simplified for the dominion transition to avoid renegotiation delays amid chaos. The core document consisted of a brief where the ruler declared accession to one dominion, delegating authority over three specified matters—defense, external affairs, and communications—while preserving internal unless further ceded via supplementary agreements. Legal refinements were provided by experts such as K.V.K. Sundaram, ensuring the form's compatibility with dominion constitutions and minimizing disputes over wording. The standardized form was printed in bulk and distributed through the Representative's office, with Lord Mountbatten's endorsement lending urgency and legitimacy to persuade hesitant rulers. Over 500 states eventually used variants of this template, with minor adaptations for Pakistan-bound accessions, facilitating the accession of approximately 562 princely states by early 1948 and averting widespread . This process prioritized legal clarity over customization, reflecting Menon's pragmatic assessment that uniform instruments were essential for national cohesion post-paramountcy.

Provisions and Mechanics

Core Clauses and Obligations

The Instrument of Accession comprised a standardized set of clauses that formalized the limited transfer of authority from the ruler of a to the of or . In its core declaration, the ruler explicitly acceded to the , intending that the , Legislature, Federal Court, and other relevant authorities exercise jurisdiction solely over the matters listed in an attached schedule. This schedule enumerated three subjects—defence, external affairs, and communications—over which the state ceded legislative and executive powers to the government, while retaining sovereignty in all other internal domains./Part_4/Instrument_of_Accession) The ruler undertook specific obligations to facilitate the Dominion's administration of these ceded subjects, including ensuring the application of pertinent provisions from the (as adapted by the ) within the state's territory./Part_4/Instrument_of_Accession) In turn, the Dominion government committed to non-interference in the state's residual powers, such as revenue collection, , and local governance, unless future agreements expanded the scope./Part_4/Instrument_of_Accession) This asymmetry preserved the princely ruler's , with the instrument serving as a bilateral legal bond rather than a full merger. Additional clauses addressed transitional mechanics and irrevocability. The held authority to execute standstill agreements for maintaining pre-existing administrative, commercial, and fiscal arrangements in non-ceded matters until comprehensive treaties could be negotiated./Part_4/Instrument_of_Accession) The terms prohibited unilateral variations through amendments to the , or related legislation, rendering the accession binding and perpetual absent mutual consent. No financial obligations or military contributions were imposed beyond the ceded subjects, emphasizing the document's minimalist framework to encourage voluntary participation amid the lapse of paramountcy on August 15, 1947./Part_4/Instrument_of_Accession)

Standstill Agreements and Transitional Measures

The Standstill Agreements were temporary arrangements proposed by on 3 June 1947 to princely states, aimed at preserving existing administrative and service arrangements with the British Crown after the lapse of paramountcy on 15 August 1947, thereby averting disruptions in essential functions such as postal services, telegraphic and telephonic communications, , , and salt supplies. These pacts were intended as interim measures, allowing states to negotiate with either the Dominion of or for the continuance of such matters pending decisions on accession. By 15 August 1947, numerous states had entered into these agreements with , particularly those that had also executed the Instrument of Accession, ensuring seamless transition without immediate administrative collapse. In relation to the Instrument of Accession, the Standstill Agreements complemented the of , external affairs, and communications by maintaining on residual matters of common concern not immediately transferred, thus providing a structured transitional framework for . Acceptance of the Standstill Agreement was often conditioned upon signing the Instrument, reinforcing the linkage between temporary continuity and permanent accession. For instance, the agreement with , signed on 29 November 1947, explicitly continued pre-independence arrangements on specified subjects for , appointed agents for implementation, and included for disputes, while clarifying no revival of paramountcy. These measures facilitated a phased approach to unification, bridging the gap between sovereignty lapse and full merger agreements, with over 140 states acceding to by mid-August 1947 under this dual mechanism, though exceptions like , , and delayed full implementation until later interventions. The agreements underscored the practical necessities of governance continuity amid partition's uncertainties, prioritizing empirical functionality over immediate political resolution.

Accession Processes

Timeline and General Procedure

The general procedure for the execution of the Instrument of Accession required the ruler—or an authorized representative—of a to sign the standardized legal form, which explicitly transferred sovereign authority over defense, external affairs, and communications to the selected while retaining internal for the state. The document included a declaration of accession, specified the , and was typically witnessed by local officials or envoys; upon signing, it was dispatched to the (initially until August 15, 1947) for formal acceptance, often via telegram confirmation for urgency. This process was coordinated by the States Department, established under on July 5, 1947, with as secretary overseeing drafting, distribution, and negotiations to ensure rapid amid the impending lapse of paramountcy. Standstill agreements were frequently signed concurrently to maintain continuity in administrative services, trade, and communications until full arrangements could be made. The timeline for accessions accelerated following the Indian Independence Act of July 18, 1947, which formalized the end of paramountcy on August 15. On July 25, 1947, Mountbatten convened the and urged rulers to accede promptly to either or based on geographic contiguity, warning against independence as untenable. From late July through August 14, 1947, and Menon conducted an urgent campaign, involving personal visits, aerial deliveries of documents, and diplomatic pressure, resulting in the signing of instruments by rulers of approximately 560 princely states—covering over 48% of pre-partition 's land area—with the vast majority opting for . By the midnight transfer of power on August 15, 1947, only three significant states (, , and ) remained undecided, while a handful like acceded to .

Accessions to the Dominion of India

Following the on 15 August 1947, the rulers of the princely states were formally invited to accede to either the Dominion of or the Dominion of Pakistan by signing the Instrument of Accession, which transferred control over defense, external affairs, and communications while preserving internal autonomy. The overwhelming majority—approximately 562 states in total—chose accession to , driven by geographic integration, the impracticality of independence amid partition chaos, and coordinated persuasion by Indian leaders. , as Minister of States, established the States Department on 5 July 1947 to oversee negotiations, emphasizing pragmatic over coercion in most cases, with serving as secretary and chief negotiator who personally drafted and secured many instruments. Accessions proceeded rapidly in the weeks after . , as , toured key states in late August 1947, leveraging his viceregal influence to urge rulers toward decisions aligned with contiguous territories, a stance he had outlined in his 25 July address to the . By early September 1947, hundreds of smaller states had signed, often merging into unions for administrative efficiency; for instance, 22 states in eastern formed the Union of on 25 March 1948, following initial accessions. Menon's secured instruments from rulers like the of Baroda on 26 August and the Nawab of Bhopal after prolonged hesitation, culminating in over 500 accessions by mid-October 1947, before the onset of major disputes in the remaining holdouts. These accessions formed the bedrock of India's territorial consolidation, covering roughly % of the subcontinent's area and 28% of its population at . Standstill agreements accompanied many instruments to maintain during transition, preventing administrative vacuums. Patel's approach combined incentives—such as privy purses for rulers—with firm reminders of the risks of , though records indicate no widespread use of pressure in these initial phases, contrasting with later interventions elsewhere. By 1949, subsequent merger agreements further integrated most states into provinces, but the 1947 accessions ensured India's emergence as a unified rather than a fragmented patchwork.

Accessions to the Dominion of Pakistan

The Dominion of Pakistan received accessions from fewer than a dozen princely states, primarily those contiguous to its Punjab, Sindh, and Balochistan territories, where Muslim rulers predominated and geographic contiguity facilitated integration. These accessions occurred mostly in late 1947 and early 1948, following the lapse of British paramountcy on August 15, 1947, with rulers signing the standardized Instrument of Accession to delegate control over defense, external affairs, and communications to Pakistan's central government. Unlike India, Pakistan did not face widespread resistance from these states, though some, like Kalat, involved initial declarations of independence before formal accession. In and regions, Bahawalpur State, ruled by Nawab Sadiq Muhammad Khan V, became the first to accede, with the signed on October 5, 1947, and accepted by on October 9. Covering approximately 17,494 square miles with a exceeding 1.5 million, Bahawalpur's accession strengthened 's southwestern flank, providing strategic depth along the River. Similarly, State in , under Regent Mir Ghulam Hussain Khan Talpur acting for the minor ruler , acceded on October 3, 1947, or October 9 per some records, adding about 6,000 square miles of fertile Indus Valley territory. These early accessions reflected pragmatic decisions by rulers aligned with the Muslim League's vision for a contiguous , avoiding the communal violence that plagued other border regions. In the Balochistan Agency, the coastal and inland states of Las Bela, , and Kharan acceded prior to the paramount state of Kalat, effectively isolating the latter. Las Bela, under Jam V, formally joined in September 1947, followed by Makran and Kharan in March 1948, with Pakistan accepting these on or around March 17 for Kharan. These states, totaling under 20,000 square miles with sparse populations, provided Pakistan vital access to the and buffered against and Iranian borders. The of Kalat, Yar , initially proclaimed on August 15, 1947, but after the subsidiary states' accessions weakened his position, he signed the on March 27, 1948, incorporating Kalat's 73,278 square miles into despite ongoing tribal claims. Northwestern frontier states such as , , and also acceded swiftly. The of , Miangul Wadud, signed on November 3, 1947, integrating Swat's mountainous 2,200 square miles into Pakistan's . and followed similar patterns in late 1947, their Muslim rulers opting for Pakistan amid Pashtun irredentist pressures from . Smaller entities like Amb and Phulra acceded without significant delay, completing 's consolidation of over 90% of its eventual territory by mid-1948. These processes emphasized voluntary instruments over in most cases, though later mergers in 1955 under the fully dissolved state autonomy.
StateRuler/RegentAccession DateArea (sq mi)Key Notes
Nawab Sadiq Muhammad VOct 5, 194717,494First accession; strategic river access.
Ghulam Hussain Talpur (Regent)Oct 3/9, 1947~6,000Indus Valley integration.
Las BelaJam VSep 19477,048Coastal access.
Yar Mar 194821,736Preceded Kalat.
Kharan Mohammad Yar Mar 17, 19485,670Inland buffer.
Kalat Yar Mar 27, 194873,278After subsidiaries; independence claim abandoned.
SwatMiangul Abdul WadudNov 3, 19472,200Frontier stability.

Disputed Cases and Controversies

Junagadh: Muslim Ruler and Hindu Majority

, a in with an area of approximately 8,300 square kilometers and a population of 670,000 as per the 1941 census, was ruled by the Muslim Mahabat Khanji III but had an overwhelming Hindu comprising about 81% of residents, with at 19%. The state's geography featured land borders exclusively with Indian territory but access to the , which the later cited as justification for potential viability with . On August 15, 1947, coinciding with the , the announced 's accession to via an Instrument of Accession, influenced by his (prime minister) , despite advice from Governor-General against it due to the state's demographic and geographic realities. formally accepted the accession on September 15, 1947, marking as the first to join it, though the decision overlooked the Hindu majority's sentiments and the lapse of British paramountcy, which vested full sovereignty in the ruler but invited scrutiny on communal lines post-partition. 's government, under Prime Minister , rejected the move, arguing it violated geographical contiguity principles—Junagadh being an enclave within —and a prior standstill agreement with the state that preserved pre-partition administrative ties, while highlighting risks of given the population imbalance. Local opposition erupted immediately, with the All-India States' Peoples' Conference-backed Praja Mandal organizing protests against the accession, leading to widespread civil unrest and the formation of an Arzi Hukumat (provisional government) in on October 25, 1947, under , which appealed for Indian intervention. The , facing mounting pressure and reportedly prioritizing personal extravagances over governance, fled to , , on the same day with his family and pets, effectively abandoning administration. responded by deploying troops on November 9, 1947, under "" to restore order, after which the , who had also fled, handed over power to Indian representatives. A plebiscite held on February 20, 1948, under Indian supervision confirmed overwhelming preference for accession to , with 190,779 votes (99.5%) in favor out of 201,457 eligible voters and only 91 for , reflecting the Hindu majority's will despite Pakistan's non-recognition and claims of procedural bias. This resolution integrated into the Indian Union via a merger agreement, underscoring tensions between princely and democratic demographics in the accession process, with viewing the intervention as a inconsistent with India's stance on other disputed states.

Hyderabad: Resistance and Military Intervention

The Nizam of Hyderabad, , declined to sign the Instrument of Accession to following in , seeking instead to maintain the state's sovereignty or potentially align with despite its geographic encirclement by Indian territory. , with a Muslim ruler governing a predominantly Hindu population of approximately 18.6 million as per the 1941 census, signed a standstill agreement with on November 29, , preserving the on trade, communication, and other matters pending a final decision. This agreement, however, did not resolve underlying tensions, as the Nizam's administration, influenced by the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM), prioritized preserving Muslim elite dominance through resistance to integration. Resistance intensified under the paramilitary Razakar force, established in 1938 as the armed wing of the MIM and expanded under Qasim Razvi's leadership after 1947 to counter pro-India sentiments and suppress the peasant rebellion led by communists. Numbering up to 200,000 irregular volunteers by mid-1948, the Razakars engaged in , targeting Hindus and agitators demanding accession, which exacerbated lawlessness and refugee flows into neighboring Indian provinces. The Nizam's formal military, the of about 22,000 troops supported by British-officered units, remained largely passive or aligned with the regime's stance against merger, while diplomatic efforts faltered; the Nizam appealed to the in August 1948 citing sovereignty threats, but India dismissed this as interference in internal affairs. Internal cabinet shifts, including the appointment of Moin Nawaz Jung as in 1948 to negotiate, yielded no concessions, as Razakar atrocities—estimated to have caused thousands of deaths and displacements—prompted Indian concerns over regional stability. India initiated military intervention, termed "police action" by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, on September 13, 1948, under Operation Polo, deploying three infantry divisions totaling around 35,000 troops commanded by J.N. Chaudhuri against Hyderabad's defenses. The operation advanced rapidly from multiple fronts, encountering sporadic Razakar guerrilla resistance but minimal organized opposition from state forces, which suffered from low morale and supply shortages. By September 17, Indian forces had captured key positions including the capital, prompting the resignation of Prime Minister Nawabzada and the Nizam's broadcast surrender; Syed Osman Ali Khan (El Edroos) formally capitulated the at 4:00 PM on September 18, 1948, after five days of conflict with Indian casualties under 200 and Hyderabad-side losses exceeding 1,000. The Nizam signed the Instrument of Accession on , , effectively integrating into the and dissolving its , though he retained a privy purse and titular role until 1956. Razakar leadership, including Razvi, faced arrest and trials, with the disbanded amid reports of reprisal violence against , though the intervention's swiftness prevented broader escalation. This episode underscored the limits of princely post-1947, resolving 's disputed status through force amid claims of duress from the Nizam's supporters, while authorities justified it as necessary to halt communal breakdown and communist .

Jammu and Kashmir: Timing, Duress Claims, and Tribal Invasion

The Maharaja of , , signed the Instrument of Accession to on October 26, 1947, four days after Pakistani-backed tribal forces initiated an invasion of the state on , 1947. Prior to the invasion, had pursued a policy of non-alignment, seeking standstill agreements with both and to maintain autonomy amid the partition of British , but Pakistan's refusal to honor such terms precipitated the military action. The timing of the accession directly followed reports of advancing raiders threatening , prompting to request military assistance from in a letter dated October 26, which conditioned aid on the state's accession. The tribal invasion, known as Operation Gulmarg, involved approximately 20,000 Pashtun lashkars (irregular fighters) from Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province, supplemented by Tanoli tribesmen, who crossed into Kashmir via multiple routes including Muzaffarabad and Domel. These forces, motivated by promises of loot and supported logistically by Pakistani military officers, committed widespread atrocities, including massacres, rapes, and arson in Baramulla and other towns, advancing rapidly toward the capital due to the state's poorly equipped defenses. Historical records, including eyewitness accounts and declassified British intelligence, confirm direct Pakistani Army involvement, with regular troops providing transport, arms, and command under figures like Major General Akbar Khan, contradicting Pakistan's official denials of state orchestration. The invaders' goal was to capture Srinagar and force the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan or install a pro-Pakistan administration, exploiting local unrest in Poonch but primarily driven by strategic denial of the Muslim-majority state to India. Pakistan has persistently claimed the accession occurred under duress, arguing that the Maharaja's decision was coerced by the invasion's momentum and military pressure, rendering it legally invalid and necessitating a plebiscite free of presence. However, primary documents, including V.P. Menon's firsthand account in The Story of the Integration of the Indian States, indicate no prior ultimatum; instead, Hari Singh's advisors, including Menon, urged accession as the only viable defense against the existential threat posed by the raiders, whom the state forces could not repel alone. accepted the instrument on October 27, 1947, affirming its validity while suggesting post-stabilization popular ratification, but without conditioning acceptance on duress allegations. i assertions often rely on post-hoc narratives minimizing their invasion's role and amplifying internal revolts as justification, yet causal points to the tribal incursion as the precipitating that undermined the Maharaja's option, not inducement. The accession's timing thus reflects a defensive response to Pakistani-initiated violence rather than fabricated , as corroborated by the sequence of events and the absence of equivalent overtures from amid the onslaught.

Post-Accession Developments

Merger Agreements and Full Integration

Following the accession of princely states to the Dominion of via Instruments of Accession, the next phase involved negotiating merger agreements to transfer full administrative control to the , thereby dissolving the states' internal . These agreements, often drafted by under the direction of , typically required rulers to cede all powers except personal privileges, in exchange for annual privy purses calculated based on the state's revenue—amounting to 5/12th or later adjusted to 1/4th of average revenue. By early 1948, over 200 smaller states had signed individual Merger Agreements, enabling their absorption into neighboring provinces like Madras, Bombay, or , with rulers retaining titles and residences but losing governance rights. For larger groups of states, Covenants of Merger were employed to form unions, preserving some regional administration initially while integrating them stepwise into . Notable examples include the formation of the United State of on March 30, 1949, merging 22 states and chiefships covering 132,559 square miles and 9 million people; the Patiala and States Union (PEPSU) on July 15, 1948, combining eight states; and Saurashtra on February 15, 1948, uniting over 200 states. These covenants, signed by rulers such as the of for , stipulated democratic governance transitions and payments, with 216 such states merged by mid-1948 alone. Full integration culminated by August 15, 1949, when the last 40 states, primarily in Orissa and , signed Merger Agreements, bringing the total to 562 of the 565 recognized princely states incorporated into —excluding those acceding to like and . Exceptions included , annexed militarily on September 17, 1948, without a formal merger document; , which retained special status under Article 370 until 2019; and , which signed a only in 1949 after a 1947 merger refusal. This process eliminated internal borders and feudal structures, paving the way for the 1950 Constitution's unified framework, though some unions like PEPSU persisted until the 1956 States Reorganisation Act.

Challenges to Validity and Democratic Legitimacy

The Instruments of Accession executed by rulers of the 565 princely states have been critiqued for lacking democratic legitimacy, as these autocratic monarchs held absolute authority over their subjects without representative institutions or , effectively deciding the fate of approximately 100 million without mechanisms for popular ratification. Under the and the , paramountcy lapsed on August 15, 1947, vesting full sovereignty in the rulers, which legally empowered them to sign such instruments unilaterally; however, in the transition to sovereign democracies, this feudal model clashed with emerging norms of , prompting arguments that accessions bypassed the will of the governed. Post-accession, challenges intensified through claims of procedural invalidity, including the absence of plebiscites to verify popular consent, with only conducting a in February 1948 that overwhelmingly favored integration with (99.95% vote). In most cases, no such votes occurred, leading scholars to contend that this omission perpetuated imperial-era precedents where legitimacy derived from ruler fiat rather than electoral mandate, particularly in states with demographic compositions—such as Hindu-majority realms under Muslim nawabs or —that might have yielded divergent outcomes. constitutional framers incorporated these accessions via Article 1 and Schedules, treating them as irrevocable, yet legal analyses have highlighted tensions with post-colonial principles of . Allegations of duress further undermined perceived validity, with assertions that some rulers signed amid threats of economic isolation, internal uprisings, or military encirclement, potentially vitiating consent under treaty law analogies like Article 52 of the 1969 on the Law of Treaties (prohibiting of state representatives). While Indian authorities, including as , insisted on voluntary compliance aligned with the Act's framework—rejecting duress claims as unsubstantiated—opponents, particularly from Pakistani perspectives, have invoked these pressures to argue for nullity, though no international tribunal has adjudicated and Indian courts have upheld accessions as foundational to . Merger agreements signed post-, ceding internal to the Union, amplified these critiques by dissolving statehood without referenda, consolidating power in despite residual princely privileges like privy purses (abolished in 1971 via the 26th Amendment).

Legacy and Ongoing Implications

Role in Shaping Modern India and Pakistan

The Instruments of Accession executed by rulers of over 560 princely states in 1947 were instrumental in averting the of the subcontinent post-partition, enabling the consolidation of territory into cohesive dominions rather than a patchwork of independent entities. In , Sardar , as Minister of States, alongside , orchestrated the accession of 562 states covering 48% of the subcontinent's area and 28% of its population, through diplomatic persuasion, merger agreements, and selective military actions such as Operation Polo on September 13-17, 1948, which integrated despite initial resistance. This process, completed by August 15, 1949, with the merger of the last holdout state of , laid the foundation for 's federal structure by subsuming princely territories into provinces and unions, later reorganized under the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 into linguistic states that form the basis of modern administrative divisions. In Pakistan, the accessions were far fewer and primarily confined to Muslim-ruled states in the northwest and west, including on October 5, 1947, on October 3, 1947, and smaller entities like , , , Las Bela, Kharan, , Amb, Phulra, and parts of Kalat, totaling about a dozen states that bolstered Pakistan's initial territorial extent in , , and . These integrations, often facilitated by geographic contiguity and religious alignment, contributed to Pakistan's early provincial framework but left it with less comprehensive unification challenges compared to , though areas like retained semi-autonomous traits until full absorption by 1955, influencing its decentralized federalism and persistent regional insurgencies. The accessions profoundly influenced bilateral borders and interstate dynamics, as contested cases—Junagadh's initial pro-Pakistan instrument reversed by plebiscite on February 20, 1948; Hyderabad's forcible incorporation; and Jammu and Kashmir's accession on October 26, 1947, amid tribal invasion—crystallized disputed frontiers that sparked the 1947-48 war and subsequent conflicts, embedding irredentist claims into the core of India-Pakistan relations. Legally, these instruments transferred sovereignty over defense, external affairs, and communications to the respective dominions under the Act of July 18, 1947, establishing precedents for central authority in federal systems while highlighting the primacy of monarchical fiat over popular will in , a that persists in debates over Kashmir's special status under Article 370 until its revocation in 2019.

International Law Perspectives and Unresolved Disputes

The Instrument of Accession executed by rulers of princely states in 1947 was regarded by as a valid legal mechanism under , deriving authority from the lapse of British paramountcy and the sovereign discretion of the rulers to accede to either on matters of defense, external affairs, and communications, as outlined in the Indian Independence Act 1947. This view posits that the instruments constituted binding agreements, irrevocable once signed, akin to treaties between sovereign entities, without requirement for popular ratification in the princely states where rulers held absolute authority under precedents for conquest and . Critics, primarily from 's perspective, have contested this in cases like , arguing that the accession on October 26, 1947, occurred under duress amid a tribal allegedly supported by Pakistan, rendering it invalid under principles of coerced consent in treaty law, though no has ruled on this claim. United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, adopted on April 21, 1948, addressed the Kashmir conflict without explicitly affirming or rejecting the Instrument of Accession's validity, instead calling for a ceasefire, withdrawal of Pakistani tribesmen and regulars, and subsequent plebiscite under UN auspices to determine accession to India or Pakistan, presupposing the ruler's instrument as a provisional basis pending democratic verification. India maintained that the accession was complete and final, fulfilling the ruler's competence under international law unaffected by internal unrest, while emphasizing that plebiscite conditions required Pakistani withdrawal first—a step not taken—thus rendering the resolutions inoperative. Subsequent resolutions, such as UNSC Resolution 122 of January 24, 1957, reaffirmed the plebiscite framework but highlighted the need for demilitarization, which neither side fully implemented, leaving the legal status ambiguous in practice despite India's de facto control and integration via constitutional measures. For Junagadh and Hyderabad, international law perspectives largely accept the instruments' initial validity—Junagadh's ruler acceded to Pakistan on August 15, 1947, but reversed following a popular revolt and Indian intervention by November 9, 1947—yet no ongoing UN-mandated disputes persist, as plebiscites in Junagadh (February 1948) favored India, and Hyderabad's accession followed military action on September 17, 1948, without equivalent international arbitration. Pakistan has occasionally invoked these as precedents for Kashmir, claiming inconsistent application of self-determination principles, but lacks substantiation in binding international rulings, with the International Court of Justice never adjudicating the accessions' validity. The primary unresolved dispute centers on , where continues to challenge the accession's finality, citing UN resolutions as mandating via plebiscite, while views post-1947 elections and administrative integration as superseding plebiscite calls, arguing that prevails absent mutual compliance. This impasse reflects tensions between (treaties must be honored) and emerging post-colonial norms of , with no consensus in scholarship resolving whether the Instrument overrides plebiscite imperatives or vice versa, perpetuating bilateral tensions and occasional UN listings without enforcement mechanisms.

References

  1. [1]
    Instrument of Accession, 1947
    An Indian state may accede to the dominion of India by an Instrument of Accession executed by the ruler thereof.
  2. [2]
    Understanding the Instrument of Accession in IndiaThe Shillong Times
    Oct 4, 2021 · The Instrument of Accession was a legal document first introduced by the Government of India Act, 1935, wherein it was provided that a Ruler of a Princely ...
  3. [3]
    7a | Forging a Nation: The process of accession and integration of ...
    Sep 6, 2025 · A State would accede by executing an instrument of accession, a legal document signed by the ruler of the state with the British Crown. The ...
  4. [4]
    [PDF] V.P. Menon's Framework for Princely State Accession
    Feb 5, 2025 · V.P. Menon used diplomacy, negotiation, and sometimes force, with the Instrument of Accession, to integrate states, preserving internal ...
  5. [5]
    7b | Legal documents of Integration - India State Stories
    Sep 10, 2025 · The Instrument of Accession (IoA) was the primary document by which princely states initially joined the Dominion of India. It was a legal ...
  6. [6]
    Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir State
    The complete text of the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, the then ruler of the State of Jammu & Kashmir and its acceptance by the ...
  7. [7]
  8. [8]
    Integration of Princely States in India - GK Chronicle
    The Princely states were allowed to join India through a legal document called the Instrument of Accession. Home Minister, Vallabhbhai Patel created a States ...
  9. [9]
    Integration of Princely States of India, Reasons, Issues
    Oct 14, 2025 · Instrument of accession: The majority of the state's rulers agreed to join the Union of India by signing an agreement known as the "Instrument ...
  10. [10]
    PRINCELY STATES POSE ANOTHER INDIA PROBLEM
    May 10, 2025 · There are 562 of them; they cover over two-fifths of that subcontinent with a population of nearly 100 millions out of India's 400 million inhabitants.Missing: governance | Show results with:governance<|separator|>
  11. [11]
    British Paramountcy In India: Annexations, Administration And ...
    Jun 25, 2024 · The British claimed paramountcy in India, asserting their ultimate authority over princely states, starting in the 18th century.
  12. [12]
    Indian Princely Families and States - Almanach de Saxe Gotha
    In principle, the princely states had internal autonomy, while by treaty the British had suzerainty and were responsible for their external affairs. In practice ...
  13. [13]
    The Legacy of Indian Princely States: A Historical Reflection
    Sep 9, 2025 · The British had maintained indirect control over these states through treaties, residents, and the Chamber of Princes. The rulers retained ...
  14. [14]
    Proclamation by the Queen in Council, to the princes, chiefs, and ...
    Oct 30, 2022 · We hereby call upon all our subjects within the said territories to be faithful and to bear true allegiance to us, our heirs and successors.
  15. [15]
    Q. What was/were the object/objects of Queen Victoria's ... - LotusArise
    It promised to respect Indian princes' rights, avoid interference in religious matters, and abolish the Doctrine of Lapse. The proclamation aimed to stabilise ...
  16. [16]
    Government of India Act 1858, Background, Provisions, Features
    Oct 1, 2025 · It promised to respect Indian princes' rights, avoid interference in religious matters, and abolish the Doctrine of Lapse. The proclamation ...
  17. [17]
    Indian Independence Act 1947 - Legislation.gov.uk
    An Act to make provision for the setting up in India of two independent Dominions, to substitute other provisions for certain provisions of the Government ...
  18. [18]
  19. [19]
    How many princely states joined India? - BYJU'S
    Through the efforts of Sardar Vallabhai Patel, about 562 princely states joined India. Before the Partition of India in 1947, about 584 princely states, also ...
  20. [20]
  21. [21]
    Lapse of Paramountcy under the Indian Independence Act
    Jan 31, 2016 · ... 1947, was passed, it declared the lapse of suzerainty (paramountcy) of the Crown, in s. 7(l)(b) of the Act, which is worth reproduction: 7 ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Lapse of Paramountcy
    When the Indian Independence Act 1947, was passed, it declared the lapse of suzerainty (paramountcy) of the crown, in sec. 7(i)(b) of the Act.
  23. [23]
    July 25, 1947; When Mountbatten addressed The Chamber of ...
    Aug 5, 2019 · The Mountbatten Plan of June 3, 1947 discussed the partition of India and advised the rulers of the states to join either of the two dominions ...
  24. [24]
    History of Instrument of Accession - BYJU'S
    The Instrument of Accession was the legal document designed to bring about accession, where a ruler had decided upon it. It was executed by the rulers of each ...Missing: lapse | Show results with:lapse
  25. [25]
    Introduction to the Integration of Princely States - CrackTarget
    Aug 7, 2025 · Independence and Initial Accessions, Majority of states sign Instruments of Accession. Prevented immediate fragmentation. September 1947 ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  26. [26]
    Government of India Act 1935 Archives - Constitution of India
    The Government of India Act was passed by the British parliament in 1935 and came into effect in 1937. It was based on a report by a Joint Select Committee.
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Government of India Act, 1935. - Legislation.gov.uk
    CHAPTER I. ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERATION AND ACCESSION OF. INDIAN STATES. 5. Proclamation of Federation of India.
  28. [28]
    VP Menon: The forgotten hero who stitched India together - BBC
    Aug 15, 2022 · Working with his last viceroy Lord Mountbatten and then with Patel, Menon worked on an Instrument of Accession whereby the states agreed to give ...
  29. [29]
    V P Menon - The Forgotten Architect of Modern India
    It was Menon who realised the need to get the Princely States to accede to India before the date of independence and that Mountbatten was the ideal person to ...<|separator|>
  30. [30]
    1947 Indian Independence Act - UK Parliament
    The Indian Independence Act was passed in 1947. The act created two new independent dominions; India and Pakistan.
  31. [31]
    India: Document- Acts and Ordinance Instrument of Accession, 1947
    I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to the provisions of the Act within this State so far as they are applicable therein by ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION OF Maharaja of Mysore
    5. The terms of this my Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 unless.
  33. [33]
    Truth about 'Standstill' arrangement between Pakistan and Kashmir
    Oct 14, 2025 · The contention that Maharaja Hari Singh could not have offered accession to India because a Standstill Agreement already existed with Pakistan ...
  34. [34]
    Standstill Agreement between India and Hyderabad - cbkwgl
    Apr 24, 2012 · Agreement made this Twenty-ninth day of November Nineteen Hundred and Forty-seven between the Dominion of India and the Nizam of Hyderabad ...
  35. [35]
    Political Integration of Princely States during the Partition of India
    Mar 6, 2025 · The Indian Independence Act 1947 ended British paramountcy, leaving princely rulers to choose among accession to India, accession to Pakistan, ...
  36. [36]
    Independence Day | The 1947 challenge: Accession of the princely ...
    Aug 14, 2018 · By 1947, there were 565 princely states in India. ... In less than three weeks, practically all the states had signed before August 1947.
  37. [37]
    An Incomplete Bargain | Asian Survey | University of California Press
    Feb 12, 2025 · While most of the 560 princely states had acceded to India by August 1947, the process of integrating them with former British provinces had ...
  38. [38]
    Pakistan Princely States to 1955 - World Statesmen
    1690 Bahawalpur State founded. (by treaty). 5 Oct 1947 Bahawalpur accedes to Pakistan. 14 Oct 1955 State extinguished; part of West Pakistan (from 1970, Punjab ...<|separator|>
  39. [39]
    Winning Over The Princely States - Sp Supplements - DAWN.COM
    Aug 15, 2022 · ... accession of Bahawalpur State to Pakistan on October 5, 1947. ... To date, Pakistan claims Junagadh as its legal part, with India in ...
  40. [40]
    Dispelling The Disinformation On Kalat's Accession To Pakistan
    Mar 20, 2025 · Facing internal and external pressures, the Khan of Kalat ultimately agreed to join Pakistan in March 1948, recognizing the greater political ...
  41. [41]
    BALUCHISTAN STATES ACCEDE TO PAKISTAN
    Pakistan has accepted the accession of three States, Makran, Kharan and Las Bela, bordering the Arabian sea and Iran, to the indignation of the Khan of Kalat, ...
  42. [42]
    Pakistan and its Princely States - The Friday Times
    Nov 15, 2019 · The Wali of Swat Miangul Abdul Wadud signing the Instrument of Accession to join Pakistan in 1947. ... There were also two other categories: the ...
  43. [43]
    Junagadh & Manavadar: A Story of India's Illegal Occupation - ISSRA
    Sep 15, 2023 · Origin of the Dispute​​ On September 14, 1947, Nawab Mahabat Khan of Junagadh signed an Instrument of Accession (IoA) declaring that Junagadh ...
  44. [44]
    131. The Disputed States III: Junagadh - Pakistan Geotagging
    Jul 20, 2020 · The biggest hurdle was the majority Hindu population of the state, which made up almost 81% of the total population, and no amount of ...
  45. [45]
    Junagadh annexation (November 9, 1947) and the myth of the ...
    Nov 7, 2021 · The Nawab of Junagadh (Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III) acceded to the Dominion of Pakistan on 15 August 1947. Junagadh like Sir Creek and Kashmir ...
  46. [46]
    Facts about Junagadh | IPCS - Institute Of Peace & Conflict Studies
    The issue of Junagadh's accession formally arose when on 17 August 1947 , the Indian Press reported that the Nawab of Junagadh had chosen to join Pakistan .
  47. [47]
    Integration of Junagadh (1948) - GKToday
    Oct 16, 2025 · The Arzi Hukumat (Provisional Government) of Junagadh was proclaimed on 25 October 1947 at Rajkot, under the leadership of Samaldas Gandhi, a ...
  48. [48]
    The tragedy of Junagarh remained unresolved for 73 years
    Nov 9, 2020 · The ruler of Junagadh (the Nawab, Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III) was convinced to join Pakistan by his Dewan (prime minister), Shah Nawaz Bhutto.
  49. [49]
    Explained: When Junagadh voted to join India, and Pakistan got just ...
    Aug 5, 2020 · Pakistan unveiled a new political map that includes Junagadh, in coastal Gujarat, whose decision to join India in 1947, formalised through a Plebiscite in 1948 ...Missing: intervention | Show results with:intervention
  50. [50]
    Why Operation Polo was launched to take over Hyderabad, 77 years ...
    Sep 15, 2025 · September 13 marks the 77th anniversary of Operation Polo, the military operation launched by newly independent India to annex the state of ...
  51. [51]
    Hyderabad State Integration: 1948, Operation Polo & Nizam
    The Join India Movement was launched on 7th August 1947, claiming Hyderabad's accession to the Indian Union. However, on 13th August 1947, the Nizam declared ...
  52. [52]
    Razakars: Hyderabad's Anti-Integration Militia - SRIRAM's IAS
    May 2, 2024 · The Razakars were a volunteer militia in the princely state of Hyderabad, formed to support the rule of the Nizam and oppose the accession of ...
  53. [53]
    Razakars - Historic India | Encyclopedia of Indian History
    It was under him that MIM organised a paramilitary wing- Razakars, to resist accession with India and to secure an independent sovereign Muslim state of its own ...
  54. [54]
    3 - Armed Resistance Movement Against Nizam and Razakars
    ... Hyderabad). The Indian National Congress was forced to launch a satyagraha struggle in the Hyderabad State to bring pressure on the Nizam Nawab to accede to ...
  55. [55]
    Historical Documents - Office of the Historian
    The second reason for Hyderabad offering no resistance to India's overwhelming strength is that the Nizam expected, by means of a military clash with a ...
  56. [56]
    Hyderabad 1948: India's hidden massacre - BBC News
    Sep 24, 2013 · In what was rather misleadingly known as a "police action", the Nizam's forces were defeated after just a few days without any significant loss ...
  57. [57]
    Operation Polo ( 1948 ) The Story of Liberation of Hyderabad State
    Operation Polo was a military operation to liberate Hyderabad State from the Nizam, who refused to join India, and it began on September 13, 1948.
  58. [58]
    Watch: Operation Polo: The battle that changed the fate of the Nizam ...
    Sep 20, 2024 · After a five-day battle, the Indian tricolour was fluttering over the erstwhile city of Nizams as Maj Gen El Edroos surrendered his Hyderabad State Forces.Missing: action timeline<|separator|>
  59. [59]
    Surrender of Nizam: Hyderabad's Integration into India
    On 17th September 1948, the Ministry of Laik Ali resigned, and power was handed over to the Nizam. The Nizam sent a message through K.M. Munshi to the Indian ...
  60. [60]
    Operation Polo and the integration of Hyderabad: a slice of history
    Sep 17, 2025 · The Instrument of Accession, inked on 17 September, dissolved Hyderabad's autonomy overnight. The nizam, stripped of real power yet retained as ...
  61. [61]
  62. [62]
    Partition 70 years on: When tribal warriors invaded Kashmir - BBC
    Oct 21, 2017 · Partition 70 years on: When tribal warriors invaded Kashmir · Partition of India in August 1947 · A timeline of the tribal invasion · The ...
  63. [63]
    Pakistan's Invasion of Kashmir (22nd Oct. 1947): Darkest Hour in the ...
    Nov 25, 2020 · Today's discussion will be centered around the Pakistan backed Kabaili tribal invasion of Kashmir on 22nd October 1947 which is regarded as ...
  64. [64]
    Maharaja Hari Singh's letter requesting Indian Assistance against ...
    I accordingly approached the Dominions of India and Pakistan to enter into Standstill Agreement with my State. The Pakistan Government accepted this Agreement.<|separator|>
  65. [65]
  66. [66]
  67. [67]
    The Foundations of Pakistan's Strategic Culture:
    The invasion of Kashmir by tribal invaders that India alleged was orchestrated by the Pakistan Army was eventually repulsed in early November 1947 with ...
  68. [68]
  69. [69]
    Kashmir - Hanover College History Department
    Foremost is the actual signing of the Instrument of Accession by Maharaja Hari Singh, on or about October 26th, 1947. This, along with the stand-still agreement ...Missing: standardization | Show results with:standardization
  70. [70]
    Instrument of Accession & a never-ending debate - Daily Excelsior
    Oct 25, 2021 · And as per this particular claim, Maharaja Hari Singh had lost the legal authority to sign a foreign relations treaty because of a 'revolt' ...
  71. [71]
    [PDF] The Story of the Integration of the Indian States - Sani Panhwar
    Aug 28, 2024 · situation was urgently necessary and that if they thought the integration of States was ... V. P. Menon; Copyright © www.sanipanhwar.com. 232. The ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  72. [72]
    Letter Accepting Offer of the Instrument of Accession
    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 ...Missing: negotiations | Show results with:negotiations
  73. [73]
    Reflections on the Instrument of J&K Accession - Countercurrents
    Oct 26, 2020 · The claims and counterclaims persisted ever since accession. The Maharaja and his associates claimed that the attack came from armed raiders ...
  74. [74]
    Examining Nehru's role in Kashmir accession - The Tribune
    Oct 29, 2022 · ... Menon's The Story of the Integration of the Indian States are the two primary first-person sources on Kashmir's accession to India.
  75. [75]
    V. P. Menon - Historic India | Encyclopedia of Indian History
    Menon played a key role in drafting the Indian Independence Bill. The immediate transfer of power based on the grant of Dominion Status was suggested by him.
  76. [76]
    From international to imperial: The Indian princely states ...
    May 23, 2025 · The princely states that numbered about 562 in 1930 were called the 'territories under the suzerainty' of the Crown in British diplomacy and ...
  77. [77]
    [Solved] In which Princely State of India was plebiscite held to dete
    The correct answer is Junagadh. Key Points Junagarh was a princely state which had a majority of Hindus but was ruled by a Muslim ruler.
  78. [78]
    KASHMIR DISPUTE AND THE INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION - jstor
    Nov 2, 2019 · the Instrument of Accession was signed under coercion. In this case, article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the. Law of Treaties which ...
  79. [79]
    Diplomatic History of Kashmir - Stanford University
    India agreed, but only on the condition that Kashmir sign an instrument of accession to India. Kashmir agreed, and the document was legally signed. Because ...
  80. [80]
    [PDF] A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE INTEGRATION OF PRINCELY ...
    On 11th August 1947, Maharaja Hanvant Singh, King of Jodhpur denoted the Instrument of Accession and the State of Jodhpur was facilitated into the Indian ...
  81. [81]
    Which princely states joined Pakistan? - BYJU'S
    The following princely states joined Pakistan: Amarkot; Bahawalpur; Khairpur; Chitral; Swat; Hunza; Nagar; Amb; Phulra; Dir; Las Bela; Kharan; Makran ...
  82. [82]
    [PDF] Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's Strategic Integration of Princely States
    Pakistan, promoted Kashmir's accession to India under terms of Instrument of Accession. 3) Administrative Reorganization: After the integration of all the ...
  83. [83]
  84. [84]
  85. [85]
    [PDF] The myth of the instrument of accession: A Re- appraisal
    Feb 16, 2016 · The. Indian Independence Act of 1947 provided that with the lapse of paramountcy ... Instrument of Accession and the circumstances under which it ...
  86. [86]
    Security Council resolution 47 (1948) [The India-Pakistan Question]
    The question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.
  87. [87]
    The Kashmir Dispute: A Forgotten Promise of Self-Determination
    Feb 4, 2025 · Resolution 122 (1957): Declared that any attempt by India to unilaterally determine Kashmir's status was invalid and stressed the necessity of a ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  88. [88]
    (PDF) India, Pakistan and the Unsolved Kashmir Issue - ResearchGate
    Feb 19, 2019 · ... junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir in 1947.the two states have battled four wars; 1948, 1965,1971 and 1999.three had cause on Kashmir question.
  89. [89]
    UN Documents for Jammu and Kashmir: Security Council Resolutions
    UN resolutions for Jammu and Kashmir demanded ceasefires, withdrawals of forces, and a free plebiscite for the state's accession.
  90. [90]
    [PDF] security council mediation and the kashmir dispute: reflections on its ...
    avoided mention of the Instrument of Accession, whose validity India asserted and Pakistan explicitly challenged. 41. Neither India nor Pakistan was fully ...<|separator|>