home Home
learn more Learn More
screenshots Screenshots
download Download
register Register
faq FAQ
ebay tips eBay Tips
testimonials Testimonials
blog Blog

RSS Feed    RSS Feed

  • No categories

Meanwhile, Pakistan interpreted the fact that the J-K silence agreements with India were pending as meaning that the state would eventually join Pakistan. It will not be an exaggeration to describe status quo agreements and status quo agreements as the threads that knit the different administrative areas in a Union. Instead of tidying them up and giving researchers access only on request, the National Archives should work with the government to display them in a museum that people can visit as they see fit. Citizens have the right to know more about the constituent elements of India. As the documents published here show, the leaders of Mysore, Tehri Garhwal, Manipur and Udaipur did not sign the status quo agreements attached to the IoAs, nor did Lord Mountbatten attach his signature to the same signature. In all these cases, the status quo agreements were signed by the subordinates of the sovereigns. In the case of Mysore, the status quo agreement was signed by the Dewan (Prime Minister) of Mysore, in the case of Manipur, it was signed by the private secretary of the Maharadsche, in the case of Tehri Garhwal, it was signed by the Chief Secretary of State and, in the case of Udaipur, it was signed by the then Prime Minister. He pointed out that if India signed agreements with special states after independence, one of the conditions was that the government would grant regular payments to former royal families, known as privy portfolios. It is interesting to note that while the IoAs and status quo agreements in the case of Mysore, Manipur, Tehri Garhwal and Udaipur indicate that they were established on behalf of the rulers of those states and the Dominion of India, both documents are drawn up on behalf of the States of Jammu and Kashmir. [18] Is it necessary to take this strange mixture for having accepted the support of the inhabitants of J-K, when they have not even been consulted on this issue? Such nitpicking does not help to conduct an informed debate on this subject. Given the difficult circumstances of 1947 and the number of documents that had to be signed throughout the country, such discrepancies are very likely, particularly in a newly created department, which was barely occupied and had set itself an almost impossible deadline to ensure India`s integration. [6] See www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/instrument_of_accession.html, called October 22, 2016.

This document will be surprisingly viewed on the website of the Commissioner of Services and Services, Hydebarad-IV, on 22 October 2016. First, the document signed by the Maharaja of J-K, like several other IoAs, consists of two parts. The first three pages contain the text of the terms of membership – it is the IoA itself. Page 2 of the document bears the signature of Maharaja Hari Singh and the acceptance of the instrument signed by Lord Mountbatten. Page 3 contains a list of topics on which the powers of the Dominion Legislature to enforce laws for J-K have been accepted by the Maharaja on the basis of this instrument of membership.

Posted on December 11th, 2020 | filed under Uncategorized |

Comments are closed.

  Contact    About    Privacy    Copyright    Affiliates    Links