What Is Standstill Agreement Kashmir

      Commentaires fermés sur What Is Standstill Agreement Kashmir

Soon, Nizam came under pressure from the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslims (Ittehad), the Muslim nationalist party active in the state, and withdrew from the agreement. [8] On the morning of October 27, Qasim Rizvi, the leader of Ittehad, organized a massive demonstration of several thousand activists to block the delegation`s departure. He convinced Nizam that India, since it was then associated with the defense of Kashmir, did not have sufficient resources to put pressure on Hyderabad. He said a much more favorable deal for Hyderabad was possible. [9] Nizam then appointed a new delegation dominated by members of the Executive Council who opposed the previous agreement. [10] Former Hyderabad bureaucrat Mohammed Hyder called the event an “October putsch.” From that moment on, Qasim Rizvi began to take the lead in the Hyderabad government. [11] Some indigenous leaders of the princely states tried to buy time by declaring that they would sign the status quo agreement but not the instrument of accession until they had time to decide. In response, the Indian government took the position that it would only sign status quo agreements with states that had acceded to them. [4] On August 15, 1947, the fixed date and day of India`s independence, all the princely states within India, within India, within India, within four, signed both the instrument of accession and the status quo agreement with India. [4]. The exceptions were Hyderabad, a large state in central South India, which was expanded by two months, and three small states in Gujarat: Junagadh and its subsidiaries (Mangrol and Babariawad).

[5] However, within 12 days of signing the standstill agreement with Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan wrote on December 24. August a warning note to the Maharaja: “The time has come for the Maharaja of Kashmir to make his choice and choose Pakistan. If Kashmir does not join Pakistan, the most serious difficulties will inevitably arise. Two key documents that are supposed to be attractive to the leaders of the princely states. The first was the status quo agreement and the second was the instrument of accession. The status quo agreement, which confirmed that the practices and arrangements that existed between the princely states and British India would henceforth be continued by independent India. Instrument of accession by which the sovereign of the princely states approved the accession of his kingdom to independent India. The nature of the subject varied. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, which joined India and Pakistan, decided to remain independent. She proposed to sign status quo agreements with the two gentlemen. Pakistan immediately agreed, but India called for further talks.

On August 12, 1947, J&K sought a status quo agreement with India and Pakistan, stating, “The government of Jammu and Kashmir would welcome a status quo agreement with the Union of India/Pakistan in all matters where agreements exist with the outgoing British Indian government.” Both draft treaties were submitted to the Princely Chamber on 25 July. To discuss the two agreements, a state negotiating committee was formed, consisting of ten leaders and twelve ministers. Following discussions, the Committee finalised the two draft agreements on 31 July. [3] Excellent primer. The crux of this problem is whether it is a territorial or ethnic issue. India is not ambiguous and treats it as before. It is Pakistan that is playing the fuzzy game, and therefore the solution must come from Pakistan. It should withdraw all its troops from PoK and ask PoK to issue visas to Indians as an independent and sovereign nation so that they can visit the beautiful regions of Gilgit-Baltistan. .