Stand Still Agreement Jk

The Nizam of Hyderabad, which had previously been granted a three-month extension to conclude new agreements with the Dominion of India, wrote to the Indian government on 18 September that it was ready to conclude an association agreement with India. He said, however, that membership would cause unrest and bloodshed in the state. [7] On October 11, Hyderabad sent a delegation to Delhi with a draft status quo agreement, described as “complex” by V. P. Menon, Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Minister of State Vallabhbhai Patel rejected any deal that would not fully cede defence and foreign policy to the Indian government. On the advice of Governor-General Louis Mountbatten, Menon prepared a new draft treaty that was sent back with the Hyderabad delegation. Nizam`s executive council discussed the agreement and approved it by six votes to three. Nizam expressed its agreement but delayed the signing of the agreement. [8] Interestingly, the IoAs and status quo agreements in the case of Mysore, Manipur, Tehri Garhwal and Udaipur indicate that they were drafted on behalf of the rulers of these states and the Dominion of India, and that in the case of J&K, both documents are written on behalf of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. [18] Should this strange title be interpreted in such a way that the people of J&K have accepted membership when they have not even been consulted on it? Such nitpicking does not help in an in-depth debate on the subject. Given the difficult circumstances of 1947 and the limited number of documents that had to be signed throughout the country, such discrepancies are very likely, especially in a newly created department, which was short of staff and had set itself an almost impossible deadline to ensure India`s integration.

As the documents published here show, the leaders of Mysore, Tehri Garhwal, Manipur and Udaipur did not sign the status quo agreements annexed to the IoAs and Lord Mountbatten did not attach his signature to them. In all these cases, the status quo agreements were signed by the sovereigns` subordinates. In the case of Mysore, the status quo agreement was signed by Dewan (Prime Minister) of Mysore, in the case of Manipur by the private secretary of the Maharajas, in the case of Tehri Garhwal, of the Chief Secretary of State, and in the case of Udaipur by the then Prime Minister. . . .