Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Why 22 October matters in Kashmiri history? Dr Shabir Choudhry

Why 22 October matters in Kashmiri history?

Dr Shabir Choudhry, on behalf of

Kashmir National Party


  1. Introduction
  2. Legal documents:

A/ Statement made by His Majesty's Government on Transfer of Power, 3 June, 1947

B/Cabinet Mission Memorandum

C/ Indian Independence Act, 1947

  1. What Lord Mountbatten said about Princely States?
  2. What Mohammed Ali Jinnah said about Kashmir?
  3. What Pandit Nehru said about Kashmir?
  4. Standstill Agreement
  5. Was Jammu and Kashmir a sovereign state?

  1. Tribal Invasion
  2. Maharaja’s letter to Lord Mountbatten
  3. Lord Mountbatten’s reply to Maharaja Hari Singh
  4. Instrument of Accession
  5. Indian complaint to the Security Council
  6. Article 257 of Constitution of Pakistan
  7. Article 370 of the Indian constitution
  8. Excerpts of Sheikh Abdullah speech in the UN Security Council
  9. Conclusion
  10. References

1/ Introduction

Kashmir National Party leadership aims to empower people and oppose forces of terrorism, extremism and hatred. They aim to provide facts and correct information to people that they can make informed decisions. They don’t shy away from taking difficult decisions if that help to advance and promote the cause of people of Jammu and Kashmir.

With that in mind they have decided to hold this conference known as Black Day. Traditionally people of Jammu and Kashmir were encouraged to hold Black Day on 27 October to coincide with the arrival of Indian troops in Kashmir. People were led to believe that their problems started after 27th October 1947, and authorities in Islamabad provided funds and support to those who held Black Day on this day.

We believe that our sovereignty was violated on 22 October when hordes of tribesmen from North West Frontier of Pakistan attacked and invaded some parts of the State territory. They mercilessly killed and looted people. Religion of victims was not an issue to them; and their victims included Muslims and non Muslims. In fact, first person who was killed by these so called Jihadis was a Muslim from Muzaffarbad.

When these tribesmen attacked house of a non Muslim citizen of Muzaffarabad, Master Abdul Aziz in line with Islamic duty and Kashmiri ethos, tried to protect his neighbour; and asked the tribesmen not to harm him or his family. The tribesmen did not like intervention from Master Abdul Aziz, and killed him on spot. To these jihadis crime of Master Abdul Aziz was so severe that he did not deserve a funeral (janaza) or burial. They threw his dead body in River Neelam.

This Tribal Invasion was actively supported and directed by senior Pakistani officials both civil and military. This unprovoked attack caused enormous problems to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It caused death, destruction and chaos. When the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir realised that he and his forces were unable to hold them back, he asked government of India for help to save his people and his State. He was told that in order to get military help, he should accede to India.

The Maharaja was left with no choice but to accede. This accession was provisional and had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and to date people did not have an opportunity to express their opinion on this.

The purpose of this conference and this booklet is not to support or oppose any ideology, but to tell people what is the root cause of our miseries and problems; and what was the status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir after end of the British Raj in the Indian Sub Continent. I have provided many historic documents for the information of people that they can correctly ascertain legal and constitutional position of the State.

I hope this endeavour of KNP will go some way in helping people to understand true nature of Kashmir problem.

Dr Shabir Choudhry

Spokesman Kashmir National Party

03 October 2009, London


Legal documents

There are three important documents which deal with partition of India and position of Princely States. One is 3rd June Statement, second is Cabinet Mission Memorandum on Princely States and third is Indian Independence Act. Relevant parts of these documents are produced below.


Statement made by His Majesty's Government on Transfer of Power, 3 June, 1947, refers to Princely States as follows:

The States

‘His Majesty's Government wish to make it clear that the decisions announced above relate only to British India and that their policy towards Indian States contained in the Cabinet Mission Memorandum of 12 May 1946 remains unchanged.’

We can see that the 3rd June Statement does not provide clear answer to the position of Princely States, so we need to look at what Cabinet Mission Memorandum says.

B/ Text of Memorandum on States' Treaties and Paramountcy Presented by the Cabinet Mission to His Highness the Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes on 12 May 1946

‘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 powers 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 the 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.’

This surely has clarified the position. In nutshell it means the Princely States will regain their rights and privileges after the lapse of paramountcy, meaning they will legally become independent. Indian Independence Act is a long document and I am producing relevant section which deals with position of the Princely States.

C/ Indian Independence Act, 1947

Section 7.1

‘(b) the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States, all functions exercisable by His Majesty at that date with respect to Indian States, all obligations of His Majesty existing at that date with towards Indian States or the rulers thereof, and all powers, rights, authority or jurisdiction exercisable by His Majesty at that date in or in relation to Indian States by treaty, grant, usage, sufferance or otherwise’ lapsed.

By the above provision all the Princely States after lapse of the British paramountcy technically and legally became independent.


What Lord Mountbatten said about Princely States?

Louis Mountbatten Dating

Governor General of India Lord Louis Mountbatten's Address to a Special Full Meeting of the Chamber of Princes on July 25 1947, in which he said:

There were two distinct problems that faced me. The first was how to transfer power to British India and the second, how to fit Indian States into the picture in a manner which would be fair and just to all concerned.

I dealt first with the problem of British India, because you will realise that until that problem was solved it was quite useless to try to start on a solution of the problem of the States. So I addressed my mind to the former.

There had been universal acceptance among the States of the Cabinet Mission's Memorandum of 12 May and when the political parties accepted the Statement of 3 June they fully realised and accepted that withdrawal of Paramountcy would enable the States to regain complete sovereignty….

Now, the Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom- technically and legally they become independent. 1


What Mohammed Ali Jinnah said about Kashmir?


Many Pakistanis especially who oppose Jammu and Kashmir’s separate status claim that the State should have been given to Pakistan on the basis of Two Nations Theory. They don’t know or don’t want to know that the Two Nations Theory only applied to the British India and the Princely States were not part of the British India, as it has been proved by the above quotations from legal documents.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah was a brilliant constitutional lawyer and he understood the legal and constitutional position of the Princely States. He strongly believed that the State of Jammu Kashmir and other Princely States had a right either to accede to India or Pakistan, or become independent States. In a reply to a question on 17th June 1947 about legal status of the Princely States, Qaaide Azam said:

‘That after the lapse of paramountcy the Indian States would be constitutionally and legally sovereign states and free to adopt for themselves any course they wished. It is open to States to join Hindustan Constituent Assembly {or Pakistan Constituent Assembly} or to decide to remain independent’.

On July 11 1947, while replying to some Kashmiris, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah once again clarified the position, he said:

“The second question that is engaging the attention of the Muslims of Kashmir is whether Kashmir is going to join the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. I have already made it clear more than once that the Indian States are free to join either the Pakistan Constituent Assembly or the Hindustan Constituent Assembly or remain independent”.

Many Pakistanis ignore this statement of their Qaaid, but keep on referring to the statement which has no legal or historic significance that Kashmir is a ‘jugular vein of Pakistan’. Apart from the above statements on Kashmir Mohammed Ali Jinnah proved with his action that the Two Nations Theory did not apply to the Princely States, when he accepted accession of state of Junagarh which had non Muslim majority with a Muslim Ruler. If rules of the Two Nations Theory applied to the Princely States then this state should have automatically joined India; and Mohammed Ali Jinnah would not have accepted its accession to Pakistan.


What Pandit Nehru said about Kashmir?

Excerpts of telegram dated 26 October, 1947 from Jawaharlal Nehru to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee

"For Prime Minister United Kingdom from Prime Minister India.

We have received urgent appeal for assistance from Kashmir Government. We would be disposed to give favourable consideration to such request from any friendly State. Kashmir's Northern frontiers, as you are aware, run in common with those of three countries, Afghanistan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China. Security of Kashmir, which must depend upon control of internal tranquillity and existence of stable Government, is vital to security of India especially since part of Southern boundary of Kashmir and India are common. Helping Kashmir, therefore, is an obligation of national interest to India. We are giving urgent consideration to question as to what assistance we can give to State to defend itself.

I should like to make it clear that question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in anyway to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view. It is quite clear, however, that no free expression of will of people of Kashmir is possible if external aggression succeeds in imperilling integrity of its territory.

I have thought it desirable to inform you of situation because of its threat of international complications."

Apart from that telegram Prime Minister of India, Pandit Nehru on many occasions made statements on Kashmir, and I am only producing a few here. He said:


We are anxious not to finalize anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide.

“And let me make it 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 accession must be made by the people of that state.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Broadcast to the Nation: “All India Radio”: 2 November 1947).


The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in Indian Constituent Assembly; 25 November 1947).

3/ “People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Report to the All-India Congress Committee, 6 July 1951; The Statesman, New Delhi, 9 July 1951).


“Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied about between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 31 March 1955).


“We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, 2 January 1952).

6/ Standstill Agreement

As noted above after the lapse of ‘Paramountcy’ – end of British Raj - the Princely States were legally and constitutionally independent, and had absolute discretionary powers to decide about future of their states.

Lord Listowel, Secretary of State for India said in House of Lords said on 16 July 1947:

‘From the moment the appointments and functions of the Crown Representative and his officers will terminate and the States will be the masters of their own fate. They will be then entirely free to choose whether to associate with one or the other of the Dominion Governments or to stand alone, and Her Majesty’s Government will not use the slightest pressure to influence their momentous and voluntary decision’. 2

The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir more than once expressed his desire not to accede to any country, as he wanted to become an independent Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. In order to pursue his plans; and to avoid administrative collapse which could have resulted after the lapse of Paramountcy he offered Standstill Agreements to both India and Pakistan on 12 August 1947.

Telegram of Prime Minister of Kashmir to the States Relations Department, Government of Pakistan states:

Jammu and Kashmir Government would welcome Standstill Agreements with Pakistan on all matters on which these exist at present moment with outgoing British Government. It is suggested that existing arrangements should continue pending settlement of details formal execution of formal agreements.’

A similar telegram was sent to Government of India. The Government of India did not refuse to enter in to the Standstill Agreement, but replied that ‘Government of India would be glad if some duly authorised minister could fly to Delhi for negotiating Standstill Agreement between the Kashmir Government and Indian Dominion. Early action is desirable to maintain existing agreements and administrative arrangements.’ 3

On the other hand the Foreign Secretary, Government of Pakistan addressed Prime Minister of Kashmir in a telegram on 15 August 1947:

‘The Government of Pakistan agree to have a Standstill Agreements with the Government of Jammu and Kashmir for the continuance of the existing arrangements pending settlement of details and formal execution of fresh agreements.’ 4


Was Jammu and Kashmir a sovereign state?

All the above proves without any doubt that the State of Jammu and Kashmir was a sovereign and an independent State. A state must have four attributes before it could be called a sovereign state.

1/ First attribute is that the state should have people. This attribute Jammu and Kashmir satisfied before the lapse of Paramountcy. The people living within the State boundaries were regarded as citizens of Jammu and Kashmir; and State Subject Definition Notification dated the 20th April, 1927 further strengthens our case in this regard.

2/ Second attribute of a statehood is that the state should have a defined territory. Size of the state does not matter; it could be a city state. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir had clearly defined territory of which he was the Ruler.

3/ Third attribute of a statehood is that there should be a government. A government could mean one or more people who are responsible for making laws and keeping law and order. All these attributes were satisfied before the lapse of paramountcy.

4/ Fourth attribute of a statehood is that a state should have capacity and right to enter in to relations with other states. This attribute distinguishes states from lesser units like members of a federation.

The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir attained this capacity after the lapse of Paramountcy. He demonstrated this ability or right by concluding a Standstill Agreement with government of Pakistan; and by offering to have a Standstill Agreement with government of India.

Some argue that because the State of Jammu and Kashmir was not recognised, therefore it was not a sovereign state. This is not true. A State becomes sovereign when it is granted independence by a paramount power; legally it attains independence from that moment and does not depend on recognition of other states. Israel exists as a sovereign country, yet it is not recognised by so many countries.

In case of Jammu and Kashmir, India and Pakistan could not have recognised it as a sovereign state as both wanted Kashmir to join one or the other Dominion. Other countries could not recognise the State of Jammu and Kashmir so soon because situation was not clear; and the State of Jammu and Kashmir could not maintain its independence due to the tribal invasion which forced the Maharaja to accede to India, which was provisional and had to be ratified by people of the State.

8/ Tribal Invasion

Despite pressures from both India and Pakistan the Maharaja refused to accede to any country. As late as on 12 October 1947, RB Batra, Deputy Prime Minister of Kashmir while on a visit to Delhi said:

‘We intend to keep on friendly relations with both India and Pakistan. Despite constant rumours we have no intention of joining either India or Pakistan, and the Maharaja and his government have decided that no decision of any kind will be made until there is peace in the plains. He also revealed that the Maharaja had told him that it was his ambition to make Kashmir Switzerland of the East – a completely neutral state.’ 5

The government of Pakistan and Governor General of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah hoped that the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir will join Pakistan or, at least, will not join India. When they realised that all was not well, and the Maharaja government, especially after expulsion of Prime Minister Rai Bahadur Pandit Ramchandra Kak was increasing its distance with Pakistan and getting closer to India, the hawks in Pakistan decided to teach Maharaja a lesson.

They violated terms of the Standstill Agreements and blockaded all supplies to the State to cripple the government; and increase pressure on the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. They even stopped supply of essential items like food, salt, petrol and sugar etc. Also they encouraged rebellion in the State and sent in Tribesmen and other Pakistanis to capture Summer Capital, Srinagar and other parts of the State.

Mehar Chand Mahajan, Prime Minister of Kashmir wrote a letter of complaint to the British government but got no help, as the British role and responsibilities to the States ended on 15th August. He then wrote a letter of complaint to Government of Pakistan and requested to honour terms of the Standstill Agreement. The Pakistan government asked the Maharaja to come to Karachi to discuss these matters. The Maharaja refused to do that in view of the prevailing situation in the State, but agreed to set up a joint commission to look in to these matters.

While both governments exchanged telegrams as to what should be done to resolve these matters, on 22 October thousands of Tribesmen fully supported by the Pakistani administration crossed over the State territory; and violated and desecrated sovereignty of the State. This action of Pakistani government is called ‘indirect aggression’ in international law, and there is ample evidence to prove Pakistani hand in this aggression.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, as a Governor General of Pakistan met Lord Mountbatten on 1 November 1947, who was at that time Governor General of India, and said, he can ‘call the whole thing off’ if Lord Mountbatten agreed to his terms. 6

Major General Akbar Khan who was assigned the task of ‘liberating’ Kashmir and who assumed the title of General Tariq – famous Muslim General who invaded Spain – reveals in his book ‘Raiders in Kashmir’ that he was called from Kashmir to take part in very important meeting. This high level meeting was held at Governor House Lahore on 27 October 1947, which was chaired by Prime Minister of Pakistan Liaquat Ali Khan. Other participants included Maj General Iskander Mirza – Defence Secretary, Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, Secretary General, Brigadier Sher Khan, Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan Chief Minister of NWFP, Nawab of Mamdot – Chief Minister of Punjab. In this meeting a plan to capture Jammu put forward by Maj General Akbar Khan was discussed, but not approved, as that could have provoked India to attack Pakistan.

He further writes: ‘My suggestion about the formation of a Liberation Committee to coordinate and direct our efforts in Kashmir was accepted….In the morning I was informed that I was to be the military member of the Liberation Committee. To enable me to attend to this work, I was to be relieved of my duties in GHQ, and was to be appointed Military Advisor to the Prime Minister. I was to stay in Pindi, and my work in connection with Kashmir was to be kept secret from the British Officers and GHQ.’ 7

Apart from that a cabinet member of the Government of Pakistan Sardar Shaukat Hyat Khan admitted in his book: ‘Seeing the Maharaja’s and India’s bad faith, we decided to walk into Kashmir. I was put in charge of the operation. I asked for the services of Brigadier Sher Khan and Brigadier Akbar, both of 6/13th Frontier Force and requested that we should be allowed some arms which we could retrieve from…Lahore Fort….We lost Kashmir through our own blunders. The people there were jubilant over Pakistan’s actions and wanted to join it, but the tribes fell back pell-mell.’ 8

There is abundant evidence that government of Pakistan was behind this tribal invasion which caused so many deaths and is the prime source of our troubles and miseries.

However some people argue that before the tribesmen arrived there was already armed rebellion against the Maharaja in certain parts of the State; and that some non Muslims also entered the State, especially in Jammu for the purpose of fighting and killing Muslims. In this regard some forces were sent by Maharaja of Patiala and some extremist Hindu elements from various parts of India went to Jammu.

True thousands of Muslims were killed in Jammu, but it is also true that Hindus were also killed, but this could not be equated to the Tribal Invasion, as the first one was a result of communal fighting which spilled over from the former British India; and the other one was an aggression to capture capital and punish the Maharaja who refused to accede to Pakistan despite all the pressure.

It is also true that some non Muslims entered to State to support the Maharaja in fight against the rebellion which was going on in certain parts of the State; but these people did not enter the State to topple the government, to invade the state or punish its Ruler.

No matter how much we dislike it, but fact remains that those non Muslims who entered the State did not violate any written agreement; they did not pose any threat to the sovereignty of the State, if anything they could have been there on the request of Kashmiri authorities to establish writ of the government.

Every State and every government has inherent right to defend its borders and establish writ of government? Prime task of every government is to protect life, dignity and property of every citizen. When his State faced unprovoked attack, was it not his responsibility to seek help to protect his government and state?

Tribesman demonstrated barbarism

Maharaja’s army was not in a position to fight back these tribesmen, and many small towns were ‘liberated’. They conquered Baramula without a problem, and problems started after capturing this important town which had population of nearly sixteen thousands and was the biggest town in the Valley after Srinagar.

Even at that time road to Srinagar was very good and it was only one hour bus journey. There was no army to defend the City from the Tribesmen. They could have taken to City without much effort within few hours, but their greed for looting and lust for women kept them busy there for few days. A famous Kashmiri historian Justice Yousaf Saraf notes:

‘A sizable number of tribesmen lost no time to turn against them (people of the town) and within few hours buildings were ablaze; entry was forced in almost all pucca houses (houses built with bricks) and its inmates were robbed on pain of death’. Nuns at the St Joseph’s Hospital were killed. 9

The tribesman demonstrated equality in looting and plundering, no one was spared. Justice Saraf painfully notes: ‘There was generally no distinction between Hindus and Muslims in so far as loot and arson was concerned. For instance, a tribesman snatched a blanket of Ghani, a poor weaver with four daughters. When asked whether this was the purpose for which they had come to Kashmir, the victim was shot dead on spot. The local cinema hall was converted into a sort of restricted brothel.’ 10

Most Muslim women had left the town in fear, but one unfortunate girl was caught by a tribesman and asked her to accompany her to the camp. She knew what will happen to her, so she asked if she could bring some jewellery and cash from the house. He happily agreed and the girl went inside the house. Justice Saraf wrote: ‘While the tribesman waited outside she dashed into a large room which stocked grass for a dozen of their horses. Setting it on fire, she entrusted herself to the flames’. 11

Rasul Joo Darzi, an oil mill owner invited about two hundred tribesmen for a dinner. After the dinner, ‘honourable guests’, who some people claim went for Jihad, demanded women. The host was stunned, but luckily all young women of the household had already left for safety. Justice Saraf notes, ‘there remained only a great grand mother who was shown to them as the only female inmate and it was with great difficulty that they had left the house.’ 12

When Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan heard stories of loot and pillage, he got alarmed that people of Jammu and Kashmir could turn against them, and he immediately sent Pir of Manki Sharif to Baramula that he could control unruly tribesmen in name of Islam. Pir Sahib told them that ‘plunder was not the primary purpose for which they had entered Kashmir. Also he told them what were commands of Allah and Prophet (peace be upon him) ‘about rules of war and how important it was to protect everyone’s honour, life and property, regardless of religious belief.’ 13

For three days the tribesmen looted, raped and danced on the ‘great victory’ they had achieved, and did not proceed to Srinagar; and when they did by that time Indian army had already secured the airport. Sardar Ibrahim Khan, first President of Azad Kashmir wrote in his book, ‘The Kashmir Saga’: ‘Failure to capture Srinagar was a turning point in the history of this campaign. If we had captured Srinagar, which was deserted by the Maharaja and his troops we could have captured Srinagar very easily. But this could only be done before the landing of the Indian auxiliary troops in Srinagr.’ 14

The story of tribal invasion is a tragic one. This aggression which was done in holy name of Jihad brought misery and destruction to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and they continue to suffer to date on both sides of the divide. Some people try to justify this invasion by claiming that they went there to help, because there were stories of mass killings of the Muslims in Jammu. But that is not true. If the aim was to help Muslims, then they should have been directed to advance towards Jammu where communal fighting was going on and where Muslims were in minority; instead they were directed to the areas where Muslims were in majority and where there were no communal riots.

Apart from that riots in Jammu started in the last week of August, and leaders of Pakistan and tribesmen remained quiet because there was still hope that the Maharaja might join Pakistan. When in second week of October, rulers of Pakistan realised that the Maharaja was not going to join Pakistan they used tribesmen to capture Kashmir. The strategy did not work as planned, and Pakistan ended up only capturing areas now known as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan.


As noted above the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir had two options: surrender to these tribesman and Pakistan or seek help from India, he chose the later. His letter to Governor General of India Lord Mountbatten is produced below.

Maharaja’s letter to Lord Mountbatten

My dear Lord Mountbatten,

I have to inform Your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request the immediate assistance of your Government. As Your Excellency is aware, the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not acceded to either the Dominion of India or Pakistan. Geographically my State is contiguous with both of them. Besides, my State has a common boundary with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and with China. In their external relations the Dominion of India and Pakistan cannot ignore this fact.

I wanted to take time to decide to which Dominion I should accede or whether it is not in the best interests of both the Dominions and of my State to stand independent, of course with friendly and cordial relations with both. I accordingly approached the Dominions of India and Pakistan to enter into standstill agreement with my State. The Pakistan Government accepted this arrangement. The Dominion of India desired further discussion with representatives of my Government. I could not arrange this in view of the developments indicated below. In fact the Pakistan Government under the standstill agreement is operating the post and telegraph system inside the State. Though we have got a standstill agreement with the Pakistan Government, the Government permitted a steady and increasing strangulation of supplies like food, salt and petrol to my State.

Afridis, soldiers in plain clothes, and desperadoes with modern weapons have been allowed to infiltrate into the State, at first in the Poonch area, then from Sia1kot and finally in a mass in the area adjoining-Hazara district on the Ramkote side. The result has been that the limited number of troops at the disposal of the State had to be dispersed and thus had to face the enemy at several points simultaneously, so that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life ad property and the looting of the Mahura power house, which supplies electric current to the whole of Srinagar and which has been burnt. The number of women who have been kidnapped and raped makes my heart bleed. The wild forces thus let loose on the State are marching on with the aim of capturing Srinagar, the summer capital of my government, as a first step to overrunning the whole State. The mass infiltration of tribesman drawn from distant areas of the North-West Frontier Province, coming regularly in motortrucks, using the Manwehra-Mazaffarabad road and fully armed with up-to-date weapons, cannot possibly be done without the knowledge of the Provincial Govemment of the North-West Frontier Province and the Government of Pakistan. In spite of repeated appeals made by my Government no attempt has been made to check these raiders or to stop them from coming into my State. In fact, both radio and the Press of Pakistan have reported these occurrences. The Pakistan radio even put out the story that a provisional government has been set up in Kashmir. The people of my State, both Muslims and non-Muslims, generally have taken no part at all.

With the conditions obtaining at present in my State and the great emergency of the situation as it exists, I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion. Naturally they cannot send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so, and I attach the instrument of accession for acceptance by your Government. The other alternative is to leave my state and people to free booters. On this basis no civilised government can exist or be maintained.

This alternative I will never allow to happen so long as I am the ruler of the State and I have life to defend my country. I may also inform your Excellency's Government that it is my intention at once to set up an interim government and to ask Sheikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities in this emergency with my Prime Minister.

If my State is to be saved, immediate assistance must be available at Srinagar. Mr. V.P. Menon is fully aware of the gravity of the situation and will explain it to you, if further explanation is needed.

In haste and with kindest regards,

Yours sincerely,

Hari Singh

October 26, 1947

10/ Lord Mountbatten’s reply to Maharaja Hari Singh

Even with close inspection one cannot see if the Maharaja offered a provisional accession. He wrote: ‘I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion. Naturally they cannot send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so, and I attach the instrument of accession for acceptance by your Government’.

The Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten in his reply to the Maharaja made the accession conditional, and gave a right to the people of the State to approve it or reject it. The letter of Lord Mountbatten is produced below.

My dear Maharaja Sahib,

Your Highness' letter dated 26 October 1947 has been delivered to me by Mr. V.P. Menon. In the circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, 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 law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its 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.

Mountbatten of Burma

October 27, 1947

11/ Instrument of Accession

Instrument of Accession executed by Maharajah Hari Singh on October 26, 1947

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 so adapted 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 Inder Mahinder Rajrajeswar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji, Jammu & Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbet adi Deshadhipati, Ruler of Jammu & Kashmir State, in the exercise of my Sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and


I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the Governor General of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as "this State") such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force in the Dominion of India, on the 15th day of August 1947, (which Act as so in force is hereafter referred to as "the Act').

2. I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to provisions of the Act within this State so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession.

3. I accept the matters specified in the schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make law for this State.

4. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India on the assurance that if an agreement is made between the Governor General and the Ruler of this State whereby any functions in relation to the administration in this State of any law of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the Ruler of the State, then any such agreement shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

5. The terms of this my Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment is accepted by me by Instrument supplementary to this Instrument.

6. Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for this State authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose, but I hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the purpose of a Dominion law which applies in this State deem it necessary to acquire any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expense, or, if the land belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India.

7. Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into agreement with the Government of India under any such future constitution.

8. Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my Sovereignty in and over this State, or, save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or the validity of any law at present in force in this State.

9. I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this State and that any reference in this Instrument to me or to the Ruler of the State is to be construed as including a reference to my heirs and successors.

Given under my hand this 26th day of October, nineteen hundred and forty seven.

Hari Singh

Maharajadhiraj of Jammu and Kashmir State.


Indian complaint to the Security Council, dated I January 1948 (S/628)

The Government of India have instructed me to transmit to you the following telegraphic communication:

"1. Under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations, any Member may bring any situation whose continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security to the attention of the Security Council. Such a situation now exists between India and Pakistan owing to the aid which invaders, consisting of nationals of Pakistan and of tribesmen from the territory immediately adjoining Pakistan on the north-west, are drawing from Pakistan for operations against Jammu and Kashmir, a State which has acceded to the Dominion of India and is part of India. The circumstances of accession, the activities of the invaders which led the Government of India to take military action against them, and the assistance which the attackers have received and are still receiving from Pakistan are explained later in this memorandum. The Government of India request the Security Council to call upon Pakistan to put an end immediately to the giving of such assistance, which is an act of aggression against India. If Pakistan does not do so, the Government of India may be compelled, in self-defence, to enter Pakistan territory, in order to take military action against the invaders. The matter is, therefore, one of extreme urgency and calls for immediate action by the Security Council for avoiding a breach of international peace.

"2. From the middle of September 1947, the Government of India had received reports of the infiltration of armed raiders into the western parts of Jammu province of Jammu and Kashmir State; Jammu adjoins West Punjab, which is a part of the Dominion of Pakistan. These raiders had done a great deal of damage in that area and taken possession of part of the territory of the State. On 24 October, the Government of India heard of a major raid from the Frontier Province of the Dominion of Pakistan into the Valley of Kashmir. Some two thousand or more fully armed and equipped men came in motor transport, crossed over to the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, sacked the town of Muzaffarabad, killing many people and proceeded along the Jhelum Valley road towards Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir State. Intermediate towns and villages were sacked and burnt, and many people killed. These raiders were stopped by Kashmir State troops near Uri, a town some fifty miles from Srinagar, for some time, but the invaders got around them and burnt the power house at Mahora, which supplied electricity to the whole of Kashmir.

"3. The position, on the morning of 26 October, was that these raiders had been held by Kashmir State troops and part of the civil population, who had been armed, at a town called Baramulla. Beyond Baramulla there was no major obstruction up to Srinagar. There was immediate danger of these raiders reaching Srinagar, destroying and massacring large numbers of people, both Hindus and Muslims. The State troops were spread out all over the State and most of them were deployed along the western border of Jammu province. They had been split up into small isolated groups and were incapable of offering effective resistance to the raiders. Most of the State officials had left the threatened areas and the civil administration had ceased to function. All that stood between Srinagar and the fate which had overtaken the places en route followed by the raiders was the determination of the inhabitants of Srinagar, of all communities, and practically without arms, to defend themselves. At this time Srinagar had also a large population of Hindu and Sikh refugees who had fled there from West Punjab owing to communal disturbances in that area. There was little doubt that these refugees would be massacred if the raiders reached Srinagar.

"4. Immediately after the raids into Jammu and Kashmir State commenced, approaches were informally made to the Government of India for the aeceptance of the accession of the State to the Indian Dominion. (It might be explained in parenthesis that Jammu and Kashmir from a State whose ruler, prior to the transfer of power by the United Kingdom to the Dominions of India and Pakistan, had been in treaty relations with the British Crown, which controlled its foreign relations ceased with the transfer of power on 15 August last, and Jammu and Kashmir lilce other States acquired the right to accede to either Dominion.)

"5. Events moved with great rapidity, and the threat to the Valley of Kashmir became grave. On 26 October, the ruler of the State, His Highness Maharaja Sir Hari Singh, appealed urgently to the Government of India for military help. He also requested that the Jammu and Kashmir State should be allowed to accede to the Indian Dominion. An appeal for help was also simultaneously received by the Government of India from the largest popular organization in Kashmir, the National Conference, headed by Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah. The Conference further strongly supported the request for the State's accession to the Indian Dominion. The Government of India were thus approached not only officially by the State authorities, but also on behalf of the people of Kashmir, both for military aid and for the accession of the State to India.

"6. The grave threat to the life and property of innocent people in the Kashmir Valley and to the security of the State of Jammu and Kashmir that had developed as a result of the invasion of the Valley demanded immediate decision by the Government of India on both the requests. It was imperative on account of the emergency that the responsibility for the defence of Jammu and Kashmir State should be taken over by a Government capable of discharging it. But, in order to avoid any possible suggestion that India had utilised the State's immediate peril for her own political advantage, the Government of India made it clear that once the soil of the State had been cleared of the invader and normal conditions restored, its people would be free to decide their future by the recognized democratic methods of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices.

"7. The Government of Indian felt it their duty to respond to the appeal for armed assistance because:

"(1) They could not allow a neighbouring and friendly State

to be compelled by force to determine either its internal affairs

or its external relations;

"(2) The accession of Jammu and Kashmir State to the

Dominion of India made India really responsible for the

defence of the State.

"8. The intervention of the Government of India resulted in saving Srinagar. The raiders were driven back from Baramulla to Uri and are held there by Indian troops. Nearly 19,000 raiders face the Dominion forces in this area. Since operations in the Valley of Kashmir started, pressure by the raiders against the western, and south-western border of Jammu and Kashmir State had been intensified. Exact figures are not available. It is understood, however, that nearly 15,000 raiders are operating a gainst this part of the State. State troops are besieged in certain areas. Incursions by the raiders into the State territory, involving murder, arson, loot, and the abduction of women continue. The booty is collected and carried over to the tribal areas to serve as an inducement to the further recruitment of tribesmen to the ranks of the raiders. In addition to those actively participating in the raid, tribesmen and others, estimated at 100,000 have been collected in different places in the districts of West Punjab bordering Jammu and Kashmir State, and many of them are receiving military training under Pakistani nationals, including officers of the Pakistan Army. They are looked after in Pakistan territory, fed, clothed, armed and otherwise equipped, and transported to the territory of Jammu and Kashmir State with the help, direct and indirect, of Pakistani officials, both military and civil.

"9. As already stated, the raiders who entered the Kashmir Valley in October came mainly from the tribal areas to the north-west of Pakistan and, in order to reach Kashmir, passed through Pakistan territory. The raids along the south-west border of the State, which had preceded the invasion of the valley proper, had actually been conducted from Pakistan territory, and Pakistan nationals had taken part in them. This process of transmission across Pakistan territory and untilisation of that territory as a base of operations against Jammu and Kashmir State continues. Recently, military operations against the western and south-western borders of the State have been intensified, and the attackers consist of nationals of Pakistan as well as tribesmen. These invaders are armed with modern weapons, including mortars and medium machine-guns, wear the battle dress of regular soldiers and, in recent engagements, have fought in regular battle formation and are using the tactics of modern warfare. Man-pack wireless sets are in regular use and even mark V mines have been employed. For their transport the invaders have all along used motor vehicles. They are undoubtedly being trained and to some extent led by regular officers of the Pakistan Army. Their rations and other supplies are obtained from Pakistan territory.

"10. These facts point indisputably to the conclusion

"(a) that the invaders are allowed transit across Pakistan


"(b) that they are allowed to use Pakistan territory as a base

of operations;

"(c) that they include Pakistan nationals;

"(d) that they draw much of their military equipment,

transportation, and supplies (including petrol) from Pakistan;


"(e) that Pakistan officers are training, guiding, and

otherwise actively helping them.

"There is no source other than Pakistan from which they could obtain such quantities of modern military equipment, training or guidance. More than once, the Government of India had asked the Pakistan Government to deny to the invaders facilities which constitute an act of aggressian and hostility against India, but without any response. The last occasion on which this request was made was on 22 December, when the Prime Minister of India handed over personally to the Prime Minister of Pakistan a letter in which the various forms of aid given by Pakistan to the invaders were briefly recounted and the Government of Pakistan were asked to put an end to such aid promptly; no reply to this letter has yet been received in spite of a telegraphic reminder sent on 26 December.

"11. It should be clear from the foregoing recital that the Government of Pakistan are unwilling to stop the assistance in material and men which the invaders are receiving from Pakistan territory and from Pakistan nationals, including Pakistan Government personnel, both military and civil. This attitude is not only un-neutral, but constitutes active aggression against India, of which the State of Jammu and Kashmir forms a part.

"12. The Government of India have exerted persuasion and exercised patience to bring about a change in the attitude of Pakistan. But they have failed, and are in consequence confronted with a situation in which their defence of Jammu and Kashmir State is hampered and their measures to drive the invaders from the territory of the State are greatly impeded by the support which the raiders derive from Pakistan. The invaders are still on the soil of Jammu and Kashmir and the inhabitants of the States are exposed to all the atrocities of which a barbarous foe is capable. The presence, in large numbers, of invaders in those portions of Pakistan territory which adjoin parts of Indian territory other than Jammu and Kashmir State is a menace to the rest of India. Indefinite continuance of the present operations prolongs the agony of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, is a drain on India's resources and a constant threat to the maintenance of peace between India and Pakistan. The Government of India have no option, therefore, but to take more effective military action in order to rid Jammu and Kashmir State of the invader.

"13. In order that the objective of expelling the invader from Indian territory and preventing him from launching attacks should be quickly achieved, Indian troops would have to enter Pakistan territory; only thus could the invader be denied the use of bases and cut off from his sources of supplies and reinforcements in Pakistan. Since the aid which the invaders are receiving from Pakistan is an act of aggression against India, the Government of India are entitled, under international law, to send their armed forces across Pakistan territory for dealing effectively with the invaders. However, as such action might involve armed conflict with Pakistan, the Government of India, ever anxious to proceed according to the principles and aims of the Charter of the United Nations, desire to report the situation to the Security CDuncil under Article 35 of the Charter. They feel justified in requesting the Security Council to ask the Government of Pakistan.

"(1) to prevent Pakistan Government personnel, military

and civil from participating or assisting in 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) access to any use of its

territory for operations against Kashmir, (b) military and other

supplies, (c) all other kinds of aid that might tend to prolong

the present struggle.

"14. The Government of India would stress the special urgency of the Security Council taking immediate action on their request. They desire to add that military operations in the invaded areas have, in the past few days, been developing so rapidly that they must, in self- defence, reserve to themselves the freedom to take, at any time when it may become necessary, such military action as they may consider the situation requires.

"15. The Government of India deeply regret that a serious crisis should have been reached in their relation with Pakistan. Not only is Pakistan a neighbour but, in spite of the recent separation, India and Pakistan have many ties and many common interests. India desires nothing more earnestly than to live with her neighbour-State on terms of close and lasting friendship. Peace is to the interest of both States; indeed to the interests of the world. The Government of India's approach to the Security Council is inspired by the sincere hope that, through the prompt action of the Council, peace may be preserved.

"16. The text of this reference to the Security Council is being telegraphed to the "Government of Pakistan."


Article 257 of Constitution of Pakistan

Most Pakistanis and many Kashmiris wrongly assume that Kashmir is part of Pakistan or, at least, those areas which are under Pakistan are part of Pakistan. This is not true. The recent new package for Gilgit Baltistan has confirmed one thing that these areas are not ‘Northern Areas’ of Pakistan, as they claimed over the years. Constitution of every country defines its territory; and Pakistani constitution clearly says:

‘When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and the State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State.’

14/ Article 370 of the Indian constitution

Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,

(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to,

(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Govermnent of the State are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws far that State; and

(ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.

Explanation For the purposes of this article, the Govermnent of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja's Proclamation dated the fifth day of March. 1948;

(c) the provisions of article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to that State;

(d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify:

Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause (b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State:

Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government.

(2) If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or in the second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may. by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify:

Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.


Excerpts of Sheikh Abdullah speech in the UN Security Council

A file picture of late 1970s of Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J and K) and the leader of the largest political party of the state, National Conference (NC), addresses a press conference, in Srinagar.

‘…………The situation was worsening day by day and the minority in our State was feeling very nervous. As a result tremendous pressure was brought to bear upon the State administration to release me and my colleagues. The situation outside demanded the release of workers of National Conference, along with its leader, and we were accordingly set free……

Immediately we were liberated from the prison we were faced with the important question of whether Kashmir should accede to Pakistan, accede to India, or remain independent... We could not decide this all important issue before achieving our own liberation, and our slogan became "Freedom before accession." Some friends from Pakistan met me in Srinagar. I have a heart-to-heart discussion with them and explained my point of view....

While I was engaged in these conversations and negotiations with friends from Pakistan, I sent one of my colleagues to Lahore, where he met the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr.Liaquat Ali Khan, and other high dignitaries of the West Punjab Government. He placed the same point of view before them and requested that they should allow us time to consider this vital question, first helping us to achieve our liberation instead of forcing us to declare our decision one way or the other. Then, one fine morning while these negotiations were proceeding, I received news that a full-fledged attack had been carried out by the raiders on Muzaffarabad, frontier town in the Kashmir Province....

While the raiders came to our land, massacred thousands of people -- mostly Hindus and Sikhs, but Muslims too -- abducted thousands of girls, Hindu, Sikhs and Muslims alike, looted our property and almost reached the gates of our summer capital, Srinagar, the result was that the civil, military and police administration failed. The Maharaja, in the dead of the night, left the capital along with his courtiers, and the result was absolute panic. There was no one to take over control. In that hour of crisis, the National Conference came forward with 10,000 volunteers and took over the administration of the country. They started guarding the banks, the offices and houses of every person in the capital. This is the manner in which the administration changed hands. We were de facto in charge of the administration. The Maharaja, later on, gave it a legal form....

I was explaining how the dispute arose -- how Pakistan wanted to force this position of slavery upon us. Pakistan had no interest in our liberation or it would not have opposed our freedom movement. Pakistan would have supported us when thousands of my countrymen were behind bars and hundreds were shot to death. The Pakistani leaders and Pakistani papers were heaping abuse upon the people of Kashmir who were suffering these tortures……’ 15

16. Conclusion

It is not possible to turn back the clock of history. It is not possible to tell what exactly would have happened if 22 October 1947 was not in our history – if there was no tribal invasion.

People of Kashmir have a long history of suffering. Rulers of Kashmir, Muslims and non Muslims have equally oppressed the people, but it is believed that during the Dogra rule, by and large, Muslims suffered more. Politics based on religion and hatred, and subsequent partition of the British India polarised the entire Sub Continent; and that also had negative impact on polity of the State.

It is true there were anti Maharaja sentiments among many Muslims, but it is also true that he was the Ruler of the State and even pro Pakistan Muslim Conference more than once expressed its loyalty to the Maharaja and expressed its desire to accept him as a Constituent Ruler of the State.

Compared to other Princely States, the State of Jammu and Kashmir evolved a democratic and constitutional set up, and people had more democratic rights compared to subjects of other Princely States. The State had Parliament and had democratic elections.

If there was no outside interference, no infiltration, no insurgency and no tribal invasion, then it was possible that the Maharaja could have given more rights to the people and in return they could have accepted him as a Constituent Ruler of the State with more power to the Parliament. If the above had happened then it was possible that the State would have been one political entity and possibly independent country.

Unfortunately we cannot change the course of history with ifs and buts, we have to face hard facts and situation as it is today. The fact is that today our State is forcibly divided and people suffer on both sides of the divide; and despite death of tens of thousands, rapes, destruction and misery of millions there is no light at the end of tunnel.

Today people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir are deeply divided, oppressed and not sure what exactly they want. While ordinary people suffer on both sides of the divide Kashmiri struggle for right of self determination and unification of the State has become a lucrative business for some.

Despite the above, sincere and freedom loving people of the State will have to continue their struggle; and if not get independence for our next generation, at least, pass on the torch that they can continue the struggle for unification and independence of the State. END

Dr Shabir Choudhry

Spokesman KashmirNational Party



  1. Governor General of India Lord Louis Mountbatten's Address to a Special Full Meeting of the Chamber of Princes on July 25 1947. Kashmiris Fight for Freedom, Justice Yousuf Saraf, volume 2, page 731
  2. House of Lords Official Record, 150 H.L Debate 5s.C.812
  3. Mission with Mountbatten, Campbell Johnson, page 223.
  4. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan.
  5. Kashmir Problem – its legal aspects, Dr HO Agarwal, page 31
  6. Mission with Mountbatten, Allan Campbell Johnson, Page 229
  7. Raiders in Kashmir, Maj General Akbar Khan, pages 27 to 32.
  8. Sirdar Shaukat Hayat Khan, The Nation that lost its Soul: Memoirs of Sirdar Shaukat Hayat Khan (Lahore 1995).
  9. Kashmiris Fight for Freedom, Justice Yousuf Saraf, volume 2, Page 906
  10. ibid, page 906
  11. ibid, page 906
  12. ibid, page 907
  13. ibid, page 908
  14. The Kashmir Saga, Sardar IbrahimKhan, page 134.
  15. http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/Sheikh_Speech.html

No comments: